IRC log of owl on 2007-11-21

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:56:56 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:56:56 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:56:58 [Zakim]
17:57:15 [Rinke]
ah, that looks better
17:57:25 [Rinke]
ScribeNick: Rinke
17:58:05 [MichaelSmith]
rrsagent, make record public
17:58:11 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
17:58:17 [Rinke]
zakim, who's here
17:58:17 [Zakim]
Rinke, you need to end that query with '?'
17:58:23 [Rinke]
zakim, who's here?
17:58:23 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK
17:58:24 [Zakim]
On IRC I see bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, MichaelSmith, MarkusK, vit, bijan, Rinke, IanH, MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng
17:58:33 [bcuencag]
bcuencag has joined #owl
17:58:52 [Zakim]
17:59:09 [uli]
uli has joined #owl
17:59:14 [Carsten]
Carsten has joined #owl
17:59:17 [Zakim]
17:59:20 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??P6 is bmotik
17:59:20 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
17:59:26 [jeremy]
jeremy has joined #owl
17:59:27 [Zakim]
17:59:31 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:59:31 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:59:33 [MartinD]
zakim, mute me
17:59:33 [Zakim]
MartinD should now be muted
18:00:05 [Zakim]
18:00:23 [Zakim]
18:00:49 [Zakim]
18:01:02 [Zakim]
18:01:03 [uli]
zakim, ??P9 is me
18:01:03 [Zakim]
+uli; got it
18:01:09 [Zakim]
18:01:13 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??P12 is bmotik
18:01:13 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
18:01:16 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:01:16 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:01:17 [Zakim]
18:01:39 [Zakim]
18:01:48 [vit]
Zakim, ??P18 is me
18:01:48 [Zakim]
+vit; got it
18:01:58 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
18:01:58 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK (muted), MartinD (muted), IanH, uli (muted), Alan, bmotik (muted), Sandro, ??P11, vit
18:02:00 [Zakim]
On IRC I see jeremy, Carsten, uli, bcuencag, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, MichaelSmith, MarkusK, vit, bijan, Rinke, IanH, MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng
18:02:03 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
18:02:16 [ewallace]
ewallace has joined #owl
18:02:27 [alanr]
zakik, who is on the call?
18:02:35 [alanr]
zakim, who is on the call?
18:02:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK (muted), MartinD (muted), IanH, uli (muted), Alan, bmotik (muted), Sandro, ??P11, vit
18:02:40 [Zakim]
18:03:03 [alanr]
calling in on cell phone too, for a few minutes, so I can fetch a coffee...
18:03:23 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
18:03:32 [zhe]
zhe has joined #owl
18:03:35 [sandro]
"Zakim, ??19 is me"
18:03:46 [Zakim]
18:03:50 [pfps]
zakim, ??p20 is me
18:03:50 [Zakim]
+pfps; got it
18:03:51 [bcuencag]
zakim, ??P19 is me
18:03:52 [Zakim]
+bcuencag; got it
18:03:54 [Zakim]
18:03:56 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
18:03:56 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
18:04:00 [Zakim]
18:04:06 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
18:04:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK (muted), MartinD (muted), IanH, uli (muted), Alan, bmotik (muted), Sandro, ??P11, vit, bcuencag, pfps (muted),
18:04:09 [Zakim]
... Alan_Ruttenberg, ??P3
18:04:11 [Zakim]
On IRC I see zhe, pfps, ewallace, alanr, jeremy, Carsten, uli, bcuencag, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, MichaelSmith, MarkusK, vit, bijan, Rinke, IanH, MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng
18:04:12 [Carsten]
zakim, ??p3 is me
18:04:14 [Zakim]
+Carsten; got it
18:04:20 [Carsten]
zakim, mut me
18:04:20 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'mut me', Carsten
18:04:25 [Carsten]
zakim, mute me
18:04:25 [Zakim]
Carsten should now be muted
18:04:33 [Rinke]
zakim, mute me
18:04:33 [Zakim]
Rinke should now be muted
18:04:48 [Zakim]
18:06:05 [sandro]
"Zakim, ??P11 is me"
18:06:08 [sandro]
like that.
18:06:17 [zhe]
Zakim, ??P11 is me
18:06:17 [Zakim]
+zhe; got it
18:06:26 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
18:06:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), MIchaelSmith, MarkusK (muted), MartinD (muted), IanH, uli (muted), Alan, bmotik (muted), Sandro, zhe, vit, bcuencag, pfps (muted),
18:06:29 [Zakim]
... Alan_Ruttenberg, Carsten (muted), Evan_Wallace
18:06:30 [Zakim]
On IRC I see zhe, pfps, ewallace, alanr, jeremy, Carsten, uli, bcuencag, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, MichaelSmith, MarkusK, vit, bijan, Rinke, IanH, MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng
18:07:04 [Rinke]
IanH: covered Role call
18:07:20 [sandro]
scribenick: Rinke
18:07:25 [Rinke]
ok, thanks
18:07:30 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
18:07:30 [RRSAgent]
18:07:32 [Rinke]
IanH: covered Role call
18:07:43 [Rinke]
... any amendments?
18:07:50 [Rinke]
... no amendments
18:07:56 [Rinke]
PROPOSED: Accept Previous Previous Minutes
18:08:00 [bijan]
Are we going to cover more issues if we finsih the one's listed
18:08:05 [bijan]
18:08:06 [jeremy]
they were rather late
18:08:10 [sandro]
Present: bijan, Rinke, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK, MartinD, IanH, uli, Alan, bmotik, Sandro, zhe, vit, bcuencag, pfps, Alan_Ruttenberg, Carsten, Evan_Wallace
18:08:21 [pfps]
Ian: previous *PREVIOUS* minutes
18:08:30 [jeremy]
18:08:53 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #owl
18:08:53 [MartinD]
18:08:54 [sandro]
18:09:00 [Zakim]
18:09:06 [sandro]
18:09:12 [alanr]
18:09:28 [Rinke]
ewallace: previous previous minutes list me as evan wallface
18:10:08 [Zakim]
18:10:16 [Rinke]
sandro: accept them pending the change
18:10:38 [IanH]
PROPOSED: Accept previous previous minutes module fixing Evan's name
18:11:01 [MichaelSmith]
+1 to accept previous previous minutes
18:11:02 [Rinke]
sandro: fixed them
18:11:12 [Rinke]
ACCEPTED: Accept previous previous minutes module fixing Evan's name
18:11:22 [bijan]
I just updated the attendance list to add Uli
18:11:24 [bijan]
Who was missing
18:11:25 [Rinke]
PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes
18:11:27 [jeremy]
SANDRO - please reply to prtvate message
18:11:31 [alanr]
I approve
18:11:34 [Rinke]
sandro: haven't been there long enough to be reviewed
18:11:43 [pfps]
+1 wait
18:11:51 [alanr]
18:11:54 [Rinke]
IanH: who has reviewed them?
