<IanH> Having trouble getting through -- will be with you ASAP

<m_schnei> zakim ??P7 is me

I am scribing

how do I invite the agent?

<Rinke> ScribeNick bcuencag

<ivan> scribenick: bcuencag

So, I just type

<Rinke> who is maintaining the scribe list?

IanH: Agenda amendments?
... No amendments, accept previous minutes?

<Rinke> +1 to accept, they look fine to me

IanH: minutes approved

<MartinD> +1 very comprehensive

<DougL> thanks

<IanH> RESOLVED: approve previous minutes http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.01.23/Minutes

<DougL> +1

IanH; pending actions

inaH: action 54

IanH: action 54 complete
... action 57
... people should speak up if they think an action is not completed

Carsten: the action requested the definition of OWLPrime
... not clear what OWL Prime we should discuss

The document is the starting point for discussing OWL Prime

Carsten: for defining OWL Prime we still need some work

IanH: Action 67
... Action 71, Boris completed
... Action 74, dealt with by Jeremy
... Action 90: no agreement for acceptance
... Action 90 is ongoing

<bijan> Still outstanding

<bijan> Yes

IanH: rich annotations action, any progress?

Bijan: yes

IanH: Action 62

Alan: action not yet completed

IanH: use case for punning; postponed for next week
... Action 72, to be continued
... UML association; completed
... No proposals to resolve issues; more time for discussion
... fragments and conformance issues

<uli> yes - but couldn't find anything about "conformance"

Alan: at the workshop we achieved a consensus
... we call fragments to syntax fragments and semantic fragments we called them conformance levels

IanH: we agree that the email I sent is a reasonable starting point
... Do people understand the difference between fragments and conformance levels?

Carsten: happy with the distinction, but not clear what a conformance level is

alanr: we could have a reasoner that does incomplete reasoning, but complete up to a certain set of entailments

<bijan> I suspect it's like what's talked about in: http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/research/mercury/information/doc-release/mercury_ref/Semantics.html#Semantics

hendler: we have a very tight definition of language fragments

<Carsten> So they are orthogonal? We can have syntactic fragment X and conformance level Y at the same time?

<bijan> """However, implementations are also allowed to support other operational semantics, which may have non-determinism, so long as they are sound with respect to the declarative semantics, and so long as they meet a minimum level of completeness (they must be at least as complete as the strict commutative semantics, in the sense that every program which terminates for all possible orderings must also terminate in any implementation-defined operational semantics)."""

hendler: a fragment could be rather seen as a set of figures that could be supported

Uli: having conformance levels might be a good idea
... it gives an idea of what it means to cover a certain construct
... not too difficult to come up with a definition of conformance level

<Carsten> I am not sure I got that

Uli: what it means to be correct or complete for a certain class of queries

<jjc> +1 for test cases

Zhe: are we going to provide a set of test cases and ensure that implementations should cover them?
... does this relate to conformance?

<bijan> Note: the w3c generally doesn't do confromance certification

IanH: My assumption was that we would not define conformance in terms of test cases, but rather something more precise

<bijan> +1 to steering clear of WG doing certification

Sandro: OWL does have test cases

<hendler> +1 to bijan's +1

<jjc> FYGI see http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#runningConsistencyChecker

sandro: most standards in industry talk about what a language does
... OWL does not specify what a classifier should do

<hendler> +1 to line up with defining software

sandro: we should come up with a way of defining what a software does
... I push for conformance levels

<Zakim> msmith, you wanted to clarify understanding conformance via test

who was speaking?

Carsten: conformance level can be related to PD* semantics

<Carsten> I was kicked out, have to redial

<Zakim> alanr, you wanted to say validation is like certification and W3C does validation

msmith: I wouldn't be confortable specifying fragments without taking into account the proper semantics

<uli> 1) it answers "Y is consistent" if and only if it is indeed consistent

<uli> 2) if it finds that "C1 is a subclass of C2", then it is indeed one (but not necessarily the other way round, and

<uli> 3) if we ask the reasoner the return all instances of a class C, then only such nstances are returned (but some might be missed)

<bijan> -1 to what alan said

alan: W3C does validation, and that could be done using tests

<Zakim> hendler, you wanted to ask about a specific example

hendler: take sameAs
... has a precise semantics and an RDF match

<bmotik> To slightly refine Uli's idea, we probably need to look at both the syntactic level, and at the semantic level.

