IRC log of webont on 2003-11-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:54:15 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #webont
16:54:20 [sandro]
zakim, this will be webont
16:54:20 [Zakim]
ok, sandro; I see SW_WebOnt()12:00PM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
16:58:41 [seanb]
seanb has joined #webont
16:58:59 [guus]
guus has joined #webont
16:59:38 [IanH]
IanH has joined #webont
16:59:43 [Zakim]
SW_WebOnt()12:00PM has now started
16:59:50 [Zakim]
17:01:17 [Zakim]
17:01:31 [Zakim]
17:01:52 [guus]
zakim, ??P17 is Guus
17:01:52 [Zakim]
+Guus; got it
17:01:54 [Zakim]
17:03:13 [Zakim]
17:03:17 [Zakim]
17:05:10 [Zakim]
17:05:32 [sandro]
Zakim, ??P20 is SeanB
17:05:32 [Zakim]
+SeanB; got it
17:05:37 [Zakim]
17:05:38 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the phone?
17:05:38 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Guus, Ian_Horrocks, [EDS], Sandro, SeanB, JimH, Tayeb, Marwan_Sabbouh
17:06:46 [Zakim]
17:07:30 [mdean]
mdean has joined #webont
17:07:37 [jjc]
jjc has joined #webont
17:07:44 [jjc]
what's the code?
17:08:11 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.892.aaaa
17:08:12 [sandro]
"webo", jjc
17:08:26 [jjc]
in numbers - in europe we don't get letters?
17:08:28 [guus]
zakim, Tayeb is Jerome
17:08:28 [Zakim]
+Jerome; got it
17:08:39 [sandro]
zakim, +1.408.892.aaaa is Charles White
17:08:39 [Zakim]
I don't understand '+1.408.892.aaaa is Charles White', sandro
17:08:48 [sandro]
zakim, +1.408.892.aaaa is Charles_White
17:08:48 [Zakim]
+Charles_White; got it
17:08:56 [seanb]
17:09:00 [jjc]
17:09:02 [Zakim]
17:09:25 [Zakim]
17:09:32 [jjc]
Zakim, ?P6 is Jeremy
17:09:32 [Zakim]
sorry, jjc, I do not recognize a party named '?P6'
17:09:36 [jjc]
Zakim, ??P6 is Jeremy
17:09:36 [Zakim]
+Jeremy; got it
17:09:37 [guus]
zakim, pick a scribe
17:09:37 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Jeremy
17:10:09 [guus]
zakim, pick a scribe
17:10:09 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Sandro
17:10:30 [sandro]
Sandro is Scribing.
17:10:37 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the phone?
17:10:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Guus, Ian_Horrocks, [EDS], Sandro, SeanB, JimH, Jerome, Marwan_Sabbouh, Mike_Dean, Charles_White, HermanT, Jeremy
17:11:20 [sandro]
zakim, [EDS] is temporarily Mike_Smith
17:11:20 [Zakim]
+Mike_Smith; got it
17:11:45 [sandro]
[Guus reads Roll from Zakim.]
17:11:55 [sandro]
Next Meeting....?
17:12:18 [sandro]
Nov 27 is US Thanksgiving.
17:12:42 [Zakim]
17:12:46 [sandro]
so Next Meeting: Dec 4, Guus to Chair, JimH to Scribe.
17:13:11 [sandro]
Proposed to approve minutes?
17:13:29 [sandro]
as sent by mike smith, with Guus' ammendment sent yesterday.
17:13:33 [sandro]
17:13:45 [sandro]
Agenda Amendments?
17:14:34 [sandro]
Action DanC review -- not yet done, asked for continued
17:14:48 [sandro]
Action Guus review rdf schema -- done
17:25:18 [sandro]
Re: Mike Smith: Update Issue 5.26.
17:25:30 [sandro]
JimH: we need a little more text on this for PR
17:26:06 [sandro]
ACTION Mike_Smith: put some text on this in Guide
17:26:54 [IanH]
IanH has joined #webont
17:27:04 [sandro]
JimH: He'll inform group; people can comment/object if necessary, but we'll assume his change is okay if none.
17:28:54 [sandro]
======= 3.
17:29:03 [sandro]
Jos's new list of tests,
17:30:28 [sandro]
JJC: AnnotationProperty-003 recently updated -- not sure if test results are current. We should delay approving that.
