15:46:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #webont
15:46:27 <DanC> Zakim, this will be WEBO
15:46:28 <Zakim> ok, DanC; I see SW_WebOnt()12:00PM scheduled to start in 14 minutes
15:46:47 <DanC> DanC has changed the topic to: 2 Oct http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/
15:47:42 <DanC> agenda + 2 Oct http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0330.html
15:47:56 <DanC> DanC has changed the topic to: 2 Oct http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ chair: Guus; scribe: ??
15:53:15 <guus> guus has joined #webont
15:53:43 <DanC> hi guus
15:55:52 <guus> hi, dan, you coming to FL?
15:57:13 <Zakim> SW_WebOnt()12:00PM has now started
15:57:19 <Zakim> +Guus
15:59:11 <Zakim> +[EDS]
16:01:05 <ChrisW> ChrisW has joined #webont
16:01:13 <DanC> yes, coming to FL after all. http://www.w3.org/2003/10dc-rsw/
16:01:20 <Zakim> +JimH
16:01:21 <DanC> (linked from my homepage)
16:01:24 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean
16:01:30 <Zakim> +DanC
16:01:49 <Zakim> +ChrisW
16:02:06 <Zakim> +Ian_Horrocks
16:02:08 <seanb> seanb has joined #webont
16:02:08 <Zakim> -DanC
16:02:10 <Zakim> +Jeff_Heflin
16:02:16 <Zakim> +??P25
16:02:19 <IanH> IanH has joined #webont
16:02:25 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
16:02:32 <Zakim> +DanC
16:02:33 <guus> zakim, ??p25 is Jeremy
16:02:33 <Zakim> +Jeremy; got it
16:03:10 <Zakim> +??P31
16:03:42 <guus> zakim, ??p31 is HermantH
16:03:42 <Zakim> +HermantH; got it
16:03:57 <Zakim> +??P32
16:04:25 <guus> zakim, ??p32 is SeanB
16:04:25 <Zakim> +SeanB; got it
16:04:28 <jjc> jjc has joined #webont
16:04:38 <jjc> do we have a scribe?
16:05:30 <Zakim> +Deb_Mcguinness
16:05:31 <DanC> DanC has changed the topic to: 2 Oct http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ chair: Guus; scribe: JeremyC
16:05:53 <guus> zakim, whi is here?
16:05:53 <Zakim> sorry, guus, I do not understand your question
16:05:56 <jjcscribe> Scribe- jeremy
16:06:09 <jjcscribe> Zakim, who's talking?
16:06:20 <Zakim> jjcscribe, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Guus (26%), JimH (27%), Jeremy (4%), SeanB (29%), Deb_Mcguinness (4%)
16:07:00 <Zakim> +??P38
16:07:10 <DanC> agenda?
16:07:20 <guus> zakim, ??p38 is Yasser
16:07:20 <Zakim> +Yasser; got it
16:07:56 <jjcscribe> Minutes of last telecon - seconded connolly
16:08:00 <jjcscribe> proposed guus
16:08:08 <jjcscribe> minutes approved
16:08:21 <jjcscribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0330.html
16:08:23 <jjcscribe> agenda
16:08:25 <jjcscribe> prev
16:08:28 <jjcscribe> minutes:
16:08:35 <DanC> Zakim, pick a scribe
16:08:35 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose DanC
16:08:38 <DanC> Zakim, pick a scribe
16:08:38 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose HermantH
16:08:43 <jjcscribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/0216.html
16:08:47 <DanC> Zakim, pick a scribe
16:08:47 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Ian_Horrocks
16:08:59 <Zakim> +??P67
16:09:01 <jjcscribe> Ian next week scribe
16:09:14 <jjcscribe> Charles
16:09:16 <guus> zakim, ??p67 is Charles
16:09:16 <Zakim> sorry, guus, I do not recognize a party named '??p67'
16:09:32 <Zakim> +Tayeb
16:10:14 <DanC> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:10:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see Guus, [EDS], JimH, Mike_Dean, DanC, ChrisW, Ian_Horrocks, Jeff_Heflin, Jeremy, Evan_Wallace, HermantH, SeanB, Deb_Mcguinness, Yasser, CharlesW, JeromeE
16:10:25 <jjcscribe> Next telecon next week - then Oct 30
16:10:31 <jjcscribe> agendum 2
16:10:37 <jjcscribe> RDF Core isues
16:11:10 <jjcscribe> RDF Semantics - Herman, and Ian were reviewing
16:11:25 <jjcscribe> Ian: mailed a review just before telecon
16:11:38 <jjcscribe> mainly Jeff dd the review
16:11:45 <jjcscribe> concrn abouyt datatypes
16:12:05 <jjcscribe> hence possible to have inconsistency
16:12:52 <jjcscribe> DanC: this is not new - may 2002
16:13:10 <jjcscribe> Ian: not clear when things are inconsistent or not
16:13:47 <jjcscribe> Jim: model theory of datatypes changed between LC and now
16:14:23 <jjcscribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Oct/0032.html
16:14:27 <jjcscribe> Ian's review above
16:15:16 <jjcscribe> Herman: interpolation lemma problem PatH has responded
16:15:24 <jjcscribe> review is unfinished
16:15:39 <jjcscribe> the rules have changed 
16:15:57 <jjcscribe> RDFS entailment lemma issue with proof ....
