IRC log of webont on 2003-07-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:03:16 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #webont
16:03:25 [jjcscribe]
Zakim, Tim_Finin is JeffHeflin
16:03:25 [Zakim]
+JeffHeflin; got it
16:03:31 [Zakim]
16:03:42 [jimH]
zakim, ??p18 is jimH
16:03:42 [Zakim]
+jimH; got it
16:04:11 [DanC]
DanC has changed the topic to: 3Jul ; chair: JimH. scribe: jjcscribe
16:04:19 [jimH]
zakim,who is here?
16:04:26 [Zakim]
16:04:29 [Zakim]
16:04:43 [DanC]
agenda + 3Jul
16:04:51 [DanC]
agenda -10
16:04:55 [jimH]
zakim, ??p19 is sean
16:04:55 [Zakim]
+sean; got it
16:05:06 [Zakim]
16:05:07 [seanb]
seanb has joined #webont
16:05:11 [jimH]
zakim, who is here?
16:05:11 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Sandro, Evan_Wallace, IanHorrocks, jjc, [EDS], JeffHeflin, jimH, sean, ??P22, DanC (muted)
16:05:14 [Zakim]
On IRC I see seanb, RRSAgent, DanC, jjcscribe, Zakim, sandro, jimH, logger
16:05:28 [Zakim]
16:05:35 [jimH]
zakim, [eds] is MikeS
16:05:35 [Zakim]
+MikeS; got it
16:05:57 [Zakim]
16:06:05 [seanb]
not really...
16:06:19 [mdean]
mdean has joined #webont
16:06:31 [Zakim]
16:06:47 [GuusS]
GuusS has joined #webont
16:06:51 [Zakim]
16:07:14 [Zakim]
16:07:22 [GuusS]
zakim, ??p3 is Guus
16:07:23 [Zakim]
+Guus; got it
16:07:25 [DeborahMc]
DeborahMc has joined #webont
16:07:41 [jjcscribe]
Zakim, who's on the call?
16:07:41 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Sandro, Evan_Wallace, IanHorrocks, jjc, MikeS, JeffHeflin, jimH, sean, MasahiroHori, DanC, PFPS, CharlesW, Deb_Mcguinness, Mike_Dean, Guus
16:07:47 [DanC]
Zakim, take up agendum 1
16:07:47 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "admin" taken up [from jimH]
16:08:16 [Zakim]
16:08:30 [DanC]
I 2nd proposal to meet 10Jul
16:08:52 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose DanC
16:09:06 [DanC]
bad bot.
16:09:37 [jjcscribe]
Minutes of previous meeting, proposed, accepted.
16:09:42 [jjcscribe]
Zakim, who's talking?
16:09:52 [Zakim]
jjcscribe, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Sandro (43%), MasahiroHori (14%)
16:10:06 [jjcscribe]
Agenda amendment dave beckett issue added
16:10:45 [jjcscribe]
16:10:45 [jjcscribe]
16:10:45 [jjcscribe]
16:10:55 [jjcscribe]
Mike dean's action continued
16:11:16 [jjcscribe]
3. unspecified domain,range in App. C of OWL Language Reference 31 March
16:11:26 [jjcscribe]
Re: privacy in OWL
16:11:31 [Zakim]
16:11:35 [Zakim]
16:11:37 [jjcscribe]
ACTION: jimh conitnued
16:12:24 [jjcscribe]
21. daml:item - to be done later
16:12:32 [jjcscribe]
22. RDFCore Comments on OWL Reference
16:13:01 [Zakim]
16:13:03 [jjcscribe]
DanC: Frank's action continued til after 5.3 is closed
16:13:29 [jjcscribe]
21. daml:item
16:14:06 [jjcscribe]
ACTION: Jim Hendler. continued
16:14:13 [jjcscribe]
25. Comments on Owl REF document
16:14:42 [jjcscribe]
Charis agfree with continue franks action
16:14:52 [jjcscribe]
25. actionis done
16:15:06 [jjcscribe]
28. Non-global Keys - on telecon
16:15:18 [jjcscribe]
both actions are done
16:15:26 [jjcscribe]
32. Language Overview Document editorial comments
16:15:40 [jjcscribe]
both actions done (32)
16:15:45 [JosD]
JosD has joined #webont
16:15:53 [jjcscribe]