17:31:10 [sandro]
Guus: Proposed we approve someValuesFrom-003 AnnotationProperty-002 I5.3-010 I5.8-016
17:31:24 [sandro]
ACTION Sandro: deal with syntactic tests showing up as proposed
17:31:29 [sandro]
17:31:35 [sandro]
ACTION JJC: update the status
17:32:38 [sandro]
Sandro: if AP-003 has changed, how will we ever know when results are about the new version? Shouldn't we obselete it and add a new one?
17:33:28 [sandro]
JJC: I don't think so.
17:33:37 [sandro]
JimH: editor's descretion
17:33:55 [sandro]
ACTION JJC: look at AnnotationProperty-003 and deal with it.
17:33:58 [Zakim]
17:34:03 [jjc]
17:36:07 [sandro]
JJC: DL-209 This is an obvious child of DL-208, so there shouldn't be problems. Just people haven't run it yet, I guess.
17:36:21 [sandro]
JimH: I'm okay with leaving it proposed for now.
17:37:03 [sandro]
17:37:11 [sandro]
(leave it proposed for now)
17:37:15 [sandro]
For DL-502....
17:37:40 [sandro]
JJC: it's been in there with DL-501 for a long time, and no one has passed them. They are SAT problems.
17:38:46 [sandro]
Ian: Were these tests you got from us?
17:39:04 [sandro]
JJC: No, I'm the author. It uses a lot of individuals, and it seems like that's too hard.
17:39:18 [sandro]
JJC: Racer might do it, but no results yet.
17:39:28 [sandro]
JJC: Proposed make it Extra Credit.
17:39:45 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
17:39:45 [RRSAgent]
17:41:03 [sandro]
Sandro: has anyone else looked at it?
17:41:16 [sandro]
Jos: Yes, it's the same as 504 with a different encoding.
17:41:28 [sandro]
Ian: I looked at it, and suggested it be recoded as 504
17:42:00 [sandro]
RESOLVED, 502 is ExtraCredit test
17:42:16 [sandro]
ACTION JJC: update status of DL-502
17:43:14 [sandro]
JJC: looks like misc-011 is just an editorial problem.
17:43:20 [sandro]
Guus: Is this really a Lite test?
17:44:37 [sandro]
JimH: is this important?
17:44:48 [sandro]
JJC: it was added as a result of our concern about guide tests.
17:44:59 [sandro]
JJC: it's a new test -- I think people just haven't addressed it yet.
17:45:17 [sandro]
JJC: It's meant to be easy
17:45:29 [sandro]
JimH: Okay, guide tests were important. keep it.
17:46:07 [sandro]
Jos: Euler is passing the syntactic level test for it.
17:46:15 [sandro]
Jos: Euler also passes it.
17:46:49 [sandro]
JJC: it refers to things outside the test space with URIs; I dont support approving it today. I already have an action to look at it.
17:47:17 [sandro]
Ian: It's hard for me to find the test.
17:48:23 [sandro]
JJC: it's too recent to be in even the latest editor's draft. Sorry!
17:49:25 [seanb]
While we're on this, the following link is broken:
17:49:27 [sandro]
Ian: Link on 7.3.4 (3SAT) is dead
17:49:56 [sandro]
JJC: I run the link checker around Pub time, not regularly.
17:50:14 [sandro]
JJC: What about the proposed tests with 1 pass?
17:51:09 [sandro]
Jim: moving to PR does not mean we stop approving tests.
17:51:55 [sandro]
Jim: Leaving these proposed and deciding to accept them later is fine; accepting something now which isnt passed would hinder PR.
17:52:53 [sandro]
JJC: We're asking the WG to approve the Test document, and as editor, I don't even know what's to be in it.
17:53:20 [sandro]
JJC: We have about 30 proposed tests with one pass
17:54:09 [sandro]
Jim: If we move to PR this minute, we'd not approve them. But in the next 2-3 weeks we can approve them. Get the WG out of critical path on publishing.
17:54:24 [sandro]
Jim: It's just editorial w.r.t. Test document
17:54:40 [sandro]
JJC: I'm not comfortable.
17:54:48 [sandro]
Jos: I'm also uncomfortable.
17:55:32 [sandro]
JJC: 3 tests from datatypes section, knowing cardinality of datatypes, Euler does it....
17:56:00 [sandro]
JJC: That's not compelling for DL reasoners.
17:57:17 [sandro]
JJC: If we accept these tests, the Chair has to make the case why they are okay only being passed by one system.