18:11:58 [uli]
i haven't
18:11:58 [bijan]
I just did
18:12:07 [Rinke]
had a quick look
18:12:12 [Rinke]
IanH: leave them to next week
18:12:21 [Rinke]
... action item status?
18:12:28 [pfps]
aren't minutes supposed to be ready in 48 hours or less?
18:12:28 [Rinke]
sandro: still mulling it over
18:12:40 [Rinke]
IanH: move to next week
18:12:48 [Rinke]
alanr: did the syntax document (Action 15)
18:13:00 [Rinke]
IanH: action 17 qname approval
18:13:17 [Rinke]
MichaelSmith: email has been sent, asking about schema components status
18:13:20 [sandro]
yes, PFPS, that's the normal convention. In this case the fault was mostly mine. :-(
18:13:21 [MichaelSmith]
In pfps found text in XML Schema spec built-in datatypes and facets are both given URIs
18:13:23 [alanr]
Evan, are you willing to write up the steps to clean up the minutes? (on
18:13:34 [Rinke]
... most of the issue has been addressed because peter found relevant parts
18:13:47 [Rinke]
... action was done
18:13:52 [Zakim]
+ +078910aaaa
18:13:57 [Rinke]
IanH: action 18, brain dump?
18:14:03 [alanr]
18:14:05 [Rinke]
alanr: haven't dumped, postponed to next week
18:14:18 [jeremy]
Zakim, aaaa is me
18:14:18 [Zakim]
+jeremy; got it
18:14:21 [Rinke]
IanH: f2f agenda
18:14:43 [IanH]
18:14:44 [Rinke]
IanH: have collected a list of items to be discussed at the f2f, please look at the agenda
18:14:55 [bijan]
F2F agenda:
18:15:04 [Rinke]
... currently on day 1 an overview of language features, imports
18:15:10 [bijan]
18:15:11 [Rinke]
... two other topics dl and full alignment
18:15:29 [Rinke]
... if you have comments, topics, then you might want to suggest them
18:15:37 [pfps]
suggest F2F topics how?
18:15:37 [Rinke]
... the schedule is going to be quite tight!
18:15:49 [pfps]
18:15:54 [Rinke]
alanr: where did you put the agenda?
18:15:57 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
18:15:57 [Zakim]
pfps should no longer be muted
18:16:06 [JeffP]
18:16:11 [Rinke]
IanH: link from meetings page, in the irc as well
18:16:33 [Rinke]
... cannot guarantee that every topic will be added
18:16:49 [Rinke]
alanr: if you feel that any knowledge needs to be made clear, we can put it in the tutorial
18:16:56 [bijan]
What's the tutorial?
18:17:00 [bijan]
When is it?
18:17:07 [Rinke]
IanH: over the course of the next week we will fix the agenda?
18:17:14 [pfps]
18:17:18 [Rinke]
(who's this?)
18:17:21 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
18:17:21 [Zakim]
pfps was not muted, pfps
18:17:43 [Rinke]
ewallace: would like to discuss the Declaration
18:17:50 [Rinke]
... just the discussion of it
18:17:52 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:17:52 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:17:54 [bijan]
18:18:12 [Rinke]
bijan: what's the tutorial?
18:18:31 [Rinke]
alanr: orientation, looking who's coming, having a walkthrough of the specs, and doing a Q&A
18:18:42 [Rinke]
... if you have ideas of what should be covered, let us know
18:18:59 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:18:59 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:19:00 [Rinke]
bianr: is that the same as Overview of language features?
18:19:03 [Rinke]
alanr: yes
18:19:09 [Rinke]
IanH: are we done?
18:19:10 [sandro]
chair: Ian
18:19:12 [bijan]
18:19:29 [Rinke]
IanH: alan and I will prepare a more concrete agenda
18:19:36 [Rinke]
IanH: 2nd F2F meeting
18:19:37 [bijan]
Perhaps, ian should send an email to solicit agenda topics for f2f?
18:19:43 [IanH]
18:19:50 [Rinke]
... quite a few have commented already
18:20:05 [JeffP]
18:20:10 [Rinke]
... any people on the phone who would like to add their response before we come to a decision?
18:20:16 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
18:20:16 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
18:20:30 [alanr]
q+ to go back to scribing for a second
18:20:32 [Rinke]
... uli, boris, bernardo... you didn't respond yet?
18:20:40 [bmotik]
No preference
18:20:41 [uli]
oups - i thought i had: preference for washington
18:20:47 [bcuencag]
beijing or DC
18:20:48 [Rinke]
... any preference Washington, Bejing, Sydney
18:20:59 [Rinke]
JeffP: beijing
18:21:00 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:21:00 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:21:05 [MartinD]
prob. washington for me
18:21:10 [MichaelSmith]
I prefer DC, at risk for Beijing, no to sydney
18:21:23 [Carsten]
I can probably neither come to Washington nor Beijing, but Sydney may be possible
18:21:46 [vit]
no preference for me for F2F2
18:21:52 [Rinke]
alanr: will put the raw responses on the voting list
18:21:52 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:21:52 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:22:11 [Carsten]
18:22:17 [Rinke]
IanH: it is overwhelming for Washington... two people Beijing, one Sydney, everybody else Washington
18:22:35 [Rinke]
IanH: it's a no brainer... almost unanimous for Washington
18:22:47 [alanr]
18:22:50 [Rinke]
... peter can go ahead with the OWLED colocation thing? That's my proposal
18:23:03 [IanH]
PROPOSED: F2F2 will be in Washington DC
18:23:07 [alanr]
18:23:09 [bmotik]
18:23:10 [Rinke]
18:23:11 [MarkusK]
18:23:13 [sandro]
18:23:15 [MartinD]
18:23:16 [ewallace]
18:23:17 [MichaelSmith]
18:23:31 [Rinke]
IanH: lots of agreement, no disagreement
18:23:43 [sandro]
RESOLVED: F2F2 will be in Washington DC
18:23:48 [Rinke]
IanH: finished with the admin
18:24:10 [JeffP]
q+ have we decided the dates on F2F2?
