17:53:40 RRSAgent has joined #owl 17:53:40 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/01/07-owl-irc 17:54:08 Zakim, this will be owlwg 17:54:08 ok, ewallace; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 6 minutes 17:54:49 RRSAgent, make records public 17:56:37 SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started 17:56:44 +Evan_Wallace 17:57:27 pfps has joined #owl 17:57:49 +Peter_Patel-Schneider 17:57:52 -Evan_Wallace 17:57:53 +Evan_Wallace 17:58:18 zakim, who is here? 17:58:18 On the phone I see Evan_Wallace, Peter_Patel-Schneider 17:58:20 On IRC I see pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, schneid, Rinke, alanr, IanH, sandro, ewallace, trackbot 17:58:47 bcuencagrau has joined #owl 17:59:10 Rinke has left #owl 17:59:12 MarkusK_ has joined #owl 17:59:14 +Alan_Ruttenberg 17:59:20 Rinke has joined #owl 17:59:51 bcuencag has joined #owl 17:59:54 +??P13 17:59:56 Yes, Bernardo kindly agreed to step in. 17:59:57 +??P12 18:00:07 zakim, ??P12 is me 18:00:07 +schneid; got it 18:00:11 zakim, mute me 18:00:11 schneid should now be muted 18:00:23 He may, like me, be having trouble getting past Zakim. 18:00:34 +Ian_Horrocks 18:00:38 +??P17 18:00:43 Zakim, ??P17 is me 18:00:43 +bcuencag; got it 18:00:46 + +2aaaa 18:00:47 Zakim, Ian_Horrocks is me 18:00:47 +IanH; got it 18:00:56 Zakim, mute me 18:00:56 bcuencag should now be muted 18:01:00 msmith has joined #owl 18:01:02 zakim, who is here? 18:01:02 On the phone I see Evan_Wallace, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Alan_Ruttenberg, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), IanH, bcuencag (muted), +2aaaa 18:01:05 On IRC I see msmith, bcuencag, Rinke, MarkusK_, pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, schneid, alanr, IanH, sandro, ewallace, trackbot 18:01:10 zakim, +2aaaa is me 18:01:10 +Rinke; got it 18:01:13 zakim, mute me 18:01:14 Rinke should now be muted 18:01:27 + +1.202.408.aabb 18:01:32 Zhe has joined #owl 18:01:57 The silence is unnerving! 18:02:25 zakim, who is here? 18:02:25 On the phone I see Evan_Wallace, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Alan_Ruttenberg, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), IanH, bcuencag (muted), Rinke (muted), msmith 18:02:28 On IRC I see Zhe, msmith, bcuencag, Rinke, MarkusK_, pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, schneid, alanr, IanH, sandro, ewallace, trackbot 18:02:31 + +1.978.692.aacc 18:02:32 ivan has joined #owl 18:02:57 zakim, +1.978.692.aacc is me 18:02:57 +Zhe; got it 18:03:00 I thought silence meant that you were about to get an arrow in the chest. 18:03:02 zakim, mute me 18:03:02 Zhe should now be muted 18:03:18 zakim, dial ivan-voip 18:03:18 ok, ivan; the call is being made 18:03:20 +Ivan 18:03:41 Christine has joined #owl 18:04:20 scribenick: bcuencag 18:04:21 yes 18:04:27 +Sandro 18:04:50 zakim, who is here? 18:04:50 On the phone I see Evan_Wallace, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Alan_Ruttenberg, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), IanH, bcuencag (muted), Rinke (muted), msmith, Zhe (muted), Ivan, Sandro 18:04:53 On IRC I see Christine, ivan, Zhe, msmith, bcuencag, Rinke, MarkusK_, pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, schneid, alanr, IanH, sandro, ewallace, trackbot 18:05:05 q+ 18:05:10 zakim, unmute me 18:05:12 schneid should no longer be muted 18:05:12 ack schneid 18:05:17 alanr: agenda amendments? 18:05:35 zakim, mute me 18:05:35 schneid should now be muted 18:05:36 schneid: I would like to say something about the status of RDF smeantics 18:05:49 +??P8 18:05:57 the minutes looked ok to me. 18:05:57 alanr: minuets accepted? 