34. Could owl:sameAs reference non-OWL resources?
16:15:53 [jjcscribe]
34. Could owl:sameAs reference non-OWL resources?
16:16:03 [jjcscribe]
now closed - all actions done (34)
16:16:13 [jjcscribe]
38. QA Review of owl-semantics - on agenda
16:16:27 [Zakim]
16:16:37 [jjcscribe]
38 action jeff done, jeremy continued
16:16:50 [DanC]
+JosD (on record)
16:16:51 [jjcscribe]
zakim, next agendum
16:16:51 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "admin" taken up [from jimH]
16:16:53 [jjcscribe]
zakim, next agendum
16:16:53 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "admin" taken up [from jimH]
16:16:55 [jjcscribe]
zakim, next agendum
16:16:55 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "admin" taken up [from jimH]
16:17:00 [jjcscribe]
zakim, close this agendum
16:17:00 [Zakim]
agendum 1 closed
16:17:01 [Zakim]
I see 8 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:17:02 [Zakim]
2. Action review [from jimH]
16:17:02 [jjcscribe]
zakim, close this agendum
16:17:02 [Zakim]
I do not know what agendum had been taken up, jjcscribe
16:17:06 [jjcscribe]
zakim, close this agendum
16:17:06 [Zakim]
I do not know what agendum had been taken up, jjcscribe
16:17:08 [jjcscribe]
zakim, next agendum
16:17:08 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Action review" taken up [from jimH]
16:17:10 [jjcscribe]
zakim, close this agendum
16:17:10 [Zakim]
agendum 2 closed
16:17:11 [Zakim]
I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:17:12 [Zakim]
3. owl:sameAs [from jimH]
16:17:13 [jjcscribe]
zakim, next agendum
16:17:13 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "owl:sameAs" taken up [from jimH]
16:17:51 [jjcscribe]
Chairs propose that owl:sameAs is in OWL Lite.
16:19:19 [jjcscribe]
many editors say that they have made this change
16:19:42 [jjcscribe]
This is a clairiofication on the last weeks decision
16:20:20 [jjcscribe]
ACTION jjc make sure test has owl:sameAs in Lite and no owl:sameIndividualAs
16:20:25 [jjcscribe]
zakim, close this agendum
16:20:25 [Zakim]
agendum 3 closed
16:20:26 [Zakim]
I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:20:27 [Zakim]
4. Compound keys [from jimH]
16:21:01 [jimH]
16:21:09 [jjcscribe]
16:21:25 [jjcscribe]
(jims cut and paste is spuroous)
16:21:33 [jjcscribe]
Jim talks from his message
16:21:43 [DanC]
keys paper msg:
16:22:07 [JosD]
Jeremy, the message wrt owl:sameAs in Test is
16:23:06 [jjcscribe]
Dan and Jim agree friendly amendment to cite Keys for free paper
16:23:22 [jjcscribe]
Agreed unanminously
16:23:32 [jjcscribe]
ACTION MikeS to add new compoundkey issue
16:23:53 [jjcscribe]
ACTION JimH To tell issue raiser about compound kets
16:24:19 [jjcscribe]
zakim, close this agendum
16:24:19 [Zakim]
I do not know what agendum had been taken up, jjcscribe
16:24:28 [Zakim]
16:24:29 [jjcscribe]
zakim, next agendum
16:24:29 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Compound keys" taken up [from jimH]
16:24:33 [jjcscribe]
zakim, close this agendum
16:24:33 [Zakim]
agendum 4 closed
16:24:34 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:24:34 [jjcscribe]
zakim, next agendum
16:24:34 [Zakim]
5. response to QA [from jimH]
16:24:35 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "response to QA" taken up [from jimH]
16:25:18 [DanC]
