<sandro> PRESENT: Ian, Boris, Pfps, Bernardo, Sandro, MarkusK, michael_schneider, Achille, bijan, wallace, Christine, Rinke, Ivan, alanruttenberg
<sandro> REMOTE: Zhe, baojie, msmith
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? ←
07:33:35 <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 ←
08:24:06 <MarkusK_> ivan: I agree with all of these considerations
Ivan Herman: I agree with all of these considerations ←
08:24:10 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:24:26 <MarkusK_> ... but it would be required to clarify some of those editorially in the document for OLW RL
... but it would be required to clarify some of those editorially in the document for OLW RL ←
08:24:31 <MarkusK_> s /OLW/OWL/
s /OLW/OWL/ ←
08:25:28 <MarkusK_> ... specific comments should be added regarding the implementation, in particular for existing environments where SPARQL is used for querying
... specific comments should be added regarding the implementation, in particular for existing environments where SPARQL is used for querying ←
08:25:56 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:26:02 <MarkusK_> ... such implementations would require modifications of the SPARQL querying to work for OWL RL when not materialising everything
... such implementations would require modifications of the SPARQL querying to work for OWL RL when not materialising everything ←
08:26:23 <MarkusK_> boris: I do not think that you need to change SPARQL engines to cope with OWL RL
Boris Motik: I do not think that you need to change SPARQL engines to cope with OWL RL ←
08:26:38 <MarkusK_> ... reqritting the query in a small layer on to p if the store could suffice
... reqritting the query in a small layer on to p if the store could suffice ←
08:26:48 <MarkusK_> s /reqritting/rewriting/
s /reqritting/rewriting/ ←
08:27:41 <MarkusK_> boris: the rules we are discussing would go to Table 9, which are not relevant for Theorem 1 to hold anyway
Boris Motik: the rules we are discussing would go to Table 9, which are not relevant for Theorem 1 to hold anyway ←
08:28:33 <MarkusK_> ... Table 9 defines the semantics of subclassOf and subpropertyOf
... Table 9 defines the semantics of subclassOf and subpropertyOf ←
08:28:57 <MarkusK_> ... the rules placing owl:thin/nothing and the top/bottom properties in the hierarchy would go there
... the rules placing owl:thin/nothing and the top/bottom properties in the hierarchy would go there ←
08:29:34 <MarkusK_> ... The rules for saying that bottom class/bottom should be empty should go in a new table, not Table 9
... The rules for saying that bottom class/bottom should be empty should go in a new table, not Table 9 ←
08:29:39 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:30:01 <MarkusK_> ... the only possibly probalmatic rule seems to be the rules stating that every individual is an instance of owl:thing
... the only possibly probalmatic rule seems to be the rules stating that every individual is an instance of owl:thing ←
08:30:12 <MarkusK_> ivan: there might be gurther rules that are problematic
Ivan Herman: there might be gurther rules that are problematic ←
08:30:16 <Zhe> q+
08:30:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:30:58 <MarkusK_> michael: the rule that everything is in owl:Thing (or rdfs:Resource) is already a rule in RDFS
Michael Schneider: the rule that everything is in owl:Thing (or rdfs:Resource) is already a rule in RDFS ←
08:31:05 <IanH> ack zhe
Ian Horrocks: ack zhe ←
08:31:08 <MarkusK_> ivan: indeed, but it is not here yet
Ivan Herman: indeed, but it is not here yet ←
08:31:08 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:31:34 <MarkusK_> zhe: Pefps mentioned that not having those rules would break Theorem 1. Can you explain?
Zhe Wu: Pefps mentioned that not having those rules would break Theorem 1. Can you explain? ←
08:32:24 <pfps> example of the problem -
Peter Patel-Schneider: example of the problem - ←
08:32:25 <MarkusK_> boris: yes, a simple entailment like that a particular instance is in owl_thing is not implied by OWL RL
Boris Motik: yes, a simple entailment like that a particular instance is in owl_thing is not implied by OWL RL ←
08:32:34 <pfps> - ontology - individual a is in class C
Peter Patel-Schneider: - ontology - individual a is in class C ←
08:32:43 <pfps> - query - is a in owl:Thing
Peter Patel-Schneider: - query - is a in owl:Thing ←
08:32:57 <pfps> - this is true in OWL (all forms) but doesn't follow from the OWL RL rules
Peter Patel-Schneider: - this is true in OWL (all forms) but doesn't follow from the OWL RL rules ←
08:33:08 <pfps> - therefore Theorem 1 in Profiles is incorrect
Peter Patel-Schneider: - therefore Theorem 1 in Profiles is incorrect ←
08:33:16 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:33:32 <MarkusK_> boris: you would want to reason with a statement like
Boris Motik: you would want to reason with a statement like ←
08:33:35 <MarkusK_> ... SubClassOf( SomeValuesFrom( a:hasChild owl:Thing ) a:Parent )
... SubClassOf( SomeValuesFrom( a:hasChild owl:Thing ) a:Parent ) ←
08:33:57 <MarkusK_> ... you cannot do that if you cannot infer that the child is necessarily in owl:thing
... you cannot do that if you cannot infer that the child is necessarily in owl:thing ←
08:34:51 <MarkusK_> ian: a proposal for resolution could be to add the rules to the tables and insert a subsection explaining that complete materialisation of all triples is not a good implementation method
Ian Horrocks: a proposal for resolution could be to add the rules to the tables and insert a subsection explaining that complete materialisation of all triples is not a good implementation method ←
08:34:54 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:35:31 <MarkusK_> ivan: yes, many entailment questions could be answered without looking up the triple store
Ivan Herman: yes, many entailment questions could be answered without looking up the triple store ←
08:35:52 <MarkusK_> ian: anyone not hapy with the current proposal?
Ian Horrocks: anyone not hapy with the current proposal? ←
08:36:07 <MarkusK_> zhe: I think I am okay with this
Zhe Wu: I think I am okay with this ←
08:36:25 <MarkusK_> ... we already have to cope with some similar issues
... we already have to cope with some similar issues ←
08:36:57 <MarkusK_> ian: in a way it would then be good to have the additional explaining subsection in the document
Ian Horrocks: in a way it would then be good to have the additional explaining subsection in the document ←
08:37:18 <MarkusK_> boris: the second part of the issue was that axioms like SubClassOf( SomeValuesFrom( a:hasChild owl:Thing ) a:Parent ) are not currently allowed
Boris Motik: the second part of the issue was that axioms like SubClassOf( SomeValuesFrom( a:hasChild owl:Thing ) a:Parent ) are not currently allowed ←
08:37:39 <MarkusK_> ... this appears to be a simple bug, since owl:thing could well be allowed on the left-hand side of axioms
... this appears to be a simple bug, since owl:thing could well be allowed on the left-hand side of axioms ←
08:38:02 <MarkusK_> zhe: does this discussion also apply to the top property, or just to owl thing?
Zhe Wu: does this discussion also apply to the top property, or just to owl thing? ←
08:38:50 <MarkusK_> boris: top/bottom data property are currently not allowed, so they could be left out of the rule set
Boris Motik: top/bottom data property are currently not allowed, so they could be left out of the rule set ←
08:39:22 <MarkusK_> michael: can you explain again why the above example axiom is not allowed?
Michael Schneider: can you explain again why the above example axiom is not allowed? ←
08:39:44 <MarkusK_> boris: because the grammar disallows owl:thing, a simple grammar bug (other class names would be allowed)
Boris Motik: because the grammar disallows owl:thing, a simple grammar bug (other class names would be allowed) ←
08:39:47 <Zhe> great
08:40:19 <MarkusK_> boris: the resolution includes only owl thing and owl nothing, but none of the top/bottom properties, which are not allowed in OWL RL
Boris Motik: the resolution includes only owl thing and owl nothing, but none of the top/bottom properties, which are not allowed in OWL RL ←
08:40:30 <MarkusK_> ivan: weren't there other constructs as well?
Ivan Herman: weren't there other constructs as well? ←
08:40:38 <MarkusK_> boris: I do not think so
Boris Motik: I do not think so ←
08:41:41 <MarkusK_> ivan: declaration of annotation properties also needs to be in
Ivan Herman: declaration of annotation properties also needs to be in ←
08:41:54 <IanH> PROPOSAL: Close Issue 149 by adding rules that axiomatise built-in entities (Thing, Nothing, etc) along with a new subsection that discusses how implementations could be optimised to deal with rules that potentially introduce large numbers of triples; AND fix the profile specification to allow the usage of SomeValuesFrom( R owl:Thing) on the left-hand side of the axioms.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-149 by adding rules that axiomatise built-in entities (Thing, Nothing, etc) along with a new subsection that discusses how implementations could be optimised to deal with rules that potentially introduce large numbers of triples; AND fix the profile specification to allow the usage of SomeValuesFrom( R owl:Thing) on the left-hand side of the axioms. ←
08:41:59 <MarkusK_> boris: right but those are not problematic
Boris Motik: right but those are not problematic ←
08:42:15 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
08:42:18 <bernardo> +1
08:42:19 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
08:42:21 <MarkusK_> markus: +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
08:42:23 <ivan> 1
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
08:42:25 <Rinke> +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
08:42:27 <IanH> +1 (Oxford)
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford) ←
08:42:29 <Christine> +1
Christine Golbreich: +1 ←
08:42:34 <Achille> +1
Achille Fokoue: +1 ←
08:42:41 <Zhe> +1 (Oracle)
08:42:53 <schneid> +1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
08:42:56 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
08:43:09 <IanH> RESOLVED: Close Issue 149 by adding rules that axiomatise built-in entities (Thing, Nothing, etc) along with a new subsection that discusses how implementations could be optimised to deal with rules that potentially introduce large numbers of triples; AND fix the profile specification to allow the usage of SomeValuesFrom( R owl:Thing) on the left-hand side of the axioms.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-149 by adding rules that axiomatise built-in entities (Thing, Nothing, etc) along with a new subsection that discusses how implementations could be optimised to deal with rules that potentially introduce large numbers of triples; AND fix the profile specification to allow the usage of SomeValuesFrom( R owl:Thing) on the left-hand side of the axioms. ←
08:43:40 <MarkusK_> Coffee break
Coffee break ←
08:55:19 <Zhe> zakim, mute me
(No events recorded for 11 minutes)
08:55:19 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Zhe should now be muted ←
09:17:27 <sandro> scribe: bernardo
(No events recorded for 22 minutes)
(Scribe set to Bernardo Cuenca Grau)
09:17:34 <bernardo> Issue 137
09:18:04 <sandro> issue-137?
09:18:04 <trackbot> ISSUE-137 -- Table 4 in RDF mapping introduces incompatibility with OWL 1 -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-137 -- Table 4 in RDF mapping introduces incompatibility with OWL 1 -- OPEN ←
09:18:04 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/137
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/137 ←
09:18:23 <bernardo> alanr: first question concerns backwards compatibility
Alan Ruttenberg: first question concerns backwards compatibility ←
09:18:23 <sandro> topic: ISSUE-137 -- Table 4 in RDF mapping introduces incompatibility with OWL 1
09:18:41 <bernardo> alanr: in OWL 1 validity is defined over the transitive closure over imports
Alan Ruttenberg: in OWL 1 validity is defined over the transitive closure over imports ←
09:20:17 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
09:20:49 <bernardo> alanr: in Table 5 in the RDF mapping, There can be left over triples when using imports
Alan Ruttenberg: in Table 5 in the RDF mapping, There can be left over triples when using imports ←
09:21:15 <bernardo> alanr: second question concerns repairs
Alan Ruttenberg: second question concerns repairs ←
09:21:36 <bernardo> alanr: repairs in the presence of imports
Alan Ruttenberg: repairs in the presence of imports ←
09:21:50 <bernardo> alanr: there is a proposal I made
Alan Ruttenberg: there is a proposal I made ←
09:22:27 <bernardo> alanr: Peter had an alternative proposal that would allow you to import the missing triples using XML include
Alan Ruttenberg: Peter had an alternative proposal that would allow you to import the missing triples using XML include ←
09:22:35 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
09:22:51 <bernardo> bmotik: alan was referring to validity syntactically
Boris Motik: alan was referring to validity syntactically ←
09:23:25 <bernardo> bmotik: In the OWL 1 spec there is no reference to imports in connection to this issue
Boris Motik: In the OWL 1 spec there is no reference to imports in connection to this issue ←
09:23:48 <bernardo> bmotik: in OWL 1 it is not clear whether you have to put all the imported ontologies to do the parsing
Boris Motik: in OWL 1 it is not clear whether you have to put all the imported ontologies to do the parsing ←
09:24:03 <sandro> Boris: It seems to me that it's not clear in OWL 1 whether you need to do imports (smooshing them together) first or not.
Boris Motik: It seems to me that it's not clear in OWL 1 whether you need to do imports (smooshing them together) first or not. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:24:30 <bernardo> bmotik: it could be perfectly on a document to document basis
Boris Motik: it could be perfectly on a document to document basis ←
09:24:50 <bernardo> IanH: there is a debate whether there is a backwards compatibility issue
Ian Horrocks: there is a debate whether there is a backwards compatibility issue ←
09:25:01 <sandro> Ian: There's some debate about whether there's a Backward Compatibility concern for now, but aside from that, what would you want to do?
Ian Horrocks: There's some debate about whether there's a Backward Compatibility concern for now, but aside from that, what would you want to do? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:25:29 <bernardo> alanr: making the changes I suggest would make the language better, independently of backwards compatibility
Alan Ruttenberg: making the changes I suggest would make the language better, independently of backwards compatibility ←
09:25:55 <bernardo> alanr: by specifying an extra repair mechanism we can fix some situations
Alan Ruttenberg: by specifying an extra repair mechanism we can fix some situations ←
09:25:56 <sandro> Alan: Right -- I think it would be better for the language to do what I want (take the imports-closure view). It lets us use RDF correctly as OWL DL.
Alan Ruttenberg: Right -- I think it would be better for the language to do what I want (take the imports-closure view). It lets us use RDF correctly as OWL DL. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:26:07 <bernardo> alanr: there are two proposals
Alan Ruttenberg: there are two proposals ←
09:26:25 <bernardo> alanr: we should not depend on XML
Alan Ruttenberg: we should not depend on XML ←
09:26:35 <sandro> fix 1 == some kind of include mechanism
Sandro Hawke: fix 1 == some kind of include mechanism ←
09:26:55 <bernardo> alanr: two options: some kind of include mechanism and the other would be to remove some triples in the reverse RDF mapping
Alan Ruttenberg: two options: some kind of include mechanism and the other would be to remove some triples in the reverse RDF mapping ←
09:26:59 <sandro> fix 2 == in the reverse dropping mapping, drop the rdfs class triples, since that leaves the "typing" to the OWL side of things.
Sandro Hawke: fix 2 == in the reverse dropping mapping, drop the rdfs class triples, since that leaves the "typing" to the OWL side of things. ←
09:28:39 <bernardo> alanr: in Table 5, see second line. Throw away all the rdf typing when there is a DL counterpart
Alan Ruttenberg: in Table 5, see second line. Throw away all the rdf typing when there is a DL counterpart ←
09:29:02 <bernardo> bmotik: if we throw these away we are unsound
Boris Motik: if we throw these away we are unsound ←
09:30:02 <bernardo> peter: suppose A imports B. Ontology A. We may end up with no triple that states that C, for example, is a class
Peter Patel-Schneider: suppose A imports B. Ontology A. We may end up with no triple that states that C, for example, is a class ←
09:30:15 <bernardo> bmotik: we may have problems defining the vocabulary
Boris Motik: we may have problems defining the vocabulary ←
09:30:28 <bernardo> bmotik: Classes have to be declared
Boris Motik: Classes have to be declared ←
09:30:50 <bernardo> bmotik: otherwise we cannot distinguish classes from datatypes
Boris Motik: otherwise we cannot distinguish classes from datatypes ←
09:31:46 <bernardo> bmotik: O1 imports O2
Boris Motik: O1 imports O2 ←
09:32:09 <bernardo> bmotik: in O2 we have C rdf:type rdfs:Class
Boris Motik: in O2 we have C rdf:type rdfs:Class ←
09:33:14 <bernardo> bmotik: D someValuesFrom C, D onProperty P
Boris Motik: D someValuesFrom C, D onProperty P ←
09:33:56 <bernardo> If we throw the type of C, parsing fails
If we throw the type of C, parsing fails ←
09:34:11 <bernardo> alanr: we can add a new ontology
Alan Ruttenberg: we can add a new ontology ←
09:34:21 <bernardo> O3, which is imported by O1
O3, which is imported by O1 ←
09:34:44 <bernardo> O3 saying C rdf:type owl:Class
O3 saying C rdf:type owl:Class ←
09:35:09 <bernardo> bmotik: parsing would still fails
Boris Motik: parsing would still fails ←
09:35:35 <bernardo> bmotik: because each ontology in the import closure should be an OWL ontology by itself
Boris Motik: because each ontology in the import closure should be an OWL ontology by itself ←
09:36:20 <bernardo> alanr: what if O1 and O3 import each other?
