00:00:05 <jhendler> deadline for raising editorial comments with respect to the documents is July 15.
00:00:34 <mdean> mdean has joined #webont
00:00:53 <DeborahMc> editors prefer suggestions to have the form of an operational suggestion:
00:01:10 <DeborahMc> i.e., instead of saying "xxx"  I suggest saying "yyy"
00:09:10 <GuusS> Raphael: should we define our "owl" version of Dublin Core features?
00:09:49 <GuusS> DanC: strongly agianst, tools like Adobe may have dificulties interpreting owl:title
00:10:13 <GuusS> Deb: confirms that her current wording about DC is OK
00:10:23 <DanC> an RCS ontology I happend to need enough to make it up: http://www.w3.org/2001/03swell/rcs.n3
00:10:41 <GuusS> Raphael: use CVS format for versioning information
00:24:54 <GuusS> Jeff: ability to state backward compatibility
00:27:46 <GuusS> discussion about the logical implications
00:32:02 <GuusS> no normative  lagnauge features for ontology metadata
00:36:59 <GuusS> Jim: are the internationalization  solved?
00:37:10 <GuusS> DanC: done by RDF Core
00:37:59 <GuusS> Other issues that are solved: character model,, ....(scribe forgot)
00:45:22 <GuusS> discussion about extensibility mechanism
00:45:33 <GuusS> Jim: summary
00:45:54 <GuusS> time needs to spent on versioning and import
00:48:47 <GuusS> Req: attachment of info to statements
00:49:24 <GuusS> It will have to be clear tomorrow wether there is an issue here
00:57:25 <jhendler> jhendler has left #webont
07:36:51 <herman> herman has joined #webont
07:37:25 <herman> test
15:33:45 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #webont
15:39:35 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #webont
15:39:39 <DanC> Zakim, this will be webo
15:39:42 <Zakim> ok, DanC
15:39:47 <DanC> Zakim, what's the passcode?
15:39:48 <Zakim> sorry, DanC, I don't know what conference this is
15:39:54 <DanC> oh well.
15:39:56 <DanC> you will.
15:45:07 <JonB> JonB has joined #webont
15:46:30 <DanC> see the ftf page
15:46:34 <DanC> it's the usual #/passcode
15:46:49 <DanC> "TUESDAY JULY 2
15:46:50 <DanC> 09.00 - 09.45    Telecon
15:46:50 <DanC> Zakim (tel:+1-617-6200), code 9326"
15:46:54 <DanC> -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf3.html#What:2
15:50:19 <Zakim> SW_WebOnt()12:00PM has now started
15:50:26 <Zakim> +Jonathan_Borden
15:58:13 <jhendler> jhendler has joined #webont
15:58:35 <jhendler> we're waiting on a telephone at this end -- telecon may start late
15:59:19 <jhendler> zakim, who is here
15:59:22 <Zakim> jhendler, you need to end that query with '?'
15:59:36 <jhendler> zakim, who is here?
15:59:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see Jonathan_Borden
15:59:43 <Zakim> On IRC I see jhendler, JonB, Zakim, RRSAgent, herman, las1
16:00:06 <jhendler> zakim, if you knew it was a question, why didn't you answer it?
16:00:10 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, jhendler.
16:00:53 <Zakim> +??P12
16:01:16 <heflin> heflin has joined #webont
16:01:47 <JonB> Zakim JonB is Jonathan_Borden
16:01:58 <JonB> hmmm...
16:02:13 <JonB> zakim, JonB is Jonathan_Borden
16:02:14 <Zakim> sorry, JonB, I do not recognize a party named 'JonB'
16:02:40 <JonB> zakim, Jonathan_Borden is JonB
16:02:42 <Zakim> +JonB; got it
16:02:46 <Zakim> +??P0
16:04:27 <Zakim> -??P0
16:04:39 <Zakim> +??P3
16:04:45 <Zakim> + +1.705.756.aaaa
16:08:19 <jhendler> deb mcguinness coming with a speaker phone - stay tuned.
16:08:59 <jhendler> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:09:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see JonB, ??P12, ??P3, +1.705.756.aaaa
16:09:19 <jhendler> zakim, ??P12 is chris welty
16:09:21 <Zakim> I don't understand '??P12 is chris welty', jhendler.  Try /msg Zakim help
16:10:07 <jhendler> zakim, ??p12 is welty
16:10:09 <Zakim> +Welty; got it
16:10:33 <jhendler> working on the speaker phone...
16:11:27 <Zakim> +Stein
16:11:29 <jhendler> getting closer...