Proposed QA Reply (version 2) Sandro Hawke (Wed, Jul 02 2003)
16:25:20 [Zakim]
16:25:24 [jjcscribe]
Sandro talks through his proposal
16:25:39 [JosD]
Zakim, ??P2 is JosD
16:25:39 [Zakim]
+JosD; got it
16:25:44 [jjcscribe]
Some of jeremy comments have been made personally so we have dropped them from this proposal
16:26:12 [DeborahMc] contains the keys for free reference i sent out during the telecon last week. this is the same as ian resent later
16:26:54 [jjcscribe]
Propose approve sandro to send this message to QA
16:26:59 [jjcscribe]
carried unaminously
16:27:15 [jjcscribe]
zakim, next agendum
16:27:15 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "response to QA" taken up [from jimH]
16:27:20 [jjcscribe]
zakim, close this agendum
16:27:20 [Zakim]
agendum 5 closed
16:27:21 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:27:22 [jjcscribe]
zakim, next agendum
16:27:22 [Zakim]
6. test document [from jimH]
16:27:23 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "test document" taken up [from jimH]
16:27:26 [DanC]
because sandro's msg says "the WG decided..."
16:28:47 [DanC]
ack danc
16:28:47 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to ask that MikeS include horrocks's references in the issues list and to noodle about test reviews
16:29:15 [jjcscribe]
Jeremy: we have no LC comments on test
16:29:30 [jjcscribe]
Jeremy: we will expect one comment from RDF Core, but it will be "it is OK"
16:30:50 [jjcscribe]
JimH at least seven or eight implementations have tried and succeeded to pass some of our tests
16:31:23 [jjcscribe]
DanC: LC no news is good news
16:32:29 [DanC]
Test approvals Jim Hendler (Thu, Jul 03 2003)
16:32:51 [DanC]
9 tests there
16:32:58 [jjcscribe]
Proposed by hendler, approved unamionously
16:34:28 [DanC]
draft cr/pr request
16:35:11 [seanb]
"the problem is that it's all in RDF..... :-))))"
16:36:15 [jjcscribe]
Jeremy: looking atthe QA test guidelines, we could have a format for reporting test results
16:36:25 [jjcscribe]
some discussion
16:36:42 [jjcscribe]
agreed that it would be good
16:36:51 [jjcscribe]
effort in this direction would be welcome
16:37:06 [sandro]
"it" being a webform for submitting test succes stories.
16:37:10 [jjcscribe]
look at EARL
16:37:26 [jjcscribe]
zakim, close this agendum
16:37:26 [Zakim]
agendum 6 closed
16:37:27 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:37:28 [Zakim]
7. levels issue [from jimH]
16:37:50 [jjcscribe]
jim sent a proposal for If - Then
16:37:54 [DanC]
# Proposal to Close issue 5.3, Semantic Layering Jim Hendler (Thu, Jul 03 2003) # Proposal to Close issue 5.3, Semantic Layering Jim Hendler (Thu, Jul 03 2003)
16:38:02 [DanC]
16:39:35 [jjcscribe]
jermey cannot support this today
16:39:45 [jjcscribe]
jjc: it might be the right solution
16:39:51 [jjcscribe]
jos: I feel like jeremy
16:40:57 [jjcscribe]
Dan reads proposal
16:41:36 [jjcscribe]
pfps is happy with JimH's proposal
16:42:13 [jjcscribe]
danc my colleagues are happy with JimH proposal
16:42:31 [jjcscribe]
s/happy/at peace with/
16:43:23 [Zakim]
16:43:30 [Zakim]
16:44:24 [jjcscribe]
16:44:33 [jjcscribe]
non-mon example on a certain reading of S&AS
16:46:53 [jjcscribe]
. For such OWL ontologies the direct model theory is authoritative and the RDFS-compatible model theory is secondary
16:47:03 [jjcscribe]
Jeremy quoting from S&AS.