Alan Ruttenberg: what if O1 and O3 import each other? ←
09:36:32 <bernardo> bmotik: it would still fail
Boris Motik: it would still fail ←
09:36:48 <bernardo> bmotik: you would need an import between O2 and O3
Boris Motik: you would need an import between O2 and O3 ←
09:37:00 <bernardo> bmotik: then what alan proposes would help
Boris Motik: then what alan proposes would help ←
09:37:28 <bernardo> alanr: if this is the case, I am not getting the design, but I would object such design
Alan Ruttenberg: if this is the case, I am not getting the design, but I would object such design ←
09:38:34 <bernardo> peter: the triple C rdf:type rdf:Class is invalid OWL 2, because C should be an owl:Class
Peter Patel-Schneider: the triple C rdf:type rdf:Class is invalid OWL 2, because C should be an owl:Class ←
09:39:40 <bernardo> IanH: alan had a proposal to resolve and there was an objection that one of those did not work
Ian Horrocks: alan had a proposal to resolve and there was an objection that one of those did not work ←
09:40:01 <bernardo> alanr: yes, there was a misunderstanding and therefore I have another objection
Alan Ruttenberg: yes, there was a misunderstanding and therefore I have another objection ←
09:40:45 <bernardo> bmotik: the second solution would work
Boris Motik: the second solution would work ←
09:41:00 <bernardo> bmotik: O1 imports O2
Boris Motik: O1 imports O2 ←
09:41:20 <bernardo> with O2 containing only C rdf:type rdf:Class
with O2 containing only C rdf:type rdf:Class ←
09:41:37 <bernardo> bmotik: we want to make O2 valid
Boris Motik: we want to make O2 valid ←
09:42:05 <bernardo> bmotik: there is a third ontology O3 which is a repair
Boris Motik: there is a third ontology O3 which is a repair ←
09:42:24 <bernardo> bmotik: where we would have C rdf:type owl:Class
Boris Motik: where we would have C rdf:type owl:Class ←
09:42:35 <bernardo> bmotik: O2 is not an ontology is a document
Boris Motik: O2 is not an ontology is a document ←
09:42:44 <bernardo> bmotik: O3 is an actual ontology
Boris Motik: O3 is an actual ontology ←
09:42:52 <bernardo> alanr: I am happy with this
Alan Ruttenberg: I am happy with this ←
09:43:04 <bernardo> IanH: should this be a proposal to resolve?
Ian Horrocks: should this be a proposal to resolve? ←
09:43:19 <bernardo> peter: the remaining problem is to define the inclusion mechanism
Peter Patel-Schneider: the remaining problem is to define the inclusion mechanism ←
09:43:26 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
09:43:47 <bernardo> bmotik: in the structural spec the inclusions should not be represented
Boris Motik: in the structural spec the inclusions should not be represented ←
09:44:08 <bernardo> bmotik: O2 and O3 should be an ontology during parsing
Boris Motik: O2 and O3 should be an ontology during parsing ←
09:44:19 <bernardo> bmotik: include should be something that happens in RDF
Boris Motik: include should be something that happens in RDF ←
09:45:12 <bernardo> ivan: tools should keep track of the provenance of the triples
Ivan Herman: tools should keep track of the provenance of the triples ←
09:45:35 <bernardo> bmotik: this is something that only concerns the RDF
Boris Motik: this is something that only concerns the RDF ←
09:45:56 <bernardo> IanH: if we did this using XML include in RDF/XML
Ian Horrocks: if we did this using XML include in RDF/XML ←
09:46:14 <bernardo> ivan: formally yes, but there is no RDF environment that supports this
Ivan Herman: formally yes, but there is no RDF environment that supports this ←
09:46:49 <bernardo> mschneider: using an XML mechanism looks like a big step
Michael Schneider: using an XML mechanism looks like a big step ←
09:47:10 <bernardo> IanH: what if we define our own inclusion mechanism?
Ian Horrocks: what if we define our own inclusion mechanism? ←
09:47:20 <bernardo> mschneider: is it worth it?
Michael Schneider: is it worth it? ←
09:48:02 <bernardo> ivan: if we generate our own mechanism we would end up in an unconfortable situation
Ivan Herman: if we generate our own mechanism we would end up in an unconfortable situation ←
09:48:24 <bernardo> ivan: it is doable, but not easy
Ivan Herman: it is doable, but not easy ←
09:48:50 <bernardo> bmotik: sing XML includes we could say something like ``tools should support XML include''
Boris Motik: sing XML includes we could say something like ``tools should support XML include'' ←
09:49:06 <bernardo> ivan: in practice it will not be supported
Ivan Herman: in practice it will not be supported ←
09:49:43 <bernardo> alanr: this is an OWL specific problem. There is no need in RDF to do an XML inclusion
Alan Ruttenberg: this is an OWL specific problem. There is no need in RDF to do an XML inclusion ←
09:49:51 <bernardo> alanr: it is more a processing change
Alan Ruttenberg: it is more a processing change ←
09:49:57 <bernardo> alanr: it is a big win
Alan Ruttenberg: it is a big win ←
09:50:49 <bernardo> mschneider: this is kind of a border case
Michael Schneider: this is kind of a border case ←
09:51:15 <bernardo> mschneider: it doesn't seem worthy to add XML inclusion for filling a small gap
Michael Schneider: it doesn't seem worthy to add XML inclusion for filling a small gap ←
09:51:27 <bernardo> peter: an inclusion mechanism is a need in RDF
Peter Patel-Schneider: an inclusion mechanism is a need in RDF ←
09:51:35 <bernardo> alanr: I disagree
Alan Ruttenberg: I disagree ←
09:52:14 <bernardo> alanr: it is not a corner case. It is a way to repair lots of RDF that so far was not valid OWL
Alan Ruttenberg: it is not a corner case. It is a way to repair lots of RDF that so far was not valid OWL ←
09:52:39 <sandro> alan: We're aiming to allow a lot of off-the-shelf RDF to be usable in OWL DL. This is something very useful.
Alan Ruttenberg: We're aiming to allow a lot of off-the-shelf RDF to be usable in OWL DL. This is something very useful. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:52:40 <bernardo> bmotik: RDF does not handle the notion of a document
Boris Motik: RDF does not handle the notion of a document ←
09:52:57 <bernardo> bmotik: otherwise it is unclear what I am reasoning on
Boris Motik: otherwise it is unclear what I am reasoning on ←
09:53:51 <bernardo> alanr: our issue here is to have a mechanism to bring lots of RDF mechanism into the OWL world
Alan Ruttenberg: our issue here is to have a mechanism to bring lots of RDF mechanism into the OWL world ←
09:54:09 <bernardo> ivan: my feeling is that your proposal needs more thinking
Ivan Herman: my feeling is that your proposal needs more thinking ←
09:54:31 <bernardo> ivan: the consequences are unclear
Ivan Herman: the consequences are unclear ←
09:56:32 <bernardo> mschneider: It is a big change late in the process
Michael Schneider: It is a big change late in the process ←
09:57:41 <bernardo> alanr: this has been going on for a while
Alan Ruttenberg: this has been going on for a while ←
09:58:13 <bernardo> mschneider: it will confuse people
Michael Schneider: it will confuse people ←
09:59:02 <bernardo> alanr: my preference is that the declarations are checked over the import closure
Alan Ruttenberg: my preference is that the declarations are checked over the import closure ←
09:59:12 <bernardo> alanr: Peter proposed another mechanism
Alan Ruttenberg: Peter proposed another mechanism ←
09:59:29 <bernardo> alanr: I am happy with any mechanism that fixes the problem
Alan Ruttenberg: I am happy with any mechanism that fixes the problem ←
10:00:01 <bernardo> IanH: Strawpol
Ian Horrocks: Strawpol ←
10:01:29 <bernardo> ivan: today we could identify the problem
Ivan Herman: today we could identify the problem ←
10:02:00 <bernardo> ivan: then the only solution that currently exists is a serialization-specific mechanism
Ivan Herman: then the only solution that currently exists is a serialization-specific mechanism ←
10:02:16 <bernardo> ivan: this is an issue that RDF COre should handle
Ivan Herman: this is an issue that RDF COre should handle ←
10:02:58 <bernardo> alanr: there is another proposal on the table
Alan Ruttenberg: there is another proposal on the table ←
10:03:18 <bernardo> alanr: I think that the declarations should be evaluated over the imports closure
Alan Ruttenberg: I think that the declarations should be evaluated over the imports closure ←
10:03:30 <bernardo> bmotik: alan's proposal is ill-defined
Boris Motik: alan's proposal is ill-defined ←
10:03:57 <bernardo> bmotik: it would require a big change in the mapping
Boris Motik: it would require a big change in the mapping ←
10:04:24 <bernardo> ivan: I do not understand what is the problem with the declarations over the closure
Ivan Herman: I do not understand what is the problem with the declarations over the closure ←
10:04:39 <bernardo> bmotik: some of the documents in the closure may not be actual ontology
Boris Motik: some of the documents in the closure may not be actual ontology ←
10:04:57 <bernardo> bmotik: some of the imported ontologies may be nothing
Boris Motik: some of the imported ontologies may be nothing ←
10:06:12 <bernardo> alanr: the only problem is that you down move the declarations down from the importing to the imported ontology
Alan Ruttenberg: the only problem is that you down move the declarations down from the importing to the imported ontology ←
10:06:52 <bernardo> bmotik: Suppose O1 having C rdf:type rdfs:Class
Boris Motik: Suppose O1 having C rdf:type rdfs:Class ←
10:07:00 <bernardo> and O2 and O3 import O1
and O2 and O3 import O1 ←
10:07:25 <bernardo> bmotik: O2 has C rdf:type owl:Class
Boris Motik: O2 has C rdf:type owl:Class ←
10:07:53 <bernardo> bmotik: O1 is not currently and OWL ontology because parsing it would break
Boris Motik: O1 is not currently and OWL ontology because parsing it would break ←
10:08:36 <bernardo> ivan: it is not clear that they have to be ontologies by themselves
Ivan Herman: it is not clear that they have to be ontologies by themselves ←
10:08:59 <bernardo> bmotik: this is how people do it
Boris Motik: this is how people do it ←
10:09:34 <bernardo> ivan: I am not convinced
Ivan Herman: I am not convinced ←
10:09:52 <bernardo> ivan: imagine modularizing an ontology
Ivan Herman: imagine modularizing an ontology ←
10:10:05 <bernardo> ivan: what I care about is that the whole thing is an ontology
Ivan Herman: what I care about is that the whole thing is an ontology ←
10:10:28 <bernardo> ivan: it is not necessary that each of the pieces is a consistent ontology by itself
Ivan Herman: it is not necessary that each of the pieces is a consistent ontology by itself ←
10:11:39 <bernardo> alan gives example
alan gives example ←
10:12:51 <bernardo> peter: the ideal situation is that a document together with the stuff it imports is an actual OWL ontology
Peter Patel-Schneider: the ideal situation is that a document together with the stuff it imports is an actual OWL ontology ←
10:13:25 <bernardo> alan: this doesn't matter in practice
Alan Ruttenberg: this doesn't matter in practice ←
10:13:53 <bernardo> sandro: is there an engineering argument against alan's proposal?
Sandro Hawke: is there an engineering argument against alan's proposal? ←
10:14:12 <bernardo> IanH: we now have two proposals.
Ian Horrocks: we now have two proposals. ←
10:14:54 <bernardo> IanH: proposal is to change the specification to gather declarations over the imports closure (alan's proposal)
Ian Horrocks: proposal is to change the specification to gather declarations over the imports closure (alan's proposal) ←
10:17:05 <bernardo> mschneider makes a summary of the proposals
mschneider makes a summary of the proposals ←
10:18:05 <bernardo> ivan: I haven't heard anything convincing about the fact that each piece should be an ontology by itself
Ivan Herman: I haven't heard anything convincing about the fact that each piece should be an ontology by itself ←
10:18:28 <bernardo> bmotik: when you are writing an editoe, you want to have a clear idea of what an ontology object is
Boris Motik: when you are writing an editoe, you want to have a clear idea of what an ontology object is ←
10:19:13 <bernardo> bmotik: also, we can have ontologies stored in databases and we have to make sure that they are valid OWL
Boris Motik: also, we can have ontologies stored in databases and we have to make sure that they are valid OWL ←
10:19:38 <bernardo> bmotik: in OWL 1 it was not clear how to parse an ontology
Boris Motik: in OWL 1 it was not clear how to parse an ontology ←
10:20:02 <bernardo> bmotik: we could end up importing something that is not an RDF file
Boris Motik: we could end up importing something that is not an RDF file ←
10:20:55 <bernardo> bmotik: in an API you want to work with ontologies, not with arbitrary documents. All tools work like that
Boris Motik: in an API you want to work with ontologies, not with arbitrary documents. All tools work like that ←
10:21:33 <bernardo> achille: it seems that the spec already forces you to look ar declarations in the import closure
Achille Fokoue: it seems that the spec already forces you to look ar declarations in the import closure ←
10:22:08 <bernardo> IanH: we are only considering the imports, not the inverse of it
Ian Horrocks: we are only considering the imports, not the inverse of it ←
10:23:55 <bernardo> ivan: are you afraid of ``diamod-shaped'' import path?
Ivan Herman: are you afraid of ``diamod-shaped'' import path? ←
10:24:03 <bernardo> bmotik: that is partly
Boris Motik: that is partly ←
10:25:23 <bernardo> bmotik: in the functional syntax it is possible to write documents that are not ontologies
Boris Motik: in the functional syntax it is possible to write documents that are not ontologies ←
10:27:00 <bernardo> +q
+q ←
10:28:51 <bernardo> boris stands up and draws picture
boris stands up and draws picture ←
10:29:15 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
10:30:27 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
10:30:38 <IanH> ack bernardo
Ian Horrocks: ack bernardo ←
10:32:20 <bernardo> alanr: we could distinguish between OWL ontologies and documents and allow import to work also on documents and not only on ontologies
Alan Ruttenberg: we could distinguish between OWL ontologies and documents and allow import to work also on documents and not only on ontologies ←
10:33:14 <bernardo> bmotik: in APIs the term ontology always has denoted something that is self consistent
Boris Motik: in APIs the term ontology always has denoted something that is self consistent ←
10:33:28 <bernardo> bmotik: we need two logical relationships between documents
Boris Motik: we need two logical relationships between documents ←
10:33:39 <bernardo> bmotik: one is imports which works on ontologies
Boris Motik: one is imports which works on ontologies ←
10:34:00 <alanr> Assumption => "Self consistent thing" is a single document
Alan Ruttenberg: Assumption => "Self consistent thing" is a single document ←
10:34:09 <bernardo> bmotik: then, another relationship between documents that works similarly to XML includes
Boris Motik: then, another relationship between documents that works similarly to XML includes ←
10:35:17 <bernardo> IanH: we are doing some sort of ``repair''
Ian Horrocks: we are doing some sort of ``repair'' ←
10:36:13 <bernardo> IanH: wouldn't it be possible to have this in the spec as a note to implementors?
Ian Horrocks: wouldn't it be possible to have this in the spec as a note to implementors? ←
10:36:36 <sandro> Alan: Many people think of an "Ontology" as something that is expressed in multiple "Documents". Not just this "ontology"=="document" view.