18:24:12 [bijan]
+1 to DC
18:24:15 [alanr]
ack alanr
18:24:15 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to go back to scribing for a second
18:24:19 [Rinke]
alanr: if Conrad could put his work on the cleanups on the wiki
18:24:23 [bijan]
18:24:23 [JeffP]
18:24:32 [Rinke]
IanH: task forces stuff
18:24:49 [Rinke]
IanH: it would be useful to get some feedback from them
18:25:03 [Rinke]
IanH: jeremy to say something about the UFDTF
18:25:05 [IanH]
18:25:09 [IanH]
18:25:10 [bijan]
Yes he is :)
18:25:27 [sandro]
q+ testing zakim
18:25:28 [Rinke]
jeremy: let me think
18:25:31 [sandro]
18:25:34 [sandro]
18:25:34 [Rinke]
... can I go second?
18:25:41 [sandro]
ack testing
18:25:43 [sandro]
ack zakim
18:25:45 [Rinke]
IanH: Rich annotations? Bijan?
18:25:53 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:25:53 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:26:07 [Rinke]
bijan: I wrote up a proposal, some use cases, not finished
18:26:18 [Rinke]
... I ran them by several people, e.g. Alan Rector
18:26:40 [Rinke]
... somebody wanted to use them for patterns (value partitions)
18:26:49 [Rinke]
... that's fine in my proposal, haven't written it up
18:27:01 [Rinke]
... (Jeremy?) using reification for axiom annotations
18:27:07 [jeremy]
18:27:23 [Rinke]
... I guess in that exchange with Boris one option would be to ... the anotations
18:27:30 [alanr]
+1 on importance of axiom annotations
18:27:35 [Rinke]
... would remove a lot of the usefullness of annotations
18:27:43 [IanH]
18:27:48 [alanr]
q+ to mention issue with rich annotations
18:27:52 [Rinke]
bijan: proposal is 90% done...
18:28:03 [Rinke]
... would be nice to get some sense of what we're going to do with it
18:28:12 [Rinke]
IanH: there is a fairly wellformed proposal on the table
18:28:17 [Rinke]
... please give some comments
18:28:21 [MichaelSmith]
the current proposal is correct?
18:28:26 [bijan]
18:28:33 [IanH]
18:28:37 [Rinke]
alanr: concerned about the multiple domains of interpretation/ multiple worlds/ multiple models aspect of it
18:28:41 [IanH]
ack alanr
18:28:42 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to mention issue with rich annotations
18:28:59 [Rinke]
... part of the concern was that it's fairly new, and unexplored... want a warm fuzzy feeling that it's well understood
18:29:10 [bcuencag]
zakim, mute me
18:29:10 [Zakim]
bcuencag should now be muted
18:29:18 [Rinke]
... second issue is that I don't know whether and how it would affect the RDF semantics
18:29:38 [Rinke]
... could you comment on how it affects the OWL Full aspect of it, in the RDF sense
18:29:43 [IanH]
18:29:48 [Rinke]
bijan: I have not realised an RDF mapping
18:30:03 [Rinke]
... one could use different extensions: multiple files with pointers analogous to owl:imports
18:30:12 [Rinke]
... minimal mutilation of everything, and easy to understand
18:30:26 [Rinke]
... other than that: is that enough to get you going?
18:30:43 [Rinke]
alanr: yes, just to say where I am on it: how much of the proposal is dependent on that
18:31:03 [Rinke]
... is that the central part of the proposal? If it's left out, what will be left?
18:31:20 [Rinke]
bijan: it's a major part... another part is the idea to have blobs of annotations instead of nested or chained
18:31:31 [Rinke]
... in the current anotations have to booted in the axiom
18:31:51 [Rinke]
... a lot of people I talked to want to be able toa ssociate fairly elaborate structures to an entity or axiom
18:32:08 [jeremy]
q+ to comment
18:32:16 [Rinke]
IanH: until more people have had a chance to have a look at that... we might as well leave that
18:32:28 [alanr]
we do have it on f2f
18:32:31 [Rinke]
bijan: suggest that it becomes an official agenda item
18:32:40 [Rinke]
IanH: action item to go and read it?
18:33:06 [IanH]
18:33:07 [Rinke]
bijan: if I know its' going to be on the agenda I could (re)start an email discussion about this
18:33:14 [Rinke]
sandro: no need to do an action item
18:33:22 [Rinke]
bijan: if its on the agenda, I will start a discussion
18:33:33 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:33:33 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:33:41 [Rinke]
IanH: why don't you start a discussion, and if there's a significant response to that we can put it on the agenda
18:33:42 [IanH]
18:33:48 [Rinke]
alanr: who are the stakeholders on this?
18:33:56 [Rinke]
... and have an action item to review this?
18:34:05 [Rinke]
... for them (that holds for me)
18:34:11 [MichaelSmith]
I'm a stakeholder and will review
18:34:13 [Rinke]
IanH: anyone else?
18:34:16 [pfps]
I'll stick my hand up
18:34:26 [bmotik]
I will read it by next week. Does this cound as a review?
18:34:34 [Rinke]
alanr: more strongly, if you think it's important and you might object, you're a stakeholder
18:34:35 [alanr]
18:34:49 [IanH]
ack jeremy
18:34:49 [Zakim]
jeremy, you wanted to comment
18:34:52 [Rinke]
IanH: why not let jeremy speak, and let people mull over whether they are stakeholders
18:35:11 [Rinke]
jeremy: by having the OWL Full semantics in multiple documents is very complicated
18:35:15 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #owl
18:35:17 [alanr]
18:35:18 [Rinke]
... far away from owl 1.0
18:35:28 [alanr]
q+ to see if I understand bijan's idea
18:35:40 [ewallace]
could we ask for a decision on this next week
18:35:42 [Rinke]
... out of court. More about 'lets' put some wacky stuff in' instead of a conservative improvement over 1.0
18:35:55 [bmotik]
If I've understood things correctly, the idea is not to have one semantics distributed over different documents (Bijan, please correct me if I'm wrong).
18:35:55 [Rinke]
IanH: you're talking yourself into being a stakeholder
18:36:04 [uli]
jeremy, as usual, I can't understand what you are saying -- could you please talk louder?