<bmotik> You can have conformance first at the syntactic level.

hendler: we should tell the implementors what features they should implement

<bmotik> Once you say what kind of syntax you accept, the semantic conformance level (a la Uli) would tell you what you are supposed to derive.

hendler: I'd like a fragment to be defined as a set of language features
... one could implement OWL DL features but not following the DL semantics

<msmith> concerned uli's example is incomplete in IRC log, will retype first line

<msmith> here it is: E.g., we could say that a reasoner that is X-conformant behaves as follows when it handles an OWLPrime ontology Y:

<Zakim> jjc, you wanted to mention history

<jjc> sorry skip me

bijan: I do not know what validation is

<alanr> http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/

<alanr> http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/check?uri=referer

<ewallace> +q

bijan: defining a set of test cases would not be a suitable kind of validation

<Zakim> bijan, you wanted to reply to alan

<alanr> jjc: Yes redial

Zhe: I have discussed about EL++ and Dl-Lite and DLP
... DLP fits better with rules than EL++ or DL Lite
... I like DLP better
... Either PD* semantics or DLP would work in principle

<Carsten> could you say what "work" means?

<hendler> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/OracleOwlPrime

<hendler> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/OracleOwlPrime#Definition_of_OWLPrime_.28RDFS_3.0.29

Carsten: I can see two conditions relevant for a fragment: they should provide useful expressivity, and they should be based in some principle that guides the design, such as tractability of subsumption or horness
... What would be the guiding design principle of OWL Prime

<alanr> reducibility to implementation in rule bases with large numbers of instances?

<Zakim> bmotik, you wanted to answer Ian's question

<hendler> -1 to the way Carsten sees defining things, as they don't apply well to the startup/uindustrial world

bmotik: DLP allows to reason about the domain that consists only of the resources that one has in the KB
... no need to generate anonymous individuals

<Carsten> ok, fine with me. Would be nice to learn whether Zhe agrees?!

bmotik: OWL Prime is pretty close to DLP

<Carsten> What is the complexity of DLP?

bmotik: the guiding principle behind DLP is similar to OWL Prime's goals of using rules for reasoning
... wouldn't be difficult to align DLP and OWL Prime
... OWL prime could be seen as an RDF-oriented version of DLP

Zhe: I agree with Boris
... should be feasible to map OWL Prime to DLP
... the criteria in Oracle's mind is to meet the requirements of the users
... it has to allow an efficient implementation in the context of enterprise applications
... we like rule sin Oracle because they can be implemented efficiently using DBs

agreed

<pfps> no

<alanr> +1

<bijan> Uhm....is this meant to bind us by NDA?

<bijan> But...if I were to blog it?

<DougL> I'd rather you don't tell us anything proprietary, but other than that, okay.

pfps: it puts me in an uncomfortable situation

<DougL> Why not just describe the type (e.g., a large medical center....)

<DougL> Just don't mention the names.

<bijan> I don't need the names as long as there's concrete details

alan: the names should be mentioned but the members of the WG should not mention them publicly

<DougL> Exactly.

<DougL> (Meaning I agree with Peter)

<ewallace> I understand Peter's concern!

ok, should I mention the names or not?

ok

hendler: garlik, radar networks and meta Web have given me details about their specifiic needs
... they think that OWL Prime meets their use cases
... these companiens would rather not comment in public
... we should take into account the needs of those companies

alan: could you say something more about OWL prime meeting their needs?
... is it about syntax?
... do they care about completeness?

hendler: I cannot answer

alan: the problem is that I do not know what they mean.

IanH: no need to go any further

hendler: they prefer scaling rather than completeness

<alanr> thanks Jim, that helps

IanH: we need to agree what to do next with OWL Prime
... what are the next steps?

Zhe: we should come up with a set of DLP rules that characterize OWL Prime
... these rules would define the semantics

<Carsten> Is OWL Prime a fragment then or a conformance level?

bmotik: I agree we should come up with a rule set

<Carsten> Or both?

bmotik: assume an EL ontology which is DLP
... you turn it into RDF
... and then run the rules
... and obtain the same answers

<JeffP> Does Zhe agree that OWL Prime is simply DLP?

<uli> Jeff, I think OWLPrime is more Full-ish than DLP?!