Alan Ruttenberg: Many people think of an "Ontology" as something that is expressed in multiple "Documents". Not just this "ontology"=="document" view. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:37:16 <bernardo> bmotik: we need to agree on the meaning of the term ontology
Boris Motik: we need to agree on the meaning of the term ontology ←
10:37:51 <bernardo> bmotik: we shoueld say that an ontology is something that can be parsed correctly
Boris Motik: we shoueld say that an ontology is something that can be parsed correctly ←
10:38:59 <bernardo> bmotik: Proposal: having an explicit include relation that works on documents, not necessarily on ontologies
Boris Motik: Proposal: having an explicit include relation that works on documents, not necessarily on ontologies ←
10:39:43 <bernardo> bmotik: another option would be to overload the meaning of imports
Boris Motik: another option would be to overload the meaning of imports ←
10:41:14 <bernardo> mschneider: I dont see from the structural spec that an ontology in functional syntax is actually a self contained ontology
Michael Schneider: I dont see from the structural spec that an ontology in functional syntax is actually a self contained ontology ←
10:41:41 <pfps> Boris has made a proposal that owl:imports of an RDF graph that does not have an ontology header acts like include, in that the target graph is *not* an ontology, and that the target graph is RDF-merged with the importing document's graph to generate a new RDF graph that is then subject to the reverse mapping
Peter Patel-Schneider: Boris has made a proposal that owl:imports of an RDF graph that does not have an ontology header acts like include, in that the target graph is *not* an ontology, and that the target graph is RDF-merged with the importing document's graph to generate a new RDF graph that is then subject to the reverse mapping ←
10:42:40 <bernardo> alanr: we should make a distinction of names between ontology documents and other things
Alan Ruttenberg: we should make a distinction of names between ontology documents and other things ←
10:43:14 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
10:43:35 <bernardo> bmotik: according to the structural spec, an ontology is currently something that contains axioms and that imports other ontologies
Boris Motik: according to the structural spec, an ontology is currently something that contains axioms and that imports other ontologies ←
10:45:59 <bernardo> ivan: we are back to the same idea of inclusion
Ivan Herman: we are back to the same idea of inclusion ←
10:47:47 <sandro> MarkusK: I like this: Yes, an Ontology is an abstract thing, a set of axioms.
Markus Krötzsch: I like this: Yes, an Ontology is an abstract thing, a set of axioms. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:47:50 <pfps> markus: agree with Boris - ontology is an abstract object (axioms+imports) - relationship to documents is then needed only for imports
Markus Krötzsch: agree with Boris - ontology is an abstract object (axioms+imports) - relationship to documents is then needed only for imports [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
10:48:21 <bernardo> alanr: I support Marku's point of view
Alan Ruttenberg: I support Marku's point of view ←
10:48:47 <bernardo> alanr: I think of an ontology as the document plus everything it imports
Alan Ruttenberg: I think of an ontology as the document plus everything it imports ←
10:51:14 <bernardo> ivan: what about the database example boris mentioned?
Ivan Herman: what about the database example boris mentioned? ←
10:53:27 <bernardo> markus: what happens with document transformation?
Markus Krötzsch: what happens with document transformation? ←
10:54:05 <bernardo> bmotik: everything that complies with the structural spec must be an OWL ontology
Boris Motik: everything that complies with the structural spec must be an OWL ontology ←
10:55:02 <MarkusK_> markus: so "syntactic" imports, only supported in RDF syntaxes, are resolved first, and the result can then be transformed to other syntaxes
Markus Krötzsch: so "syntactic" imports, only supported in RDF syntaxes, are resolved first, and the result can then be transformed to other syntaxes [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ] ←
10:55:06 <MarkusK_> bmotik: yes
Boris Motik: yes [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ] ←
10:55:20 <IanH> PROPOSED: Close Issue 137 by making owl:imports of an RDF graph that does not have an ontology header act like include, in that the target graph is *not* an ontology, and that the target graph is RDF-merged with the importing document's graph to generate a new RDF graph that is then subject to the reverse mapping.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-137 by making owl:imports of an RDF graph that does not have an ontology header act like include, in that the target graph is *not* an ontology, and that the target graph is RDF-merged with the importing document's graph to generate a new RDF graph that is then subject to the reverse mapping. ←
10:55:23 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
10:55:29 <bernardo> +1
+1 ←
10:55:32 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
10:55:38 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
10:55:41 <IanH> 0
Ian Horrocks: 0 ←
10:55:45 <Zhe> 0
10:55:49 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
10:55:54 <Rinke> +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
10:56:03 <ivan> 1
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
10:56:13 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM) ←
10:56:32 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons)
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (Science Commons) ←
10:56:55 <alanr> Alan is impressed with Zhe's presence
Alan Ruttenberg: Alan is impressed with Zhe's presence ←
10:57:03 <Christine> 0
10:57:15 <schneid> 0
10:57:19 <IanH> RESOLVED: Close Issue 137 by making owl:imports of an RDF graph that does not have an ontology header act like include, in that the target graph is *not* an ontology, and that the target graph is RDF-merged with the importing document's graph to generate a new RDF graph that is then subject to the reverse mapping.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-137 by making owl:imports of an RDF graph that does not have an ontology header act like include, in that the target graph is *not* an ontology, and that the target graph is RDF-merged with the importing document's graph to generate a new RDF graph that is then subject to the reverse mapping. ←
10:58:21 <sandro> topic:Lunch
10:58:28 <Zakim> -Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: -Zhe ←
12:00:53 <ivan> scribenick: Achille
(No events recorded for 62 minutes)
(Scribe set to Achille Fokoue)
12:01:14 <ivan> zakim, code?
Ivan Herman: zakim, code? ←
12:01:15 <Zakim> the conference code is 69594 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 69594 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), ivan ←
12:01:33 <pfps> zakim, who is here?
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, who is here? ←
12:01:33 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B ←
12:01:33 <alanr> test
Alan Ruttenberg: test ←
12:01:34 <Zakim> On IRC I see alanr, msmith, Achille, baojie, bijan, Rinke, bernardo, schneid, sandro, Christine, pfps, ivan, bmotik, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, Zhe, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see alanr, msmith, Achille, baojie, bijan, Rinke, bernardo, schneid, sandro, Christine, pfps, ivan, bmotik, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, Zhe, trackbot ←
12:02:05 <Zakim> +msmith
Zakim IRC Bot: +msmith ←
12:02:42 <Achille> topic: extending annotation framework
12:02:52 <Zakim> +baojie
Zakim IRC Bot: +baojie ←
12:03:14 <Achille> alan: issue arising from concern from interop with larger OWL community
Alan Ruttenberg: issue arising from concern from interop with larger OWL community ←
12:03:20 <Achille> alan: two proposals:
Alan Ruttenberg: two proposals: ←
12:04:36 <Achille> alan: 1) vocabulary : annotation subproperty, annotation domain and range
Alan Ruttenberg: 1) vocabulary : annotation subproperty, annotation domain and range ←
12:05:06 <Achille> ... first level: support it in the syntax without any semantics
... first level: support it in the syntax without any semantics ←
12:05:23 <Achille> ... issue: divergence with OWL RL
... issue: divergence with OWL RL ←
12:05:34 <Achille> 2 nd level: give it some semantics in OWL
2 nd level: give it some semantics in OWL ←
12:05:57 <Achille> ... it will add a type to the owl dl world
... it will add a type to the owl dl world ←
12:06:24 <Achille> ... let do it for legacy consideration.
... let do it for legacy consideration. ←
12:06:44 <Achille> ... and introduce new vocabulary
... and introduce new vocabulary ←
12:07:43 <Achille> ivan: user of annotation property used them in a way that is not 100 % conformamt in OWL
Ivan Herman: user of annotation property used them in a way that is not 100 % conformamt in OWL ←
12:08:06 <Achille> ivan: for annotations, we can just let it the way it stand now
Ivan Herman: for annotations, we can just let it the way it stand now ←
12:08:58 <Achille> ivan: they use it in a way not mandated by OWL or RDF
Ivan Herman: they use it in a way not mandated by OWL or RDF ←
12:09:56 <Achille> alan: a better path:just say that annotation properties do not work as integraty constraints
Alan Ruttenberg: a better path:just say that annotation properties do not work as integraty constraints ←
12:10:45 <Achille> alan: my proposal: annotation properties have the standard RDF semantics
Alan Ruttenberg: my proposal: annotation properties have the standard RDF semantics ←
12:11:15 <Achille> boris: two prob about addiing semantis:
Boris Motik: two prob about addiing semantis: ←
12:11:31 <Achille> ... 1) what would be the real semantics? this is really difficult
... 1) what would be the real semantics? this is really difficult ←
12:12:26 <Achille> ... 2) from the point of view of their semantics, why would you need a new construct? why not use metamodeling ?
... 2) from the point of view of their semantics, why would you need a new construct? why not use metamodeling ? ←
12:13:06 <Achille> ivan: not certain if i need to have any kind of semantics
Ivan Herman: not certain if i need to have any kind of semantics ←
12:13:52 <Achille> ... i am happy that these annotations are not accessible to OWL DL.
... i am happy that these annotations are not accessible to OWL DL. ←
12:14:54 <Achille> alan: to answer boris, i would agree with you if there were no consideration for legacy stuff
Alan Ruttenberg: to answer boris, i would agree with you if there were no consideration for legacy stuff ←
12:15:20 <Achille> alan: i need a way to have subproperty propagation.
Alan Ruttenberg: i need a way to have subproperty propagation. ←
12:15:20 <Zakim> +Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: +Zhe ←
12:15:42 <IanH> Welcome back Zhe!
Ian Horrocks: Welcome back Zhe! ←
12:15:45 <Achille> ... we can leave it to tools, but it seems better to have it in the spec for interop. purposes
... we can leave it to tools, but it seems better to have it in the spec for interop. purposes ←
12:15:58 <Zhe> thanks
12:16:06 <Zhe> zakim, mute me
12:16:06 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Zhe should now be muted ←
12:17:21 <Achille> michael: from the OWL Full point of view, nothing changes, as long as the new constructs are mapped to the existing RDF
Michael Schneider: from the OWL Full point of view, nothing changes, as long as the new constructs are mapped to the existing RDF ←
12:17:32 <Achille> s/nohting/nothing/
s/nohting/nothing/ ←
12:18:36 <Achille> boris: I am not sure that this is just a legacy issue
Boris Motik: I am not sure that this is just a legacy issue ←
12:19:30 <Achille> ivan: it would be nice not to consider SKOS ontology outside OWL DL because of they use of annotation properties.
Ivan Herman: it would be nice not to consider SKOS ontology outside OWL DL because of they use of annotation properties. ←
12:20:21 <Achille> bijan: people might be tempted to use punning for annotation as a way around the problem
Bijan Parsia: people might be tempted to use punning for annotation as a way around the problem ←
12:20:50 <Achille> bijan: I don't think it is a great solution (it means a shadow annotation system)
Bijan Parsia: I don't think it is a great solution (it means a shadow annotation system) ←
12:21:14 <Achille> ... we can either bless it or explicitly provide an alternative
... we can either bless it or explicitly provide an alternative ←
12:22:17 <Achille> christine: This is a case where people will likely go to OWL Full to satisfy their requirements
Christine Golbreich: This is a case where people will likely go to OWL Full to satisfy their requirements ←
12:22:45 <Achille> ... at the moment, there is no correct solution
... at the moment, there is no correct solution ←
12:23:51 <Achille> pfps: we did not talk to SKOS about things for which we did not have a solution (like the current problem with annotations)
Peter Patel-Schneider: we did not talk to SKOS about things for which we did not have a solution (like the current problem with annotations) ←
12:24:38 <Achille> boris: meta-ontology is the proper solution
Boris Motik: meta-ontology is the proper solution ←
12:25:12 <Achille> ... inappropriate to mix annotations with your domain of discourse.
... inappropriate to mix annotations with your domain of discourse. ←
12:25:46 <Achille> ... 1 ontology about the domain and another about the annotations seems to be an appropriate solution
... 1 ontology about the domain and another about the annotations seems to be an appropriate solution ←
12:26:50 <Achille> ... we should not adopt a solution that would rule out this approach of meta-ontology
... we should not adopt a solution that would rule out this approach of meta-ontology ←
12:27:35 <Achille> markus: another issue: you can find if it is an object or data propery
Markus Krötzsch: another issue: you can find if it is an object or data propery ←
12:28:00 <Achille> alan: not clear if the right solution for annotation is
Alan Ruttenberg: not clear if the right solution for annotation is ←
12:28:28 <Achille> ... I do not think we rule out meta-ontology approach by giving semantics to annotations
... I do not think we rule out meta-ontology approach by giving semantics to annotations ←
12:29:53 <Achille> ... 1) annotation property allowed if there is another axiom making them data property
... 1) annotation property allowed if there is another axiom making them data property ←
12:30:25 <Achille> ... 2) annotation properties could have such little semantics that they would not be problematic
... 2) annotation properties could have such little semantics that they would not be problematic ←
12:31:05 <Achille> .. . my proposal for annotation: sub property, domain, and range and the same semantics as in OWL DL
.. . my proposal for annotation: sub property, domain, and range and the same semantics as in OWL DL ←
12:31:44 <Achille> michael: if we go with alan's proposal, the consequences are not clear to me
Michael Schneider: if we go with alan's proposal, the consequences are not clear to me ←
12:32:03 <Achille> ... and it seems that there might be a lot of unknown consequences
... and it seems that there might be a lot of unknown consequences ←
12:34:19 <Achille> boris: how about annotation on annotations?
Boris Motik: how about annotation on annotations? ←
12:34:42 <Achille> boris: how about annotations on axioms?
Boris Motik: how about annotations on axioms? ←
12:35:13 <Achille> alan: I do not see any need for annotation of axioms because I only care about legacy issue
Alan Ruttenberg: I do not see any need for annotation of axioms because I only care about legacy issue ←
12:36:37 <Achille> michael: annotations will be used to annotate anything with anything and will not respect restrictions imposed by any spec.
Michael Schneider: annotations will be used to annotate anything with anything and will not respect restrictions imposed by any spec. ←
12:37:22 <Achille> boris: it is safer to avoid giving a semantics for annotations
Boris Motik: it is safer to avoid giving a semantics for annotations ←
12:37:51 <Achille> ... we should have a clear statement like they have no semantics at all.
... we should have a clear statement like they have no semantics at all. ←
12:38:08 <bernardo> +q
12:38:23 <Achille> alan: to michael, the legacy ontologies are not OWL DL since you could not have annotations on axioms
Alan Ruttenberg: to michael, the legacy ontologies are not OWL DL since you could not have annotations on axioms ←
12:38:25 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
12:38:59 <Achille> alan: in case where users do not respect the rules, they will simply have invalid ontologies
Alan Ruttenberg: in case where users do not respect the rules, they will simply have invalid ontologies ←
12:40:31 <Achille> alan: in SKOS, you can see that current practice does not respect the boundary that you describe
Alan Ruttenberg: in SKOS, you can see that current practice does not respect the boundary that you describe ←
12:40:46 <Achille> s/ you/ refers to boris
s/ you/ refers to boris ←
12:41:50 <Achille> bijan: I prefer to give a little now (something like alan's proposal) and let the users migrate later
Bijan Parsia: I prefer to give a little now (something like alan's proposal) and let the users migrate later ←
12:43:24 <Achille> bernardo: I can see you point with compatibility issue, but people do not seem to care about the semantics of annotation so far
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: I can see you point with compatibility issue, but people do not seem to care about the semantics of annotation so far ←
12:43:41 <Achille> boris: it is not my business fixing SKOS
Boris Motik: it is not my business fixing SKOS ←
12:46:14 <Achille> michael: I'm happy with subclass, domain and range, but giving semantics means that reasoners which currently just get rid of annotation would have to deal with them now
Michael Schneider: I'm happy with subclass, domain and range, but giving semantics means that reasoners which currently just get rid of annotation would have to deal with them now ←
12:46:57 <Achille> christine: not sure why we think that users would need range for annotation
Christine Golbreich: not sure why we think that users would need range for annotation ←
12:47:13 <Achille> ... they really want constraints not range
... they really want constraints not range ←
12:47:41 <Achille> ... I do not understand why we need to choice between two bad solutions
... I do not understand why we need to choice between two bad solutions ←
12:48:32 <Achille> alan: 1) to bernado, tools ignoring stuff does not mean that users also do
Alan Ruttenberg: 1) to bernado, tools ignoring stuff does not mean that users also do ←
12:48:49 <Achille> ... this attitude toward annotation hurts us
... this attitude toward annotation hurts us ←
12:49:15 <Achille> ... 2) to christine, I do not see it as a bad solution. It will bring more customer to OWL
... 2) to christine, I do not see it as a bad solution. It will bring more customer to OWL ←
12:49:53 <Achille> ...3) I do not think that mandating annotations to be either object or data properties helps
...3) I do not think that mandating annotations to be either object or data properties helps ←
12:50:18 <Achille> bijan: yes, range on annotations are often intended as constraints
Bijan Parsia: yes, range on annotations are often intended as constraints ←
12:51:04 <Achille> ... the biggest obstacle is that we do not even make it possible to specify them
... the biggest obstacle is that we do not even make it possible to specify them ←
12:51:59 <Achille> ianh: I would agree with a weaker proposal as a first step
Ian Horrocks: I would agree with a weaker proposal as a first step ←
12:52:16 <Achille> s/ianh/alan
s/ianh/alan ←
12:52:40 <Achille> ianh: what do people thing about a weaker version of alan's proposal?