16:17:50 <jjcscribe> Jeremy: will RDF Semantics need to change more?
16:18:03 <jjcscribe> Herman: I expect more details in maths will change
16:18:41 <jjcscribe> Herman: so more will need to change ...
16:18:53 <jjcscribe> Ian: no showstoppers, but urhter clairfication may be needed
16:19:41 <jjcscribe> DanC: we cannot confirm that it is right ... but we haven't found anything critically wrong
16:19:54 <jjcscribe> (or have we? are there any test cases?)
16:20:52 <jjcscribe> ACTION DanC trn Ian's reviews into test cases
16:21:04 <jjcscribe> Herman's action continued
16:21:35 <jjcscribe> ACTION guus send mail to brian sumamrizing unfinished semantics review -
16:22:42 <jjcscribe> Looking for reviewers fro LC2
16:23:57 <jjcscribe> ACTION Guius review LC2 RDF schema when it comes
16:24:39 <jjcscribe> ACTION Jim review LC2 RDF Concepts
16:24:46 <jjcscribe> Everyone else encoruaged to also review
16:24:55 <jjcscribe> Guus's proposal on I18N
16:25:30 <jjcscribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Oct/0021.html
16:26:31 <jjcscribe> possible rephrasing of "The arguments against the alternatives proposed by
16:26:32 <jjcscribe> I18N are compelling (see e.g. [2]).  
16:26:50 <jjcscribe> Seconded connolly with amendment
16:27:06 <jjcscribe> (amendment to make tat sentence less confusing)
16:27:17 <jjcscribe> (Scribe has sticky keyboard)
16:27:25 <jjcscribe> Resolved by consensus
16:27:38 <jjcscribe> Agendum 3
16:27:39 <DanC> ACTION Guus revise and send
16:28:41 <DanC> Proposal to approve tests http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Oct/0003.html
16:29:02 <DanC> Proposal to approve extracredit tests http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Oct/0005.html
16:31:41 <DanC> discussion of I5.26-003 levels:Full [PROPOSED]  Structure sharing is not permitted in OWL DL, between two class descriptions.
16:35:17 <DanC> ... discussion of whether PELLET has actually come up with a proof of consistency w.r.t. OWL Full semantics ...
16:35:34 <DanC> ... general support for making this an extra credit case in any case...
16:35:55 <Zakim> +JosD
16:36:05 <DanC> PROPOSED: to approve extracredit tests as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Oct/0005.html
16:36:07 <DanC> so RESOLVED.
16:36:20 <JosD> JosD has joined #webont
16:36:28 <DanC> Proposal to approve tests http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Oct/0003.html
16:37:59 <DanC> ... note excluded tests
16:38:14 <DanC> ... note that it's cool to have the machine help so much with making this proposal
16:38:26 <DanC> (which test?)
16:39:45 <DanC> there's some test that's failed... empty universe...
16:40:45 <DanC> Thing-001 
16:41:20 <DanC> PROPOSED: to approve tests per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Oct/0003.html ammended to take out Thing-001
16:41:26 <DanC> so RESOLVED.