17:57:29 [sandro]
Jim: THat doesnt bear on our exit criteria
17:58:42 [sandro]
JJC: if we start approving some of the 29 tests to with one pass ... maybe a meeting next week ....
18:00:30 [sandro]
sandro: no Team Contact likely possible next week
18:00:39 [Zakim]
18:00:52 [sandro]
JJC/JimH: we could delegate a subgroup to consider remaining tests.
18:01:48 [sandro]
Ian: Why not just wait until more systems pass them.
18:02:27 [sandro]
Jim: Can we still approve more after PR?
18:02:31 [IanH]
IanH has joined #webont
18:02:37 [sandro]
Sandro: Yes -- many WG's approve tests after REC.
18:02:51 [sandro]
JJC: We could approve them between PR and Rec.
18:03:31 [sandro]
JimH: so we don't have to worry about the test results today. I'm still waiting for Racer results!!
18:03:54 [sandro]
Ian: Yes! Let's not freeze it now -- new systems should keep emerging.
18:04:26 [sandro]
JimH: there is the exit criteria percentage bits -- we can't approve to many tests not being widely passed before PR.
18:05:08 [sandro]
JJC: Sounds like we still want two systems passing a test before we approve them.
18:05:30 [sandro]
Jim: Maybe be good to look at them -- may decide to move them to extra credit.
18:05:57 [sandro]
Ian: Fine, as long as we don't postpone PR vote
18:06:35 [JosD]
JosD has joined #webont
18:06:48 [sandro]
ACTION JJC: draw up agenda of tests to discuss next week
18:06:54 [sandro]
Guus: I'm at risk
18:06:59 [sandro]
JimH: not sure.
18:07:08 [sandro]
(Not a formal WG meeting)
18:07:36 [sandro]
Jos: I'll try to be there; might be late coming from other meeting
18:07:39 [sandro]
Sean: me
18:07:42 [sandro]
Charles: me
18:07:43 [sandro]
Ian: me
18:08:21 [sandro]
JJC: Charles, can you represent Cerebra results?
18:08:24 [sandro]
Charles: yes.
18:09:30 [sandro]
INFORMAL WG MEETING next week, to discuss Proposed Tests, Ian to Chair.
18:09:35 [sandro]
============= 4./
18:10:08 [sandro]
Guus: mostly about Herman's e-mail
18:10:38 [sandro]
Herman: WG would need to pick one description of DL reasoning normative. I proposed making 5.4 informative.
18:11:24 [sandro]
Herman: Because equivalence depends on the proof ....
18:11:42 [sandro]
Jim: You're claiming during CR that you no longer like our design?
18:11:42 [seanb]
Apologies -- I have to leave now.
18:11:54 [Zakim]
18:12:12 [sandro]
Herman: Two normative descriptions.
18:12:41 [sandro]
Jim: You did a review of the RDF document, but now you're coming back with issues on our documents. How is that?
18:13:56 [sandro]
Herman: RDF Core did a review, found a conflict. If we have that same situation, we'll be better off having picked one section as normative.
18:14:17 [sandro]
Jim: Does our design need any changing due to RDF Core changes?
18:14:31 [sandro]
Jim: (are they now techincally alligned.)
18:14:54 [sandro]
Herman: S&AS needs techinical editorial changes to be completely aligned. This is different from the normative/informative issue.
18:15:28 [sandro]
Herman: The new version of RDF Semantics only leads to many editorial changes, but ONLY EDITORIAL changes in S&AS.
18:15:57 [sandro]
Herman: Having done this review, it became clear again to me that we have defined two different descriptions, which might conflict.
18:16:32 [sandro]
Sandro: Test + S&AS is also "both normative"
18:16:59 [sandro]
Ian: Test does say it defers to S&AS, so it can't be in conflict that way.
18:17:19 [sandro]
Ian: I think there's a lot in what Herman says. The original design slipped while no one was noticing.
18:18:22 [sandro]
Ian: the DL MT was supposed to be definitive, and then equivalence with Full came later. I don't think the correspondence theory was every supposed to be Normative.
18:18:51 [sandro]
JJC: Possiblity of conflicts, even with Herman's change, with other bits of section 5, etc 5.3.
18:19:06 [Zakim]
18:19:14 [sandro]
Ian: Two different languages, DL and Full.
18:19:19 [Zakim]
18:19:32 [sandro]
Jim: I haven't see a single comment suggesting there is any conflict.
18:19:48 [sandro]
Jim: If we discover they are broken, we have errata.