18:36:15 [Rinke]
jeremy: just articulating how a large part of the OWL community would feel about this move away from 1.0
18:36:26 [Rinke]
(me neither)
18:36:36 [bmotik]
The idea is that you just have different, independent documents. They have nothing to do with each other. You can, however, query them together using, say, SPARQL.
18:36:46 [Rinke]
jeremy: this seems a big change from 1.0 in terms of the OWL Full semantics
18:36:53 [Rinke]
... sounds like a non starter (?)
18:36:53 [IanH]
18:36:59 [IanH]
ack alanr
18:36:59 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to see if I understand bijan's idea
18:37:06 [IanH]
18:37:12 [Rinke]
alanr: by putting it into different files, we are just making things independently and unconnected
18:37:22 [Rinke]
... each separately is an OWL Full document
18:37:22 [bijan]
that's fine
18:37:37 [bijan]
That's one reasonable way to go yes
18:37:41 [Rinke]
... that correct bijan?
18:37:51 [IanH]
18:37:52 [Rinke]
jeremy: strikes me as a 'big' change (in the eye of the beholder)
18:37:57 [Rinke]
... mouses and elephants
18:38:08 [Rinke]
IanH: clearly needs to be discussed in some more detail
18:38:12 [bmotik]
But this is really no change: each document is still interpreted as it was interpreted in OWL 1.0. You can use either Full or DL semantics, moreover.
18:38:15 [alanr]
+1 to draft Jeremy as stakeholder :)
18:38:22 [Rinke]
... perhaps jeremy and bijan could exchange some emails on this topic?
18:38:30 [Rinke]
... then the rest of us can eavesdrop
18:38:34 [bijan]
18:38:36 [Rinke]
... how would that be?
18:38:39 [IanH]
18:38:45 [alanr]
I can be on call too...
18:38:51 [alanr]
if desired
18:38:59 [Rinke]
jeremy: not very enthusiastic, at least I get payd for it
18:39:06 [Rinke]
IanH: I'll take that as a yes
18:39:13 [Rinke]
... move on to datatypes
18:39:25 [bijan]
There was a telecon!
18:39:32 [Rinke]
IanH: a lot of email traffic, no taskforce...
18:39:33 [bijan]
There is!
18:39:42 [alanr]
18:39:45 [Rinke]
alanr: summarise where we came to in the first meeting
18:39:48 [MichaelSmith]
Cleaned up datatype telecon minutes at
18:39:48 [Rinke]
(who's this?)
18:39:55 [alanr]
Mike smith
18:40:35 [Rinke]
MichaelSmith: two types of external datatypes... those that include ID's which can be externally referenced, and those that can't
18:40:53 [Rinke]
... on the first we are waiting on the XML Schema wg
18:40:54 [IanH]
18:41:07 [Rinke]
(on the second)
18:41:16 [MichaelSmith]
to modify structural specification to require the approach described in when referencing external XML Schema definitions with id attributes
18:41:29 [Rinke]
... moving forward on the approach outlined in the best practices document for the case where we do have IDs
18:41:47 [Rinke]
IanH: what kinds of things wouldn't we be able to do without ID's
18:41:48 [jeremy]
referencing externalk datatypes defined by someone else
18:41:51 [alanr]
big file of anonymous datatypes
18:41:54 [alanr]
18:42:15 [Rinke]
MikeSmith: perfectly valid xml schema exists without IDs... if you want to reuse such schema types you have a problem
18:42:17 [IanH]
18:42:22 [Rinke]
... on the semantic web
18:42:27 [bijan]
So one would have to cut and paste that datatype definition into a different file
18:42:39 [Rinke]
... if the author does have the semweb in mind, we have a solution.
18:42:44 [Rinke]
... from the best practices
18:42:52 [Rinke]
IanH: we won't lose expressivity, just some rework
18:42:57 [alanr]
literal inclusion of the file within the OWL file
18:43:11 [bijan]
18:43:13 [Rinke]
MikeSmith: yes, about reusing existing XML schema definitions
18:43:17 [Rinke]
IanH: unary datatypes?
18:43:31 [Rinke]
MikeSmith: yes, the external datatypes only discussed about unary datatypes
18:43:40 [Rinke]
... one other thing, that we discussed
18:43:53 [Rinke]
... don't know if we want to put that in to a proposal first or...
18:44:03 [Rinke]
IanH: try us with the other item first
18:44:07 [jeremy]
(at the telecon - some e-mail traffic on n-ary)
18:44:20 [Rinke]
MikeSmith: inline xml as opposed to what is in the member submission
18:44:21 [MichaelSmith]
Issues with XML Schema in thread starting at and with attempted summary at
18:44:28 [Rinke]
... I think it hit some kind of completion point
18:44:34 [Rinke]
... we understand what could be done,
18:44:50 [IanH]
18:44:53 [Rinke]
... if we want to use xml schema types inline, ...
18:45:04 [Rinke]
... we need feedback from people about this
18:45:08 [bijan]
I got negative feedback from OWL API/Protege4 author Matthew Horridge
18:45:10 [jeremy]
I'll ask HP implementors
18:45:17 [Rinke]
IanH: another case where people need to have a look and get feedback
18:45:19 [JeffP]
q+ unary datatype
18:45:21 [bijan]
I would expect negative feedback from TopQuadrent (Holger)
18:45:31 [bijan]
Oh, xml schema syntax inline
18:45:32 [Rinke]
IanH: negative with respect to which option?
18:45:36 [JeffP]
18:45:45 [IanH]
18:45:54 [Rinke]
alanr: I was advocating taking this as our first point strictly from a simplicity point of view
18:46:03 [IanH]
ack unary
18:46:08 [IanH]
ack datatype
18:46:14 [bijan]
q+ to talk about schema syntax
18:46:17 [JeffP]
18:46:22 [Rinke]
... doesn't require any vocabulary, might reduce the load at the expence of annoying but sufferable softare adaptations
18:46:29 [pfps]
well, what about all the corner cases in having inline XML Schema content?
18:46:37 [Rinke]
IanH: first bijan, then jeffP
18:46:38 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:46:38 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:46:44 [IanH]
ack bijan
18:46:44 [Zakim]
bijan, you wanted to talk about schema syntax
18:47:01 [Rinke]
bijan: I originally was thinking that using the XML schema syntax would be useful even with its limitations
18:47:17 [Rinke]
... main argument against it: if we use XSD it restricts us in how we...