16:47:10 [jjcscribe]
JimH: it is not clear which semantics to use
16:47:16 [jjcscribe]
DanC: you get to choose
16:47:31 [DanC]
"... secondary"... eek!
16:47:50 [jjcscribe]
16:48:09 [jjcscribe]
(quotation from)
16:48:25 [jjcscribe]
jimh: syntax is hard
16:48:59 [GuusS]
I'm interested in Pat's view on moving from iff to if
16:49:02 [jjcscribe]
16:49:10 [DanC]
ack danc
16:49:10 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to respond to URIs being "one thing"
16:51:20 [jjcscribe]
Pat says its safe
16:51:25 [jjcscribe]
to move iff to if
16:51:48 [jjcscribe]
Pat: its not really a solution, but it side steps the problem
16:52:13 [jjcscribe]
JimH the two technical points are unclear
16:52:27 [jjcscribe]
DanC: 1) correspondence theorme 2) OWL Full semantics
16:55:05 [jjcscribe]
jjc: how bad would it be to make owl:Thing infinite
16:55:08 [DanC]
Peter acknowledged that "... authoritative ... secondary ..." could be read in unfortunate ways
16:55:11 [jjcscribe]
ian: it would be bad
16:56:32 [jjcscribe]
Ian and Pat had already had this problem with common logic
16:56:44 [jjcscribe]
16:56:49 [jjcscribe]
ack jjcscribe
16:57:13 [jjcscribe]
jjc: OWL Full is infinite because of the lists, Path: yes
16:57:27 [DanC]
lists... and literals too
16:58:16 [jjcscribe]
oh yes
16:58:53 [jjcscribe]
jos: speaks in favour of dropping the owl;full conditions
16:59:49 [GuusS]
17:00:03 [jjcscribe]
peter: jos is asking for a big change
17:00:52 [jjcscribe]
ian: add statement like "we believe this could be strengthened to iff for infinite domains"
17:02:50 [jjcscribe]
jjc: ian's statement is false
17:03:09 [jjcscribe]
consider annotations
17:03:21 [DanC]
ack danc
17:03:21 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to ask that "Think is empty" go into the test suite as a DL inconsistency test
17:03:52 [DanC]
ack guus
17:03:55 [jjcscribe]
ACTION jjc Add owl:Thing = owl:Nothing test
17:05:25 [jjcscribe]
jjc: impact on test is substantial
17:06:34 [DanC]
a short 2nd last call for test isn't very interesting to me; might as well start CR
17:07:14 [jimH]
+1 w/DanC
17:08:39 [jjcscribe]
+2 w/DanC
17:09:24 [jjcscribe]
jimh can we give this a week>
17:09:31 [jjcscribe]
jjc I am on holiday next week
17:09:46 [jjcscribe]
path there won't be a magic fix in a week
17:10:55 [DanC]
noting that straw-polls are inexact, please proceed
17:11:07 [jjcscribe]
straw poll on jims proposal
17:11:23 [jjcscribe]
about 11 inf avour
17:11:44 [DanC]
for a straw poll, you can ask "who would prefer not to"
17:12:04 [jjcscribe]
who cannot live with it 0
17:12:37 [jjcscribe]
Jim proposes as in msg 0045
17:13:43 [jjcscribe]
abstain: DeRoo, Carroll, Wallace,
17:13:49 [jjcscribe]
motion carried
17:14:02 [jjcscribe]
ACTION MikeSmith change closing text
17:15:01 [jjcscribe]
ACTION PFPS editotial change on secondarry issuette
17:15:11 [jjcscribe]
ACTION JJC update test document
17:16:38 [DanC]
17:16:51 [DanC]
who took the action for Reference?