16:11:47 <jhendler> can someone on the phone and IRC let folks know we should be ready in a couple of minutes
16:12:15 <GuusS> GuusS has joined #webont
16:14:36 <jhendler> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:14:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see JonB, Welty, ??P3, +1.705.756.aaaa, Stein
16:15:53 <Chris> Chris has joined #webont
16:16:14 <Chris> Wow!  I'm in!
16:16:19 <Zakim> -Stein
16:16:50 <Zakim> +Stein
16:17:35 <Zakim> +??P4
16:17:45 <DeborahMc> DeborahMc has joined #webont
16:18:21 <jhendler> Peter. Chris, Herman, Lynn, Jon
16:18:28 <jhendler> zakim, who is here?
16:18:29 <Zakim> On the phone I see JonB, Welty, ??P3, +1.705.756.aaaa, Stein, ??P4
16:18:35 <Zakim> On IRC I see DeborahMc, Chris, GuusS, heflin, jhendler, JonB, Zakim, RRSAgent, herman, las1
16:20:03 <logger_1> logger_1 has joined #webont
16:27:29 <DanC> DanC has joined #webont
16:30:03 <mdean> mdean has joined #webont
16:30:18 <DeborahMc> http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/webont/OWLFeatureSynopsis.htm
16:30:19 <jhendler> Recap of discussion of document 
16:30:24 <DeborahMc> this is my working version
16:30:37 <heflin> PPS expresses concern about whether docs will be ready for publication
16:30:41 <DanC> supplement to yesterday's record: * a few WebOnt notes from 1Jul connolly@jammer.dm93.org (Tue, Jul 02 2002)  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Jul/0003.html
16:30:42 <DeborahMc> it took into account real time updates from yesterday 
16:31:30 <heflin> PPS: Okay if people can make objections after new drafts are available
16:32:36 <heflin> Hendler: Re reference description - mostly editorial changes
16:33:32 <heflin> Ian: doesn't think enough time to make editorial changes
16:36:13 <heflin> A few group members express desire for an extra week before release
16:38:19 <heflin> Sufficient consensus for extra week
16:38:47 <DanC> [I don't recall any 11July editorial deadline]
16:40:08 <heflin> PPS proposal: 7/11 versions, comments by 7/15, decision? by 7/18
16:40:35 <heflin> PPS: if no consensus on 7/18, then extend by 1 week to 7/25
16:40:43 <DanC> i.e. if we have consensus 18July, we can publish; else we take another week to decide.
16:40:56 <DanC> so RESOLVED.
16:41:23 <heflin> Jim: extra logical features
16:41:31 <heflin> Jim: versioning needs time
16:41:48 <heflin> Jim: internationalization go with RDF although not big fan of it
16:42:13 <heflin> Jim: imports has an issue that will be discussed
16:42:57 <jhendler> summary on extra-logical:
16:43:04 <heflin> Jim: tagging of statements- must raise issue, remove from requirements, or decide it is already handled in some way
16:45:06 <DanC> DanC explains mapping decision, recorded in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Jul/0003.html
16:45:11 <heflin> DanC: other resolution from yesterday was a RESOLUTION that abstract syntax document provide a mapping to/from the language description
16:46:19 <heflin> PPS: has issue that we are adding lots of "syntactic fluff"
16:46:30 <heflin> Ian: thinks documents are mostly "PR"
16:46:37 <JosD> JosD has joined #webont
16:48:47 <heflin> PPS: wants some current issues to be opened
16:48:56 <heflin> DanC: requests that 5.10 be opened
16:50:31 <heflin> PPS: Would like 5.3 and 5.10 referenced in language description
16:50:54 <heflin> DanC: maybe formal spec should be where these issues are referenced
16:52:11 <heflin> Jim: next conversation is about abstract syntax
16:52:35 <DanC> (I think peter just noticed the lack of mention of 5.3 and 5.10 in the language description; he didn't say they belonged; I think he said that was sorta the point; those issues aren't touched by that document)
16:53:32 <heflin> Jim: last telecon discussed abstract syntax, sent e-mail to mailing list
16:54:06 <heflin> one issue addressed by mapping resolution
16:54:37 <heflin> PPS: semantics have been out already
16:54:56 <heflin> comment that many semantics are out, which should be published?