18:47:24 [Rinke]
... would be apply new datatypes such as rational
18:47:34 [Rinke]
... we could change it, but XSD guys might not like that
18:47:56 [Rinke]
... unary datatypes with definitions, and totally different for n-ary: two different syntaxes
18:48:01 [Rinke]
... if we do it ourselves
18:48:09 [jeremy]
how about noting the issue and coming back to it in a few months?
18:48:23 [Rinke]
... some advantages if we do it ourselves, otherwise we have to take the XSD WG into account
18:48:41 [alanr]
18:48:42 [Rinke]
... if we make our home-made one it would probably be more uniform and more under control
18:48:51 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:48:51 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:48:53 [Rinke]
IanH: sounds like a convincing argument
18:48:55 [alanr]
q+ to ask whether we *at least* need to support XML syntax
18:48:59 [IanH]
ack jeffp
18:49:00 [jeremy]
agree with ian no premature decision
18:49:05 [Rinke]
JeffP: question for mike... can we see the unions as well?
18:49:15 [Rinke]
MikeSmith: there hasn't been a proposal to include unions no
18:49:31 [Rinke]
JeffP: if we don't have unions for datatypes. Won't we have too complicated datatypes
18:49:47 [bijan]
With external datatypes they could use union,a faict
18:49:49 [Rinke]
... users might really want to reuse existing datatypes that they have
18:50:07 [Rinke]
IanH: if people don't use unions, then ...
18:50:10 [IanH]
18:50:10 [Rinke]
(sorry missed that)
18:50:11 [uli]
but we had counter-examples for this, Jeff!
18:50:28 [IanH]
ack alan
18:50:28 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to ask whether we *at least* need to support XML syntax
18:50:29 [pfps]
-1 to requiring XML syntax
18:50:30 [Rinke]
alanr: might at least support the XML syntax. At least vs. might
18:50:43 [JeffP]
uli, could you send a pointer?
18:51:08 [uli]
Jeff, no - somewhere in the list of emails flying past
18:51:11 [Rinke]
IanH: if pople don't use unions, then the kinds of datatypes thay would be defining would be very simple, then not referencing
18:51:16 [IanH]
18:51:26 [Rinke]
... external datatypes using wouldn't be so much of an issue
18:51:35 [Rinke]
IanH: Mike was saying something about a proposal
18:51:39 [JeffP]
uli, which email in the mailing list?
18:51:43 [MichaelSmith]
to modify structural specification to require the approach described in when referencing external XML Schema definitions with id attributes
18:51:52 [Rinke]
MikeSmith: proposal for modifying structural specificaiton
18:51:53 [bijan]
+1 to this proposal
18:51:58 [jeremy]
18:52:07 [jeremy]
(look jeremy and bijan agree!)
18:52:14 [JeffP]
18:52:41 [alanr]
18:52:43 [Rinke]
IanH: that must mean everyone else is on board as well
18:52:51 [MartinD]
sounds reasonable :-)
18:53:01 [Rinke]
... this would need to be formed into a proposal that we might resolve
18:53:09 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:53:09 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:53:16 [bijan]
18:53:20 [jeremy]
q+ to note normativity (lack of)
18:53:21 [Rinke]
alanr: is there a section that we could read, a section that says everything about it?
18:53:34 [Rinke]
MikeSmith: the alternative would be to insert text into the structural document
18:53:44 [alanr]
I like this
18:53:50 [bijan]
+1 to doing the edit
18:53:51 [pfps]
-1 to this proposal, as OWL 1.1 already has an adequate solution
18:53:52 [alanr]
that, ians suggestion
18:53:53 [jeremy]
I prefer inserting text
18:53:58 [Rinke]
IanH: add it to the document, and then come back with a proposal to accept the edit in the document
18:54:01 [bijan]
18:54:10 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
18:54:10 [Zakim]
pfps should no longer be muted
18:54:10 [IanH]
18:54:11 [Rinke]
alanr: please comment in sandro's format
18:54:14 [jeremy]
18:54:31 [Rinke]
IanH: peter objects? but I guess that when you come back with the proposal to accept your editing...
18:54:39 [Rinke]
pfps: the message stands for itself
18:54:58 [Rinke]
... owl 1.1 already has its own syntax solution which eliminates the need for hacked-up xml schema documents
18:55:09 [Rinke]
alanr: there is our own syntax for defining datatypes?
18:55:20 [Rinke]
... a requirement is to be able to reuse other people's documents...
18:55:30 [jeremy]
q+ to respond to peter
18:55:30 [IanH]
18:55:33 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:55:33 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
18:55:36 [Rinke]
pfps: there's a vanishingly small number of xsd documents in that form
18:55:40 [Rinke]
alanr: bijan?
18:55:46 [IanH]
18:56:02 [Rinke]
bijan: not so much about reusing... I would be perfectly reasonable to define my own datatypes in xml schema.
18:56:19 [Rinke]
... I have reasons for doing them inline sometimes, and for doing them outline in some cases
18:56:21 [IanH]
ack jeremy
18:56:21 [Zakim]
jeremy, you wanted to respond to peter
18:56:21 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:56:23 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:56:24 [IanH]
18:56:35 [Rinke]
jeremy: the data may well be useful for an owl or webservice application
18:56:42 [bmotik]
XML Schema is a really complex specification, though.
18:56:44 [JeffP]
+1 for reuse xml schema datatypes
18:56:56 [Rinke]
... since the rest of the world reads xml datatypes already, we might as well do it ourselves as well
18:57:06 [Rinke]
... yes, it's awful, but that's life
18:57:19 [bmotik]
I don't understand quite what exactly is mean with "reusing XML Schema datatypes".
18:57:22 [Rinke]
IanH: bijan and jeremy are saying that there isn't actually a huge cost to it?
18:57:38 [Rinke]
... we just need to add id's
18:57:49 [Carsten]
and by the user
18:57:50 [bijan]
Boris, I currently can create a set of XML Schema datatypes using XML Schema
18:57:51 [Rinke]
alanr: the documents need to be understood by the reasoners that support them
18:57:52 [bijan]
Why not?
18:57:55 [bijan]
18:57:57 [bijan]
Why not use that?
18:58:10 [Rinke]
IanH: the added overhead for implementers is that they need to add support for xml datatypes
18:58:20 [Rinke]
pfps: you are going to require them to do that
18:58:32 [Rinke]
MikeSmith: if you do reference them, you do it in the required way
18:58:33 [bmotik]
But are these only the elementary data types (sting etc), or are we including the complex datatypes as well (elements, complexType, etc.)?
