Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Chatlog 2009-03-25
From OWL
See original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
16:59:36 <IanH> IanH has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.03.25/Agenda 17:02:21 <Zhe> scribenick: Zhe 17:02:27 <IanH> zakim, who is here? 17:02:27 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bmotik (muted), IanH, bparsia (muted), Sandro, Zhe, Ivan, uli (muted), Rinke (muted) 17:02:30 <Zakim> On IRC I see MarkusK_, Rinke, Zhe, uli, bernardo, bmotik, Michael_Schneider, pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, alanr, bparsia, ivan, IanH, sandro, trackbot 17:02:38 <Zakim> +Jonathan_Rees 17:02:45 <alanr> zakim, Jonathan_Rees is alanr 17:02:45 <Zakim> +bernardo 17:02:48 <Zhe> Topic: Admin 17:02:51 <Zakim> +alanr; got it 17:02:53 <bernardo> Zakim, mute me 17:02:55 <ivan> zakim, mute me 17:03:04 <Zakim> sorry, bernardo, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 17:03:07 <msmith> msmith has joined #owl 17:03:09 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted 17:03:18 <pfps> q+ 17:03:24 <zimmer> zimmer has joined #owl 17:03:33 <alanr> ack pfps 17:03:40 <Zakim> +msmith 17:03:43 <Zakim> sorry, bernardo, I do not recognize a party named 'bmotik.a' 17:03:50 <alanr> zakim, who is here 17:03:50 <Zakim> alanr, you need to end that query with '?' 17:03:55 <alanr> zakim, who is here? 17:03:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bmotik (muted), IanH, bparsia (muted), Sandro, Zhe, Ivan (muted), uli (muted), Rinke (muted), alanr, bernardo, msmith 17:03:55 <bernardo> Zakim, mute me 17:04:01 <Zakim> sorry, bernardo, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 17:04:04 <Zakim> On IRC I see zimmer, msmith, MarkusK_, Rinke, Zhe, uli, bernardo, bmotik, schneid, pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, alanr, bparsia, ivan, IanH, sandro, trackbot 17:04:25 <Zhe> PROPOSED: accept previous minutes http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-03-18 17:04:34 <pfps> minutes are minimally acceptable 17:04:40 <alanr> +1 17:04:41 <Michael_Schneider> sorry, possibly only on IRC today 17:04:42 <bernardo> Zakim, bernardo is bernardo 17:04:42 <Zakim> +bernardo; got it 17:04:48 <bernardo> Zakim, mute me 17:04:48 <Zakim> bernardo should now be muted 17:04:51 <Zhe> RESOLVED: accept minutes of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-03-18 17:04:58 <jar> jar has joined #owl 17:05:00 <pfps> actually they look much better than when I looked at them last time. 17:05:06 <Zhe> Topic: Action items status 17:05:22 <Zakim> +??P9 17:05:34 <pfps> it appears to me that some of these were approved as done last week 17:05:37 <Zhe> alanr: any comments? 17:05:37 <zimmer> Zakim, ??P9 is me 17:05:37 <Zakim> +zimmer; got it 17:05:41 <msmith> yes, I thought 283 was already closed 17:05:43 <ivan> bijan did his review on the quick ref guide. One question to Jie. wasn't clear on 301 status 17:05:51 <ivan> so did christine 17:06:09 <pfps> no one is updating the status 17:06:18 <pfps> 301 was approved as done last week 17:06:31 <sandro> action-301 done 17:06:39 <sandro> action-301? 17:06:39 <trackbot> ACTION-301 -- Jie Bao to contact Andy Seaborn and try to make sure he's happy with our work on rdf:text, and will talk to use about any remaining issues. -- due 2009-03-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW 17:06:39 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/actions/301 17:06:58 <Zhe> SubTopic: Due and Overdue actions 17:07:22 <Zhe> action 309 done 17:07:22 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 309 17:07:29 <sandro> action-292 closed 17:07:29 <trackbot> ACTION-292 Talk to RIF to see what datatypes in OWL must not be in OWL-RL. closed 17:07:34 <Zhe> action-299? 17:07:34 <trackbot> ACTION-299 -- Sandro Hawke to find and fix the to-wiki-links Jeremy complains about -- due 2009-03-03 -- OPEN 17:07:34 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/actions/299 17:07:48 <pfps> last week Sandro said that this would happen at publishing time 17:07:53 <Zhe> action 310? 17:07:53 <trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax 17:07:59 <Zhe> action-310? 17:07:59 <trackbot> ACTION-310 -- Peter Patel-Schneider to review rdf:text document http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec -- due 2009-03-25 -- OPEN 17:07:59 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/actions/310 17:08:40 <pfps> action-307? 