15:50:22 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #webont
15:50:25 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #webont
15:50:29 <DanC> Zakim, this will be webo
15:50:29 <Zakim> ok, DanC; I see SW_WebOnt()12:00PM scheduled to start in 10 minutes
15:50:57 <DanC> agenda + 11 Sep http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0091.html
15:51:07 <DanC> DanC has changed the topic to: 11 Sep http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/
15:51:43 <baget> baget has joined #webont
15:58:22 <sandro> sandro has joined #webont
15:58:53 <Zakim> SW_WebOnt()12:00PM has now started
15:59:01 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:59:47 <Zakim> +[INRIA]
16:01:04 <Zakim> +Jeff_Heflin
16:01:09 <JimH_> JimH_ has joined #webont
16:01:33 <seanb> seanb has joined #webont
16:02:08 <Zakim> +??P2
16:02:22 <Zakim> +[UMD]
16:02:27 <IanH> IanH has joined #webont
16:02:36 <JimH_> zakim, [umd] is JimH
16:02:36 <Zakim> +JimH; got it
16:02:38 <sandro> zakim, ??P2 is Ian
16:02:38 <Zakim> +Ian; got it
16:02:56 <sandro> zakim, [INRIA] is Jean-Francois
16:02:56 <Zakim> +Jean-Francois; got it
16:03:08 <Zakim> +??P38
16:03:35 <Zakim> +DanC
16:03:40 <sandro> zakim, ??P38 is Sean
16:03:40 <Zakim> +Sean; got it
16:04:04 <jjc> jjc has joined #webont
16:04:11 <jjc> joining shortly
16:04:50 <JimH_> Resolved: accept minutes of last week's meeting
16:04:54 <Zakim> +??P61
16:05:07 <Zakim> -JimH
16:05:23 <Zakim> +[UMD]
16:05:35 <JimH_> zakim, [umd] is jimH
16:05:35 <Zakim> +jimH; got it
16:05:53 <JimH_> zakim, pick a scribe
16:05:53 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Sandro
16:06:14 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
16:06:14 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2003/09/11-webont-irc#T16-06-14
16:06:24 <sandro> 051 true record, resolved
16:06:30 <DanC> Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:06:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, Jean-Francois, Jeff_Heflin, Ian, Sean, DanC, ??P61, jimH
16:06:58 <JimH_> zakim, ??p61 is terHorst
16:06:58 <Zakim> +terHorst; got it
16:07:38 <Zakim> +??P65
16:07:48 <jjc> Zakim, ?P65 is jjc
16:07:49 <Zakim> sorry, jjc, I do not recognize a party named '?P65'
16:07:54 <jjc> Zakim, ??P65 is jjc
16:07:54 <Zakim> +jjc; got it
16:08:27 <sandro> Ian: 
16:08:44 <sandro> Ian: by the fortnightly plan, this would be a week off
16:09:03 <sandro> Jim: we're back to weekly.   I'm hoping to cut them down to an hour, though.
16:09:31 <sandro> RESOLVED Meeting 18 September, Chair Guus, focus: Outreach
16:10:07 <sandro> JJC: agenda item: disagreement about what it means to pass a test
16:10:28 <sandro> (no scribe picked for 18th)
16:11:16 <sandro> JimH: re G.O.C. -- no such single thing which could endorse OWL.   Lots of members (include Ian).   I'm trying to learn who controls the domain name, etc.
16:11:35 <sandro> DanC: I'd like them to talk about / recommend OWL on their website
16:11:39 <sandro> JimH: mine too
16:11:55 <sandro> ... action: continued
16:12:17 <sandro> JimH: so it doesnt get forgotten; later it can be refined.
16:12:42 <sandro> --- 3.  Approve Tests
16:13:00 <sandro> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0108.html
16:13:03 <DanC> Proposal to approve twice-passed tests http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0108.html
16:13:46 <sandro> DanC: strike the Syntax Tests from this bit
16:13:51 <sandro> JJC, JimH: agreed
16:17:17 <sandro> JimH: Any opposed to marking these tests Approved?
16:17:22 <sandro> JimH: Any abstain
16:17:36 <sandro> PASSED
16:17:46 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean
16:17:57 <DanC> yeah, we have the sexiest test suite around, I'm pretty sure.