Ian Horrocks: what do people thing about a weaker version of alan's proposal? ←
12:54:25 <Achille> ianh: the proposal: we will have subannotation, annotation range and domain, they will have no semantics in OWL DL, but the normal semantics in OWL Full
Ian Horrocks: the proposal: we will have subannotation, annotation range and domain, they will have no semantics in OWL DL, but the normal semantics in OWL Full ←
12:55:38 <bmotik> STRAWPOLL: WHo is happy with adding three types of axioms -- AnnotationDomain, AnnotationRange, SubAnnotationPropertyOf -- to OWL 2 DL; map them to the starndard RDF vocabulary; no semantics on the DL side
STRAWPOLL: WHo is happy with adding three types of axioms -- AnnotationDomain, AnnotationRange, SubAnnotationPropertyOf -- to OWL 2 DL; map them to the starndard RDF vocabulary; no semantics on the DL side ←
12:55:52 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
12:55:53 <schneid> +1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
12:55:56 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
12:55:56 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
12:55:59 <bernardo> +1
12:55:59 <Rinke> +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
12:56:01 <Achille> +1
+1 ←
12:56:05 <Zhe> 1
12:56:06 <bmotik> +1 for Ivan
Boris Motik: +1 for Ivan ←
12:56:08 <pfps> +x where x > 0
Peter Patel-Schneider: +x where x > 0 ←
12:56:10 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
12:56:15 <baojie> 0
12:56:16 <Christine> 0
12:56:22 <IanH> 0
Ian Horrocks: 0 ←
12:56:23 <wallace> +1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
12:56:23 <sandro> 0
Sandro Hawke: 0 ←
12:56:25 <msmith> 0
Mike Smith: 0 ←
12:56:34 <sandro> Zakim, who is on the call?
Sandro Hawke: Zakim, who is on the call? ←
12:56:34 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B, msmith, baojie, Zhe (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B, msmith, baojie, Zhe (muted) ←
12:56:50 <Achille> ianh: it looks like we have a potential solution
Ian Horrocks: it looks like we have a potential solution ←
12:57:28 <Achille> alan: is there any support for adding semantics to annotation range, domain and subannotation?
Alan Ruttenberg: is there any support for adding semantics to annotation range, domain and subannotation? ←
12:57:52 <Achille> ianh: I will formally object for adding semantics for them
Ian Horrocks: I will formally object for adding semantics for them ←
12:58:18 <sandro> Bijan is lying on the fence
Sandro Hawke: Bijan is lying on the fence ←
12:58:55 <Achille> bijan: I'm 100% against adding semantics
Bijan Parsia: I'm 100% against adding semantics ←
13:01:02 <Achille> christine: these are new constructs that could be very difficult to explain to users
Christine Golbreich: these are new constructs that could be very difficult to explain to users ←
13:01:52 <Achille> alan: can we have some sort of conformance for tools in terms of preserving annotations?
Alan Ruttenberg: can we have some sort of conformance for tools in terms of preserving annotations? ←
13:02:32 <Christine> what will be difficult is to explain "AnnotationDomain, AnnotationRange, SubAnnotationPropertyOf -- to OWL 2 DL; map them to the starndard RDF vocabulary; no semantics on the DL side"
Christine Golbreich: what will be difficult is to explain "AnnotationDomain, AnnotationRange, SubAnnotationPropertyOf -- to OWL 2 DL; map them to the starndard RDF vocabulary; no semantics on the DL side" ←
13:03:01 <Achille> alan: it is related to roundtripping. I want to encourage tools to maintain annotations
Alan Ruttenberg: it is related to roundtripping. I want to encourage tools to maintain annotations ←
13:03:41 <Achille> ianh: should we finish with this proposal?
Ian Horrocks: should we finish with this proposal? ←
13:04:55 <Achille> boris: annotations are part of axioms. They are first c;lass citizens. The spec does not state that they are in anyway less important than other axioms
Boris Motik: annotations are part of axioms. They are first c;lass citizens. The spec does not state that they are in anyway less important than other axioms ←
13:05:19 <msmith> +1 to bijan, bernardo
Mike Smith: +1 to bijan, bernardo ←
13:05:54 <Achille> bernardo: i predict that annotations will no longer be routinely ignored by tools
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: i predict that annotations will no longer be routinely ignored by tools ←
13:06:16 <IanH> PROPOSAL: We add three types of axioms -- AnnotationDomain, AnnotationRange, SubAnnotationPropertyOf -- to OWL 2 DL; map them to the starndard RDF vocabulary; no semantics on the DL side.
PROPOSED: We add three types of axioms -- AnnotationDomain, AnnotationRange, SubAnnotationPropertyOf -- to OWL 2 DL; map them to the starndard RDF vocabulary; no semantics on the DL side. ←
13:06:43 <pfps> +x where x>=1 (AUL)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +x where x>=1 (AUL) ←
13:06:58 <IanH> PROPOSAL: We add three types of axioms -- AnnotationDomain, AnnotationRange, SubAnnotationPropertyOf -- to OWL 2 DL; map them to the standard RDF vocabulary; no semantics on the DL side.
PROPOSED: We add three types of axioms -- AnnotationDomain, AnnotationRange, SubAnnotationPropertyOf -- to OWL 2 DL; map them to the standard RDF vocabulary; no semantics on the DL side. ←
13:07:08 <bijan> +1 (Manchester) before the wireless goes down
Bijan Parsia: +1 (Manchester) before the wireless goes down ←
13:07:10 <wallace> +1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
13:07:15 <Achille> +1
+1 ←
13:07:16 <pfps> +x where x>=1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +x where x>=1 (ALU) ←
13:07:18 <ivan_> 1
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
13:07:18 <Zhe> +1
13:07:20 <Rinke> +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
13:07:21 <Christine> 0
13:07:24 <schneid> +1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
13:07:29 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons)
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (Science Commons) ←
13:07:31 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
13:07:39 <bernardo> +1 (Oxford)
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1 (Oxford) ←
13:07:55 <msmith> +0
Mike Smith: +0 ←
13:08:00 <baojie> 0 (RPI)
13:08:19 <IanH> RESOLVED: We add three types of axioms -- AnnotationDomain, AnnotationRange, SubAnnotationPropertyOf -- to OWL 2 DL; map them to the standard RDF vocabulary; no semantics on the DL side.
RESOLVED: We add three types of axioms -- AnnotationDomain, AnnotationRange, SubAnnotationPropertyOf -- to OWL 2 DL; map them to the standard RDF vocabulary; no semantics on the DL side. ←
13:10:45 <Achille> ianh: we are can move to the discussion on if/when to move the document to last call
Ian Horrocks: we are can move to the discussion on if/when to move the document to last call ←
13:10:47 <bmotik> ACTION: bmotik2 to Implement the resolutions from the 4F2F
ACTION: bmotik2 to Implement the resolutions from the 4F2F ←
13:10:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-238 - Implement the resolutions from the 4F2F [on Boris Motik - due 2008-10-31].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-238 - Implement the resolutions from the 4F2F [on Boris Motik - due 2008-10-31]. ←
13:10:57 <Achille> topic: Proposal to move to last call
13:12:13 <bmotik> scribenick: bmotik2
(Scribe set to Boris Motik)
13:12:19 <bmotik> scribenick: bmotik
13:13:01 <bmotik> ianh: How to approach this?
Ian Horrocks: How to approach this? ←
13:13:21 <bmotik> alanr: The goal here is to get people's views about the schedule to LC
Alan Ruttenberg: The goal here is to get people's views about the schedule to LC ←
13:13:27 <bmotik> s/to/towards
s/to/towards ←
13:14:02 <bmotik> alanr: In my view, the core 5 documents are (modulo the resolutions) pretty much ready to go
Alan Ruttenberg: In my view, the core 5 documents are (modulo the resolutions) pretty much ready to go ←
13:14:25 <bmotik> alanr: This does make the assumption that the n-ary document would be fully self-contained
Alan Ruttenberg: This does make the assumption that the n-ary document would be fully self-contained ←
13:14:50 <bmotik> alanr: It would contain the RDF Mapping. It would depend only on the hooks in the core spec
Alan Ruttenberg: It would contain the RDF Mapping. It would depend only on the hooks in the core spec ←
13:15:20 <bmotik> alanr: I propose that we hand over to Sandro these documents at the end of November
Alan Ruttenberg: I propose that we hand over to Sandro these documents at the end of November ←
13:15:25 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
13:15:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B, msmith, baojie, Zhe (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B, msmith, baojie, Zhe (muted) ←
13:15:27 <Zakim> On IRC I see bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, ivan, dlm, wallace, IanH, alanr, msmith, Achille, baojie, bijan, Rinke, schneid, sandro, Christine, pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, Zhe, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, ivan, dlm, wallace, IanH, alanr, msmith, Achille, baojie, bijan, Rinke, schneid, sandro, Christine, pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, Zhe, trackbot ←
13:15:54 <bmotik> alanr: In Profiles, there is still some tension about whether the rules are an implementation mechanism or a language specification
Alan Ruttenberg: In Profiles, there is still some tension about whether the rules are an implementation mechanism or a language specification ←
13:16:07 <bmotik> alanr: THis should be clarified for the Profiles
Alan Ruttenberg: THis should be clarified for the Profiles ←
13:17:04 <bmotik> bijan: We have two choices to address this.
Bijan Parsia: We have two choices to address this. ←
13:17:15 <bmotik> bijan: We can (1) delay the LC
Bijan Parsia: We can (1) delay the LC ←
13:17:37 <bmotik> bijan: We can (2) go to LC and have a quick fix later if we change our minds
Bijan Parsia: We can (2) go to LC and have a quick fix later if we change our minds ←
13:17:52 <bmotik> alanr: I'd like to get the ready documents out right away and focus on that
Alan Ruttenberg: I'd like to get the ready documents out right away and focus on that ←
13:18:22 <bmotik> alanr: The Conformance is another document that should go to LC later
Alan Ruttenberg: The Conformance is another document that should go to LC later ←
13:18:34 <bmotik> alanr: Adjusting the conformance statements might be some more work
Alan Ruttenberg: Adjusting the conformance statements might be some more work ←
13:18:50 <bmotik> alanr: We might spend a part of November reviewing the test cases
Alan Ruttenberg: We might spend a part of November reviewing the test cases ←
13:19:49 <bmotik> alanr: Ivan raised the question of whether by going with Profiles to LC separated we'd be sending a message to the community that the Profiles are somehow less important
Alan Ruttenberg: Ivan raised the question of whether by going with Profiles to LC separated we'd be sending a message to the community that the Profiles are somehow less important ←
13:19:56 <bmotik> alanr: I'd blog related to that
Alan Ruttenberg: I'd blog related to that ←
13:20:42 <bmotik> ivan: I think it would be a problem to go to LC with the first 5 problems without the Conformance
Ivan Herman: I think it would be a problem to go to LC with the first 5 problems without the Conformance ←
13:21:30 <bmotik> ivan: The document itself could go to LC and we would be able to review the test cases later
Ivan Herman: The document itself could go to LC and we would be able to review the test cases later ←
13:21:44 <bmotik> ivan: I don't see a problem with Profiles
Ivan Herman: I don't see a problem with Profiles ←
13:22:01 <bmotik> ivan: I would not be shocked by going with the Profiles to LC
Ivan Herman: I would not be shocked by going with the Profiles to LC ←
13:22:10 <bmotik> rinke: I agree with Ivan
Rinke Hoekstra: I agree with Ivan ←
13:22:37 <bmotik> christine: I think we are ready to go
Christine Golbreich: I think we are ready to go ←
13:22:56 <bmotik> ianh: How do you feel about Conformance and Profiles
Ian Horrocks: How do you feel about Conformance and Profiles ←
13:23:01 <bmotik> christine: I don't know
Christine Golbreich: I don't know ←
13:23:10 <bmotik> ewallace: I agree with Ivan
Evan Wallace: I agree with Ivan ←
13:23:36 <bmotik> bijan: I also think we could go with all of these documents
Bijan Parsia: I also think we could go with all of these documents ←
13:24:03 <bmotik> achille: OK for everything except for RDF- Based semantics and Conformance; I don't know for these
Achille Fokoue: OK for everything except for RDF- Based semantics and Conformance; I don't know for these ←
13:25:05 <bmotik> mschnei: Direct Semantics and RDF Mapping is OK, I believe the XML Syntax is also OK, RDF-Based Semantics needs some more work. I'd prefer not to go to LC before Christmas
Michael Schneider: Direct Semantics and RDF Mapping is OK, I believe the XML Syntax is also OK, RDF-Based Semantics needs some more work. I'd prefer not to go to LC before Christmas ←
13:25:57 <msmith> q+
Mike Smith: q+ ←
13:25:59 <bmotik> MarkusK_: I am fine with the core 5. Profiles can go to LC and we can have a short cycle and come back to potential issues. Regarding Test Cases, I'd like to ask msmith about it
Markus Krötzsch: I am fine with the core 5. Profiles can go to LC and we can have a short cycle and come back to potential issues. Regarding Test Cases, I'd like to ask msmith about it ←
13:26:01 <ivan> zaim, who is here?
Ivan Herman: zaim, who is here? ←
13:26:24 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
13:26:29 <bmotik> Ianh: Sandro, can you remind us of a publishing moratorium?
Ian Horrocks: Sandro, can you remind us of a publishing moratorium? ←
13:26:35 <bmotik> sandro: I don't think there is one
Sandro Hawke: I don't think there is one ←
13:26:42 <IanH> I will come to you in a moment Mike.
Ian Horrocks: I will come to you in a moment Mike. ←
13:26:48 <bmotik> Ivan: I think there is one. I would not count on beyond the 15th of DEcember
Ivan Herman: I think there is one. I would not count on beyond the 15th of DEcember ←
13:26:59 <bmotik> bijan: And it doesn't lift after the 5th of JAnuary
Bijan Parsia: And it doesn't lift after the 5th of JAnuary ←
13:27:09 <bmotik> s/JAnuary/January
s/JAnuary/January ←
13:27:38 <bmotik> sandro: I don't know the state of Test Cases, but I think it makes sense to treat Conformance with the others
Sandro Hawke: I don't know the state of Test Cases, but I think it makes sense to treat Conformance with the others ←
13:27:52 <bmotik> sandro: I could go either way regarding the Profiles
Sandro Hawke: I could go either way regarding the Profiles ←
13:28:00 <IanH> ack bernardo
Ian Horrocks: ack bernardo ←
13:28:21 <bmotik> bernardo: If the auhtor of the RDF-Based Semantics says it is not ready, I agree with him
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: If the auhtor of the RDF-Based Semantics says it is not ready, I agree with him ←
13:28:27 <bmotik> bernardo: The rest seems ready
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: The rest seems ready ←
13:29:04 <bmotik> bernardo: I am worried about an empty section in the Conformance document
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: I am worried about an empty section in the Conformance document ←
13:29:16 <bmotik> pfps: I think we should push everything and we should push Michael as well
Peter Patel-Schneider: I think we should push everything and we should push Michael as well ←
13:29:29 <bmotik> mschnei: We need an internal review again
Michael Schneider: We need an internal review again ←
13:29:34 <bmotik> ianh: Do we?