16:55:05 <DanC> # SEM: semantics for the abstract syntax Peter F. Patel-Schneider (Tue, Jun 11 2002)  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jun/0082.html
16:55:06 <JonB> (JonB)
16:55:29 <DanC> # layering (5.3,5.10): a first-order same-syntax model theory Dan Connolly (Wed, Jun 19 2002) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jun/0152.html
16:56:58 <heflin> PPS: prefers that semantics go out with other documents
16:57:36 <heflin> DanC: good to point out what positions docs take on open issues
16:58:04 <heflin> Jim: proposal to take abstract sytanx and turn into semantics doc
16:59:22 <heflin> DanC: has an alternative proposal he would prefer to publish
17:00:16 <JonB> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jun/0152.html
17:00:35 <JonB> DanC's proposal from June 19
17:02:38 <heflin> 705-756-3029 number to call PPS at
17:02:46 <Zakim> -Stein
17:03:01 <DanC> oops; I cited the wrong model thoery
17:03:31 <Zakim> -??P3
17:04:05 <DanC> Re: layering (5.3,5.10): a first-order same-syntax model theory Dan Connolly (Fri, Jun 28 2002) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jun/0209.html
17:04:12 <Zakim> -Welty
17:04:13 <Zakim> -??P4
17:04:14 <Zakim> - +1.705.756.aaaa
17:04:15 <Zakim> -JonB
17:04:17 <Zakim> SW_WebOnt()12:00PM has ended
17:04:23 <DanC> -> http://www.w3.org/2002/06/owlsem55.txt
17:09:26 <heflin> I'm still scribing - whoopee!
17:11:19 <heflin> Beginning call with PPS
17:12:30 <heflin> Ian: suggests that abstract syntax and mapping published before adding semantics
17:12:58 <heflin> DanC: objects to position abstract syntax takes on layering
17:15:02 <heflin> Deb: wants documents to separate out OWL lite from full OWL
17:15:20 <DanC> I think the relevant issues here are  5.1 Uniform treatment of literal data values,  5.3 Semantic Layering,  5.10 DAML+OIL semantics is too weak
17:16:06 <DanC> cf http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html
17:17:04 <heflin> Straw poll: add mapping to abstract syntax but no model theory
17:17:13 <heflin> release on same schedule as other documents
17:19:23 <heflin> IN FAVOR: 11
17:19:32 <heflin> OPPOSED: 1
17:20:09 <heflin> OPPOSED (DanC) can live with
17:21:35 <heflin> RESOLVED: see Straw poll. Abstain Danc, Jos, Jeff, who else?
17:21:46 <DeborahMc> the followon to my proposal was a separate section for owl lite with the additions pulled out for full owl
17:21:59 <DanC> "no model theory" doesn't preclude adding one in this meeting
17:22:30 <heflin> Proposal: have abstract syntax have specific section for OWL lite
17:23:10 <heflin> Revised Proposal: pull out section for OWL lite, distinguish differences for OWL
17:31:55 <heflin> DanC: Asks for preference of editor
17:32:47 <heflin> PPS: prefers defining OWL lite by substraction
17:34:44 <heflin> PROPOSAL: define OWL by addition from OWL lite
17:35:10 <heflin> In favor: 11
17:35:30 <heflin> Opposed: 3
17:36:28 <heflin> This was a straw-poll
17:38:22 <heflin> RESOLVED: with 7 abstains
17:41:14 <heflin> Jim: move to discussion of model theory
17:42:45 <heflin> "Formal Spec" is misleading, at least until it has a model theory
17:43:44 <DanC> "An OWL model theory layered on RDF" http://www.w3.org/2002/06/owlsem55.txt
17:43:54 <DanC> $Id: 02-webont-irc.txt,v 1.101 2002/07/03 00:00:00 swick Exp $
17:49:55 <heflin> DanC: has no comprehension axioms
17:50:18 <heflin> i.e, x in A intersect B does not imply x in B intersect A
17:58:21 <heflin> Issue is how we can have integration with this
17:59:40 <heflin> DanC says he could add an axiom to conclude that classes defined in this way are equal
18:04:15 <Chris> Chris has joined #webont
18:23:00 <heflin> Straw Poll: Take Peter's model theory and releasing subject to addressing Dan's concerns
18:23:51 <heflin> + to be done by August 1
18:25:33 <heflin> New Straw Poll: Put Peter's model theory through the standard editorial process
18:27:18 <heflin> (this means official reviewers must be solicited)
18:27:36 <heflin> In favor: 8
18:27:39 <heflin> Opposed: 5
18:27:46 <heflin> Abstain: 3
18:28:42 <GuusS> q+
18:52:23 <jhendler> JimH scribes - session on Guide
18:53:08 <jhendler> http://www.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Apr/0266.html
18:53:23 <jhendler> Guus' proposal for the outcomes of the GUIDE activity
18:53:43 <jhendler> 1) Presentation syntaxes: XML, UML
18:53:55 <jhendler> 2) Language primer/walkthrough
18:54:12 <jhendler>  main change- should have more realistic ontology examples
18:55:00 <jhendler>  we should use examples from our use cases
18:56:04 <jhendler> 3) How to do it document -- guidelines on how we might handle things in the objectives (example part/whole, schemas, defined classes, etc.)