16:41:51 <DanC> ACTION jjc update test spec. ETA friday next week or after
16:42:22 <DanC> ACTION IanH follow up on  Thing-001 and S&AS
16:43:30 <DanC> --- 3.2 consistency of examples from the OWL guide
16:44:00 <DanC> IanH: we know we don't have effective decision procedures here...
16:44:12 <DanC> ... JimH's proposal to do some query-style entailment tests seems good
16:44:35 <DanC> JimH: consistency of the ontology seems like extra credit, but please don't remove it
16:45:17 <DanC> Jeremy: knock-on effects in guide or whatever?
16:45:35 <DanC> Connolly: yes, I'd expect a note ala "we've used something that makes it infeasible to check consistency"
16:46:07 <DanC> ... discussion of whether use of oneOf in the guide is merited
16:47:10 <DanC> JimH: I would oppose anything more than a note about oneOf in the guide [?]
16:48:17 <DanC> IanH: indeed, oneOf is used once in the text of the Guide, but it's used much more in the ontology.
16:49:55 <jjcscribe> DanC: our implementation experience shows an issue - let's not curtail discussion
16:50:13 <DanC> DanC: I'm kinda surprised that you can't check the consistency of the guide ontologies.
16:51:00 <jjcscribe> McG a new section in guide showing new pattern
16:51:01 <DanC> DebM: hmm... a new section to show an alternative model that's perhaps less natural but more [what was the word?]
16:51:10 <jjcscribe> effciient?
16:53:08 <jjcscribe> q+
16:53:14 <DanC> JimH: [missed some of it
16:53:16 <DanC> ]
16:53:57 <DanC> JimH: I think we've been clear setting expectations around the ontologies in the guide. seems odd to put in the alternative in there.
16:54:18 <DanC> [... jjc/IanH on some mechanical transformation ...]
16:54:58 <DanC> JJC offers to investingate tests based on a mechanical transformation
16:55:29 <DanC> MikeS: moving these to extra credit seems in order.
16:56:33 <DanC> ACTION JJC: take tests based on guide and (a) propose to make the existing consistency tests extra credit, (b) derive similar tests by mechanical transformation
16:56:55 <DanC> ACTION Jos: make addtional query-style tests.
16:57:07 <DanC> ... ala jimh's msg
16:57:29 <DanC> ** 4.0 New Document - OWL implementation Hints?
16:58:14 <DanC> JimH/Guus: options: (a) nothing (b) WG note, (c) appendix to existing WG document
16:58:38 <DanC> Sean: I'd be happy for it to become a WG note...
16:58:51 <DanC> ... it's pretty much done from my perspective
16:59:39 <DanC> DanC: hmm... more work for team contact
16:59:47 <DanC> JimH offers to recruit sandro to do it
16:59:58 <DanC> Guus solicits reviewers
17:00:16 <DanC> Sean: I think Peter has looked at it...
17:00:27 <DanC> JimH offers to have it reviewed by MINDSWAP
17:00:38 <jjcscribe> ACTION jimH ask mindswap
17:00:47 <jjcscribe> ACTION guus ask peter for review
17:00:47 <DanC> ACTION Guus: ask Peter to review
17:00:57 <DanC> === 3.3
17:01:02 <jjcscribe> ACTION jjc: review sean's document
17:01:54 <DanC> several proposals from peter http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Oct/0006.html
17:02:37 <DanC> ... observation that some parts are easier than others
17:03:04 <DanC> A) URIs starting in "/" and "." http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Oct/0001.html
17:04:01 <seanb> Sorry, have to leave now.....
17:04:06 <seanb> Bye!
17:04:10 <Zakim> -SeanB
17:05:08 <DanC> as the tests are approved, and the confusion has subsided, no question is put.
17:05:54 <DanC> -- C: Semantic Layering Bug
17:06:08 <DanC> Ontology-002, Ontology-003
17:06:32 <DanC> JJC: peter proposes a fix which looks OK to me
17:07:12 <DanC> JosD: ... this "X is an Ontology" triple [...?...] test2[?]
17:07:35 <DanC> [JJC explains to JosD; scribe doesn't follow]
17:08:53 <DanC> [scribe is still not clear on what proposal JJC is endorsing...]