Ian Horrocks: Do we? ←
13:29:39 <bmotik> alanr: Would you like it?
Alan Ruttenberg: Would you like it? ←
13:29:53 <bmotik> mschnei: I believe we need another review
Michael Schneider: I believe we need another review ←
13:30:14 <bmotik> ivan: He says that there will be some changes now and those have to be properly reviewed
Ivan Herman: He says that there will be some changes now and those have to be properly reviewed ←
13:30:30 <bmotik> bijan: We need to check the changes, but we don't need a formal review process
Bijan Parsia: We need to check the changes, but we don't need a formal review process ←
13:30:42 <bmotik> ianh: This is what we decided in our review period
Ian Horrocks: This is what we decided in our review period ←
13:30:54 <msmith> msmith: I'm comfortable with core 5 + profiles. On conformance and test, I'm ok going without the test cases, but am a little concerned that the test format, etc. has not been widely reviewed or exercised. Approving tests will help that. I will go with group view of Conf&Test
Mike Smith: I'm comfortable with core 5 + profiles. On conformance and test, I'm ok going without the test cases, but am a little concerned that the test format, etc. has not been widely reviewed or exercised. Approving tests will help that. I will go with group view of Conf&Test [ Scribe Assist by Mike Smith ] ←
13:30:55 <bmotik> bmotik: We should just ship them
Boris Motik: We should just ship them ←
13:31:07 <IanH> ack msmith
Ian Horrocks: ack msmith ←
13:31:12 <bmotik> msmith: I am OK with the core 5 and the Profiles
Mike Smith: I am OK with the core 5 and the Profiles ←
13:31:36 <bmotik> msmith: I am fine with the Test document without some test cases, but I share Bernardo's concern with some sections be empty
Mike Smith: I am fine with the Test document without some test cases, but I share Bernardo's concern with some sections be empty ←
13:31:57 <bmotik> msmith: If we move forward, the test format should be subject to change
Mike Smith: If we move forward, the test format should be subject to change ←
13:32:26 <bmotik> ianh: I am happy with the first 5, I also think we should go with the Profiles, I am on the fence regarding Confomance
Ian Horrocks: I am happy with the first 5, I also think we should go with the Profiles, I am on the fence regarding Confomance ←
13:32:44 <bmotik> ianh: The test cases are missing to a certain extent
Ian Horrocks: The test cases are missing to a certain extent ←
13:32:55 <msmith> q+
Mike Smith: q+ ←
13:33:00 <bmotik> ianh: I could go with it if other want to
Ian Horrocks: I could go with it if other want to ←
13:33:09 <bmotik> ivan: LC means that we don't have a design issue open
Ivan Herman: LC means that we don't have a design issue open ←
13:33:19 <bmotik> ivan: This is what we have in our case
Ivan Herman: This is what we have in our case ←
13:33:39 <bmotik> sandro: The Conformance part is OK; it's the tests
Sandro Hawke: The Conformance part is OK; it's the tests ←
13:33:50 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
13:33:53 <bmotik> alanr: We might want to split Test and Conformance
Alan Ruttenberg: We might want to split Test and Conformance ←
13:34:08 <bmotik> bijan: If we were to split them, then tests should not be a REC document
Bijan Parsia: If we were to split them, then tests should not be a REC document ←
13:34:43 <bmotik> bijan: msmith, could you get it ready by the end of November?
Bijan Parsia: msmith, could you get it ready by the end of November? ←
13:34:45 <IanH> ack msmith
Ian Horrocks: ack msmith ←
13:34:48 <ivan> ack msmith
Ivan Herman: ack msmith ←
13:34:52 <bmotik> msmith: The end of November yeah
Mike Smith: The end of November yeah ←
13:34:57 <bmotik> msmith: That should not be a problem
Mike Smith: That should not be a problem ←
13:35:52 <bmotik> ivan: Why do we have to have the Conformance and Test Case in the format we have?
Ivan Herman: Why do we have to have the Conformance and Test Case in the format we have? ←
13:36:32 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
13:36:46 <bmotik> ivan: Can we move the tests outside of the T&C document and just insert a pointer to the test suite into the Conformance document?
Ivan Herman: Can we move the tests outside of the T&C document and just insert a pointer to the test suite into the Conformance document? ←
13:37:18 <bmotik> ianh: Can we at least decide about the first 5?
Ian Horrocks: Can we at least decide about the first 5? ←
13:37:27 <sandro> PROPOSED: Publish "Syntax", "Direct Semantics", "RDF-Based Semantics", "Mapping to RDF Graphs", and "XML Serialization" as LAST CALL Working Drafts, after already-agreed-upon changes have been made and some editial cleanup (and checked by previous reviewers)
PROPOSED: Publish "Syntax", "Direct Semantics", "RDF-Based Semantics", "Mapping to RDF Graphs", and "XML Serialization" as LAST CALL Working Drafts, after already-agreed-upon changes have been made and some editial cleanup (and checked by previous reviewers) ←
13:37:29 <bmotik> mschnei: RDF-Based Semantics is not ready
Michael Schneider: RDF-Based Semantics is not ready ←
13:39:07 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
13:40:14 <bmotik> bijan: If we can't go with the 5, does this mean we'd delay LC?
Bijan Parsia: If we can't go with the 5, does this mean we'd delay LC? ←
13:40:18 <bmotik> ivan: Yes
Ivan Herman: Yes ←
13:40:24 <bmotik> ianh: What is not ready?
Ian Horrocks: What is not ready? ←
13:40:33 <bmotik> mschnei: I am not sure whether it is OK
Michael Schneider: I am not sure whether it is OK ←
13:40:51 <sandro> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2008AprJun/0066.html Publication moratoria for second half of 2008 (23 December - 1 Jan === no pubs)
Sandro Hawke: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2008AprJun/0066.html Publication moratoria for second half of 2008 (23 December - 1 Jan === no pubs) ←
13:40:59 <bmotik> ianh: Could we do it in the way it was suggested for Profiles?
Ian Horrocks: Could we do it in the way it was suggested for Profiles? ←
13:41:12 <bmotik> alanr: What are our expectations for the review?
Alan Ruttenberg: What are our expectations for the review? ←
13:41:40 <bmotik> alanr: If we did go to LC, we shouldn't make it short because this will include the Christmas period
Alan Ruttenberg: If we did go to LC, we shouldn't make it short because this will include the Christmas period ←
13:42:04 <bmotik> bijan: By doing it before Christmas, we would have a lonver LC period
Bijan Parsia: By doing it before Christmas, we would have a lonver LC period ←
13:42:33 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
13:42:33 <bmotik> bijan: I favor a longer review period but also geting a move on it so that we have time for a new cycle
Bijan Parsia: I favor a longer review period but also geting a move on it so that we have time for a new cycle ←
13:43:07 <bmotik> sandro: The idea that Profiles and the RDF-Based Semantics follow shortly shouldn't be too big a deal
Sandro Hawke: The idea that Profiles and the RDF-Based Semantics follow shortly shouldn't be too big a deal ←
13:43:33 <bmotik> bernardo: Is it not important that an RDF-Based Semantics will be going to LC in the near future?
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Is it not important that an RDF-Based Semantics will be going to LC in the near future? ←
13:43:54 <bmotik> bijan: We might release a working draft with the core 4 LC documents
Bijan Parsia: We might release a working draft with the core 4 LC documents ←
13:43:59 <bmotik> pfps: I agree with Bijan
Peter Patel-Schneider: I agree with Bijan ←
13:44:27 <bmotik> alanr: It is hard for me to see that the RDF community be offended by publishing the RDF-Based Semantics slightly later
Alan Ruttenberg: It is hard for me to see that the RDF community be offended by publishing the RDF-Based Semantics slightly later ←
13:44:57 <bmotik> mschnei: The core 4 documents came from a Member Submission, while work on the Full document only started in the WG, so this can be taken as an excuse
Michael Schneider: The core 4 documents came from a Member Submission, while work on the Full document only started in the WG, so this can be taken as an excuse ←
13:45:11 <bmotik> ianh: I'm hearing now a fairly general consensus
Ian Horrocks: I'm hearing now a fairly general consensus ←
13:45:20 <bmotik> ivan: I will not lie in the road
Ivan Herman: I will not lie in the road ←
13:45:22 <sandro> PROPOSED: Publish "Syntax", "Direct Semantics", "Mapping to RDF Graphs", and "XML Serialization" as LAST CALL Working Drafts, after already-agreed-upon changes have been made and some editial cleanup (and checked by previous reviewers)
PROPOSED: Publish "Syntax", "Direct Semantics", "Mapping to RDF Graphs", and "XML Serialization" as LAST CALL Working Drafts, after already-agreed-upon changes have been made and some editial cleanup (and checked by previous reviewers) ←
13:46:27 <sandro> PROPOSED: Publish "Syntax", "Direct Semantics", "Mapping to RDF Graphs", and "XML Serialization" as LAST CALL Working Drafts, after already-agreed-upon changes have been made and some editial cleanup (and checked by previous reviewers). Target publication date December 1.
PROPOSED: Publish "Syntax", "Direct Semantics", "Mapping to RDF Graphs", and "XML Serialization" as LAST CALL Working Drafts, after already-agreed-upon changes have been made and some editial cleanup (and checked by previous reviewers). Target publication date December 1. ←
13:46:43 <bmotik> +1
+1 ←
13:46:46 <ivan> 1
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
13:46:46 <bernardo> +1
13:46:46 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
13:46:55 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
13:47:03 <Rinke> +1 (UvA)
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 (UvA) ←
13:47:08 <sandro> +1 (W3C)
Sandro Hawke: +1 (W3C) ←
13:47:09 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
Markus Krötzsch: +1 (FZI) ←
13:47:16 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
13:47:18 <Christine> +1 (uvsq)
Christine Golbreich: +1 (uvsq) ←
13:47:19 <bijan> +1 (Manchester)
Bijan Parsia: +1 (Manchester) ←
13:47:20 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM) ←
13:47:20 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons)
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (Science Commons) ←
13:47:20 <wallace> +1 (NIST)
Evan Wallace: +1 (NIST) ←
13:47:21 <msmith> +1 (C&P)
Mike Smith: +1 (C&P) ←
13:47:24 <IanH> +1 (Oxford)
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford) ←
13:47:41 <baojie> +1 (RPI)
13:47:53 <alanr> +1 for baojie :)
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 for baojie :) ←
13:47:55 <bmotik> RESOLVED: Publish "Syntax", "Direct Semantics", "Mapping to RDF Graphs", and "XML Serialization" as LAST CALL Working Drafts, after already-agreed-upon changes have been made and some editial cleanup (and checked by previous reviewers). Target publication date December 1.
RESOLVED: Publish "Syntax", "Direct Semantics", "Mapping to RDF Graphs", and "XML Serialization" as LAST CALL Working Drafts, after already-agreed-upon changes have been made and some editial cleanup (and checked by previous reviewers). Target publication date December 1. ←
13:47:58 <pfps> zakim, who is on the phone?
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
13:47:58 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B, msmith, baojie, Zhe (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B, msmith, baojie, Zhe (muted) ←
13:49:06 <bmotik> PROPOSED: Publish a Working Draft for the "RDF-Based Semantics" simultaneously (December 1)
PROPOSED: Publish a Working Draft for the "RDF-Based Semantics" simultaneously (December 1) ←
13:49:20 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
13:49:23 <ivan> 1 (W3C)
Ivan Herman: 1 (W3C) ←
13:49:24 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
Markus Krötzsch: +1 (FZI) ←
13:49:25 <Rinke> +1 (UvA)
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 (UvA) ←
13:49:26 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
13:49:27 <alanr> + (Science Commons)
Alan Ruttenberg: + (Science Commons) ←
13:49:29 <baojie> +1 (RPI)
13:49:31 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
+1 (Oxford) ←
13:49:34 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM) ←
13:49:36 <ivan> +1 (W3C)
Ivan Herman: +1 (W3C) ←
13:49:37 <Christine> +1(uvsq)
Christine Golbreich: +1(uvsq) ←
13:49:43 <bijan> +1 (Manchester)
Bijan Parsia: +1 (Manchester) ←
13:49:54 <msmith> +1 (C&P)
Mike Smith: +1 (C&P) ←
13:49:55 <wallace> +1 (NIST)
Evan Wallace: +1 (NIST) ←
13:50:01 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons)
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (Science Commons) ←
13:50:33 <sandro> RESOLVED: Publish a Working Draft for the "RDF-Based Semantics" simultaneously (December 1)
RESOLVED: Publish a Working Draft for the "RDF-Based Semantics" simultaneously (December 1) ←
13:50:57 <Zhe> sure
13:51:07 <Zhe> claps remotely
13:51:16 <sandro> sandro: Huge Congratulations Everyone!
Sandro Hawke: Huge Congratulations Everyone! [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
13:51:21 <sandro> topic: break
13:51:39 <Zakim> -Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: -Zhe ←
13:51:50 <Zakim> -msmith
Zakim IRC Bot: -msmith ←
14:14:53 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
(No events recorded for 23 minutes)
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
14:14:53 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B, baojie
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B, baojie ←
14:14:54 <Zakim> On IRC I see schneid, Christine, sandro, bernardo, MarkusK_, ivan, wallace, IanH, alanr, msmith, Achille, bijan, pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, Zhe, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see schneid, Christine, sandro, bernardo, MarkusK_, ivan, wallace, IanH, alanr, msmith, Achille, bijan, pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, Zhe, trackbot ←
14:16:46 <Zakim> +msmith
Zakim IRC Bot: +msmith ←
14:16:51 <IanH> About to start again.
Ian Horrocks: About to start again. ←
14:17:18 <ivan> scribenick: ivan
(Scribe set to Ivan Herman)
14:18:12 <ivan> IanH: it seemed that most people thought the profile was ready, but alan did not
Ian Horrocks: it seemed that most people thought the profile was ready, but alan did not ←
14:18:21 <ivan> alanr: and ivan wanted to know why
Alan Ruttenberg: and ivan wanted to know why ←
14:18:49 <ivan> alanr: the datatype reasoning support is a problem, a rule is there to generate all distinct literals
Alan Ruttenberg: the datatype reasoning support is a problem, a rule is there to generate all distinct literals ←
14:18:57 <ivan> ... it is not practical
... it is not practical ←
14:19:05 <ivan> ... we could discuss that in some notes
... we could discuss that in some notes ←
14:19:12 <ivan> ... but it looks like a big hole
... but it looks like a big hole ←
14:19:32 <ivan> ... maybe we can discuss by reducing expressibility and make it more practical
... maybe we can discuss by reducing expressibility and make it more practical ←
14:19:53 <ivan> ... it adds n^2 literals
... it adds n^2 literals ←
14:20:15 <bernardo> +q
14:20:16 <ivan> ... if you have a million labels it adds million^2 labeles
... if you have a million labels it adds million^2 labeles ←
14:20:49 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
14:20:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B, baojie, msmith
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B, baojie, msmith ←
14:20:50 <Zakim> On IRC I see baojie, Rinke, dlmcg1, schneid, Christine, sandro, bernardo, MarkusK_, ivan, wallace, IanH, alanr, msmith, Achille, bijan, pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, Zhe, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see baojie, Rinke, dlmcg1, schneid, Christine, sandro, bernardo, MarkusK_, ivan, wallace, IanH, alanr, msmith, Achille, bijan, pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, Zhe, trackbot ←
14:20:56 <ivan> ... the general tention we have in the document between being logic specificity and implementation guideliness
... the general tention we have in the document between being logic specificity and implementation guideliness ←
14:20:56 <ivan> ... i try toe present that to be more conformatable
... i try toe present that to be more conformatable ←
14:20:56 <pfps> q+
14:21:04 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:21:13 <ivan> ... the target audience for this are those who are not sophisticated developers
... the target audience for this are those who are not sophisticated developers ←
14:21:29 <ivan> ... and we already have the statement that this will be implemented literaly
... and we already have the statement that this will be implemented literaly ←
14:21:47 <IanH> ack bernardo
Ian Horrocks: ack bernardo ←
14:22:09 <ivan> bernardo: the fact we have a langugage means that this language can be implementable nicely
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: the fact we have a langugage means that this language can be implementable nicely ←
14:22:22 <ivan> ... but the rules do not necessarily means that people will implement there
... but the rules do not necessarily means that people will implement there ←
14:22:29 <Zakim> +Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: +Zhe ←
14:22:38 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:22:41 <ivan> ... the guidelines tell you what kind of reasoning can be done\
... the guidelines tell you what kind of reasoning can be done\ ←
14:22:47 <ivan> ... it can be implemented this way and it will be o.k.