18:05:58 The minutes look acceptable. 18:06:07 minutes were helpful to find back... :) 18:06:09 alanr: minutes accepted 18:06:20 alanr: action items 18:06:21 zakim, ??P8 is christine 18:06:21 +christine; got it 18:06:24 "Wow?" 18:06:35 alanr: F2F registration 18:07:16 q+ 18:07:28 ack pfps 18:07:49 Zakim, unmute me 18:07:49 bcuencag should no longer be muted 18:08:01 Action 252 18:08:01 Sorry, bad ACTION syntax 18:08:10 Zakim, unmute me 18:08:10 bcuencag was not muted, bcuencag 18:08:16 alanr: action 252 18:08:35 pfps: we should tell to people inmediately what the name could be 18:08:41 q+ 18:08:48 ack ianh 18:09:13 elisa has joined #owl 18:09:21 q+ alanr 18:09:22 the name for the date/time XML datatype has been determined 18:09:28 ianH: if the docs are approved as it is, we could have a list of changes after last call 18:09:32 ack alanr 18:09:51 alanr: we could use the wiki only for editor comments 18:10:07 alanr: so that they can be collected 18:10:16 sandro: better not use the wiki commnets 18:10:33 alanr: they are not very readable 18:11:21 ianH: we should make it clear to editors that this is the process 18:11:36 pfps: so edits have to indicate if they make any change to the docs 18:11:55 RDF-Based Semantics has a list of changes which is updated regularly, and revised at the end 18:12:16 Zakim, mute me 18:12:16 bcuencag should now be muted 18:12:24 I'll change Syntax accordingly. 18:12:44 action: pfps to implement change to syntax for datetime xml schema coordination 18:12:44 Created ACTION-261 - Implement change to syntax for datetime xml schema coordination [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2009-01-14]. 18:12:45 ianH: we should be a bit more prescriptive in the way docs are changed 18:13:01 + +1.650.960.aadd 18:13:03 I agree 18:13:09 ianH: at this point changes should not be made unless we discuss them first 18:13:34 sandro: even for typos? 18:13:47 ianH: no, only for more substantial changes 18:13:58 q? 18:14:06 -Rinke 18:14:31 sandro: we should be able to clearly identify the changes since last call 18:15:06 identify and http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Response_Protocol 18:15:06 alanr: action 255 18:15:13 zakim, ??aadd is me 18:15:13 sorry, elisa, I do not recognize a party named '??aadd' 18:15:18 action-255? 18:15:18 ACTION-255 -- Sandro Hawke to write wiki page on mailing-list behavior guidelines during last call -- due 2008-12-10 -- OPEN 18:15:18 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/actions/255 18:15:21 action-255 closed 18:15:21 ACTION-255 Write wiki page on mailing-list behavior guidelines during last call closed 18:15:37 alanr: action 260 18:15:39 zakim, +1.650.960.aadd is me 18:15:39 +elisa; got it 18:16:08 +??P15 18:16:20 sandro: I consider my action done 18:16:24 zakim, +??P15 is me 18:16:24 sorry, Rinke, I do not recognize a party named '+??P15' 18:16:46 zakim, ??P15 is me 18:16:46 +Rinke; got it 18:16:57 end of action status 18:17:07 zakim, mute me 18:17:07 Rinke should now be muted 18:17:13 Soliciting reviews of and/or comments on LC documents 18:17:15 q+ 18:17:25 ack ianh 18:17:59 ianH: if we haven't got comments, we should encourage people to make comments 18:18:06 ianH: should we be worried? 18:18:32 ianH: by next week, if little comes out, we should take some action 18:19:04 q+ 18:19:17 sandro: sometimes comments we do not happen because people have not read the docs 18:19:27 ianH: waht about comments within the WG? 18:19:54 sandro: I don't know 18:20:27 ianH: comments from industry members may be valuable 18:20:43 zakim, unmute me 18:20:43 schneid should no longer be muted 18:20:43 ack schneid 18:20:45 sandro: for that, we can wait until rec stage 18:21:31 mschneid: there have been some comments but not using the official route 18:22:08 q+ 18:22:28 mschneid: there were some discussions and something came out from them 18:22:44 mschneid: but these people didn't comment officially 18:22:48 ack ianh 18:22:52 q? 18:22:58 mschneid: should we rise the comments on behalf of these people? 