17:08:40 <trackbot> ACTION-307 -- Christine Golbreich to review QRG -- due 2009-03-25 -- PENDINGREVIEW 17:08:40 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/actions/307 17:08:42 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl 17:08:48 <Zhe> scribenick: Zhe 17:09:03 <alanr> zakim, who is here? 17:09:03 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bmotik (muted), IanH, bparsia (muted), Sandro, Zhe, Ivan (muted), uli (muted), Rinke (muted), alanr, bernardo (muted), msmith, zimmer 17:09:06 <Zakim> On IRC I see Zhe, jar, zimmer, msmith, Rinke, uli, bernardo, bmotik, Michael_Schneider , pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, alanr, bparsia, ivan, IanH, sandro, trackbot 17:09:09 <Zhe> alanr: action-321 postponed 17:09:11 <pfps> the due date should have been later - I'll move it 17:09:16 <Zhe> Topic: Documents and Reviewing 17:09:29 <Zhe> alanr: the only one not ready is rdf text. There is one involves our group. 17:09:52 <ivan> is the rdf semantics ready for review? I am not sure 17:10:21 <bmotik> q+ 17:10:23 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me 17:10:23 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted 17:10:34 <bparsia> I am! 17:10:36 <pfps> why are we hearing this at TC time? 17:10:38 <Zhe> bmotik: who is arguing against making it infinite. RDF or RIF foks? 17:10:39 <bparsia> q+ 17:10:45 <ivan> ack bmotik 17:10:48 <ivan> addison 17:11:02 <Zhe> It is the i18n folks 17:11:02 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me 17:11:02 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted 17:11:03 <bmotik> q+ 17:11:07 <alanr> ack bparsia 17:11:12 <ivan> ack bparsia 17:11:36 <Zhe> bparsia: want to reuse existing regular expression libraries. Allow people to indicate which unicode version 17:11:54 <pfps> I'm confused, why can't regular regexp libraries be used? 17:12:07 <alanr> q? 17:12:30 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 17:12:49 <Michael_Schneider> zakim, [IPcaller] is me 17:12:49 <Zakim> +schneid; got it 17:12:54 <Michael_Schneider> zakim, mute me 17:12:54 <Zakim> Michael_Schneider should now be muted 17:12:55 <MarkusK_> MarkusK_ has joined #owl 17:13:01 <bparsia> zakim, mute me 17:13:01 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted 17:13:21 <Zakim> +??P1 17:13:27 <Zhe> alanr: goal is that we want to move forward with rdf text. I don't want it be a technical discussion. The focus is on how to resolve it asap. 17:13:28 <alanr> ack bmotik 17:13:39 <bparsia> Toolkit I want to use: http://www.brics.dk/automaton/ 17:13:40 <Zhe> bmotik: a few technical questions. I did not understand bijan, what is the semantics if you indicate unicode version? 17:13:57 <bparsia> I meant in OWL 17:14:05 <bparsia> rdf:text:unicode3.1 17:14:12 <bparsia> Oh! Nice! 17:14:35 <ivan> q+ 17:14:39 <Zhe> ... if we go with finite alphabet, do we really know how many is in the unicode version. 17:14:46 <bparsia> q+ 17:14:48 <alanr> ack ivan 17:15:10 <Zhe> ivan: there is an upper limit for unicode characters. Some of those are not properly defined. 17:15:25 <bmotik> q+ 17:15:27 <sandro> "The largest Unicode code point is 0x10FFFF. Period. There is not an infinity of Unicode code points. " 17:15:33 <alanr> ack bparsia 17:15:40 <ivan> zakim, mute me 17:15:40 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted 17:15:51 <Zhe> bparsia: it is nice to know about the libraries. makes me happy. My proposal is that in the ontology, when I define a class, I am using a particular unicode version. However, if it is finite, then all problems are solved 17:15:59 <sandro> -- from Addison Phillips, Chair -- W3C Internationalization WG 17:16:23 <alanr> q? 17:16:27 <alanr> ack bmotik 17:17:12 <bparsia> We need to know the number 17:17:15 <IanH> An ecstatic Boris -- scary prospect 17:17:16 <alanr> q? 17:17:28 <Zhe> alanr: bmotik communicate with Jie to get the issue resolved 17:17:33 <bparsia> Pointer to that rdf:text emial? 17:17:49 <Michael_Schneider> zakim, unmute me 17:17:49 <Zakim> Michael_Schneider should no longer be muted 17:17:53 <Zhe> alanr: RDF semantics 17:18:09 <Zhe> Michael_Schneider: 3 or 4 more days. Should be done this weekend. 17:18:44 <Zhe> alanr: will you notify your reviewers 17:18:55 <Zhe> Michael_Schneider will send out email once it is done 17:19:00 <alanr> q? 17:19:03 <Michael_Schneider> zakim, mute me 17:19:03 <Zakim> Michael_Schneider should now be muted 17:19:18 <Zhe> SubTopic: Changes since last call 17:19:24 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Reviewing#Documents_and_Reviewers 17:19:46 <Zhe> sandro: does not show correct deadline about n-ary 17:19:54 <bparsia> n-ary is not ready right now 17:20:02 <bparsia> Probablynext week 17:20:07 <Zhe> alanr: can we talk about n-ary? Bjian mentioned that we can put in a small example. When is it going to be ready? Next meeting or weekend? 