... it can be implemented this way and it will be o.k. ←
14:22:58 <ivan> .... if you find an implementation that is better that is fine
.... if you find an implementation that is better that is fine ←
14:23:18 <ivan> pfps: I do not see any problem with the current status
Peter Patel-Schneider: I do not see any problem with the current status ←
14:23:23 <ivan> ... it is a specification how the language works
... it is a specification how the language works ←
14:23:33 <ivan> ... we do not have a proposed solution how to fix this
... we do not have a proposed solution how to fix this ←
14:23:37 <ivan> ... it is done!
... it is done! ←
14:23:55 <ivan> sandro: somebody made a rif implementation of owl-rl
Sandro Hawke: somebody made a rif implementation of owl-rl ←
14:24:07 <ivan> ... i would expect that would be blessed to some degree by either rif or the owl working group
... i would expect that would be blessed to some degree by either rif or the owl working group ←
14:24:16 <ivan> ... david raynolds did that the last few weeks
... david raynolds did that the last few weeks ←
14:24:28 <ivan> ... he had problems with the datatypes
... he had problems with the datatypes ←
14:24:54 <ivan> ... he made a rif file that can be loaded into a rif processor
... he made a rif file that can be loaded into a rif processor ←
14:25:09 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:25:20 <ivan> bijan: follow up on bernardo's point, those seem to be an obvious inefficiency
Bijan Parsia: follow up on bernardo's point, those seem to be an obvious inefficiency ←
14:25:45 <ivan> ... a naive reaonser will go into trouble
... a naive reaonser will go into trouble ←
14:26:01 <ivan> ... a backward chaining engine would not have a trouble as it stands
... a backward chaining engine would not have a trouble as it stands ←
14:26:14 <ivan> ... some forward chaining rules would not either
... some forward chaining rules would not either ←
14:26:34 <ivan> ... the implementors are at least as sophisticated as the ones who have done rdfs reasoners
... the implementors are at least as sophisticated as the ones who have done rdfs reasoners ←
14:26:53 <ivan> .... the target base is sophisticated enough to take the spec and adapt it for themselves
.... the target base is sophisticated enough to take the spec and adapt it for themselves ←
14:27:27 <ivan> michael: we had the same discussion this morning, it is always the same
Michael Schneider: we had the same discussion this morning, it is always the same ←
14:27:28 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:27:40 <ivan> ... we can get a lot of stuff with these kinds of rules
... we can get a lot of stuff with these kinds of rules ←
14:27:54 <ivan> ... it is not necessary to do that and it is not hard to implement
... it is not necessary to do that and it is not hard to implement ←
14:28:01 <pfps> Resolution of ISSUE 149 is by adding rules that axiomatise built-in entities (Thing, Nothing, etc) along with a new subsection that discusses how implementations could be optimised to deal with rules that potentially introduce large numbers of triples
Peter Patel-Schneider: Resolution of ISSUE-149 is by adding rules that axiomatise built-in entities (Thing, Nothing, etc) along with a new subsection that discusses how implementations could be optimised to deal with rules that potentially introduce large numbers of triples ←
14:28:06 <sandro> michael: The problem is always the same -- there are naive ways to apply the rules that will cause big problems, but there are also smarter ways to do it.
Michael Schneider: The problem is always the same -- there are naive ways to apply the rules that will cause big problems, but there are also smarter ways to do it. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:28:37 <bernardo> +q
14:28:53 <pfps> q-
14:29:05 <IanH> ivan: 2 practical experiences
Ivan Herman: 2 practical experiences [ Scribe Assist by Ian Horrocks ] ←
14:29:32 <IanH> ... I have a naive implementation, and yes it will have issues Alan describes
Ian Horrocks: ... I have a naive implementation, and yes it will have issues Alan describes ←
14:29:50 <IanH> ... but if I had a million triples I wouldn't try to use it
Ian Horrocks: ... but if I had a million triples I wouldn't try to use it ←
14:30:10 <alanr> trillion triple
Alan Ruttenberg: trillion triple ←
14:30:23 <IanH> ... I talked to Ontotext and Franz inc and they told me that they built into their query language
Ian Horrocks: ... I talked to Ontotext and Franz inc and they told me that they built into their query language ←
14:30:45 <IanH> ... a whole separate part to handle literals
Ian Horrocks: ... a whole separate part to handle literals ←
14:31:00 <alanr> http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=define%3Abillion&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=define%3Abillion&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 ←
14:31:00 <IanH> ... and they don't care too much about adding triples
Ian Horrocks: ... and they don't care too much about adding triples ←
14:31:13 <IanH> ... So, I'm not convinced we have a problem.
Ian Horrocks: ... So, I'm not convinced we have a problem. ←
14:31:18 <alanr> There is disparity in def of billion
Alan Ruttenberg: There is disparity in def of billion ←
14:31:53 <ivan> alanr: i hear what people saying, i think there is still an issue of presentation
Alan Ruttenberg: i hear what people saying, i think there is still an issue of presentation ←
14:32:03 <ivan> ... it needs a little bit more time to deal with that
... it needs a little bit more time to deal with that ←
14:32:03 <bernardo> -q
14:33:23 <ivan> alanr: i was not here for the issue of 149, what it needs is a bit more than that
Alan Ruttenberg: i was not here for the issue of 149, what it needs is a bit more than that ←
14:33:52 <ivan> bijan: first this does not sound like a last call blocker
Bijan Parsia: first this does not sound like a last call blocker ←
14:33:59 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:34:09 <ivan> ... before we do that such a text if it is expanded may be overtaken by events
... before we do that such a text if it is expanded may be overtaken by events ←
14:34:20 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:34:35 <ivan> ... i do not see why this should be in the document
... i do not see why this should be in the document ←
14:34:57 <ivan> alanr: if you recall one of the issues was that it cannot be read by the target audience
Alan Ruttenberg: if you recall one of the issues was that it cannot be read by the target audience ←
14:35:21 <ivan> ... my confort zone was to help that audience, something that is helpful
... my confort zone was to help that audience, something that is helpful ←
14:35:35 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:36:37 <Zhe> q+
14:36:48 <Zhe> zakim, unmute me
14:36:48 <Zakim> Zhe was not muted, Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: Zhe was not muted, Zhe ←
14:36:51 <ivan> bernardo: is alan o.k. if we add some text saying that if this is implemented in naive way that can be inefficient, but giving some pointers
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: is alan o.k. if we add some text saying that if this is implemented in naive way that can be inefficient, but giving some pointers ←
14:36:59 <ivan> alanr: fine
Alan Ruttenberg: fine ←
14:37:35 <ivan> Zhe: i think alan and I and a few other people exchanged a bunch emails, i do not think there is a big problem with the document, and i am o.k. this to go to last call
Zhe Wu: i think alan and I and a few other people exchanged a bunch emails, i do not think there is a big problem with the document, and i am o.k. this to go to last call ←
14:37:59 <ivan> ... previously i was thinking to make the the rule set fool proof so that anybody could do an efficient implementation
... previously i was thinking to make the the rule set fool proof so that anybody could do an efficient implementation ←
14:38:09 <ivan> ... but i realized gradually that this is not possible
... but i realized gradually that this is not possible ←
14:38:20 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:38:25 <ivan> ... so i realize that some more should be done, and those additional are not too bad
... so i realize that some more should be done, and those additional are not too bad ←
14:38:29 <bijan> +1 Zhe
Bijan Parsia: +1 Zhe ←
14:38:49 <schneid> not extremely more smart, a /bit/ more smart already will bring you a lot further, I guess
Michael Schneider: not extremely more smart, a /bit/ more smart already will bring you a lot further, I guess ←
14:38:51 <IanH> ack Zhe
Ian Horrocks: ack Zhe ←
14:39:01 <ivan> PROPOSED: Profile document goes to Las Call at the same time as the others (Dec 1)
PROPOSED: Profile document goes to Las Call at the same time as the others (Dec 1) ←
14:39:06 <ivan> s/Las/Last/
s/Las/Last/ ←
14:39:08 <bijan> It really depends on a lot of factors, e.g., data set, rule engine etc.
Bijan Parsia: It really depends on a lot of factors, e.g., data set, rule engine etc. ←
14:39:08 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM) ←
14:39:12 <ivan> 1 (W3C)
1 (W3C) ←
14:39:13 <bijan> +1 (Manchester)
Bijan Parsia: +1 (Manchester) ←
14:39:13 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
Markus Krötzsch: +1 (FZI) ←
14:39:15 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
14:39:18 <Rinke> +1 (UvA)
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 (UvA) ←
14:39:20 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
14:39:21 <baojie> +1 (RPI)
14:39:21 <bernardo> +1 (Oxford)
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1 (Oxford) ←
14:39:22 <ivan> +1 (W3C)
+1 (W3C) ←
14:39:24 <Christine> +1 (uvsq)
Christine Golbreich: +1 (uvsq) ←
14:39:33 <alanr> 0 (Science Commons)
Alan Ruttenberg: 0 (Science Commons) ←
14:39:34 <msmith> +1 (C&P)
Mike Smith: +1 (C&P) ←
14:39:44 <wallace> +1 (NIST)
Evan Wallace: +1 (NIST) ←
14:39:58 <ivan> RESOLUTION: Profile document goes to LasT Call at the same time as the others (Dec 1)
RESOLVED: Profile document goes to LasT Call at the same time as the others (Dec 1) ←
14:40:15 <ivan> IanH: conformance and test cases then?
Ian Horrocks: conformance and test cases then? ←
14:41:08 <ivan> IanH: what is our feeling?
Ian Horrocks: what is our feeling? ←
14:41:25 <ivan> MarkusK_: we had some discussions and the problems are with the test cases
Markus Krötzsch: we had some discussions and the problems are with the test cases ←
14:41:45 <ivan> ... the general idea is that this should be a description of the test case framework and schemas rathre than listing the cases
... the general idea is that this should be a description of the test case framework and schemas rathre than listing the cases ←
14:42:03 <ivan> ... it is also desirable to align with the rif group who is working on their schemas
... it is also desirable to align with the rif group who is working on their schemas ←
14:42:05 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:42:26 <ivan> ... the proposal is that I would contact them to see what the final shape of the document should be, and finish that before the end of the year
... the proposal is that I would contact them to see what the final shape of the document should be, and finish that before the end of the year ←
14:42:38 <ivan> IanH: would that be a dependency on rif
Ian Horrocks: would that be a dependency on rif ←
14:42:45 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:42:55 <ivan> MarkusK_: no it is just informal, they already use much of the scema part that we also use this
Markus Krötzsch: no it is just informal, they already use much of the scema part that we also use this ←
14:43:04 <ivan> ... it should be easy to align that further
... it should be easy to align that further ←
14:43:27 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:43:29 <ivan> sandro: just having more faith that the stuff is correct is good
Sandro Hawke: just having more faith that the stuff is correct is good ←
14:43:40 <ivan> bijan: are we ready to sollicit test cases?
Bijan Parsia: are we ready to sollicit test cases? ←
14:43:55 <ivan> ... i was hoping to ask the owled people for new tests
... i was hoping to ask the owled people for new tests ←
14:43:59 <ivan> MarkusK_: yes
Markus Krötzsch: yes ←
14:44:02 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:44:10 <ivan> bijan: if that ready than I think it is ready to go last call
Bijan Parsia: if that ready than I think it is ready to go last call ←
14:44:44 <ivan> IanH: can you formulate a proposal we can vote on?
Ian Horrocks: can you formulate a proposal we can vote on? ←
14:45:01 <ivan> MarkusK_: on submitting people should not send email, I will set up a form based site
Markus Krötzsch: on submitting people should not send email, I will set up a form based site ←
14:45:14 <sandro> sandro: not that the wiki format is separate from what we're publishing, so submitting is a different question.
Sandro Hawke: not that the wiki format is separate from what we're publishing, so submitting is a different question. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:45:19 <ivan> ... we can have a site where people can submit things and taht it
... we can have a site where people can submit things and taht it ←
14:45:38 <ivan> MarkusK_: the changes we have to do and editorial things, there are no fundamental changes
Markus Krötzsch: the changes we have to do and editorial things, there are no fundamental changes ←
14:46:13 <ivan> sandro: we will change things (uris) that might break software
Sandro Hawke: we will change things (uris) that might break software ←
14:46:15 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:46:15 <msmith> We expect to change these things before end of Nov
Mike Smith: We expect to change these things before end of Nov ←
14:46:19 <ivan> ... that is not really good for last call
... that is not really good for last call ←
14:46:23 <msmith> q+
Mike Smith: q+ ←
14:47:08 <ivan> MarkusK_: it might still change before last call, but we can sollicit test cases
Markus Krötzsch: it might still change before last call, but we can sollicit test cases ←
14:47:17 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:47:27 <IanH> ack msmith
Ian Horrocks: ack msmith ←
14:48:08 <ivan> msmith: agree with MarkusK_, i have already written some software to get tests from the site
Mike Smith: agree with MarkusK_, i have already written some software to get tests from the site ←
14:48:17 <sandro> Sandro: So after Last Call of Test Cases, I wouldn't want the test-case-format spec to change, although maybe that's too strict.
Sandro Hawke: So after Last Call of Test Cases, I wouldn't want the test-case-format spec to change, although maybe that's too strict. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:48:41 <ivan> PROPOSAL: move the Conf. and test cases to Last Call with the other documents (Dec 1)
PROPOSED: move the Conf. and test cases to Last Call with the other documents (Dec 1) ←
14:48:45 <msmith> the software that I've written pulls test case ontologies and does profile identification / alidation
Mike Smith: the software that I've written pulls test case ontologies and does profile identification / alidation ←
14:48:57 <msmith> s/alidation/validation/
Mike Smith: s/alidation/validation/ ←
14:50:22 <sandro> PROPOSED: If no new issues are found with it, and with changes already discussed, and some more hammering out of the test case format, we'll publish "Conformance and Test Case" with the other documents (target Dec 1).
PROPOSED: If no new issues are found with it, and with changes already discussed, and some more hammering out of the test case format, we'll publish "Conformance and Test Case" with the other documents (target Dec 1). ←
14:51:13 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
Markus Krötzsch: +1 (FZI) ←
14:51:14 <bernardo> +1 (oxford)
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1 (oxford) ←
14:51:14 <ivan> +1 (W3C)
+1 (W3C) ←
14:51:18 <baojie> +1 (RPI)
14:51:19 <msmith> +1 (C&P)
Mike Smith: +1 (C&P) ←
14:51:19 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
14:51:20 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons)
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (Science Commons) ←
14:51:21 <Rinke> +1 (UvA)
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 (UvA) ←
14:51:22 <Achille> 0 (IBM)
Achille Fokoue: 0 (IBM) ←
14:51:24 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
14:51:27 <Christine> +1 (uvsq)
Christine Golbreich: +1 (uvsq) ←
14:51:32 <bijan> +1 (Manchester)
Bijan Parsia: +1 (Manchester) ←
14:51:37 <wallace> +1 (NIST)
Evan Wallace: +1 (NIST) ←
14:51:55 <ivan> RESOLUTION: If no new issues are found with it, and with changes already discussed, and some more hammering out of the test case format, we'll publish "Conformance and Test Case" with the other documents (target Dec 1).