18:20:09 [Zakim]
18:20:33 [sandro]
Jim: Process-wise, doing some changes when no one has complained is.... odd.
18:20:42 [sandro]
Guus: I concur with Jim.
18:21:17 [sandro]
Guus: "In case of conflict, section 3 prevails". That would be an okay editorial change.
18:21:26 [sandro]
re section 3 and 5.4
18:21:55 [sandro]
JimH: I wouldn't object, but that seems unnecessary.
18:22:44 [sandro]
JJC: I think we already have this. Test defers to different bits of S&AS for different kinds of conformance, so 5.4 doesn't come in. I also wouldn't oppose; can live with.
18:22:57 [sandro]
Herman: Why object to making 5.4 informative.
18:23:16 [sandro]
JimH: Because that's what my implementors often use.
18:23:23 [sandro]
JJC: I would object on procedural grounds.
18:23:49 [sandro]
Guus: let's leave adding that sentence, as discussed, to S&AS editor.
18:24:31 [sandro]
Herman: in RDF semantics, there is a parallel situation, with *informative* entailment rules.
18:24:58 [sandro]
Guus: Herman, process-wise we couldn't change it at this meeting (even if we had consensus)
18:25:23 [sandro]
Ian: I'm okay with adding the sentence. "If any conflict should ever arise between these two forms, the model theory takes precedence"
18:25:56 [sandro]
18:26:07 [sandro]
Guus: any objectsion to extending up toe 15 minutes?
18:26:08 [sandro]
18:27:54 [sandro]
Guus: PROPOSED as in agenda.
18:32:42 [sandro]
zakim, who is here?
18:32:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Guus, Ian_Horrocks, Sandro, JimH, Jerome, Mike_Dean, HermanT, Jeremy, Jeff_Heflin, JosD, Charles_White
18:32:44 [Zakim]
On IRC I see JosD, IanH, jjc, mdean, guus, RRSAgent, Zakim, sandro, logger
18:36:38 [sandro]
Vote: 14 yes, 1 abstain, 0 object
18:36:43 [sandro]
18:37:02 [sandro]
Action editors: get their documents ready
18:37:09 [sandro]
tentative date Dec 9.
18:37:14 [sandro]
RDF Core also.
18:37:45 [sandro]
(DanBri's bday...)
18:38:23 [sandro]
Action team-contact: get ready
18:38:41 [sandro]
Action JimH: arrange directors meeting
18:39:03 [sandro]
18:39:12 [sandro]
Action Guus: approach editor of Overview
18:39:15 [sandro]
Action Guus: approach editor of Guide
18:39:25 [sandro]
18:39:34 [sandro]
Action Guus: approach editor of Guide
18:39:45 [sandro]
Action Guus: Make changes to reference
18:40:40 [sandro]
Action Ian: Make changes to S&AS (includes changes from Herman from RDF Semantics)
18:40:51 [sandro]
Herman volunteers to help Ian get it right. :-)
18:41:01 [sandro]
Action JJC: make Test ready for PR.
18:42:08 [sandro]
JJC: I have some new proposed tests from Racer, shall I include them?
18:42:10 [sandro]
JimH: Sure.
18:42:21 [sandro]
JJC: I'll obsolete them if they don't send us results. :-)
18:42:52 [sandro]
Action Jeff: get Requirements ready
18:43:42 [sandro]
Action Sandro: get ready -- tell editors what's expected of them.
18:43:56 [sandro]
Action Sandro: provide some SOTD text
18:44:06 [sandro]
... to JimH for PR.
18:44:24 [sandro]
JJC: some concerns about structure of Test; will send doc.
18:45:12 [sandro]
Action sandro: get editors std list of RDF + OWL documents names and Dec-09 URLs.
18:45:40 [Zakim]
18:45:47 [sandro]
Action sandro: send out WG members list, (confirm with Chairs first).
18:46:14 [sandro]
Guus: time for a collective sigh of relief!
18:46:20 [sandro]
Guus: thanks for staying late!
18:46:24 [sandro]
Guus: Congradulations!
18:46:26 [sandro]
18:46:27 [Zakim]
18:46:30 [Zakim]
18:46:31 [Zakim]
18:46:32 [Zakim]
18:46:32 [Zakim]
18:46:33 [Zakim]
18:46:38 [Zakim]
18:46:43 [Zakim]
18:46:56 [Zakim]
18:47:02 [Zakim]
18:47:03 [Zakim]
SW_WebOnt()12:00PM has ended
20:55:32 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #webont