17:20:10 <bparsia> I couldn't last week 17:20:17 <bparsia> But I can do it for next week 17:20:37 <alanr> q? 17:20:38 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me 17:20:38 <Zakim> bparsia was not muted, bparsia 17:20:55 <Zhe> bparsia: not sure. 17:21:09 <ivan> q+ 17:21:18 <alanr> ack ivan 17:21:18 <bparsia> zakim, mute me 17:21:19 <Zhe> alanr: I will update that page with right due dates 17:21:20 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted 17:21:53 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 17:21:53 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 17:22:05 <Zhe> sandro: it will be published Friday. 17:22:31 <Zhe> ivan: this means we do have something that we want to change on that document, until that is done, the document is not ready for reviewing 17:22:37 <alanr> q? 17:23:08 <IanH> Anticipated changes vis a vis naming should be very small 17:23:31 <Zhe> ivan: the bottom line is that that document is not ready for reviewing 17:23:51 <Zhe> alanr: hopefully it is a small change. Any more for document set? 17:24:12 <Zhe> Topic: Last Call Comments 17:24:41 <Zhe> alanr: AR1 is delegated to Jonathan 17:25:03 <bparsia> BTW: http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.0.0/ch01.pdf 17:25:05 <bparsia> page 2 17:25:15 <pfps> Isn't this the sort of thing that should be done by email? 17:25:19 <bparsia> "The Unicode Standard contains 1,114,112 code points," 17:25:36 <IanH> I'm doing it now 17:25:39 <uli> q+ 17:25:44 <alanr> ack uli 17:26:06 <Zhe> uli: a few changes have been made. I can post the diff I have made 17:26:11 <IanH> I looked -- looks fine to me 17:26:24 <Zhe> alanr: these are ready to go 17:26:26 <uli> zakim, mute me 17:26:26 <Zakim> uli should now be muted 17:26:52 <Zhe> alanr: one more related to this. Ivan suggested that we add some text to the intro in profiles document 17:27:09 <Zhe> ivan: it is all in the email. The introduction to QL is very technical oriented. Need to have more understandable rationale in profiles. 17:27:10 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/mid/49C350F4.6000200@w3.org 17:27:55 <pfps> Document editor discretion seems to cover this point. 17:27:57 <alanr> q? 17:27:59 <Zhe> alanr: any objection? 17:28:05 <uli> i think i added a bit 17:28:20 <Zhe> alanr: Ivan can communicate with editors to get it done. Can one editor stand up? 17:28:42 <pfps> -> Ian 17:28:58 <IanH> I'm 17:28:59 <Zhe> ... zhe, can you do it? 17:29:01 <Zhe> Zhe ok 17:29:06 <IanH> I'm willing to help 17:29:06 <alanr> q? 17:29:17 <Zhe> thanks Ian 17:29:25 <bparsia> +1 17:29:26 <Zhe> alanr: comment on XML syntax, looks ready to me 17:29:37 <Michael_Schneider> q+ 17:29:53 <ivan> q+ 17:29:54 <Zhe> alanr: one on rdf semantics, one on OWL DL the language. 17:29:54 <Michael_Schneider> q- 17:29:57 <alanr> q? 17:30:11 <Michael_Schneider> JR6a should be checked by people 17:30:15 <Zhe> ivan: on the rdf semantics, michael did more than required. It is not even last call document. 17:30:34 <alanr> q? 17:30:39 <alanr> ack ivan 17:30:41 <pfps> the response is fine - ship it 17:30:48 <alanr> +1 17:30:53 <Zhe> ivan: I think Michael's reponse is great and ready to go 17:30:55 <Michael_Schneider> ah, I understand! ok 17:31:09 <Zhe> alanr: not hearing object to sending out these two responses, JR6a, 6b can be sent as is 17:31:33 <alanr> q? 17:31:40 <ivan> zakim, who is here? 17:31:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bmotik (muted), IanH, bparsia (muted), Sandro, Zhe, Ivan, uli (muted), Rinke (muted), alanr, bernardo (muted), msmith, zimmer, Michael_Schneider 17:31:40 <Zhe> Jonathan: regarding AR1, looks like there are some extension point to define new data types in new namespaces as long as they are compatible with other SPECs. Question is if there are some risk, you will get incompatibility. XML try to address it through namespaces. Here it seems that we are reusing an existing namespace 17:31:43 <Zakim> ... (muted), MarkusK_ 17:31:44 <Zakim> On IRC I see MarkusK_, Zhe, jar, zimmer, msmith, Rinke, uli, bernardo, bmotik, Michael_Schneider , pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, alanr, bparsia, ivan, IanH, sandro, trackbot 