18:56:14 <DeborahMc> gates 167 has been signed up as a breakout room
18:56:16 <jhendler> possible walkthrough and guideline merge
19:01:11 <jhendler> Guus: we need to produce these documents by Bristol (walkthru/primer; how-to-do-it )
19:01:31 <jhendler> Guus: what can we realistically achieve?
19:02:24 <jhendler> JimH: perhaps the articles http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/01/30/daml1.html -- by Roxane Ouellet, Uche Ogbuji - would be of use
19:02:50 <jhendler> JimH: possibility of doing the second as a FAQ - Deb: says she may have a starting place on that document
19:11:58 <jhendler> suggestion - maybe walkthru should be a document, how-to-do-it might be a web-based FAQ or other non-document
19:12:46 <DeborahMc> http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/papers/living-with-classic-abstract.html
19:12:52 <DeborahMc> this is a pointer to the paper i mentioned
19:16:43 <GuusS> datatypes -> walktru doc
19:16:52 <jhendler> discussion of what goes in each document
19:18:26 <jhendler> Mike Smith volunteers to lead the walkthru activity - Ora, Deb, Lynn have previously mentioned interest.  Guus volunteers to help w/examples
19:18:34 <jhendler> Chairs accept Mike's offer
19:20:28 <jhendler> Evan: suggestion - let's collect examples and etc. and put on our web page
19:20:40 <jhendler> Guus agrees to maintain if Dan can work out access issues.
19:23:36 <jhendler> Deb - suggestion, let's convert the old walkthru
19:24:04 <DeborahMc> i also posted the how and when document to webont
19:24:20 <DeborahMc> on examples, i also suggest a set of wines examples i did for a recent article
19:26:11 <jhendler> Some people volunteering for pieces of "How to do document" 
19:26:53 <jhendler> ACTION: Guus will generate a structure in which the examples should appear by July 11  
19:27:09 <jhendler> this will also include one example
19:27:31 <jhendler> Larry is willing to write part/whole example
19:29:47 <jhendler> ACTION: Jim will work with Dan to set up structure for this.  Guus will be the contact person for sending these things to.  
19:31:49 <jhendler> Guus: presentation syntaxes
19:43:43 <jhendler> discussion of how to do UML - Evan notes that DAML+OIL based UML tools exist, meaning implementation is important
19:45:44 <jhendler> ACTION: Evan will writeup a description of a recent OMG meeting that concerned UML and OWL, and the process he is running at OMG, and will post that to the WG
19:47:43 <jhendler> LUNCH!!!!
19:47:48 <DeborahMc> lunch until 2
20:32:22 <Zakim> Zakim has left #webont
21:06:17 <mdean> meeting resumed at 14:00
21:08:34 <mdean> discussing requirement 4.1 Ontologies as distinct objects
21:08:44 <mdean> Raphael expressed concern with using rdf:about=""
21:09:05 <mdean> changes if you move the ontology
21:11:27 <mdean> could use any URI in rdf:about="", but that loses binding with relative IDs or about's in that ontology
21:12:47 <mdean> xml:base would help here
21:13:31 <mdean> can't really have multiple ontologies (with common prefixes to Classes and properties) on the same page
21:14:27 <mdean> this could relate to imports
21:14:46 <mdean> Jim asked if anyone wanted to open an issue for this
21:17:34 <mdean> Raphael:  propose that we use xml:base in documents and our .owl files
21:19:18 <mdean> ACTION (Raphael):  send Guus paragraph suggesting preferred usage for owl:Ontology
21:19:38 <mdean> discussing unambiguous term referencing with URIs
21:19:42 <mdean> no known problems
21:19:53 <mdean> requirement:  explicit ontology extension
21:20:36 <mdean> probably depends upon import issue
21:20:59 <mdean> for transitivity
21:22:25 <mdean> currently no strong notion of ontology extension
21:23:03 <mdean> can add restrictions to existing classes