RESOLVED: If no new issues are found with it, and with changes already discussed, and some more hammering out of the test case format, we'll publish "Conformance and Test Case" with the other documents (target Dec 1). ←
14:51:57 <MarkusK_> ACTION: Markus to align OWL test case suite with RIF efforts, and to make required editorial changes to test part of "Conformance and Test Cases"
ACTION: Markus to align OWL test case suite with RIF efforts, and to make required editorial changes to test part of "Conformance and Test Cases" ←
14:51:57 <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Markus
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Markus ←
14:51:57 <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. mkrtzsch, mstocker)
Trackbot IRC Bot: Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. mkrtzsch, mstocker) ←
14:52:24 <MarkusK_> ACTION: mkrtzsch to align OWL test case suite with RIF efforts, and to make required editorial changes to test part of "Conformance and Test Cases"
ACTION: mkrtzsch to align OWL test case suite with RIF efforts, and to make required editorial changes to test part of "Conformance and Test Cases" ←
14:52:24 <trackbot> Created ACTION-239 - Align OWL test case suite with RIF efforts, and to make required editorial changes to test part of \"Conformance and Test Cases\" [on Markus Krötzsch - due 2008-10-31].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-239 - Align OWL test case suite with RIF efforts, and to make required editorial changes to test part of \"Conformance and Test Cases\" [on Markus Krötzsch - due 2008-10-31]. ←
14:52:38 <ivan> Topic: other documents
14:53:45 <baojie> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Oct/0160.html
Jie Bao: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Oct/0160.html ←
14:53:56 <baojie> Jim's email on UCR
14:54:12 <ivan> alanr: requirements document?
Alan Ruttenberg: requirements document? ←
14:54:29 <ivan> ... what issues remain, what the roadmap is
... what issues remain, what the roadmap is ←
14:54:38 <ivan> ... reviews and workplans are on the table
... reviews and workplans are on the table ←
14:54:56 <ivan> ... maybe people who have opinions to speak up now
... maybe people who have opinions to speak up now ←
14:55:22 <ivan> ... we are heading for first public working draft and then issue is rec track
... we are heading for first public working draft and then issue is rec track ←
14:56:03 <bijan> Rinke's email: <http://www.w3.org/mid/E0A843E0-0F42-4470-9D22-499AC129DA8B@uva.nl>
Bijan Parsia: Rinke's email: <http://www.w3.org/mid/E0A843E0-0F42-4470-9D22-499AC129DA8B@uva.nl> ←
14:56:21 <ivan> Rinke: i think the use cases should be in there, but section 5 is the core of the document
Rinke Hoekstra: i think the use cases should be in there, but section 5 is the core of the document ←
14:56:38 <ivan> ... the idea would be to move the use cases in the appendix and refer to that from the core
... the idea would be to move the use cases in the appendix and refer to that from the core ←
14:56:50 <ivan> ... also remove the domain dependence of the use cases
... also remove the domain dependence of the use cases ←
14:57:02 <ivan> .... they should not be so clearly bound to a domain
.... they should not be so clearly bound to a domain ←
14:57:31 <ivan> Christine: i just agree with bijan's and Rinke's proposal
Christine Golbreich: i just agree with bijan's and Rinke's proposal ←
14:57:40 <ivan> ... and to put the use cases in the appendix
... and to put the use cases in the appendix ←
14:58:07 <ivan> ... I only implemented the decision of the user facing document group who asked to make those three documents
... I only implemented the decision of the user facing document group who asked to make those three documents ←
14:58:24 <ivan> ... I am o.k. to keep the features, this is the core of the document
... I am o.k. to keep the features, this is the core of the document ←
14:58:43 <ivan> ... it is important to have a human facing part that describe all the new features
... it is important to have a human facing part that describe all the new features ←
14:58:43 <Zhe> q+
14:59:00 <ivan> ... all these are editorial changes only
... all these are editorial changes only ←
14:59:21 <ivan> ... I can also remove the domain aspects,
... I can also remove the domain aspects, ←
14:59:38 <ivan> ... for each feature there is a 'tag' to assign them to domains
... for each feature there is a 'tag' to assign them to domains ←
15:00:28 <ivan> alanr: rinke was also suggesting if you read 3.10, there is lot of text on clinical trials, hcls, etc
Alan Ruttenberg: rinke was also suggesting if you read 3.10, there is lot of text on clinical trials, hcls, etc ←
15:00:54 <ivan> ... i thought that the proposal was to remove thos specific case and, in some cases, add text from other areas
... i thought that the proposal was to remove thos specific case and, in some cases, add text from other areas ←
15:01:02 <ivan> ... christine, what do you think about that?
... christine, what do you think about that? ←
15:01:39 <ivan> Christine: I would cut the use cases section, put it somewhere, if somebody want to work on the formulation, that is fine
Christine Golbreich: I would cut the use cases section, put it somewhere, if somebody want to work on the formulation, that is fine ←
15:02:02 <ivan> ... but i would like to have only editorial chagnes
... but i would like to have only editorial chagnes ←
15:02:22 <ivan> ... I would prefer to keep the text like it, only editorial information
... I would prefer to keep the text like it, only editorial information ←
15:02:35 <ivan> ... I am o.k. to remove all that stuff
... I am o.k. to remove all that stuff ←
15:03:00 <ivan> ... if you go to the feature section, there are three buttons to stress the example, the implementation or the theoretical perspectives,
... if you go to the feature section, there are three buttons to stress the example, the implementation or the theoretical perspectives, ←
15:04:34 <ivan> wallace: I am confused because I read rinke's mail differently
Evan Wallace: I am confused because I read rinke's mail differently ←
15:04:48 <ivan> ... now I am confused
... now I am confused ←
15:05:01 <ivan> Rinke: my preference would be to have more general issues with those use cases
Rinke Hoekstra: my preference would be to have more general issues with those use cases ←
15:05:10 <ivan> ... but I am o.k. with a more superficial changes
... but I am o.k. with a more superficial changes ←
15:05:32 <ivan> wallace: I think what rinke suggests is a good way to go
Evan Wallace: I think what rinke suggests is a good way to go ←
15:05:46 <ivan> ... I understood the idea was the requirements to the features' sectioon
... I understood the idea was the requirements to the features' sectioon ←
15:06:09 <ivan> ... this looks like a nice way to go
... this looks like a nice way to go ←
15:06:23 <ivan> bijan: I like section 5, I am not sure to include the grammar
Bijan Parsia: I like section 5, I am not sure to include the grammar ←
15:07:05 <ivan> ... my idea roll sections 4 into 5, dump the rest
... my idea roll sections 4 into 5, dump the rest ←
15:07:32 <ivan> ... looking at the use cases i do not think that making them more abstract would be more helpful
... looking at the use cases i do not think that making them more abstract would be more helpful ←
15:07:58 <ivan> ... I have problem with the non changable status of the document
... I have problem with the non changable status of the document ←
15:08:10 <ivan> ... if I could change them later that would be o.k.
... if I could change them later that would be o.k. ←
15:08:25 <ivan> ... if we made it a placeholder for later
... if we made it a placeholder for later ←
15:08:31 <ivan> ... eg in the esw
... eg in the esw ←
15:08:35 <ivan> ... it could be viable
... it could be viable ←
15:09:11 <ivan> ... eg we discussed about updating the test cases beyond the group
... eg we discussed about updating the test cases beyond the group ←
15:09:21 <ivan> ... something similar could work
... something similar could work ←
15:09:32 <ivan> ... I like section 5 a lot
... I like section 5 a lot ←
15:10:08 <ivan> Achille: I like the features and requirements, initially I thought the use cases being too long, putting them in the appendix
Achille Fokoue: I like the features and requirements, initially I thought the use cases being too long, putting them in the appendix ←
15:10:22 <ivan> ... I like the ide of bijan to put it to a place where we can update it
... I like the ide of bijan to put it to a place where we can update it ←
15:10:39 <ivan> michael: making use cases more abstract would help you work
Michael Schneider: making use cases more abstract would help you work ←
15:10:55 <ivan> ... if at all, come up with new use cases in other domains
... if at all, come up with new use cases in other domains ←
15:11:06 <Zhe> alanr, can I say something?
Zhe Wu: alanr, can I say something? ←
15:11:08 <ivan> bernardo: agree with bijan
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: agree with bijan ←
15:11:41 <ivan> ... I am not such a need to update in a very abstract way
... I am not such a need to update in a very abstract way ←
15:11:48 <ivan> ... it is really difficult to make this explicit
... it is really difficult to make this explicit ←
15:12:06 <ivan> ... if we were to move that into a place where we could maintain them
... if we were to move that into a place where we could maintain them ←
15:12:11 <ivan> ... section 5 is the core of the document
... section 5 is the core of the document ←
15:13:16 <ivan> Zhe: I am in love with section 5, but it does not belong to a requirement document
Zhe Wu: I am in love with section 5, but it does not belong to a requirement document ←
15:13:39 <ivan> .... a requiement document should focus on use cases and the job is done
.... a requiement document should focus on use cases and the job is done ←
15:14:17 <ivan> IanH_: I am happy with the stage of the document
Ian Horrocks: I am happy with the stage of the document ←
15:14:39 <alanr> Ivan says:
Alan Ruttenberg: Ivan says: ←
15:14:52 <alanr> closest to opinion of Zhe
Alan Ruttenberg: closest to opinion of Zhe ←
15:15:13 <alanr> Use case and req are more for documenting the history
Alan Ruttenberg: Use case and req are more for documenting the history ←
15:15:19 <alanr> what stays long term is section 5
Alan Ruttenberg: what stays long term is section 5 ←
15:15:30 <alanr> Take section 5 as other document
Alan Ruttenberg: Take section 5 as other document ←
15:15:39 <alanr> suggestion: Take section 5 and merge with QRG
Alan Ruttenberg: suggestion: Take section 5 and merge with QRG ←
15:15:56 <baojie> +q
15:16:02 <alanr> That way there is one place to go for all parts of the language - overseeable good document to give people outside
Alan Ruttenberg: That way there is one place to go for all parts of the language - overseeable good document to give people outside ←
15:16:50 <alanr> q+ christine
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ christine ←
15:16:56 <ivan> bijan: to speak to the concern of the traditional requirement document, this is exactly the requirement we had
Bijan Parsia: to speak to the concern of the traditional requirement document, this is exactly the requirement we had ←
15:16:56 <ivan> ... it was enormously useful for the language
... it was enormously useful for the language ←
15:17:15 <ivan> ... this is not like the traditional U&R documents
... this is not like the traditional U&R documents ←
15:17:55 <ivan> (scribe was a bit lost)
(scribe was a bit lost) ←
15:18:17 <alanr> ack Zhe
Alan Ruttenberg: ack Zhe ←
15:18:22 <alanr> ack baojie
Alan Ruttenberg: ack baojie ←
15:18:37 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
15:18:40 <ivan> baojie: I love section 5, just rename the document to reflect design considerations
Jie Bao: I love section 5, just rename the document to reflect design considerations ←
15:18:44 <sandro> zhe: let's add "design rationale" as part of the title.
Zhe Wu: let's add "design rationale" as part of the title. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:18:59 <ivan> ... about ivan's document of merging it with the reference guide, i am not sure about that
... about ivan's document of merging it with the reference guide, i am not sure about that ←
15:19:02 <bijan> +1 to keeping separate from the requirements/rationales
Bijan Parsia: +1 to keeping separate from the requirements/rationales ←
15:19:21 <alanr> ack christine
Alan Ruttenberg: ack christine ←
15:19:23 <ivan> ... the quick reference guide has other goals
... the quick reference guide has other goals ←
15:19:30 <Zhe> section 5 is useful. however, it gets into design domain. maybe we can rename the document to "Requiremetns and Design Rationale"
Zhe Wu: section 5 is useful. however, it gets into design domain. maybe we can rename the document to "Requiremetns and Design Rationale" ←
15:19:39 <ivan> Christine: i think the name of the document are details to be agreed later
Christine Golbreich: i think the name of the document are details to be agreed later ←
15:20:02 <ivan> ... we have to agreed on the principle on this content to be working draft document and I just want to answer
... we have to agreed on the principle on this content to be working draft document and I just want to answer ←
15:20:27 <ivan> ... I agree it would be highly useful to have this section with the quick refernece guide
... I agree it would be highly useful to have this section with the quick refernece guide ←
15:20:42 <ivan> ... it would help to access the whole language and to caption of the new features
... it would help to access the whole language and to caption of the new features ←
15:21:01 <ivan> ... having the sue cases somewhere it would be useful, with links from the documents
... having the sue cases somewhere it would be useful, with links from the documents ←
15:21:23 <ivan> ... from the quick reference guide there will be links tot he spec, from the features to the use cases
... from the quick reference guide there will be links tot he spec, from the features to the use cases ←
15:21:25 <bijan> I'm confused...section 5 doesn't cover all of the language..so the quick reference guide can't really use it
Bijan Parsia: I'm confused...section 5 doesn't cover all of the language..so the quick reference guide can't really use it ←
15:21:44 <ivan> ... and I am not sure about the use cases to be updated
... and I am not sure about the use cases to be updated ←
15:21:48 <alanr> q+ Bijan
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ Bijan ←
15:21:59 <ivan> ... the used case give a requirement for the language, it has to be frozen at some point
... the used case give a requirement for the language, it has to be frozen at some point ←
15:22:12 <ivan> ... there is no reason to update the use cases
... there is no reason to update the use cases ←
15:22:27 <ivan> ... afaik a w3c has often a requirement section, that is frozen
... afaik a w3c has often a requirement section, that is frozen ←
15:23:42 <ivan> alanr: section 2 should be out, some people like use cases, could be good to move them elsewhere and slightly neutralize them
Alan Ruttenberg: section 2 should be out, some people like use cases, could be good to move them elsewhere and slightly neutralize them ←
15:23:59 <ivan> .... I have some doubts whether they would be updated
.... I have some doubts whether they would be updated ←
15:24:03 <ivan> bijan: there is a misunderstanding
Bijan Parsia: there is a misunderstanding ←
15:24:16 <ivan> ... this is not a requirement document for the language design
... this is not a requirement document for the language design ←
15:24:23 <ivan> ... it is a post facto rationalization
... it is a post facto rationalization ←
15:24:55 <ivan> ... what is the most useful thing this design gives? what is the design of the language? what is the use of owl and owl2
... what is the most useful thing this design gives? what is the design of the language? what is the use of owl and owl2 ←
15:25:12 <ivan> ... use cases can be expanded
... use cases can be expanded ←
15:25:33 <ivan> ... I do think that people come to see use cases to understand
... I do think that people come to see use cases to understand ←
15:26:07 <Zhe> q+
15:26:08 <ivan> ... if we give this a static thing this would be messing them up
... if we give this a static thing this would be messing them up ←
15:26:22 <sandro> bijan: I see this document as a way to explain OWL2 to users -- and we'll get better at that as time goes along. There's really no need for use cases.
Bijan Parsia: I see this document as a way to explain OWL2 to users -- and we'll get better at that as time goes along. There's really no need for use cases. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:26:27 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
15:26:30 <alanr> ack alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: ack alanr ←
15:26:33 <alanr> ack Bijan
Alan Ruttenberg: ack Bijan ←
15:26:41 <ivan> Zhe: bijan, do you object to rename the document
Zhe Wu: bijan, do you object to rename the document ←
15:26:44 <alanr> ack Zhe
Alan Ruttenberg: ack Zhe ←
15:26:48 <ivan> bijan: I do not care about the name
Bijan Parsia: I do not care about the name ←
15:27:07 <ivan> .... I am happy with anything, requirement and blablabla
.... I am happy with anything, requirement and blablabla ←
15:27:12 <sandro> bijan: I like "Features and Rationale" as the title.
Bijan Parsia: I like "Features and Rationale" as the title. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:27:17 <sandro> Christine: so do I.
Christine Golbreich: so do I. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:27:30 <sandro> alan: broad consensus that Section 5 is great content.
Alan Ruttenberg: broad consensus that Section 5 is great content. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:27:37 <Zhe> it is indeed great content!