18:23:15 ianH; we can ask these people 18:24:01 zakim, mute me 18:24:01 schneid should now be muted 18:24:20 zakim, unmute me 18:24:20 schneid should no longer be muted 18:24:26 zakim, mute me 18:24:26 schneid should now be muted 18:24:26 alanr: we might emphasizr that comments are very important for us 18:24:52 alanr: F2F5 18:25:10 alanr:please confirm your attendance status 18:25:10 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F5_People 18:25:20 q+ 18:25:31 q? 18:25:43 zakim, unmute me 18:25:43 schneid should no longer be muted 18:25:48 ack schneid 18:25:54 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0000.html 18:26:07 mschneid: there are some new US entry regulations 18:26:30 mschneid: please, be careful 18:26:31 zakim, mute me 18:26:31 schneid should now be muted 18:26:41 I filled it recently (voluntarily) and it was pretty light-weight (I got an "instant" OK response) 18:27:07 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2008Dec/0000.html 18:27:16 q+ 18:27:20 ack ianh 18:27:28 ianH: I have looked at alan's email 18:27:37 q+ 18:28:28 ianH: they would like to have complex concepts in comments in order to support sanctioning 18:28:53 ianH: I wouldn't personally want to extend the spec in this direction 18:28:58 q- 18:29:13 ianH: but we could be able to support mechanisms for at least partially support their use case 18:29:38 alanr: somebody should start drafting those mechanisms 18:30:39 ianH: one way would be to use named concepts for defining the complex concepts they want to use 18:30:46 ianH: some problems with that 18:31:06 ianH: one could add the definition of the concept as a string 18:31:25 alanr: do you want to start a page, Ian? 18:31:43 ianH: we should use the response page for last call comments 18:32:02 +1 18:32:44 alanr: could there will be problems with the mapping to RDF? 18:32:50 No problem. :-) 18:32:56 ianH; let's Peter and Boris think about it 18:33:18 pfps: there will be no problems 18:33:51 alnr: no, I meant if we actually wanted to add axioms in the target of annotations 18:33:59 pfps: that is a problem 18:34:21 ianH: well, problably they just want an unnamed individual introducing a complex concept 18:34:38 pfps: if it is a class expression, then there should not be a problem 18:34:49 alanr: what about serializing the axiom as text? 18:35:17 pfps: they would just be strings 18:36:25 pfps: we could go and change all documents, but that would be a mess 18:36:39 q? 18:36:54 ianH: I have already created a page 18:37:10 ianH: we can now start writing our responses 18:37:48 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/att-0000/00-part 18:37:55 alanr: Ceil's comments 18:38:09 alanr: have you read it? 18:38:10 this was not really a comment 18:38:30 alanr: i agree with michael 18:38:52 +1 18:38:59 +1 18:39:12 +1, just to let her know that somebody is watching her :) 18:39:37 Action: alanr to send mail to cecil replying that we are waiting for the real comment 18:39:37 Sorry, couldn't find user - alanr 18:39:58 +1 18:40:02 q+ 18:40:03 ACTION: alan to send mail to cecil replying that we are waiting for the real comment 18:40:03 Created ACTION-262 - to send mail to cecil replying that we are waiting for the real comment [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2009-01-14]. 