16:18:00 <sandro> Action: JJC change status of all these tests in the editor's draft.
16:18:24 <sandro> ----  4.   DL Syntax
16:18:37 <sandro> action on Peter, DONE
16:18:42 <sandro> action on DanC, DONE
16:19:18 <sandro> JJC: summary: Peter found a flaw in the proof that will take time to patch
16:19:44 <sandro> JJC: Since we now have enough syntax checkers, we may not need this.  Does the WG want more work on this?
16:20:20 <sandro> Ian: We agreed to try to a certain extent.  It seems like JJC has reached that extent.
16:20:47 <sandro> DanC: The people passing the tests kind of won this race.  :-)
16:21:20 <sandro> JimH: It's not implementing it that's hard, it's understanding the constraints that's hard.    
16:21:35 <sandro> JimH: (according to my folks who are trying)
16:21:50 <Zakim> +??P68
16:22:33 <sandro> JJC: OWL Implementor's Guide would be nice; maybe we can encourage it....
16:23:02 <JimH_> zakim, ??p68 is charlesW
16:23:02 <Zakim> +charlesW; got it
16:23:03 <sandro> DanC: Document which were more implementor friendly would be nice, but... the test results suggest this is good enough.
16:23:09 <sandro> zakim, who is here?
16:23:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, Jean-Francois, Jeff_Heflin, Ian, Sean, DanC, terHorst, jimH, jjc, Mike_Dean, charlesW
16:23:11 <Zakim> On IRC I see jjc, IanH, seanb, JimH_, sandro, baget, Zakim, RRSAgent, DanC, logger
16:23:58 <sandro> JimH: It would really nice to have a Implementor's Guide for the B1/B2 issue.
16:24:15 <sandro> Sean: I expect to write something in this area, in the course of my work.
16:25:07 <sandro> JJC: there's a possible test case here, as far as we got.
16:25:52 <DanC> let the record show that the WG encourages folks to document the mapping in implementor-friendly terms and let us know.
16:26:15 <sandro> JimH: you're always encouraged to propose tests
16:26:25 <seanb> seanb has joined #webont
16:26:39 <sandro> JimH: Do we need to close this officially?
16:26:44 <sandro> DanC: No.  
16:27:01 <sandro> JimH: We could tell the world this is no longer at risk.
16:28:20 <sandro> JimH:... but lets keep our options open.
16:28:51 <sandro> jjc: Implementors might want to know the odds have changed....
16:29:11 <DanC> "I've got to get my skates on and do some coding" ;-)
16:29:13 <DanC> -- jjc
16:29:25 <sandro> DanC: the impls report shows they're okay....
16:30:25 <sandro> ACTION JimH: check process doc re: features at Risk
16:31:30 <sandro> --- 5. Internationalization
16:31:37 <sandro> actions done
16:31:51 <Zakim> + +1.323.444.aaaa
16:31:52 <sandro> DanC: this was prep to a decision
16:32:09 <sandro> zakim, +1.323.444.aaaa is Jos
16:32:09 <Zakim> +Jos; got it
16:32:47 <sandro> JimH: I'm not comfortable talking about this without Guus here
16:34:40 <jjc> q+ to mention RDF Core WDs
16:34:56 <JosD> JosD has joined #webont
16:35:14 <sandro> ack jjc
16:35:14 <Zakim> jjc, you wanted to mention RDF Core WDs
16:35:49 <sandro> JJC: Now is the time to comment on RDF Core I18N issues.
16:36:53 <sandro> --- 6. Test review
16:37:01 <sandro> Done   ACTION: Jeremy C. to study DL 909 and report back.
16:37:31 <Zakim> +??P7
16:37:57 <JimH_> zakim, ??p7 is McGuinness
16:37:57 <Zakim> +McGuinness; got it
16:38:31 <sandro> Zakim, who is here?