<hendler> +1 to Uli

me neither

<alanr> my question goes to this

hendler: we may have both fragments and conformance levels
... there's technical issues that differentiate a full subset from a DLP subset

<Zakim> jjc, you wanted to note, silently, I could take an action to do an HP review of the current page .... about two weeks (but it really depends on when Zhe would like such a review)

hendler: define a fragment as a subset of a vocabulary and the semantics is the OWL Full semantics

<jjc> Please read out the abvove

<jjc> yes it's feaisble

<hendler> but I think there could also be a DL version <scribe assist>

<jjc> I would ask HP colleagues, and it's costly

<jjc> to get a review

hendler: but I think there could also be a DL version

<msmith> review what's there now or what is to be specified?

<jjc> OWL Prime

<jjc> Let's do it

<jjc> I'll write an action

<Zakim> alanr, you wanted to mention that this seems to legislate non-entailments and to ask Zhe if classes can be antecedents/consequents in OWL Prime

<jjc> ACTION: jeremy to arrange HP review of OWL Prime page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/30-owl-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-76 - Arrange HP review of OWL Prime page [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2008-02-06].

alan: I want to meke clear what is the treatment of non-answers
... I understand that rule systems do not put constraints in the use of classes in the place of instances and vice-versa

alanr: this does not seem to be in DLP

<uli> Boris, but this would be a DLP different from the current one

bmotik: I think that DLP and OWL prime could really be made equivalent

<Zakim> msmith, you wanted to clarify ACTION-76

bmotik: OWL Prime is OWL Full like, and we should generate some restrictions

<uli> Boris, I understand you as volunteering to come up with a unified "rule-based OWL"?

<jjc> I am happy to wait

<hendler> -0 to having to agree to a closed world for OWL Prime - I cannot live with this

<msmith> ok, that's fine

<jjc> OK

msmith: HP should better spend resources later on, when the spec is more advanced

<Zakim> hendler, you wanted to reply to Alan

<bijan> I'll notes that there isn't a closed world in boris's proposal (it's not non-monotonic)

hendler: I don't want to move to closed-world semantics

<uli> Jim, this is "known domain assumption" rather than "closed domain"

ianH: the fragment as specified is decidable

hendler: I don't mind if there is a DL version of the fragment, but there should be an OWl prime full
... I am fine with OWL Prime DL being DLP

<hendler> as long as there is also a Full version

<uli> ...but only primitive classes!

<uli> ...I understand that you can't even have them in the premis

<Zakim> bmotik, you wanted to comment on closed-world semantics

hendler: as long as there is also a Full version

bmotik: ther eis no CWA in DLP, nor there is a domain closure assumption

<bijan> +1 to boris

<uli> alanr, this is what I am reading the OWLPrime description

bmotik: what happens is that the use of existentials in the language is limited

<hendler> I misunderstood what Boris previously said, I am fine with the above - i.e. that the language doesn't allow certain things to happen (expressivity wise)

ianH: it specifies a minimum but not an upper bound

<uli> I just sent out my conformance level examples per email, and it is like Ian just said

bmotik: for certain kinds of queries the answers between DLp and OWLPrime (the rdf version of DLP), the answers should be the same
... I am talking about entailments and non-entailments

<uli> say again, alanr

<Zakim> hendler, you wanted to ask rule-based systems typically have "axiomatic" (as opposed to model theoretic) semantics - is that where we are going

hendler: most languages I have encountered are defined in terms of rules
... but this is not the case in this WG

<sandro> isnt' a Proof-Theoretic Semantics?

<bijan> sandro, no

<uli> Jim, one of the troubles is that these axioms might interact...

<alanr> uli: Saying fullish dlp answers at least set of queries dl dlp. This actually sets a pretty high bar for conformance (or at least I worry that it might)

<uli> and then it is difficult to see when we can or should stop

<uli> alanr, I don't think that anybody is suggesting any conformance level for OWLPrime here

<alanr> not advocating for it, just making sure that we are all on the same page - worried that zhe or hendler might not see consequences immediately and then balk later

hendler: we should have an axiomatic semantics

<Carsten> I didn't get that.

<Zakim> bmotik, you wanted to elaborate on types of queries

bmotik: DLs are closer to FOL in that nothing is reified
... so the theory is the ontology

<hendler> +1 I think

bmotik: in the case of OWL Full and OWL Prime, you ahve a set of axioms that reify your theory

<uli> Boris, I haven't seen an axiomatic semantics for OWL DL...did you?

bmotik: the equivalence between DLP and OWL Prime could be established
... for a certain kind of entailments

<DougL> The speakers can edit the minutes.

bmotik: those that make sense in DLs

<bmotik> Uli, the axiomatic semantics of OWL DL can't be given in terms of a set of axioms that is *fixed* for all ontolgoies.