Zhe Wu: it is indeed great content! ←
15:27:37 <sandro> alan: no support for users and applications
Alan Ruttenberg: no support for users and applications [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:27:37 <ivan> alanr: concensus on section 5 great content
Alan Ruttenberg: concensus on section 5 great content ←
15:27:47 <sandro> alan: some support for use cases -- as appendix
Alan Ruttenberg: some support for use cases -- as appendix [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:28:13 <ivan> alanr: the most contentious one is the question of use cases and where they go
Alan Ruttenberg: the most contentious one is the question of use cases and where they go ←
15:29:43 <ivan> alanr: a straw poll on on the fate of use cases (section 3): (1) get rid of them altogether, (2) put them in an appendix (3) put the use cases in some place where they may be updated
Alan Ruttenberg: a straw poll on on the fate of use cases (section 3): (1) get rid of them altogether, (2) put them in an appendix (3) put the use cases in some place where they may be updated ←
15:30:02 <ivan> (4) status quo
(4) status quo ←
15:30:08 <sandro> STRAWPOLL: For section 3 (use cases) -- 1== get rid of it 2==put them in an appendix 3== put them some place where they can be updated. 4==leave it as is
STRAWPOLL: For section 3 (use cases) -- 1== get rid of it 2==put them in an appendix 3== put them some place where they can be updated. 4==leave it as is ←
15:30:21 <Rinke> 3
Rinke Hoekstra: 3 ←
15:30:24 <bernardo> 3
15:30:30 <bijan> 3
Bijan Parsia: 3 ←
15:30:32 <baojie> 2
15:30:35 <Zhe> 4 and 2
15:30:41 <schneid> 0
15:30:49 <msmith> 0 (abstain)
Mike Smith: 0 (abstain) ←
15:30:51 <MarkusK_> 0
Markus Krötzsch: 0 ←
15:30:52 <Christine> 2
15:30:55 <sandro> 2, 4
Sandro Hawke: 2, 4 ←
15:31:03 <wallace> 3
Evan Wallace: 3 ←
15:31:05 <pfps> four
Peter Patel-Schneider: four ←
15:31:08 <ivan> 2
2 ←
15:31:11 <alanr> 2
Alan Ruttenberg: 2 ←
15:31:24 <IanH_> 4, 3
Ian Horrocks: 4, 3 ←
15:31:38 <sandro> quatre?
Sandro Hawke: quatre? ←
15:31:50 <ivan> Christine: in the description of each feature ther eis a list of use cases, it is supposed to have links to link use cases
Christine Golbreich: in the description of each feature ther eis a list of use cases, it is supposed to have links to link use cases ←
15:33:34 <ivan> four 3-s, five 2-s, four 4-s,
four 3-s, five 2-s, four 4-s, ←
15:33:45 <sandro> for 2: baojie Christine sandro ivan alanr
Sandro Hawke: for 2: baojie Christine sandro ivan alanr ←
15:33:45 <sandro> for 3: Rinke bernardo bijan wallace
Sandro Hawke: for 3: Rinke bernardo bijan wallace ←
15:33:45 <sandro> for 4: Zhe pfps IanH
Sandro Hawke: for 4: Zhe pfps IanH ←
15:33:53 <ivan> winer is probably 2,
winer is probably 2, ←
15:34:01 <Zhe> I can switch to 2, and 4 if that makes things better
Zhe Wu: I can switch to 2, and 4 if that makes things better ←
15:34:43 <ivan> alanr: what would people say if 3 is not accepted
Alan Ruttenberg: what would people say if 3 is not accepted ←
15:34:47 <ivan> bijan: my backup is 1
Bijan Parsia: my backup is 1 ←
15:35:02 <ivan> alanr: majority would probably go to 2
Alan Ruttenberg: majority would probably go to 2 ←
15:35:32 <ivan> sandro: we can have an appendix which says that 'there is a wiki for this, that can be udpated...'
Sandro Hawke: we can have an appendix which says that 'there is a wiki for this, that can be udpated...' ←
15:35:47 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RequirementsDraft#Use_Case_.235_-_OBO_ontologies_for_biomedical_data_integration_.5BHCLS.5D
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RequirementsDraft#Use_Case_.235_-_OBO_ontologies_for_biomedical_data_integration_.5BHCLS.5D ←
15:36:02 <ivan> bijan: for people who chose 2 what do you get from the use case?
Bijan Parsia: for people who chose 2 what do you get from the use case? ←
15:36:28 <ivan> Christine: for each use case there is a full paper online, people can go and find the paper on line
Christine Golbreich: for each use case there is a full paper online, people can go and find the paper on line ←
15:36:29 <ivan> ... these are only short abstracts
... these are only short abstracts ←
15:36:44 <ivan> ... this was the criteria to select one or not
... this was the criteria to select one or not ←
15:37:04 <ivan> Rinke: the formal reasons for doing this is to back up the requirements
Rinke Hoekstra: the formal reasons for doing this is to back up the requirements ←
15:37:22 <ivan> ... having no use cases is not really good
... having no use cases is not really good ←
15:38:03 <ivan> alanr: what I like about seeing these, that there are people who have really used this
Alan Ruttenberg: what I like about seeing these, that there are people who have really used this ←
15:38:27 <ivan> ... it is better at the appendix rather than not have this
... it is better at the appendix rather than not have this ←
15:38:39 <ivan> bijan: I did not realize that those links are there
Bijan Parsia: I did not realize that those links are there ←
15:38:53 <ivan> ... some of the use cases are not really use cases
... some of the use cases are not really use cases ←
15:38:53 <ivan> ... there is a lot fo them
... there is a lot fo them ←
15:39:11 <sandro> Bijan: Make it something more like an annotated bibiliography.
Bijan Parsia: Make it something more like an annotated bibiliography. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:39:20 <ivan> ... presenting all this as an annotated bibliogrpahy, it is providing an abstract description
... presenting all this as an annotated bibliogrpahy, it is providing an abstract description ←
15:39:33 <ivan> ... then having it static is fine becasue it is also historical
... then having it static is fine becasue it is also historical ←
15:40:27 <sandro> Bijan: it's okay to call it use cases.
Bijan Parsia: it's okay to call it use cases. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:40:45 <ivan> Christine: send me the sentence to be put
Christine Golbreich: send me the sentence to be put ←
15:41:04 <sandro> "Use Cases: An Annotated Bibliography"
Sandro Hawke: "Use Cases: An Annotated Bibliography" ←
15:41:14 <ivan> bijan: I am happy taking an action to reformat one of the entry
Bijan Parsia: I am happy taking an action to reformat one of the entry ←
15:41:40 <sandro> ACTION: Bijan to show a format for the use cases that he likes, making clear what it is and does.
ACTION: Bijan to show a format for the use cases that he likes, making clear what it is and does. ←
15:41:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-240 - Show a format for the use cases that he likes, making clear what it is and does. [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-10-31].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-240 - Show a format for the use cases that he likes, making clear what it is and does. [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-10-31]. ←
15:42:51 <ivan> alanr: for the next week's meeting, I would propose to cancel the meeting
Alan Ruttenberg: for the next week's meeting, I would propose to cancel the meeting ←
15:42:56 <sandro> No Meeting Next Week.
Sandro Hawke: No Meeting Next Week. ←
15:43:21 <ivan> alanr: I think we are fine with that document
Alan Ruttenberg: I think we are fine with that document ←
15:43:31 <ivan> Christine: I want to know the future of the document
Christine Golbreich: I want to know the future of the document ←
15:43:42 <ivan> alanr: there is a question whether it is a rec track or a note
Alan Ruttenberg: there is a question whether it is a rec track or a note ←
15:43:56 <ivan> ... we are moving the document ahead
... we are moving the document ahead ←
15:44:13 <ivan> ... I would propose to consider this as a rec track document
... I would propose to consider this as a rec track document ←
15:44:34 <ivan> ... it may avoid disagreements and criticisms
... it may avoid disagreements and criticisms ←
15:45:14 <ivan> bernardo: what is the w3c a recommendation
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: what is the w3c a recommendation ←
15:45:26 <ivan> ... what is w3c recommending
... what is w3c recommending ←
15:45:36 <ivan> sandro: what it means is that it has been widely reviewed by the community
Sandro Hawke: what it means is that it has been widely reviewed by the community ←
15:46:12 <ivan> bijan: if we decide this document become a rec, we make a case for all use case documents to be rec track
Bijan Parsia: if we decide this document become a rec, we make a case for all use case documents to be rec track ←
15:46:38 <ivan> bernardo: there is a difference, there is a useful information in this document
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: there is a difference, there is a useful information in this document ←
15:46:50 <ivan> alanr: plus the level of quality in them
Alan Ruttenberg: plus the level of quality in them ←
15:47:08 <sandro> Alan: I'm open to any document being a REC if the quality is good enough.
Alan Ruttenberg: I'm open to any document being a REC if the quality is good enough. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:47:29 <ivan> IanH_: I agree with bijan, every additional document you give rec track too,
Ian Horrocks: I agree with bijan, every additional document you give rec track too, ←
15:47:46 <ivan> bijan: I am in principle having all these rec track
Bijan Parsia: I am in principle having all these rec track ←
15:48:06 <ivan> pfps: I think that w3c has made a disservice to make non-normative documents rec track
Peter Patel-Schneider: I think that w3c has made a disservice to make non-normative documents rec track ←
15:48:11 <baojie> +q
15:48:16 <sandro> PFPS: I think the bar for Rec Track should be "rec track".
Peter Patel-Schneider: I think the bar for Rec Track should be "rec track". [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:48:26 <ivan> ... the precise part to be rec track is when you have normative status
... the precise part to be rec track is when you have normative status ←
15:48:31 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
15:49:10 <ivan> pfps: this one is below that one. There is a distinction between this one and the primer, this one has some impact on our spec
Peter Patel-Schneider: this one is below that one. There is a distinction between this one and the primer, this one has some impact on our spec ←
15:49:44 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/06/OWLCharter.html
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/06/OWLCharter.html ←
15:49:51 <ivan> baojie: remind of Jim's remark, the charter says that the requirement might be part of the deliverables as rec
Jie Bao: remind of Jim's remark, the charter says that the requirement might be part of the deliverables as rec ←
15:50:01 <sandro> "Requirements:
Sandro Hawke: "Requirements: ←
15:50:01 <sandro> A description of the goals and requirements that have motivated the design of OWL 1.1.
Sandro Hawke: A description of the goals and requirements that have motivated the design of OWL 1.1. ←
15:50:02 <sandro> "
Sandro Hawke: " ←
15:50:28 <ivan> alanr: I am not sure that mandates us, but there might have been an expectation on us
Alan Ruttenberg: I am not sure that mandates us, but there might have been an expectation on us ←
15:51:28 <ivan> sandro: webont pushed the w3c process and we are pushing more. We have a technical spec and a manual, and for whatever reasons of process and credits we split it into lots of documents
Sandro Hawke: webont pushed the w3c process and we are pushing more. We have a technical spec and a manual, and for whatever reasons of process and credits we split it into lots of documents ←
15:51:50 <ivan> ... I would not split hairs on that, and say this is all documenations
... I would not split hairs on that, and say this is all documenations ←
15:52:16 <ivan> schneid: this would mean that only technical documents that can be rec track and user facing document cannot?
Michael Schneider: this would mean that only technical documents that can be rec track and user facing document cannot? ←
15:52:33 <ivan> alanr: peter pointed out that there is room for this document
Alan Ruttenberg: peter pointed out that there is room for this document ←
15:53:25 <sandro> Sandro: I'd say imagine this is all one or two big documents, which are Recs. the fact that we're splitting it up, ehhhh, not so important.
Sandro Hawke: I'd say imagine this is all one or two big documents, which are Recs. the fact that we're splitting it up, ehhhh, not so important. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:54:31 <ivan> STRAWPOLL: yes==accept this document as a rec and accept this document on a case by case basis no==keep it as a note
STRAWPOLL: yes==accept this document as a rec and accept this document on a case by case basis no==keep it as a note ←
15:55:16 <baojie> Please note OWL 1 has user facing document as rec, e.g., http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/
Jie Bao: Please note OWL 1 has user facing document as rec, e.g., http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/ ←
15:55:59 <ivan> STRAWPOLL: 1==accept this document as a rec and accept subsequent documents on a case by case basis 2==make it as note 3==decide as a package
STRAWPOLL: 1==accept this document as a rec and accept subsequent documents on a case by case basis 2==make it as note 3==decide as a package ←
15:56:09 <bijan> 3
Bijan Parsia: 3 ←
15:56:12 <schneid> 3
15:56:15 <alanr> 1
Alan Ruttenberg: 1 ←
15:56:15 <pfps> 3
15:56:19 <sandro> 1
Sandro Hawke: 1 ←
15:56:20 <ivan> 0
0 ←
15:56:20 <Rinke> 1
Rinke Hoekstra: 1 ←
15:56:22 <baojie> 1
15:56:27 <Zhe> 1
15:56:27 <Christine> 1
15:56:29 <bernardo> 3
15:56:35 <MarkusK_> 3
Markus Krötzsch: 3 ←
15:56:36 <IanH_> 3
Ian Horrocks: 3 ←
15:56:39 <msmith> 3
Mike Smith: 3 ←
15:56:39 <wallace> 3
Evan Wallace: 3 ←
15:57:18 <ivan> eight 3-s, six 1-s, no 2-s, and one 0
eight 3-s, six 1-s, no 2-s, and one 0 ←
15:57:54 <ivan> schneid: we should have OWL as rec, and not this one and this one
Michael Schneider: we should have OWL as rec, and not this one and this one ←
15:58:07 <ivan> bijan: I dislike things that do not have normative value as a rec
Bijan Parsia: I dislike things that do not have normative value as a rec ←
15:58:27 <sandro> Bijan: I've always disliked the practice of things that don't have normative force being called a "Recommendation". I'd like us to be consistent.
Bijan Parsia: I've always disliked the practice of things that don't have normative force being called a "Recommendation". I'd like us to be consistent. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:58:29 <ivan> ... the more recs you have tends to make other things look stranger
... the more recs you have tends to make other things look stranger ←
15:58:50 <ivan> Christine: i definitely have problems deciding altogether
Christine Golbreich: i definitely have problems deciding altogether ←
15:58:52 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
15:58:57 <alanr> ack baojie
Alan Ruttenberg: ack baojie ←
15:58:58 <ivan> ... there is a level of quality to be a rec
... there is a level of quality to be a rec ←
15:59:07 <ivan> ... if we have to decide it for a package
... if we have to decide it for a package ←
15:59:24 <ivan> bijan: what I meant is at the same time!
Bijan Parsia: what I meant is at the same time! ←
15:59:46 <ivan> Christine: one of the other documents may take a long time to be ready and this time may take a week
Christine Golbreich: one of the other documents may take a long time to be ready and this time may take a week ←
16:00:05 <ivan> alanr: the status of the document does not reflect
Alan Ruttenberg: the status of the document does not reflect ←
16:00:16 <ivan> ... the final goal of the document
... the final goal of the document ←
16:00:35 <sandro> pfps: We want Uniformity.
Peter Patel-Schneider: We want Uniformity. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:00:41 <ivan> alanr: I do not think we have concensus
Alan Ruttenberg: I do not think we have concensus ←
16:00:59 <baojie> +q
16:01:03 <ivan> ... there is a significant portion of the people that would be leaning towards a rec
... there is a significant portion of the people that would be leaning towards a rec ←
16:03:10 <pfps> there was a larger portion that did not give a preference
Peter Patel-Schneider: there was a larger portion that did not give a preference ←
16:03:38 <ivan> meeting adjourned
meeting adjourned ←
16:03:48 <Zhe> have a nice trip back home!
Zhe Wu: have a nice trip back home! ←
16:04:09 <sandro> sandro: we need a fight to right home about.
Sandro Hawke: we need a fight to right home about. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:04:21 <Zakim> -Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: -Zhe ←
16:04:47 <baojie> so, we leave the rec status of all "other" document undecided?
Jie Bao: so, we leave the rec status of all "other" document undecided? ←
16:29:22 <sandro> PROPOSED: Target date for FPWD publication of UCR is Dec 1, along with the other document.s
(No events recorded for 24 minutes)
PROPOSED: Target date for FPWD publication of UCR is Dec 1, along with the other document.s ←
16:29:44 <sandro> (this is informal, since the meeting is adjourned)
Sandro Hawke: (this is informal, since the meeting is adjourned) ←
16:30:01 <sandro> (but everyone is sounding encouraging. there is no disagreement.)
Sandro Hawke: (but everyone is sounding encouraging. there is no disagreement.) ←
16:30:13 <sandro> (no one has even considered that we won't publish it.)
Sandro Hawke: (no one has even considered that we won't publish it.) ←
16:30:27 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
16:30:33 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
<sandro> Logging Done.
Sandro Hawke: Logging Done. ←
This revision (#6) generated 2008-11-05 10:38:41 UTC by 'unknown', comments: 'a few clarifications'