16:38:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, Jean-Francois, Jeff_Heflin, Ian, Sean, DanC, terHorst, jimH, jjc, Mike_Dean, charlesW, Jos, McGuinness
16:38:32 <dlm> dlm has joined #webont
16:38:33 <Zakim> On IRC I see JosD, seanb, jjc, IanH, JimH_, sandro, baget, Zakim, RRSAgent, DanC, logger
16:38:41 <JimH_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0103.html
16:38:49 <dlm> hi got on a bit earlier than anticipated
16:38:55 <JimH_> is Jeremy's email about extra credit
16:39:34 <sandro> Ian: Is this FULL Tests?
16:40:14 <sandro> JJC: FULL PET/InC we can be satisfied by the passes, but the others....
16:40:24 <JimH_> +
16:41:05 <Zakim> +[EDS]
16:41:45 <JimH_> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
16:41:52 <JimH_> m
16:41:55 <JimH_> e
16:41:57 <JimH_> a
16:41:59 <JimH_> p
16:42:00 <JimH_> o
16:42:02 <JimH_> l
16:42:03 <JimH_> o
16:42:33 <sandro> DanC: you should not report those as passes.
16:43:34 <sandro> Jos: agreed.
16:44:07 <sandro> Sandro: so many of our twice-passed bits from earlier this meeting are only single-passed, really.
16:44:07 <sandro> DanC: so be it.
16:44:18 <DanC> when Jos updates his report to show "incomplete" for non-entailment tests, we may show more "approved tests without 2 systems".
16:46:01 <sandro> DanC: JJC's proposal for making Extra Credit as status
16:46:52 <sandro> JJC I'll move a few, provisionally, to see how it works out?
16:47:39 <sandro> Jim: Sandro, can you do: Which proposed tests DONT have two....
16:49:36 <guus> guus has joined #webont
16:51:25 <Zakim> +??P3
16:51:45 <guus> zakim, ??p3 is Guus
16:51:45 <Zakim> +Guus; got it
16:52:44 <sandro> Sandro: what exactly do we mean by 80% full, ... ?
16:53:03 <sandro> DanC: we dont need to formalize it that much
16:53:18 <sandro> JimH: Pellet doesnt claim to be Full, but it does lots of Full stuff
16:53:44 <sandro> Jos: Euler's FAIL?
16:54:04 <sandro> Sandro: don't even run that test, since it doesnt apply to your reasoner's semantics
16:54:15 <sandro> DanC: there are two semantics; this test shows the difference between them.
16:54:29 <sandro> JJC: it's not wholey satisfactory, but it's not wholey broken.
16:55:02 <sandro> (When I say "dont run it" i mean youre test harness shouldn't give it to euler, since the semantics dont match.)
16:55:46 <sandro> JimH: You CANT get 100% of all tests, since you'll be using one semantics or the other.
16:56:01 <sandro> JimH: or you can, if you define things differently.
16:56:27 <sandro> JJC: these two tests: one is Lite, one is Full.   Other tests are both lite AND Full.
16:57:03 <sandro> JJC: doc suggest you don't give a Lite reasoner a Full test, etc.
16:57:29 <sandro> Sean: I just ignored all Full tests.
16:58:40 <DanC> I dunno if the systems need to say whether they're full or not.
16:58:58 <DanC> I'm happy with just "no data". I suppose "not applicable" is an improvement, but not a critical one.
16:59:02 <sandro> Sandro: sounds like we need systems to be categorized (Lite/Full, and Datatype support); and we get true "N/A" not just "no data"
16:59:16 <sandro> (actually JJC said half that)
17:00:33 <seanb> "The extension of OWL Thing may be be *emtpy*" sp?
17:00:50 <sandro> Ian/Sandro -- your system needs to advertise which semantics it uses: DL or Full.
17:01:17 <sandro> ... hybrid reasoners, dispatchers ...
17:01:39 <sandro> -- 7 EXIT CRITERION
17:02:15 <sandro> ? ACTION: Jim Hendler - Report PELLET status re complete OWL Lite consistency checkers
17:02:22 <sandro> Continued.   Bijan making sure.
17:02:39 <sandro> ? ACTION: Ian Horrocks - Report Cerebra and Racer status re complete OWL Lite consistency checkers
17:02:48 <sandro> Continued.  In the next day or two
17:03:11 <sandro> ? ACTION: Charles White will collect data on test detail. Send him lists of test you have passed.
