16:54:15 RRSAgent has joined #webont 16:54:20 zakim, this will be webont 16:54:20 ok, sandro; I see SW_WebOnt()12:00PM scheduled to start in 6 minutes 16:58:41 seanb has joined #webont 16:58:59 guus has joined #webont 16:59:38 IanH has joined #webont 16:59:43 SW_WebOnt()12:00PM has now started 16:59:50 +??P17 17:01:17 +Ian_Horrocks 17:01:31 +[EDS] 17:01:52 zakim, ??P17 is Guus 17:01:52 +Guus; got it 17:01:54 +Sandro 17:03:13 +??P20 17:03:17 +JimH 17:05:10 +Tayeb 17:05:32 Zakim, ??P20 is SeanB 17:05:32 +SeanB; got it 17:05:37 +Marwan_Sabbouh 17:05:38 zakim, who is on the phone? 17:05:38 On the phone I see Guus, Ian_Horrocks, [EDS], Sandro, SeanB, JimH, Tayeb, Marwan_Sabbouh 17:06:46 +Mike_Dean 17:07:30 mdean has joined #webont 17:07:37 jjc has joined #webont 17:07:44 what's the code? 17:08:11 + +1.408.892.aaaa 17:08:12 "webo", jjc 17:08:26 in numbers - in europe we don't get letters? 17:08:28 zakim, Tayeb is Jerome 17:08:28 +Jerome; got it 17:08:39 zakim, +1.408.892.aaaa is Charles White 17:08:39 I don't understand '+1.408.892.aaaa is Charles White', sandro 17:08:48 zakim, +1.408.892.aaaa is Charles_White 17:08:48 +Charles_White; got it 17:08:56 9326 17:09:00 ta 17:09:02 +HermanT 17:09:25 +??P6 17:09:32 Zakim, ?P6 is Jeremy 17:09:32 sorry, jjc, I do not recognize a party named '?P6' 17:09:36 Zakim, ??P6 is Jeremy 17:09:36 +Jeremy; got it 17:09:37 zakim, pick a scribe 17:09:37 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Jeremy 17:10:09 zakim, pick a scribe 17:10:09 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Sandro 17:10:30 Sandro is Scribing. 17:10:37 zakim, who is on the phone? 17:10:37 On the phone I see Guus, Ian_Horrocks, [EDS], Sandro, SeanB, JimH, Jerome, Marwan_Sabbouh, Mike_Dean, Charles_White, HermanT, Jeremy 17:11:20 zakim, [EDS] is temporarily Mike_Smith 17:11:20 +Mike_Smith; got it 17:11:45 [Guus reads Roll from Zakim.] 17:11:55 Next Meeting....? 17:12:18 Nov 27 is US Thanksgiving. 17:12:42 +Jeff_Heflin 17:12:46 so Next Meeting: Dec 4, Guus to Chair, JimH to Scribe. 17:13:11 Proposed to approve minutes? 17:13:29 as sent by mike smith, with Guus' ammendment sent yesterday. 17:13:33 RESOLVED 17:13:45 Agenda Amendments? 17:14:34 Action DanC review -- not yet done, asked for continued 17:14:48 Action Guus review rdf schema -- done 17:25:18 Re: Mike Smith: Update Issue 5.26. 17:25:30 JimH: we need a little more text on this for PR 17:26:06 ACTION Mike_Smith: put some text on this in Guide 17:26:54 IanH has joined #webont 17:27:04 JimH: He'll inform group; people can comment/object if necessary, but we'll assume his change is okay if none. 17:28:54 ======= 3. 17:29:03 Jos's new list of tests, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Nov/0041.html 17:30:28 JJC: AnnotationProperty-003 recently updated -- not sure if test results are current. We should delay approving that. 17:31:10 Guus: Proposed we approve someValuesFrom-003 AnnotationProperty-002 I5.3-010 I5.8-016 17:31:24 ACTION Sandro: deal with syntactic tests showing up as proposed 17:31:29 RESOLVED 17:31:35 ACTION JJC: update the status 17:32:38 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 JJC: I don't think so. 17:33:37 JimH: editor's descretion 17:33:55 ACTION JJC: look at AnnotationProperty-003 and deal with it. 17:33:58 +JosD 17:34:03 http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposed-dl-200-instance#description-logic-209 17:36:07 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 JimH: I'm okay with leaving it proposed for now. 17:37:03 17:37:11 (leave it proposed for now) 17:37:15 For DL-502.... 17:37:40 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 Ian: Were these tests you got from us? 17:39:04 JJC: No, I'm the author. It uses a lot of individuals, and it seems like that's too hard. 17:39:18 JJC: Racer might do it, but no results yet. 17:39:28 JJC: Proposed make it Extra Credit. 17:39:45 RRSAgent, pointer? 17:39:45 See http://www.w3.org/2003/11/13-webont-irc#T17-39-45 17:41:03 Sandro: has anyone else looked at it? 17:41:16 Jos: Yes, it's the same as 504 with a different encoding. 