18:40:22 q+ 18:40:27 ack pfps 18:40:45 alanr: the next comment is from Mike Smith 18:40:59 pfps: Mike has noticed an error in the reverse mapping 18:41:08 pfps: we need to fix it 18:41:24 pfps: i have written an email with the proposed resolution 18:41:52 q? 18:41:57 ack msmith 18:42:20 msmith: boris suggested to make it a public comment 18:42:30 q+ 18:42:36 msmith: I dind't mean this to me a LC comment, but just a WH issue 18:42:44 ack pfps 18:42:56 pfps: it is good to have it as LC comment 18:42:56 +1 18:43:12 pfps: it will be easier to track 18:43:17 that's ok by me too. 18:43:25 pfps: we could distinguish them between internal or external 18:43:51 q+ 18:43:57 alanr: next comment 18:43:58 ack ivan 18:44:22 ivan: this looks like a potential formal objection 18:44:46 bmotik has joined #owl 18:45:11 +??P4 18:45:13 ivan: there could be problems with RDF and SPARQL implementations 18:45:16 Zakim, ??P4 is me 18:45:16 +bmotik; got it 18:45:29 ivan: boris should look at it 18:45:30 boris, we are discussing http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0001.html 18:45:33 Zakim, mute me 18:45:33 bmotik should now be muted 18:45:38 Andy's comments seems substantial to me, although I did not yet follow it further 18:46:06 alnr: how do we handle this LC comment? 18:46:16 ivan: we should agree on some sort of an answer 18:46:38 alanr: we could use the rdf mailing list 18:46:49 sandro: in order to look for an agreement 18:47:52 I'm sorry, I don't know yet where we are 18:48:12 alanr: we could probably postpone this 18:48:26 sandro: I am on that list 18:49:48 alanr: the next one is a comment by Jim 18:50:05 alanr: mike had a discussion with him 18:50:09 zakim, unmute me 18:50:09 schneid should no longer be muted 18:50:13 q+ 18:50:18 ack schneid 18:50:29 q+ 18:50:33 schneid: the discussion was on the semantics of keys 18:51:15 schneid: a better explanation was requested in order to avoid confusion with the semantics of keys 18:51:22 schneid: jim was confused 18:51:34 schneid: some clarification is in order 18:52:01 +q 18:52:01 zakim, mute me 18:52:02 schneid should now be muted 18:52:04 ack ianh 18:52:26 ianH: jim was happy about the structure of the language 18:52:42 q+ 18:52:46 ianH: we should send him an email to forward his email to the public record 18:52:55 ack Christine 18:53:04 ianH: there should be a LC comment of that form 18:53:31 Christine: I can add a sentence to the requirements doc 18:53:40 q? 18:53:45 ack ivan 18:54:01 indeed, Jim did so 18:54:44 ivan: that is already done 18:55:18 alanr: perhaps Boris could take a look at the examples on keys 18:55:22 yes 18:55:30 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Dec/0055.html "So I hereby raise this as a LC Document issue" 18:55:32 alanr: Bijan should also be aware for the primer 18:55:40 Bijan and I will do so. 18:55:50 Someone -- probably Michael -- should send a summary email to the public comments list? 18:56:15 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2009JanMar/0003.html 18:56:32 q+ 18:56:36 alanr: the next comment is more like a question 18:56:38 ack pfps 18:56:46 what Jim said in : "So I hereby raise this as a LC Document issue (I believe the right 18:56:48 terminology) -- i.e. the design is okay, but the documentation should 18:56:49 better reflect it" 18:57:17 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2009JanMar/0003.html 18:57:19 ianH: this is not a LC comment 18:57:19 "[This is not a formal comment, just seeking understanding.]" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2009JanMar/0003.html 18:58:02 q? 18:59:22 sandro: I am going to reply to him privately 18:59:37 alanr: end of LC section 19:00:08 alanr: Proposal to approve tests 19:00:33 alanr: we should probably approve the tests that all implementations pass 19:00:48 q+ 19:00:53 ack msmith 19:01:12 msmith: the first set of comments are all DL 19:01:33 msmith: there are others that are Full and I haven't run any tool on them 19:02:17 msmith: some tests are also datatype-related 19:02:25 q+ 19:02:32 ack ianh 19:02:36 msmith: reasoners treat datatypes differently 19:03:06 ianH: if in the end some systems do not implement all the datatypes, we may want to keep the tests but explain why some fail 19:03:24 q+ 19:03:47 ack msmith 19:04:46 msmith: I am ok with accepting the tests that three or more reasoners pass 19:05:45 alanr: should we have a formal vote on these tests? 19:05:55 this is the direct version link http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Test_Queue&oldid=17103 19:06:08 +1 to Alan's proposal 19:06:52 PROPOSED: tests listed on http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Test_Queue&oldid=17103 that all three reasoners pass are approved 19:07:24 msmith: what about the tests that we still haven't run? 19:07:33 alanr: they go to a different page 19:07:38 q+ 19:07:42 ack ianh 19:08:04 ianH; for the OWL Full ones we should have a different process 19:08:36 q+ 19:08:36 q+ 19:08:48 ack schneid 19:08:52 alanr: are we sure that all tests marked as OWL Full are indeed full? 19:08:53 ack msmith 19:08:55 q+ schneid 19:09:13 Zakim, unmute me 19:09:13 bcuencag should no longer be muted 19:09:20 zamin, mute schneid 19:09:28 Zakim, mute schneid 19:09:28 schneid should now be muted 19:09:30 Zakim, mute me 19:09:30 bcuencag should now be muted 19:09:47 report format http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test_Result_Format#Results_Ontology 19:09:56 msmith: OWL Full implementors are welcome to run the tests 19:09:59 q- because cannot talk at the moment 19:10:06 no 19:10:37 q+ 19:10:38 sandro: i wrote an OWL Full reasoner, but it is not currently working well 19:10:43 I had a mail on the Full problem today 19:10:46 ack ianh 19:10:53 q- 19:10:54 q- schneid 19:11:06 ianH: we should vote on approving these tests that have three OKs 19:11:29 I agree with Ian, we should minimally approve the 3 success tests 19:11:29 PROPOSED: tests listed on http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Test_Queue&oldid=17103 that all three reasoners pass are approved 19:11:31 -Rinke 19:11:49 q+ 19:11:52 +1 19:11:53 +1 19:11:54 +1 19:11:55 +1 19:11:56 +1 19:11:57 +1 19:12:01 zakim, unmute me 19:12:01 schneid should no longer be muted 19:12:01 +1 19:12:14 +1 19:12:55 +1 19:13:03 RESOLVED: tests listed on http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Test_Queue&oldid=17103 that all three reasoners pass are approved 19:13:27 schneid: mschneid: some OWL Full tests can be slightly transformed and be made easy 19:13:31 +1 (sorry for the late vote) 19:13:32 action smithmi to update status on approved tests 19:13:32 Sorry, couldn't find user - smithmi 19:13:47 action msmith to update status on approved tests 19:13:47 Sorry, couldn't find user - msmith 19:14:15 alanr: are you taking an action to review the Full tests? 19:14:18 action masmith to update status on approved tests 19:14:18 Sorry, couldn't find user - masmith 19:14:29 mschneid: i need 10 days to finish other work on OWl Full 19:14:38 action: msmith to update status on approved tests 19:14:38 Sorry, couldn't find user - msmith 19:14:42 s/OWl/OWL/ 19:15:47 q? 19:15:53 ack schneid 19:17:06 alanr: please, give details in an email, michael 19:17:31 alanr: discussion about Manchester Syntax 19:17:47 alanr: whether it should be rec track 19:17:53 q+ 19:17:58