17:31:54 <ivan> zakim, alanr has jonathan 17:31:54 <Zakim> +jonathan; got it 17:32:14 <bparsia> q+ 17:32:16 <pfps> q+ 17:32:18 <sandro> q+ 17:32:31 <bmotik> (Aside: Bijan and I managed to convince ourselves that Unicode indeed has 1,114,112 code points) 17:32:49 <sandro> :-) bmotik 17:32:51 <ivan> zakim, mute me 17:32:54 <bmotik> (Aside: For all I care, we can have a vote right now to change the value space of rdf:text) 17:32:58 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted 17:33:31 <alanr> q? 17:33:34 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me 17:33:34 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted 17:33:56 <Zhe> bparsia: we should not worry about the "risk." I dont' think there is a real risk that people are stepping into OWL namespace. Given that the community has matured, there should not be a problem 17:33:58 <Michael_Schneider> I will nevertheless wait another 24 hours with sending 52a, so people can check 17:34:24 <alanr> q? 17:34:27 <alanr> ack bparsia 17:35:13 <alanr> q? 17:35:17 <alanr> ack pfps 17:35:21 <bparsia> zakim, mute me 17:35:21 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted 17:35:23 <uli> Ivan, to make "a mountain out of a mole hole"? 17:35:26 <Zhe> pfps: I agree with bijan on this. 17:35:27 <alanr> ack sandro 17:35:32 <Zhe> sandro: I see two questions. 1) on the issue that bijan addressed. I think extensibility point is properly architected. 2) interop problem. 10 well defined datatypes, 5 are required by OWL. I suspect users will find their tool support more datatypes which creates interoperability problem 17:35:35 <bmotik> q+ 17:37:16 <bparsia> ? 17:37:22 <alanr> q? 17:37:30 <bparsia> q+ 17:37:39 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me 17:37:39 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted 17:37:42 <alanr> ack bmotik 17:37:45 <pfps> q+ 17:37:46 <Zhe> ... Tools use extension should get user attention/ok 17:37:58 <Zhe> bmotik: I am a bit lost. Is this about xml schema datatypes? You cannot define new datatypes in XML schema namespace anyway. I don't see any issue 17:38:26 <alanr> q? 17:38:27 <pfps> q- 17:38:40 <alanr> ack bparsia 17:38:47 <jar> q? 17:38:52 <Zhe> bparsia: I agree with boris. It is clearly SPECed. I don't feel the need as a tool vendor that we need user permission to extend. I haven't seen troubles in the past 17:39:49 <alanr> q? 17:40:52 <Zhe> sandro: you don't think WG should give this advice 17:41:11 <Zhe> bparsia: not sure it is a good advice. Tool vendors should decide by themselves 17:41:43 <pfps> +1 17:42:08 <Zhe> sandro: I am persuaded by bijan. The worst case is that extension is used unexpectedly 17:42:15 <pfps> In many cases there may be *no* user to warn. 17:42:45 <bparsia> q= 17:42:48 <bparsia> q+ 17:42:49 <Zhe> Jonathan: it affects ontology consistency 17:42:57 <bmotik> q+ 17:43:13 <Zhe> sandro: tool can tell you that this part is not OWL, it is extension. It is not our job to tell tools to pop up warnings 17:43:42 <jar> q? 17:44:11 <Zhe> bparsia: Pellet has a mode that approximates things that it cannot handle. We define what is mandatory. It is not the WG's job to define behavior for things beyond. 17:44:25 <jar> q+ jar 17:44:41 <alanr> ack bparsia 17:44:53 <alanr> ack bmotik 17:45:14 <pfps> q+ 17:45:30 <Zhe> bmotik: in non-default mode, HermiT can approximate and does it best 17:45:31 <alanr> ack jar 17:45:32 <bparsia> And, if the spec told me not to do that? I would ignore that spec 17:45:32 <sandro> sandro: I'm okay with the situation where a consumer system simply detects the situation where an extension is used and either gives a clear error message or (as per Bijan) offers to try some approximations. The right social/market forces are in play to avoid fragmenting the market, I think. 17:45:47 <Zhe> Jonathan: looking at conformance doc 17:45:58 <pfps> The question at hand is how to answer AR66, which states: I believe that it is our intention that implementation specific datatype maps don't define behavior for, e.g. future datatypes added to XML Schema (or datatypes we have rejected). AFAIK, there is no proscription against this and I would like to have there be. 17:46:03 <Zhe> pfps: I don't see how the current discussion is relevant to the Agenda 17:46:04 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 17:46:04 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 17:46:11 <bparsia> zakim, mute me 17:46:11 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted 17:46:47 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Conformance_and_Test_Cases#Datatype_Map_Conformance 17:47:05 <Zhe> sandro: I pointed out that was in error, 17:47:33 <Zhe> alanr: Jonathan do you have more comments? 