17:09:36 <DanC> PROPOSED: to update previous decision on optionality of Ontology triple, etc. as per C/ Semantic layering bug in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Oct/0006.html
17:09:50 <DanC> 2nd
17:10:02 <DanC> so RESOLVED. ACTION jjc, pfps[done?]
17:10:55 <DanC> JJC: ?003 becomes a [?]. update changelog
17:11:28 <DanC> JJC: E/ Loops in owl:equivalentClass has been resolved (little r) among the editors.
17:13:01 <DanC> JJC: proposed to reject cardinality007
17:13:14 <DanC> ... er never mind... not accepted.
17:13:19 <DanC> ... note I'm going to obsolete it.
17:13:36 <DanC> JJC: proposed to obsolete cardinality007
17:13:50 <DanC> RESOLVED to obsolete cardinality007
17:13:56 <DanC> ACTION jjc
17:14:17 <DanC> discussion of "B" is postponed.
17:14:50 <jjcscribe> sandro actions continued
17:15:04 <jjcscribe> jjc actions done
17:15:15 <jjcscribe> guus action is done
17:15:40 <jjcscribe> danc is done
17:15:50 <DanC> no, I'm not actually
17:16:07 <jjcscribe> sorry I got that wrong
17:16:12 <jjcscribe> danc's action continued
17:16:37 <jjcscribe> jjc done
17:17:27 <jjcscribe> ACTION jimh added disjoint on agenda
17:17:40 <jjcscribe> jjc done
17:18:03 <jjcscribe> guus action continued
17:18:20 <jjcscribe> Item 5.0 Outreach
17:18:37 <jjcscribe> guus action continued - in florida
17:18:44 <jjcscribe> miked continued -in florida
17:19:26 <jjcscribe> faq discussion connolly dean mcguiness horrcks hendler
17:19:32 <jjcscribe> terhorst 
17:19:38 <jjcscribe> maybe a Bof during lunch
17:19:39 <ChrisW> me too
17:19:58 <jjcscribe> guus omg action
17:20:09 <jjcscribe> there s no formal mechanism
17:22:11 <jjcscribe> discussion of ibm and sandpipier proposals and links
17:22:25 <jjcscribe> (under OMG action still)
17:22:41 <jjcscribe> Mcg welty guus
17:24:51 <jjcscribe> ACTION debMcG send review e-mail address to list for OMG reviews
17:29:44 <jjcscribe> ACTION guus draft with ??? requirements msg on OMG proposals
17:29:51 <jjcscribe> (that action still being discussed)
17:29:59 <jjcscribe> natural mapping owl to UML or not
17:30:11 <jjcscribe> Guus, DanC like natural mappings, rather than exhaustuve
17:30:23 <jjcscribe> McG raises issue of subProperty hierarchy
17:30:37 <jjcscribe> also semantics preservation issue
17:31:17 <jjcscribe> wallace in discussion 
17:32:23 <jjcscribe> s/with ???// in ACTION above
17:32:42 <jjcscribe> no replace above action
17:32:55 <jjcscribe> ACTION guus draft parts of requirements msg on OMG proposals
17:33:40 <jjcscribe> Dan raises issues about DAML meeting
17:33:57 <DanC> input from WebOnt WG to DAML PI meeting
17:34:05 <jjcscribe> ACTION chairs representating of WebOnt at DAML PI meeting
17:34:28 <jjcscribe> JimHproposes extension 10 minutes 
17:34:43 <jjcscribe> DanC suggests adjournment and after hors discussion
17:34:48 <Zakim> -HermantH
17:34:49 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
17:34:57 <Zakim> -ChrisW
17:35:00 <Zakim> -CharlesW
17:35:01 <Zakim> -JeromeE
17:35:10 <Zakim> -Jeremy
17:35:53 <Zakim> -JosD
17:43:33 <Zakim> -[EDS]
17:45:27 <Zakim> -DanC
17:45:33 <Zakim> -JimH
17:45:36 <Zakim> -Jeff_Heflin
17:45:37 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean
17:45:37 <Zakim> -Ian_Horrocks
17:45:42 <Zakim> -Yasser
17:45:54 <Zakim> -Guus
17:47:30 <Zakim> -Deb_Mcguinness
17:47:31 <Zakim> SW_WebOnt()12:00PM has ended
19:15:27 <Zakim> Zakim has left #webont