18:58:39 [jeremy]
there may be an issue with some facets
18:58:57 [Rinke]
alanr: add a delimited specific set of datatypes... but implementers could hook into the syntax to support more complex datatypes
18:59:04 [bijan]
bmotik, yes, the imported datatype must be legal in OWL 1.1
18:59:05 [jeremy]
simple types only
18:59:05 [IanH]
18:59:12 [JeffP]
boris, I think we mean simple types only
18:59:15 [Rinke]
MikeSmith: owl 1.0 docs are a little bit inconsistend (integer + string, another doc has a longer list)
18:59:29 [Rinke]
... we are not really clear on what's required for implementors and what's not
18:59:36 [bijan]
But if an implemented handled something more expressive, e.g., union, it seems harmless to let them address it by Id
18:59:36 [Rinke]
... maybe clarifying that is important
18:59:51 [bmotik]
Referencing an external .xsd document from OWL parsers might be a pain for implementors.
18:59:55 [Rinke]
IanH: a side chat between boris and jeff, trying to clarify whether we are only talking SimpleTypes
19:00:04 [jeremy]
19:00:13 [Rinke]
... I was presuming we're talking about more complex types, not unions, but facets
19:00:34 [Rinke]
MikeSmith: when I was responding to Jeff, I was talking about inline... now we're talking about external datatypes
19:00:37 [bmotik]
What is "external"?
19:00:47 [bijan]
I.e., defined in an XML Schema file
19:00:56 [Rinke]
... I don't think there was a proposal to restrict what kinds of external xsd datatypes are allowed
19:00:58 [bijan]
q+ to say "no to complex stuff"
19:01:22 [bijan]
+1 to jeremy's point about complex types
19:01:22 [bmotik]
What exactly could you write in this external document? Could you do much more than just apply factes?
19:01:24 [IanH]
19:01:28 [Rinke]
IanH: reuse the external xsd in your owl file
19:01:29 [IanH]
ack jeremy
19:01:41 [Rinke]
jeremy: complextype and simpletype are technical terms
19:01:49 [Rinke]
jeremy: a simpletype can be very complicated
19:01:51 [bijan]
I could define a type hierachy
19:01:56 [Rinke]
IanH: complicated rather than complex them
19:02:02 [bijan]
I coudl define complex types, but they wouldn't be usable in OWL
19:02:04 [Rinke]
... does this answer boris' questions?
19:02:13 [bmotik]
More or less.
19:02:17 [Rinke]
... perhaps Boris could say whether he understands everything now?
19:02:17 [bmotik]
What is a type hierachy?
19:02:20 [IanH]
19:02:24 [bijan]
ack bijan
19:02:25 [Zakim]
bijan, you wanted to say "no to complex stuff"
19:02:53 [Rinke]
bijan: we need to be a little bit careful wrt the types you are about to reference are types that are 'allowed'
19:03:05 [Rinke]
... presumably no current reasoner can do anything with it
19:03:18 [Rinke]
... the type that you reference must be definable in the inline syntax as well
19:03:25 [IanH]
19:03:39 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
19:03:39 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
19:03:40 [Rinke]
... qnames wouldn't be types you can use and dereference from
19:03:46 [Rinke]
IanH: clarified a lot for me
19:03:53 [bijan]
Boris, I can define a string type that is a subclass of xsd:string
19:03:54 [Rinke]
... action on Mike
19:03:56 [bijan]
And subclasses of that
19:03:59 [bijan]
19:04:04 [Rinke]
... to make a change that encapsulates his proposal
19:04:23 [Rinke]
IanH: skipped over the user facing documents
19:04:27 [Zakim]
19:04:28 [bmotik]
Wiki question: can we approve changes out-of-order?
19:04:28 [IanH]
19:04:39 [Rinke]
jeremy: three telecons so far
19:04:56 [bmotik]
For example, if two people make changes in one order, but we want to approve them in different order (or even roll-back one change), is this possible, and if so, how?
19:04:59 [Rinke]
... quite a lot of disagreement, the main point of the telecons was sharing and exchanging views
19:05:01 [bijan]
Re: numerics, I've been working on an explantion document in support of datatypes and n-ary predicates:
19:05:13 [Rinke]
... agreement on different users prefer docs in terms of their domain and use cases
19:05:15 [Vipul]
Vipul has joined #owl
19:05:21 [IanH]
19:05:23 [Rinke]
... risk that we like to produce more docs than we could
19:05:40 [Rinke]
... some members are keen on docs that represent user communities
19:05:53 [Rinke]
... another opinion is that we should produce very little
19:06:08 [Rinke]
... another point of disagreement is to do with what the overview should look like
19:06:12 [bijan]
Well, part of that view (which is mine) is there is other venues which are, perhaps, more appropriate
19:06:19 [IanH]
19:06:22 [Rinke]
... input is owl 1.0: brief summary + list of constructs
19:06:32 [Rinke]
... owl 1.1 summary which is much briefer
19:06:46 [Rinke]
... not anywhere near resolving anytime soon
19:07:04 [Rinke]
... a further issue is that non-wg members have interesting work that they would like to contribute to the group
19:07:24 [Rinke]
... how much can we interact with people not on the wg
19:07:51 [IanH]
19:07:53 [Rinke]
IanH: not really a constraint on interaction, but if the cdocuments reflect a lot of their input, then their names could not be on the docs
19:08:05 [alanr]
I thought it was Jeremy that was following up...
19:08:11 [Rinke]
Vipul: sent anemail to michel and ... as to what their expectations are
19:08:19 [jeremy]
i asked sandro
19:08:37 [Rinke]
IanH: fair to say, ongoing, progress is made, but significant issues?
19:08:44 [alanr]
also there are action items for UFDTF
19:08:56 [Rinke]
jeremy: for the overall taskforce, yes, I think we're making disappointingly small progress so far
19:09:11 [alanr]
Alan is more optimistic than Jeremy, but that may expose a flaw ...
19:09:14 [Rinke]
Vipul: one thing we did agree on is to identify the set of users that would
19:09:22 [alanr]
in Alan's optimism
19:09:23 [IanH]
19:09:28 [Rinke]
... be targeted by these docs
19:09:45 [Rinke]
... CIO's Enterprise Architects, developers: list on an external website
19:09:59 [alanr]
Also started page trying to define who the targets of the documentation are
19:10:09 [Rinke]
IanH: we'll be discussing this more on the F2F... hopefully more progress on these issues
19:10:12 [Rinke]
... then
19:10:16 [alanr]
19:10:42 [Rinke]
IanH: issues ... first is Issue 13: quotation and CURIES
19:10:52 [Rinke]
sandro: CURIES as in Marie Curie
19:11:23 [Rinke]
alanr: peter and I had a breef discussion about our original decision to use SPARQL
19:11:28 [bijan]
Nasty in the RDF/XML yes?