17:47:54 <sandro> FWIW I think it was real error to every accept "comments" from WG members... :-/ They should be issues instead. 17:48:03 <Zhe> GRDDL TM1 17 GRDDL 17:48:07 <bparsia> ship it 17:48:11 <ivan> ship it 17:48:14 <alanr> +1 17:48:14 <Zhe> alanr: everyone comfortable? 17:48:22 <pfps> +1 17:48:46 <Zhe> alanr: RM1, Michael, have you sent the response out? 17:48:52 <Michael_Schneider> zakim, unmute me 17:48:52 <Zakim> Michael_Schneider should no longer be muted 17:49:15 <Zhe> Michael_Schneider: the second was drafted by peter, I am out of it 17:49:20 <Michael_Schneider> zakim, mute me 17:49:20 <Zakim> Michael_Schneider should now be muted 17:49:29 <pfps> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Responses_to_Last_Call_Comments clearly indicates that a 2nd response has been sent 17:49:48 <Zhe> Topic: Technical Issues 17:50:07 <Zhe> alanr: xsd:dateTimeStamp, shall we follow XML schema 17:50:20 <bparsia> ? 17:50:26 <bmotik> Zaakim, unmute me 17:50:30 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me 17:50:30 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted 17:50:30 <alanr> ack bmotik 17:50:41 <alanr> q? 17:50:50 <alanr> ack pfps 17:50:57 <bparsia> +1 to my other self 17:51:02 <ivan> +1 to boris 17:51:06 <Zhe> bmotik: the issue is that the current SPEC use a prioteray handling of dataTime, we should align with XML schema. Change is not that big. the only thing is that timezone is disjoint. I don't think users will get lots of problems 17:51:13 <alanr> q+ to ask why timezone but not the other elements of the 7 tuple 17:51:30 <sandro> q+ 17:51:39 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 17:51:39 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 17:51:51 <ivan> ack alanr 17:51:51 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to ask why timezone but not the other elements of the 7 tuple 17:52:00 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me 17:52:00 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted 17:52:02 <Zhe> alanr: I have a question, XML schema has 7 tuple, how is that aligned? 17:52:06 <alanr> q? 17:52:32 <Zhe> bmotik: the 7 tuple can map to a particular time you cannot tell the difference 17:52:38 <alanr> q+ to clarify that this means we can't have functional properties with dateTimeStamps as values? 17:52:43 <sandro> boris: you can map 7-tuple to time-on-timeline, with different time line for each time zone. 17:52:52 <ivan> ack sandro 17:53:00 <Zhe> sandro: this is sounding like a bug in XML schema. The point is to reason different times in different zones. This behavior is not what I want as a user 17:53:04 <bmotik> q+ 17:53:08 <pfps> q+ 17:53:18 <bparsia> I recommend avoiding timezones in ontologies ;) 17:53:22 <bparsia> Preprocess! 17:53:28 <alanr> q? 17:53:36 <pfps> the are equal, just not identical 17:53:37 <alanr> ack alanr 17:53:37 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to clarify that this means we can't have functional properties with dateTimeStamps as values? 17:53:54 <pfps> nope 17:54:04 <ivan> ack bmotik 17:54:08 <Zhe> alanr: so the consequence is that we cannot have a functional property with a dateTime as its range? 17:54:35 <Zhe> bmotik: if you have a functional property p, s p t1, s p t2, and t1 and t2 are two values pointing to the same time point in two timezones, they violate the constraint. XML schema wants to keep this time zone information in the value space. Because they have functions to compare, it is not a bug in my opinion 17:54:39 <bparsia> Discussion of identity vs. equality I just wrote: <http://www.w3.org/mid/0E611C17-39DC-4509-8002-3E684C345C45@cs.manchester.ac.uk> 17:55:13 <pfps> q- 17:55:33 <bparsia> q+ to propose at riskiness 17:55:43 <alanr> q+ to ask one last question - why con consider this extralogical and answer queries against syntax 17:55:55 <alanr> ack bparsia 17:55:56 <Zakim> bparsia, you wanted to propose at riskiness 17:56:02 <Zhe> sandro: I agree now it is not a bug 17:56:10 <sandro> (in xml schema) 17:56:16 <Zhe> bparsia: two principles, 1) to align with XML schema. it is always possible to normalize all timestamp values with respect to timezones 17:57:40 <bparsia> zakim, mute me 17:56:17 <sandro> sandro: but it's a pain for users. 