21:23:17 <mdean> ontologies are not really first class objects
21:31:19 <mdean> plan to approve release of this Requirements document at end of this session
21:32:39 <mdean> could change a requirement to an objective
21:32:58 <mdean> WD updates include lists of substantive and editorial changes
21:33:06 <mdean> requirement:  commitment to ontologies
21:34:51 <mdean> confusion over resources
21:35:38 <mdean> requirement:  ontology metadata
21:35:46 <mdean> discussed
21:35:54 <mdean> currently can put anything in ontology headers
21:36:05 <mdean> we should provide some examples
21:36:59 <mdean> ACTION (Mike):  use DC attributes in owl.owl
21:37:04 <mdean> (Mike Dean)
21:37:16 <mdean> requirement:  versioning
21:37:22 <mdean> open issue, discussed yesterday
21:37:32 <mdean> requirement:  class definition primitives
21:37:42 <mdean> addressed
21:37:49 <mdean> requirement:  property definition primitives
21:37:52 <mdean> addressed
21:37:59 <mdean> requirement:  data types
21:38:00 <mdean> open issue
21:38:12 <mdean> requirement:  class and property equivalance
21:38:14 <mdean> addressed
21:38:21 <mdean> open issue to mix classes and properties
21:38:32 <mdean> requirement:  individual equivalance
21:38:35 <mdean> owl:sameIndividualAs
21:38:49 <mdean> requirement:  local unique names
21:39:40 <mdean> motivates owl:differentIndividualFrom
21:40:57 <mdean> abstract syntax provides macro function for many individuals
21:44:04 <mdean> role of UnambiguousProperty?
21:44:48 <mdean> this is currently being treated as a solved requirement -- otherwise needs a new issue
21:46:24 <mdean> ACTION (Deb):  open issue
21:46:35 <mdean> could be resolved by guidelines
21:47:24 <mdean> when all issues are postponed or closed, we're done
21:48:30 <jhendler> ACTION: (Deb) write up an issue with respect to the unique names assumption requirement
21:49:21 <mdean> requirement:  attaching information to statements
21:50:19 <mdean> currently only mechanism is RDF reification
22:04:09 <mdean> Mike showed example of using RDF statementIDs to show that Deb's hair was red on Tuesday
22:05:35 <mdean> not addressed by OWL model theory
22:16:34 <mdean> Jim suggests using owl:tag as an uninterpreted standard property
22:17:16 <mdean> see issue 4.4 extra-logical feature set
22:17:20 <mdean> issue not yet opened
22:17:52 <mdean> requirement:  classes as instances
22:18:12 <mdean> Guus has a very nice use case for interoperability
22:18:22 <mdean> posted a couple days ago to www-rdf-interest
22:18:46 <mdean> Sergey Melnik's WordNet implementation
22:19:05 <mdean> hierarchy is hidden in instances and properties
22:19:45 <mdean> everything is just a Word, with properties like hyponymOf
22:19:57 <mdean> want to treat these instances as classes
22:20:39 <mdean> Michael Sintek:  DLs will not be decidable with this feature
22:21:36 <mdean> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2002Jun/0275.html
22:22:34 <mdean> Evan:  do we need another issue (besides equivalentTo)?
22:31:39 <mdean> possible open new issue and subsume equivalentTo into it
22:31:46 <mdean> ACTION:  (Raphael) raise issue
22:32:23 <mdean> ACTION:  (Raphael) raise superissue to subsume equivalentTo
22:33:26 <mdean> RESOLVED:  close issue 4.6 equivalentTo to be subsumed by the new issue Raphael will raise
22:34:42 <mdean> requirement:  complex data types
22:34:45 <mdean> pending issues
22:34:49 <mdean> requirement:  cardinality constraints
22:34:53 <mdean> satisfied
22:35:10 <mdean> various requirements satisfied
22:35:33 <mdean> charmod, etc:  satisfied with RDF solutions
23:02:01 <jhendler> Resolved: Release the new draft of the requirements document as is
23:02:12 <jhendler> (way to go Jeff Heflin!)