17:03:14 <sandro> DONE
17:03:53 <sandro> ? ACTION: Sandro - Report reasoning status re useful subsets of OWL Full.
17:04:08 <sandro> DanC: no claims that Surnia is "useful" yet....
17:05:22 <sandro> CONTINUED re Surnia, 
17:05:25 <sandro> DONE re Euler
17:05:42 <sandro> ? ACTION: Jeremy - Will ask Dave Reynolds re reasoner status over useful subsets of OWL Full.
17:06:03 <sandro> DONE.   (Jena report promised.)
17:06:30 <sandro> ? ACTION: Sean B. - Report officially on species validation syntactic 
17:06:35 <sandro> DONE!   Woo Hoo!
17:06:45 <sandro> ? action petere
17:06:46 <sandro> DONE
17:06:53 <sandro> ? Action Ian:
17:06:54 <sandro> DONE
17:07:03 <sandro> ? Action Jim
17:07:09 <DanC> (Anybody have a pointer to Ian's results about syntax checking?)
17:07:12 <sandro> CONTINUED  (not yet)
17:07:36 <sandro> ---- Next Steps (DanC)
17:09:36 <sandro> DanC: Ask for PR.   Not before 20th.   
17:09:47 <sandro> DanC: It's okay to do another CR draft, if we want
17:10:13 <sandro> JJC: We could change the links to RDF, now that their WDs are published
17:11:32 <sandro> ACTION Ian: report back on whether RDF WDs are as expected by S&AS
17:12:21 <sandro> JJC: if we have a long CR we should repub TEST
17:12:28 <sandro> JimH: yeah
17:13:23 <sandro> ACTION JimH: discuss PR schedule with CG
17:13:46 <sandro> JimH: good time to update TEST when we think we're done with it, and ready for PR.
17:14:53 <sandro> ----- E-mail to RDF IG calling attention to OTR
17:15:09 <DanC> (and rdf-logic, if you like)
17:15:25 <sandro> ACTION Sandro: send email about http://www.w3.org/2003/08/owl-systems/test-results-out, asking for more data
17:15:32 <sandro> ------ FAQ
17:16:23 <sandro> JimH: My FAQ is "about OWL", at the press-release level.
17:16:52 <sandro> Deb: Mine was at the how-to-do-this-in-OWL level
17:17:12 <sandro> Deb: Better mechanism at W3C?
17:17:17 <sandro> DanC: I dunno...
17:17:17 <guus> will put this on the agenda for next week
17:18:01 <sandro> DanC: I'm inclined to take your Cookbook entry and put it on esw Wiki       http://esw.w3.org/topic/
17:18:11 <guus> Dan: action to propose this for next week?
17:18:13 <sandro> Deb: that sounds fine
17:18:31 <sandro> JimH: Having it keep running post WG (eg Wiki) would be good
17:19:39 <sandro> ACTION DanC: Propose Wiki be used for FAQ
17:20:07 <sandro> DanC: let's talk about ISWC next week too
17:23:57 <IanH> URL for OntoWeb SIG meeting:
17:23:59 <IanH> http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/%7Ehorrocks/OntoWeb/SIG/node9.html
17:24:14 <sandro> ACTION DanC: summarize OWL press coverage
17:24:14 <guus> Action Guus: send overview of ISWC-related events 
17:24:28 <sandro> ADJOURN
17:24:32 <Zakim> -jjc
17:24:35 <Zakim> -[EDS]
17:24:40 <Zakim> -terHorst
17:24:42 <Zakim> -DanC
17:24:45 <Zakim> -Guus
17:24:47 <Zakim> -Sandro
17:24:49 <Zakim> -jimH
17:24:50 <Zakim> -Ian
17:24:53 <Zakim> -Jeff_Heflin
17:24:54 <Zakim> -Sean
17:24:55 <Zakim> -Jean-Francois
17:24:58 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean
17:24:59 <Zakim> -charlesW
17:25:00 <Zakim> -Jos
17:25:01 <Zakim> -McGuinness
17:25:02 <Zakim> SW_WebOnt()12:00PM has ended
19:04:38 <Zakim> Zakim has left #webont