17:57:24 <ivan> +1 to bijan, make the choices clear and put it into the document as a feedback request from the community 17:57:28 <IanH> Seems similar to the numerics: could imagine arguments on both sides but being consistent with XML schema sounds like the winning argument. 17:57:31 <alanr> ack alanr 17:57:31 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to ask one last question - why con consider this extralogical and answer queries against syntax 17:57:31 <msmith> +1 to bparsia 17:57:35 <IanH> And +1 to Bijan 17:57:40 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted 17:58:04 <Zhe> alanr: boris, why do we need to put it in the valuespace? 17:58:39 <Zhe> bmotik: for the case RIF wants to implement some functions (give back timezones) Anyone use XQuery with OWL will find it difficult 17:59:03 <bparsia> One can do that as a preprocessing phase..if you wanted that 17:59:09 <alanr> q? 17:59:37 <bparsia> q+ 17:59:37 <bmotik> q+ 17:59:45 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me 17:59:45 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted 17:59:46 <Zhe> sandro: RIF is struggling with this and will have identity operator and equality operator 17:59:47 <alanr> ack bparsia 17:59:53 <ivan> ack bparsia 18:00:02 <sandro> s/will/will probably/ 18:00:13 <alanr> q+ to ask why we couldn't use equality across OWL 18:00:16 <Zhe> bparsia: unlike RIF, we don't have luxury to have two operators because counting defines on top of identity. I am scared to use equality 18:00:24 <sandro> bparsia: OWL doesn't have the luxury of two operators, since counting works with identity. 18:00:45 <alanr> q? 18:00:58 <alanr> ack bmotik 18:00:59 <ivan> ack bmotik 18:01:00 <bparsia> zakim, mute me 18:01:01 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted 18:01:16 <Zhe> bmotik: don't think this is crucial for users. It is not that often that two (same) values use different timezones 18:01:27 <bparsia> I agree with boris to some extent 18:01:38 <alanr> q? 18:01:39 <bparsia> It's work aroundable 18:01:52 <jar> q+ jar to wonder about calendar merging 18:02:09 <sandro> boris: Come on -- how many users will actually want to use a use functional properties to say there is one time, and then provide the time in multiple time zones? 18:02:12 <alanr> q? 18:02:20 <alanr> ack alanr 18:02:20 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to ask why we couldn't use equality across OWL 18:02:38 <IanH> Let's vote now! 18:02:39 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me 18:02:39 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted 18:02:41 <sandro> sandro: I think it'll a real problem, boris, but I think it's a very small issue and I'd like to move on? 18:03:38 <Zhe> bparsia: we cannot put this under user control with respect to counting 18:03:51 <jar> q- jar 18:04:02 <Zhe> alanr: why cannot we use equality in OWL as the single choice 18:04:45 <Zhe> bparsia: we discussed and decided to go with XML schema identity. Tools can normalize xsd:dateTimeStamp values in different zones 18:05:07 <sandro> bparsia: This all comes back to us having to chose between XS Identity and XS Equality as our Identity, and the compelling evidence is on the side of XS Identity. 18:05:32 <alanr> PROPOSED: OWL will use the standard XML Schema definition of xsd:dateTimeStamp (i.e., time zones are carried into the semantics of OWL). We will mark this "at risk" and solicit feedback on the choice. 18:05:35 <sandro> bparsia: Tools can route around this, by comparing them as identiical if they need to -- let's be conservative and consistent. 18:05:48 <bparsia> zakim, mute me 18:05:48 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted 18:06:17 <Zhe> bmotik: dateTime should be the same 18:06:37 <pfps> we need to resolve the "at risk" later 18:06:37 <bparsia> I don't care 18:06:38 <alanr> +1 18:06:38 <IanH> Minimising "at risk" has to be good. 18:06:40 <bparsia> I'm fine not 18:06:48 <pfps> 0 18:06:51 <ivan> 0 18:06:54 <Rinke> 0 18:06:55 <bparsia> Are we voting? 18:06:55 <bmotik> I'd prefer just being done with this. 18:06:56 <Zhe> Zhe 0 18:07:02 <bmotik> I.e., no at risk. 18:07:04 <bparsia> -1 18:07:07 <uli> no at risk 18:07:08 <bernardo> 0 18:07:10 <MarkusK_> 0 18:07:11 <Michael_Schneider> 0 18:07:20 <alanr> PROPOSED: OWL will use the standard XML Schema definition of xsd:dateTimeStamp (i.e., time zones are carried into the semantics of OWL). 