17:41:28 Ian: I looked at it, and suggested it be recoded as 504 17:42:00 RESOLVED, 502 is ExtraCredit test 17:42:16 ACTION JJC: update status of DL-502 17:43:14 JJC: looks like misc-011 is just an editorial problem. 17:43:20 Guus: Is this really a Lite test? 17:44:37 JimH: is this important? 17:44:48 JJC: it was added as a result of our concern about guide tests. 17:44:59 JJC: it's a new test -- I think people just haven't addressed it yet. 17:45:17 JJC: It's meant to be easy 17:45:29 JimH: Okay, guide tests were important. keep it. 17:46:07 Jos: Euler is passing the syntactic level test for it. 17:46:15 Jos: Euler also passes it. 17:46:49 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 Ian: It's hard for me to find the test. 17:48:23 JJC: it's too recent to be in even the latest editor's draft. Sorry! 17:49:25 While we're on this, the following link is broken: http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/dl-500-SAT#description-logic-503 17:49:27 Ian: Link on 7.3.4 (3SAT) is dead 17:49:56 JJC: I run the link checker around Pub time, not regularly. 17:50:14 JJC: What about the proposed tests with 1 pass? 17:51:09 Jim: moving to PR does not mean we stop approving tests. 17:51:55 Jim: Leaving these proposed and deciding to accept them later is fine; accepting something now which isnt passed would hinder PR. 17:52:53 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 JJC: We have about 30 proposed tests with one pass 17:54:09 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 Jim: It's just editorial w.r.t. Test document 17:54:40 JJC: I'm not comfortable. 17:54:48 Jos: I'm also uncomfortable. 17:55:32 JJC: 3 tests from datatypes section, knowing cardinality of datatypes, Euler does it.... 17:56:00 JJC: That's not compelling for DL reasoners. 17:57:17 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 Jim: THat doesnt bear on our exit criteria 17:58:42 JJC: if we start approving some of the 29 tests to with one pass ... maybe a meeting next week .... 18:00:30 sandro: no Team Contact likely possible next week 18:00:39 -Mike_Smith 18:00:52 JJC/JimH: we could delegate a subgroup to consider remaining tests. 18:01:48 Ian: Why not just wait until more systems pass them. 18:02:27 Jim: Can we still approve more after PR? 18:02:31 IanH has joined #webont 18:02:37 Sandro: Yes -- many WG's approve tests after REC. 18:02:51 JJC: We could approve them between PR and Rec. 18:03:31 JimH: so we don't have to worry about the test results today. I'm still waiting for Racer results!! 18:03:54 Ian: Yes! Let's not freeze it now -- new systems should keep emerging. 18:04:26 JimH: there is the exit criteria percentage bits -- we can't approve to many tests not being widely passed before PR. 18:05:08 JJC: Sounds like we still want two systems passing a test before we approve them. 18:05:30 Jim: Maybe be good to look at them -- may decide to move them to extra credit. 18:05:57 Ian: Fine, as long as we don't postpone PR vote 18:06:35 JosD has joined #webont 18:06:48 ACTION JJC: draw up agenda of tests to discuss next week 18:06:54 Guus: I'm at risk 18:06:59 JimH: not sure. 18:07:08 (Not a formal WG meeting) 18:07:36 Jos: I'll try to be there; might be late coming from other meeting 18:07:39 Sean: me 18:07:42 Charles: me 18:07:43 Ian: me 18:08:21 JJC: Charles, can you represent Cerebra results? 18:08:24 Charles: yes. 18:09:30 INFORMAL WG MEETING next week, to discuss Proposed Tests, Ian to Chair. 18:09:35 ============= 4./ 18:10:08 Guus: mostly about Herman's e-mail 18:10:38 Herman: WG would need to pick one description of DL reasoning normative. I proposed making 5.4 informative. 18:11:24 Herman: Because equivalence depends on the proof .... 18:11:42 Jim: You're claiming during CR that you no longer like our design? 18:11:42 Apologies -- I have to leave now. 18:11:54 -SeanB 18:12:12 Herman: Two normative descriptions. 18:12:41 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 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 Jim: Does our design need any changing due to RDF Core changes? 