23:02:33 <jhendler> --------------
23:02:59 <jhendler> report back of the Model Theory team
23:03:12 <jhendler> Pat: may be light at the end of the tunnel
23:03:45 <jhendler> Doing a model theory from scratch is dangerous -- should stick to conventionally understood techniques
23:04:05 <jhendler> Some of Dan's proposal maybe problematic with respect to that
23:04:39 <jhendler> Way in which Peter's model theory is phrased may help make relation to RDF (and RDF MT) more clear
23:04:43 <jhendler> major problems:
23:07:48 <jhendler> 1) what happens when you use a RDFS notion with a primitive from Owl - can you take "rdf:subproperty of owl:intersection"?  should it be legal (probably yes), should the RDF inference apply to the owl vocabulary (three views - (a) NO, (b) sure, but if you do you are outside the semantic domain of owl, (c) syntactically restrict those - i.e. owl graph could be simply "illegal" by owl)
23:09:33 <jhendler> possibility - put these together - i.e. something could say "if you are owl legal graph" you will work w/a tool like fact, but if you use RDF you may not get right inferences - but you'll still be legal owl.
23:10:59 <jhendler> i.e. consider a well-formed RDF graph that is "not sanctioned" by the OWL model - we could say it is legal, but not "owl coherent" or something like that
23:13:33 <jhendler> for example - some tools could say "if you are syntactically in owl (plus RDF etc.)" then my tool will work.  Someone else could say "my tool is 'smarter' but you must use a restricted graph if you want guaranteed results
23:14:24 <jhendler> the hard part -- unclear exactly where we must "darken" what to acieve this.  There is consensus we should strive to make this set as small as possible.
23:15:53 <jhendler> RDFS vs OWL issue w/respect to what are classes and etc - so there may be things in RDFS that OWL cannot handle "properly" -- open question - what do you say about these?
23:16:33 <jhendler> should we sanction the mixing or restrict it?
23:31:47 <jhendler> (several examples - photo will be taken for record)
23:34:48 <jhendler> Discussion of various programs with respect to how they treat various things
23:42:40 <heflin> heflin has joined #webont
23:43:53 <jhendler> discussion of various tools and their needs, and use cases
23:44:01 <jhendler> miked - did you discuss Lbase?
23:44:34 <jhendler> Pat - yes, describes it (a proposal w/Guha to map RDF, RDFS, DAML into a common specification lang - FOL plus a bit of XML and a couple other nice things)
23:45:16 <jhendler> then each tool can map to that logic - provides an axiomatic semantics and to provide a way of relating content in the different languages
23:46:02 <jhendler> RDF Core will have a non-normative mapping into Lbase as part of their semantic document
23:46:50 <jhendler> document about Lbase will be a W3C NOTE
23:47:43 <jhendler> makes it clearer what the differences between the languages is and how to map them
23:51:18 <DeborahMc> pat -this wont fix the layering problems - they just come from needing to represent the same things in two languages
23:52:02 <jhendler> MikeD - should we do Lbase for OWL?  Pat - sure, probably in same way as RDF Core (as an appendix to the MT)
23:53:07 <jhendler> Pat in fact, mapping to Lbase and creating a model theory are very similar -- a good way to be clear and to get the issues resolved
23:53:15 <jhendler> (but doesn't solve the issues necessarily)
23:54:00 <JosD> JosD has joined #webont
23:57:57 <jhendler> ACTION: Pat will attempt to take abstract syntax, and Peter's MT and the mapping into RDF and will write a model theory in the Connolly style (i.e. as an extension to RDF MT) and see if he can identify the exact issues.
23:59:23 <jhendler> RRSAgent, show action items
23:59:23 <RRSAgent> I see 7 open action items:
23:59:23 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Guus will generate a structure in which the examples should appear by July 11   [1]
23:59:23 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/02-webont-irc#T19-26-53
23:59:23 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Jim will work with Dan to set up structure for this.  Guus will be the contact person for sending these things to.   [2]
23:59:23 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/02-webont-irc#T19-29-47
23:59:23 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Evan will writeup a description of a recent OMG meeting that concerned UML and OWL, and the process he is running at OMG, and will post that to the WG [3]
23:59:23 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/02-webont-irc#T19-45-44
23:59:23 <RRSAgent> ACTION: (Deb) write up an issue with respect to the unique names assumption requirement [4]
23:59:23 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/02-webont-irc#T21-48-30
23:59:23 <RRSAgent> ACTION: (Raphael) raise issue [5]
23:59:23 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/02-webont-irc#T22-31-46
23:59:23 <RRSAgent> ACTION: (Raphael) raise superissue to subsume equivalentTo [6]
23:59:23 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/02-webont-irc#T22-32-23
23:59:23 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Pat will attempt to take abstract syntax, and Peter's MT and the mapping into RDF and will write a model theory in the Connolly style (i.e. as an extension to RDF MT) and see if he can identify the exact issues. [7]
23:59:23 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/02-webont-irc#T23-57-57