18:07:23 <sandro> +1 18:07:24 <bmotik> +1 18:07:24 <pfps> +1 ALU 18:07:25 <ivan> +1 18:07:25 <bparsia> +1 18:07:27 <alanr> 0 18:07:31 <Zhe> Zhe +1 18:07:32 <msmith> +1 18:07:39 <MarkusK_> 0 18:07:42 <bernardo> +1 18:07:45 <Michael_Schneider> 0 (no opinion) 18:07:49 <Rinke> +1 18:08:03 <uli> +1 18:08:06 <alanr> RESOLVED: OWL will use the standard XML Schema definition of xsd:dateTimeStamp (i.e., time zones are carried into the semantics of OWL). 18:08:22 <Zhe> alanr: boris, we can discuss dateTime next week 18:08:27 <Zhe> alanr: CURIEs 18:08:40 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me 18:08:40 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted 18:09:00 <Michael_Schneider> q+ on question about relevance for RDF-Based Semantics 18:09:01 <sandro> q+ 18:09:09 <alanr> ack Michael_Schneider 18:09:10 <Michael_Schneider> zakim, unmute me 18:09:11 <Zakim> Michael_Schneider, you wanted to comment on question about relevance for RDF-Based Semantics 18:09:13 <Zakim> Michael_Schneider was not muted, Michael_Schneider 18:09:30 <ivan> none 18:09:30 <bparsia> q+ 18:09:38 <Zhe> Michael_Schneider: point from me is that what is the relevance to us. CURIE is used only for representation purpose. I wonder what is the implication 18:09:48 <pfps> RDF-semantics should not be affected 18:10:01 <ekw> ekw has joined #owl 18:10:02 <alanr> ack bparsia 18:10:04 <ivan> Michael_Schneider: do not worry! Nothing 18:10:23 <alanr> ack sandro 18:10:24 <Zhe> bparsia: we just change the references of CURIE. 18:10:27 <alanr> q? 18:10:48 <Zhe> sandro: this change does not affect RDF/XML 18:10:49 <ivan> exactly 18:10:52 <alanr> +1 18:10:53 <Michael_Schneider> zakim, mute me 18:10:53 <Zakim> Michael_Schneider should now be muted 18:11:00 <bmotik> +q 18:11:10 <alanr> ack bmotik 18:11:48 <ivan> +1 to Boris 18:11:54 <alanr> are we allowing abbreviations without namespace 18:11:55 <bparsia> +1 18:11:57 <Michael_Schneider> Michael_Schneider: RDF-Based Semantics refers to CURIE spec, but only uses CURIEs for presentational reasons, to have the particular IRIs in the document being presented in an abbreviated form 18:11:58 <alanr> q? 18:12:34 <sandro> q+ 18:12:37 <Zakim> + +1.301.351.aabb 18:12:37 <Zhe> alanr: are we allowing no colon 18:12:40 <ivan> q+ 18:12:54 <alanr> ack sandro 18:12:56 <Zhe> bparsia: we can choose to enforce it. will check with SPARQL 18:13:10 <ivan> ack ivan 18:13:12 <alanr> ack ivan 18:13:14 <Zhe> sandro: having a no colon name is bad because it is hard to evolve 18:13:19 <ekw> zakim, ++1.301.351.aabb is me 18:13:19 <Zakim> sorry, ekw, I do not recognize a party named '++1.301.351.aabb' 18:13:21 <Zhe> ivan: we should not have that 18:13:38 <bmotik> q+ 18:13:40 <Zhe> alanr: do we want to wait for SPARQL comment? 18:13:41 <bmotik> q- 18:13:49 <Zhe> bmotik: SPARQL mandates it 18:14:02 <calvanese> calvanese has joined #owl 18:14:10 <pfps> let's go for PREFIX, just like SPARQL 18:14:17 <alanr> +1 18:14:17 <bmotik> q+ 18:14:19 <ivan> ship it:-) 18:14:24 <alanr> ack bmotik 18:14:31 <ekw> zakim, 1.301.351.aabb is me 18:14:31 <Zakim> sorry, ekw, I do not recognize a party named '1.301.351.aabb' 18:14:35 <ivan> eliminate 18:14:35 <Zhe> bmotik: final question, do we still call it CURIEs, 18:14:38 <pfps> use prefixed name, just like SPARQL 18:14:48 <ivan> +1 to pfps 18:14:49 <Zhe> alanr: I suggest not 18:14:52 <Zhe> bmotik: agree 18:14:58 <Zakim> +calvanese 18:15:00 <Zhe> bparsia: agree as well 18:15:01 <Michael_Schneider> "abbreviated IRIs" 18:15:08 <pfps> SPARQL syntax says IRIref ::= IRI_REF | PrefixedName 18:15:13 <Zhe> bparsia: don't know CURIE will continue 18:15:23 <alanr> PROPOSED: OWL will not rely on CURIEs spec but will define it's own IRI abbreviation mechanism compatible with the one used by SPARQL 18:15:38 <pfps> +1 ALU 18:15:39 <alanr> +1 18:15:39 <bmotik> +1 18:15:40 <ivan> +1 18:15:41 <bparsia> +1 18:15:43 <MarkusK_> +1 18:15:43 <bernardo> +1 18:15:44 <msmith> +1 18:15:46 <Rinke> +1 18:15:47 <uli> +1 18:15:48 <Michael_Schneider> 0 18:15:49 <zimmer> +1 18:15:52 <sandro> +0 (haven't studied it enough) 18:15:55 <ekw> +0 18:16:06 <Zhe> Zhe +1 18:16:00 <alanr> RESOLVED: OWL will not rely on CURIEs spec but will define it's own IRI abbreviation mechanism compatible with the one used by SPARQL 18:16:32 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Naming 18:16:36 <sandro> scribe: sandro 18:16:48 <sandro> alanr: Ian has written up how he understand we use Names 18:17:03 <calvanese> zakim, mute me 18:17:03 <Zakim> calvanese should now be muted 18:17:08 <sandro> alanr: Question 1 -- does this match your sense of the names 18:17:15 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl 18:17:17 <sandro> alanr: Question 2 -- where and how should we document this. 18:17:18 <alanr> q? 18:17:27 <Zhe> I am back. thanks sandro! 