18:14:31 Jim: (are they now techincally alligned.) 18:14:54 Herman: S&AS needs techinical editorial changes to be completely aligned. This is different from the normative/informative issue. 18:15:28 Herman: The new version of RDF Semantics only leads to many editorial changes, but ONLY EDITORIAL changes in S&AS. 18:15:57 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: Test + S&AS is also "both normative" 18:16:59 Ian: Test does say it defers to S&AS, so it can't be in conflict that way. 18:17:19 Ian: I think there's a lot in what Herman says. The original design slipped while no one was noticing. 18:18:22 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 JJC: Possiblity of conflicts, even with Herman's change, with other bits of section 5, etc 5.3. 18:19:06 -Charles_White 18:19:14 Ian: Two different languages, DL and Full. 18:19:19 -Marwan_Sabbouh 18:19:32 Jim: I haven't see a single comment suggesting there is any conflict. 18:19:48 Jim: If we discover they are broken, we have errata. 18:20:09 +Charles_White 18:20:33 Jim: Process-wise, doing some changes when no one has complained is.... odd. 18:20:42 Guus: I concur with Jim. 18:21:17 Guus: "In case of conflict, section 3 prevails". That would be an okay editorial change. 18:21:26 re section 3 and 5.4 18:21:55 JimH: I wouldn't object, but that seems unnecessary. 18:22:44 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 Herman: Why object to making 5.4 informative. 18:23:16 JimH: Because that's what my implementors often use. 18:23:23 JJC: I would object on procedural grounds. 18:23:49 Guus: let's leave adding that sentence, as discussed, to S&AS editor. 18:24:31 Herman: in RDF semantics, there is a parallel situation, with *informative* entailment rules. 18:24:58 Guus: Herman, process-wise we couldn't change it at this meeting (even if we had consensus) 18:25:23 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 ======== 18:26:07 Guus: any objectsion to extending up toe 15 minutes? 18:26:08 None. 18:27:54 Guus: PROPOSED as in agenda. 18:32:42 zakim, who is here? 18:32:42 On the phone I see Guus, Ian_Horrocks, Sandro, JimH, Jerome, Mike_Dean, HermanT, Jeremy, Jeff_Heflin, JosD, Charles_White 18:32:44 On IRC I see JosD, IanH, jjc, mdean, guus, RRSAgent, Zakim, sandro, logger 18:36:38 Vote: 14 yes, 1 abstain, 0 object 18:36:43 RESOLVED 18:37:02 Action editors: get their documents ready 18:37:09 tentative date Dec 9. 18:37:14 RDF Core also. 18:37:45 (DanBri's bday...) 18:38:23 Action team-contact: get ready 18:38:41 Action JimH: arrange directors meeting 18:39:03 Overview? 18:39:12 Action Guus: approach editor of Overview 18:39:15 Action Guus: approach editor of Guide 18:39:25 cancel 18:39:34 Action Guus: approach editor of Guide 18:39:45 Action Guus: Make changes to reference 18:40:40 Action Ian: Make changes to S&AS (includes changes from Herman from RDF Semantics) 18:40:51 Herman volunteers to help Ian get it right. :-) 18:41:01 Action JJC: make Test ready for PR. 18:42:08 JJC: I have some new proposed tests from Racer, shall I include them? 18:42:10 JimH: Sure. 18:42:21 JJC: I'll obsolete them if they don't send us results. :-) 18:42:52 Action Jeff: get Requirements ready 18:43:42 Action Sandro: get ready -- tell editors what's expected of them. 18:43:56 Action Sandro: provide some SOTD text 18:44:06 ... to JimH for PR. 18:44:24 JJC: some concerns about structure of Test; will send doc. 18:45:12 Action sandro: get editors std list of RDF + OWL documents names and Dec-09 URLs. 18:45:40 -JimH 18:45:47 Action sandro: send out WG members list, (confirm with Chairs first). 18:46:14 Guus: time for a collective sigh of relief! 18:46:20 Guus: thanks for staying late! 18:46:24 Guus: Congradulations! 18:46:26 ADJOURN. 18:46:27 -Charles_White 18:46:30 -Jeff_Heflin 18:46:31 -Jeremy 18:46:32 -Ian_Horrocks 18:46:32 -Mike_Dean 18:46:33 -HermanT 18:46:38 -Jerome 18:46:43 -JosD 18:46:56 -Sandro 18:47:02 -Guus 18:47:03 SW_WebOnt()12:00PM has ended 20:55:32 Zakim has left #webont