19:11:29 [jeremy]
Did sparql not use CURIE because it wasn't reaching REC any time soon?
19:11:35 [Rinke]
... peter thought it was limited, suggested to go for full CURIES instead
19:11:43 [IanH]
19:11:47 [Rinke]
... no problem: a dependency as they're not a standard yet
19:12:11 [Rinke]
... if others think that CURIES are good, then I'm happy too
19:12:19 [IanH]
19:12:20 [Rinke]
IanH: are we in a position that we could resolve
19:12:34 [Rinke]
sandro: the state of CURIES, we don't know they're ever going to be a rec
19:12:42 [bijan]
q+ to ask where would we use these
19:12:48 [IanH]
19:12:50 [Rinke]
pfps: we could pull the stuff out of the CURIE spec
19:13:01 [jeremy]
pfps: we could copy/paste CURIE text if they do not reach REVC
19:13:06 [Rinke]
alanr: someone from the group suggested we might monitor this
19:13:14 [IanH]
19:13:21 [Rinke]
... and do a fallback when it turns out to not become a rec
19:13:28 [jeremy]
I'll Dave tomorrow
19:13:38 [jeremy]
19:13:47 [bijan]
ack bijan
19:13:49 [Zakim]
bijan, you wanted to ask where would we use these
19:13:54 [IanH]
19:13:58 [Rinke]
sandro: in RIF there was some discussion, in the end decided not to... not relevant...?
19:14:17 [jeremy]
19:14:22 [IanH]
19:14:22 [Rinke]
bijan: if CURIES are not legal element names, then how would this effect the RDF serialisation
19:14:34 [MichaelSmith]
I see CURIs in RIF BLD at
19:14:42 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
19:14:42 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
19:14:43 [Rinke]
... probably would require additional processing
19:14:44 [sandro]
right -- CURIE in AS, or in some of the serializations?
19:15:00 [bijan]
That doesn't always work
19:15:12 [Rinke]
alanr: if the local part is not a valid part of a qname then it's expanded to an escaped uri
19:15:17 [IanH]
19:15:19 [bijan]
no that doesn't make sense
19:15:26 [Rinke]
... I don't create extra namespaces, I fully quote them (in angle brackets)
19:15:30 [IanH]
ack jeremy
19:15:45 [bijan]
Yes, i.e., properties
19:15:50 [alanr]
pmid:1234 -> <>
19:15:51 [Rinke]
jeremy: certain uris that might occur as property uris can not be serialised as RDF uris
19:16:05 [bmotik]
Metaquestion: do we expect people to use the functional-style syntax directly? If not (i.e., if this syntax is used just in the spec), do we care about abbreviating URIs?
19:16:06 [bijan]
q+ to reply
19:16:10 [Rinke]
... in alan's cases we're talking about subject/object uris, in that case no problem
19:16:17 [alanr]
can always use description/about
19:16:24 [alanr]
19:16:26 [Rinke]
... in predicate position some curies cannot be serialised in RDF/XML
19:16:30 [bijan]
zakim, ack bijan
19:16:30 [Zakim]
unmuting bijan
19:16:31 [Zakim]
bijan, you wanted to reply
19:16:32 [Zakim]
I see no one on the speaker queue
19:16:39 [IanH]
19:16:40 [Rinke]
... this a known limitation in RDF/XML, and we should ignore it
19:16:52 [Rinke]
bijan: that's fine jeremy, that's what I wanted to know
19:17:01 [Rinke]
... if that's ok with you, then I'm fine with it
19:17:09 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
19:17:09 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
19:17:14 [Rinke]
jeremy: RDF/XML went to REC with this as a known bug
19:17:37 [sandro]
q+ to repeat the AS vs CS quest
19:17:40 [IanH]
PROPOSED: to base abbreviated URIs on CURIES not QNAMES
19:17:40 [Rinke]
alanr: you can already use an arbitrary URI already in OWL 1.1 which cannot be serialised as RDf
19:17:53 [Rinke]
jeremy: not an OWL problem, an RDF problem
19:17:53 [bijan]
But curies don't help in RDF/XML *at all*
19:18:01 [IanH]
19:18:07 [Rinke]
sandro: is this just about the abstract syntax?
19:18:16 [Rinke]
alanr: only effect the functional syntax
19:18:26 [jeremy]
I would perhaps change my position after discussion with colleagues (dave and andy)
19:18:38 [bmotik]
functional sytax
19:18:42 [bmotik]
structural specification
19:18:43 [Rinke]
IanH: structural syntax
19:18:48 [Rinke]
alanr: functional style syntax
19:18:49 [IanH]
PROPOSED: to base functional style syntax abbreviated URIs on CURIES not QNAMES
19:18:56 [alanr]
"Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax"
19:18:59 [sandro]
19:19:06 [alanr]
19:19:19 [Rinke]
jeremy: have you seen my notes? I might change my vote tomorrow by email
19:19:34 [alanr]
put it on agenda next week
19:19:39 [Rinke]
IanH: what's the best way forward? Resolve this now, backtrack? Push it to next week?
19:20:01 [Rinke]
IanH: put it on the agenda for next week. You'll be in a position to give a definitive yay or nay
19:20:13 [Rinke]
IanH: we resolved that we will resolve something
19:20:24 [Rinke]
IanH: issue 2 is the final thing on the agenda
19:20:41 [Rinke]
... we already resolved that we fix up this problem for alldisjoint wrt the RDF mapping
19:21:19 [IanH]
19:21:30 [Rinke]
... the question arose as to whether we make the language symmetrical and add constructs for things in the structural syntax that use lists
19:21:35 [Zakim]
19:21:45 [bmotik]
19:21:47 [Rinke]
... boris what are the other ones
19:21:49 [bmotik]
19:21:55 [Rinke]
pfps: union, intersection
19:22:00 [bijan]
19:22:08 [bmotik]
Union and intersection are already OK
19:22:09 [bijan]
Doesn't union and intersection allready nary
19:22:13 [alanr]
+1 to differentindividual
19:22:16 [Rinke]
IanH: really correct peter?