18:17:29 <ivan> q+ 18:17:33 <alanr> ack ivan 18:17:55 <alanr> circular: OWL 2 ontology - any OWL 2 ontology 18:18:03 <sandro> ivan: When the conf. document talks about "OWL 2 Full", it speaks of RDF graphs in general. 18:18:21 <sandro> "# OWL 2 ontology - any OWL 2 ontology " 18:18:29 <bparsia> Works for me 18:18:37 <sandro> q? 18:18:38 <IanH> As in, without qualification! 18:18:47 <pfps> works fine for me "OWL 2 ontology" is any OWL 2 ontology 18:18:53 <bparsia> That's big enough! 18:18:57 <uli> me too 18:19:03 <sandro> q+ 18:19:14 <alanr> q+ jar 18:19:18 <alanr> ack sandro 18:19:27 <Zhe> sandro: don't have a concrete proposal, 18:19:28 <ivan> noooo:-( 18:19:45 <uli> why? 18:19:55 <IanH> q+ 18:20:06 <alanr> ack jar 18:20:19 <msmith> +1 to sandro. the two of us can agree to not use the informal terminology :) 18:20:48 <alanr> ack IanH 18:21:21 <alanr> q+ 18:21:56 <Zhe> IanH: could you please put what you said in IRC? 18:22:12 <alanr> +1 18:22:16 <sandro> q+ to propose we explain the informal extended terminology, labeling it as "legacy" 18:22:35 <alanr> ack alanr 18:22:39 <sandro> ian: And we agree in the spec to minimize the use of the the informal tech. 18:22:51 <IanH> q+ 18:22:58 <alanr> ack sandro 18:22:58 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to propose we explain the informal extended terminology, labeling it as "legacy" 18:22:59 <sandro> alanr: OWL 2 ontology == OWL 2 structure or RDF graph 18:23:17 <Zhe> sandro: what about "legacy", deprecation is too strong 18:23:34 <pfps> +1 18:23:38 <Zhe> alanr: we agree that we will minimize in the spec 18:24:29 <alanr> q+ to advocate that we explain these terms in the document overview 18:24:32 <alanr> ack IanH 18:24:48 <Zhe> IanH: we are consistent when using the term 18:25:03 <alanr> q? 18:25:13 <Zhe> sandro: I understand we should not say it. maybe we should imply 18:25:15 <pfps> tender sensibilities will be bruised by Sandro's proposal 18:25:23 <sandro> :-) 18:25:26 <Zhe> IanH: won't be hostile to some wordsmithing 18:25:30 <alanr> ack alanr 18:25:30 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to advocate that we explain these terms in the document overview 18:25:37 <sandro> never tickle sleeping dragons? 18:25:59 <ivan> q+ 18:26:10 <alanr> ack ivaan 18:26:16 <Zhe> alanr: I like to see this in the document overview 18:26:23 <IanH> +1 to Ivan 18:26:40 <sandro> "We have avoided use of the term "OWL 2 Full", which is sometimes used to mean, ..., favoring separate terms for RDF Graph and RDF-Based Semantics" 18:26:44 <Zhe> ivan: the current introduction is clear and the conformance is very clear 18:27:18 <pfps> Sandro is again underestimating the tenderness of sensibilities 18:27:33 <IanH> It's possible, but still suggest to take this off line 18:27:50 <Zhe> alanr: haven't heard any objection, make sure our usage in the document set follows this 18:28:10 <IanH> Peter (very kindly) check schema conformance already 18:28:20 <IanH> s/check/checked/ 18:28:35 <Zakim> -Ivan 18:28:53 <Michael_Schneider> bye 18:28:56 <Rinke> bye 18:28:57 <Zakim> -bernardo 18:28:58 <Zakim> -msmith 18:28:59 <uli> bye 18:28:59 <Zakim> -alanr 18:29:01 <Zakim> -bparsia 18:29:02 <MarkusK_> bye 18:29:03 <Zakim> - +1.301.351.aabb 18:29:03 <Zhe> bye 18:29:04 <Zakim> -Sandro 18:29:04 <Zakim> -Rinke 18:29:10 <Zakim> -bmotik 18:29:13 <Zakim> -Michael_Schneider 18:29:14 <zimmer> bye 18:29:15 <Zakim> -uli 18:29:16 <calvanese> bye 18:29:18 <Zakim> -MarkusK_ 18:29:19 <Zakim> -IanH 18:29:22 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider 18:29:26 <Zakim> -Zhe 18:29:31 <Zakim> -calvanese 18:29:39 <calvanese> calvanese has left #owl 18:29:53 <Zakim> -zimmer 18:29:55 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended 18:29:56 <Zakim> Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, bmotik, IanH, +0161868aaaa, Zhe, Sandro, Ivan, uli, bparsia, Rinke, msmith, bernardo, zimmer, Michael_Schneider, MarkusK_, jonathan, +1.301.351.aabb, 18:29:59 <Zakim> ... calvanese 18:38:33 <msmith> msmith has left #owl 19:55:37 <ekw> ekw has joined #owl 20:51:32 <Zakim> Zakim has left #owl 22:21:34 <ekw> ekw has joined #owl 22:49:00 <sandro> sandro has joined #owl 23:01:45 <IanH> IanH has joined #owl 23:20:54 <IanH_> IanH_ has joined #owl # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000762