<bmotik> These axioms in OWL DL would be second-order.

<bmotik> In OWL DL, the theory is actually the ontology.

<alanr> +1 to Uli - Boris, possible to do that

<uli> Boris, I understand, but I heard you saying that there was such a semantics

ok

<Carsten> Other fragments for example :-)

IanH: next item in the agenda

<DougL> congrats

<bmotik> Thanks!

<ivan> wow!

<alanr> claps!!!

<JeffP> well done!

<Zhe> congrats!

<Achille> congrats!

<bijan> Congrats

<uli> IanH, we have been spending a looong time on one fragment - not on any of the others...

hendler: Boris won an award, congrats

<uli> hurray boris!

<Ratnesh> congrats!

<Carsten> great, boris!

IanH: issue 92

<bmotik> ACTION: bmotik to Send an e-mail to the list with ideas on how to bridge DLP and OWL Prime [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/30-owl-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - bmotik

IanH: resolved

<pfps> +1

<bmotik> ACTION: bmotik2 to Send an e-mail to the list with ideas on how to bridge DLP and OWL Prime [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/30-owl-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-77 - Send an e-mail to the list with ideas on how to bridge DLP and OWL Prime [on Boris Motik - due 2008-02-06].

<Rinke> +1

IanH: issue 16
... entity annotations? should we have annotations in entity declarations?

<dlm> yes - i liked peters 2a proposal

<jjc> annotations are not interesting! but they are a duty ....

pfps: I proposed to decrease the kinds of annotations allowed

bmotik: there is another asymmetry
... annotations of axioms are not axioms themselves
... this causes an asymmetry

<pfps> this is roughly my 2a proposal

bmotik: Matthew suggested to make all annotations axioms

<bijan> It could be a bit tricky, but it could be simple...would have to work out the details to know which

<Rinke> looks like it to me as well

<uli> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0106.html

alan: do annotations become domain elements?

<bijan> That's orthoganal I think

bmotik: all this is purely syntactic

<pfps> ... and annotations

<bijan> No

bmotik: we could put annotations on ontologies, entities and axioms

<dlm> and i think you can put annotations on annotations right?

<uli> yes, dlm

<pfps> ok by me

<DougL> Deb, i think that recursively, by definition, the answer must be yes.

<dlm> yes - just making sure for the log. i would use this a lot.

IanH: peter requested to ask for sponsorship for OWLEd

IanH and alan: we endorse the request

pfps: we would like to get enough money so that we do not need registration fees

<jjc> (HP is always willing to host on that basis)

<jjc> know

IanH: there is an issue concerning observers in the next F2F
... we had some issues with observers in manchester

<bijan> I'm always happy to have observers of any kind

<jjc> I feel there should be a cap on number of observers from any one organisation

<bijan> I'm happy to have observers vote in various circumstantces (e.g., certain sorts of straw poll)

ivan: we mean observers from member organizations, right?

<jjc> Also meeting room arrangement

alan: the imports task force meeting is next monday

<bijan> I don't see any problem with non-member participation at a normal f2f...everything is publically minuted!

<uli> IanH, he took himself off the queue

<bijan> +1 to sandro

<alanr> do we have any actual requests for non members yet?

<jjc> it raises the bar to making member confidential commetns

IanH: it would be possible to have observers from non members, but
... they may be asked to leave the room

bijan: I do not believe there are issues with non-members

<msmith> I will clarify if I know of any such requests

<bijan> jjc, the bar should be high

<Rinke> bye

bye

<JeffP> bye

<uli> bye bye

<Ratnesh> bye

<Zhe> bye

<bijan> jjc, since it's a pita to rip things out of the irc log

<alanr> someone got the minutes?

so, concerning the minutes, what do I do?

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133  of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/InaH/IanH/
Succeeded: s/tarlick/garlik/
Found ScribeNick: bcuencag
Inferring Scribes: bcuencag

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Present: Achille bijan bmotik m_schnei Rinke Ivan uli IanH Carsten pfps msmith DougL Evan_Wallace bcuencag Jim Zhe Ratnesh MartinD JeffP alanr dlm Sandro

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting


WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 30 Jan 2008
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/01/30-owl-minutes.html
People with action items: bmotik bmotik2 jeremy

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report