17:17:01 [DanC]
ACTION Guus: update reference per 0045
17:17:09 [DanC]
Zakim, close this agendum
17:17:09 [Zakim]
I do not know what agendum had been taken up, DanC
17:17:15 [jjc]
jjc has joined #webont
17:17:15 [DanC]
Zakim, close agendum 5
17:17:15 [Zakim]
agendum 5 closed
17:17:15 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:17:16 [Zakim]
7. levels issue [from jimH]
17:17:19 [DanC]
Zakim, close agendum 7
17:17:19 [Zakim]
agendum 7 closed
17:17:20 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:17:20 [jjc]
I am back
17:17:21 [Zakim]
8. schedule/strawpoll on CR/pR [from jimH]
17:17:25 [DanC]
Zakim, next agendum
17:17:25 [Zakim]
agendum 8. "schedule/strawpoll on CR/pR" taken up [from jimH]
17:18:47 [jjcscribe2]
jim introduces the online poll
17:18:50 [jjcscribe2]
the options
17:19:29 [DanC]
oops; perhaps I should have put RDF Core's changes to subClassOf on today's agenda
17:21:49 [jjcscribe2]
jjc: have the chairs seen more implementations than the group?
17:22:10 [jjcscribe2]
jimh: anything that would go in our PR request has been seen on the group.
17:22:23 [jjcscribe2]
danc: please do this.
17:26:08 [jjcscribe2]
danc talks about rdfs:subClassOf to intensional seamntics
17:26:34 [jjcscribe2]
pfps: danc should sent e-mail
17:26:38 [DanC]
ACTION DanC: send notice of RDF Core change to subClassOf
17:27:15 [jjcscribe2]
dave beckett response
17:27:38 [jjcscribe2]
jeff's student has looked at sean's document
17:27:52 [jjcscribe2]
sean's docuemnt is a good start
17:28:07 [DanC]
(is jeff claiming victory on his action?)
17:29:06 [jjcscribe2]
jeff reckons a week or twos work
17:29:17 [jjcscribe2]
danc a table would make it look like a specification
17:29:37 [jjcscribe2]
and would hence be deceptive
17:30:04 [jjcscribe2]
danc this will get implemented
17:30:46 [jjcscribe2]
jjc scepticism about the duration of the work
17:31:08 [Zakim]
17:31:10 [jjcscribe2]
out of time - no official resolutions onwards
17:32:17 [jjcscribe2]
JimH/Guus suggests moving to one telecon every two weeks
17:34:04 [jjcscribe2]
danc not cost effective
17:35:07 [jjcscribe2]
danc: unless it is normative daveb will be unhappy
17:35:49 [jjcscribe2]
jeffh: I think he said he could live with an informative reverse mapping
17:38:22 [jjcscribe2]
jimh suggest writing up a justification
17:38:37 [Zakim]
17:39:59 [jjcscribe2]
meeting adjourned
17:40:04 [jjcscribe2]
B1,B2 on 24th
17:40:06 [Zakim]
17:40:09 [Zakim]
17:40:11 [Zakim]
17:40:13 [Zakim]
17:40:14 [seanb]
seanb has left #webont
17:40:20 [Zakim]
17:40:21 [Zakim]
17:40:25 [Zakim]
17:40:26 [Zakim]
17:40:31 [Zakim]
17:40:43 [Zakim]
17:41:04 [Zakim]
17:41:05 [Zakim]
17:41:12 [Zakim]
17:41:14 [Zakim]
17:41:15 [Zakim]
SW_WebOnt()12:00PM has ended
17:41:42 [jimH]
thanks for chairing Jeremy - DanC, can you be sure to ACL the irc
17:47:01 [DanC]
17:47:05 [DanC]
RRSAgent, pointer?
17:47:05 [RRSAgent]
17:47:31 [jjcscribe2]
I wasn't chairing!!
17:47:33 [DanC]
03-webont-irc.html (from ACLs DB)
17:47:33 [DanC]
world access.
17:47:33 [DanC]
03-webont-irc.rdf (from ACLs DB)
17:47:33 [DanC]
world access.
17:47:33 [DanC]
03-webont-irc.txt (from ACLs DB)
17:47:34 [DanC]
world access.
17:47:47 [jjcscribe2]
yes that's good
20:00:14 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #webont
22:53:24 [DanC_ssh1]
DanC_ssh1 has left #webont