19:22:31 [Rinke]
... in RDF they are mapped to multiple pairwise
19:22:32 [bmotik]
It is equivalentClasses, equaivalentProperties, disjointClasses, disjointProperties
19:22:44 [Rinke]
alanr: alldifferent was already in the first version?
19:23:01 [Rinke]
pfps: if you want to go for a same-sized translation, there are only two that are lists
19:23:03 [bmotik]
sameIndividaul, differentIndividuals
19:23:10 [alanr]
19:23:12 [alanr]
<owl:distinctMembers rdf:parseType="Collection">
19:23:14 [alanr]
<Opera rdf:about="#Don_Giovanni"/>
19:23:14 [jeremy]
ifferentIndividuals(iID1 … iIDn)
19:23:14 [jeremy]
_:x rdf:type owl:AllDifferent .
19:23:15 [jeremy]
04_:x 04owl:distinctMembers04 T(SEQ iID04104 … iID04n04) .
19:23:16 [alanr]
<Opera rdf:about="#Nozze_di_Figaro"/>
19:23:17 [alanr]
<Opera rdf:about="#Cosi_fan_tutte"/>
19:23:19 [alanr]
<Opera rdf:about="#Tosca"/>
19:23:20 [alanr]
<Opera rdf:about="#Turandot"/>
19:23:22 [alanr]
<Opera rdf:about="#Salome"/>
19:23:23 [alanr]
19:23:25 [alanr]
19:23:25 [jeremy]
19:23:25 [bmotik]
It does not enable roundtripping.
19:23:26 [alanr]
so differentindividuals already handled
19:23:27 [Rinke]
IanH: not a direct syntax as we have for alldisjoint
19:23:38 [Rinke]
pfps: the only rationale for having a direct syntax for some of them is
19:23:57 [Rinke]
that the obvious translation is n^2 and the non-obvious translation needs a trick
19:24:09 [Rinke]
IanH: boris says that it makes the problem for roundtripping
19:24:24 [alanr]
do we have specification of what roundtripping means? Is it an agreed upon requirement?
19:24:38 [IanH]
19:24:42 [uli]
how big is this problem?
19:24:43 [bijan]
19:24:44 [bmotik]
For backwards-compatibility we might translate things as usual only if n =2
19:24:53 [bmotik]
If n != 2, we might use the new mapping
19:25:17 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
19:25:17 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
19:25:22 [IanH]
19:25:32 [Rinke]
pfps: we always have a roundtrip from functional to RDF and back, but if we already have a document in RDF then we cannot do roundtripping unless
19:25:41 [bmotik]
Sure, but if you have an OWL 1.1 RDF document (with new vocabulary), then things should be round-trippable.
19:25:56 [Rinke]
... we have a direct mapping
19:26:02 [bmotik]
19:26:05 [Rinke]
pfps: quantitative vs. qualitative improvement
19:26:10 [bmotik]
zakim, unmute me
19:26:10 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
19:26:14 [Rinke]
pfps: reason is bloat
19:26:14 [jeremy]
+1 to pfps
19:26:16 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
19:26:16 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
19:26:20 [Zakim]
19:26:21 [IanH]
19:26:25 [alanr]
+1 to pfps too
19:26:32 [sandro]
Arg -- wrong button
19:26:40 [IanH]
19:26:44 [sandro]
19:26:48 [jeremy]
sandro left call
19:26:50 [bijan]
sandro hung up
19:27:03 [sandro]
I pressed hangup instead of unmute.
19:27:07 [Rinke]
boris: I understand the point regarding the bload
19:27:17 [Zakim]
19:27:21 [alanr]
roundtripping not possible given backwards compatibility
19:27:31 [Rinke]
... if we now extend the language with this new construct... new ontology, serialise as RDF then we can do roundtrip
19:27:40 [alanr]
I don't know if it matters
19:27:47 [Rinke]
... if you use owl 1.1 RDF and owl 1.1 AS then things should be round-trippable
19:27:57 [Rinke]
IanH: this wasn't the simple discussion I was anticipating
19:28:01 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
19:28:01 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
19:28:13 [Rinke]
... are not going to get through this in the remaining 3 minutes of this telecon
19:28:25 [Rinke]
... aim for email exchange to clarify the matter
19:28:34 [Rinke]
IanH: last item.... aob?
19:28:37 [Rinke]
... any of it?
19:28:49 [JeffP]
+1 bye
19:28:51 [uli]
doe and dusted
19:28:52 [Zakim]
19:28:56 [Rinke]
IanH: declare us finished for this week
19:28:57 [uli]
bye bye
19:28:57 [Zakim]
19:28:58 [Zakim]
19:28:59 [bmotik]
19:28:59 [Zakim]
19:29:00 [MarkusK]
19:29:02 [Zakim]
19:29:03 [jeremy]
19:29:03 [Rinke]
19:29:03 [Zakim]
19:29:05 [Zakim]
19:29:05 [bijan]
19:29:06 [Zakim]
19:29:06 [zhe]
19:29:07 [Zakim]
19:29:07 [Zakim]
19:29:08 [Rinke]
zakim, unmute me
19:29:09 [Zakim]
Rinke should no longer be muted
19:29:11 [Zakim]
19:29:22 [Zakim]
19:29:31 [Zakim]
19:30:00 [Zakim]
19:30:38 [Zakim]
19:31:06 [alanr]
19:31:16 [sandro]
19:31:19 [alanr]
Remove Zakim chit chat such as people entering, leaving, q+, acks, who is here, etc.
19:31:21 [alanr]
Move scribes own comments (as opposed) into irc syntax
19:31:23 [alanr]
Sometimes reorder to make discussions more coherent
19:31:25 [alanr]
Add section headers
19:32:37 [alanr]
Adding {{Action|4}} and {{Issue|23}}
19:35:04 [Rinke]
19:35:37 [Zakim]
19:35:39 [Zakim]
19:35:40 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()12:00PM has ended
19:35:41 [Zakim]
Attendees were Rinke, bijan, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK, MartinD, bmotik, IanH, Alan, uli, Sandro, vit, pfps, bcuencag, Alan_Ruttenberg, Carsten, Evan_Wallace, zhe, JeffP, +078910aaaa,
19:35:43 [Zakim]
... jeremy, Vipul_Kashyap
19:36:09 [jeremy]
jeremy has left #owl
20:02:04 [uli]
uli has left #owl
21:49:40 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl
22:30:59 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl