IRC log of owl on 2007-11-28

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:55:30 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:55:30 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/11/28-owl-irc
17:55:31 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
17:55:40 [jeremy]
Zakim, this is SW_OWL
17:55:40 [Zakim]
jeremy, I see SW_OWL()12:00PM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be SW_OWL".
17:55:49 [jeremy]
Zakim, this will be SW_OWL
17:55:49 [Zakim]
ok, jeremy; I see SW_OWL()12:00PM scheduled to start 55 minutes ago
17:56:22 [achille]
achille has joined #owl
17:56:45 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()12:00PM has now started
17:56:49 [MichaelSmith]
MichaelSmith has joined #owl
17:56:52 [Zakim]
+??P13
17:56:56 [jeremy]
Zakim, ??P13 is me
17:56:56 [Zakim]
+jeremy; got it
17:58:14 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #owl
17:58:35 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
17:58:43 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
17:58:56 [Zakim]
+[IBM]
17:59:02 [uli]
uli has joined #owl
17:59:06 [Zakim]
+??P16
17:59:16 [Zakim]
+MIchaelSmith
17:59:20 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??p16 is bmotik
17:59:20 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
17:59:21 [Ratnesh]
Ratnesh has joined #owl
17:59:26 [Zakim]
+Alan
17:59:27 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:59:28 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:59:36 [Zakim]
+JeffP
17:59:38 [bijan]
bijan has joined #owl
17:59:42 [Carsten]
Carsten has joined #owl
17:59:43 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:59:43 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
17:59:44 [achille]
Zakim, IBM is achille
17:59:44 [Zakim]
+Ivan
17:59:45 [Zakim]
+achille; got it
18:00:14 [Zakim]
+??P11
18:00:22 [Zakim]
+??P15
18:00:30 [Zakim]
+??P19
18:00:43 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
18:00:50 [pfps]
zakim, who is on the phone
18:00:52 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the phone', pfps
18:01:04 [bijan]
zakim, ??P15 is me
18:01:07 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
18:01:13 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:01:13 [alanr]
zakim, who is on the call
18:01:14 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:01:16 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the call', alanr
18:01:21 [alanr]
zakim, who is here
18:01:21 [Zakim]
alanr, you need to end that query with '?'
18:01:25 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
18:01:25 [Zakim]
On the phone I see jeremy, achille, bmotik (muted), +1.202.408.aaaa, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, ??P11, bijan (muted), ??P19
18:01:27 [Zakim]
On IRC I see pfps, Carsten, bijan, Ratnesh, uli, IanH, bmotik, JeffP, MichaelSmith, achille, alanr, RRSAgent, Zakim, jeremy, ivan, MartinD, trackbot-ng, sandro, ewallace
18:01:32 [Zakim]
+Vipul_Kashyap
18:01:42 [Zakim]
+MartinD
18:01:43 [pfps]
zakim, ?p11 is me
18:01:46 [Zakim]
sorry, pfps, I do not recognize a party named '?p11'
18:01:47 [uli]
zakim, ??P15 is me
18:01:50 [Zakim]
I already had ??P15 as bijan, uli
18:01:53 [pfps]
zakim, ??p11 is me
18:01:54 [Zakim]
+??P24
18:01:56 [Zakim]
+pfps; got it
18:01:56 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
18:02:00 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
18:02:01 [Conrad]
Conrad has joined #owl
18:02:04 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
18:02:09 [uli]
zakim, ??p11 is me
18:02:09 [Conrad]
Conrad
18:02:10 [Zakim]
On the phone I see jeremy, achille, bmotik (muted), +1.202.408.aaaa, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, pfps (muted), bijan (muted), ??P19 (muted), Vipul_Kashyap, MartinD, ??P24
18:02:10 [jeremy]
Zakim, mute me
18:02:15 [MartinD]
zakim, mute me
18:02:19 [Zakim]
I already had ??P11 as pfps, uli
18:02:21 [Zakim]
jeremy should now be muted
18:02:27 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Conrad, pfps, Carsten, bijan, Ratnesh, uli, IanH, bmotik, JeffP, MichaelSmith, achille, alanr, RRSAgent, Zakim, jeremy, ivan, MartinD, trackbot-ng, sandro, ewallace
18:02:32 [Zakim]
MartinD should now be muted
18:02:37 [pfps]
ack pfps
18:02:41 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
18:02:42 [MichaelSmith]
zakim, +1.202.408.aaaa is me
18:02:45 [Ratnesh]
zakim, P24 is Ratnesh
18:02:47 [pfps]
q?
18:02:52 [Zakim]
On the phone I see jeremy (muted), achille, bmotik (muted), +1.202.408.aaaa, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, pfps, bijan (muted), ??P19 (muted), Vipul_Kashyap, MartinD (muted), ??P24
18:02:56 [bcuencag]
bcuencag has joined #owl
18:02:57 [Zakim]
+MichaelSmith; got it
18:02:59 [Zakim]
sorry, Ratnesh, I do not recognize a party named 'P24'
18:03:05 [Zakim]
+Evan_Wallace
18:03:07 [Zakim]
+IanH
18:03:08 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
18:03:11 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Conrad, pfps, Carsten, bijan, Ratnesh, uli, IanH, bmotik, JeffP, MichaelSmith, achille, alanr, RRSAgent, Zakim, jeremy, ivan, MartinD, trackbot-ng, sandro, ewallace
18:03:16 [Zakim]
+??P27
18:03:20 [Zakim]
On the phone I see jeremy (muted), achille, bmotik (muted), MichaelSmith, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, pfps, bijan (muted), ??P19 (muted), Vipul_Kashyap, MartinD (muted), ??P24,
18:03:26 [Ratnesh]
zakim, ?? P24 is Ratnesh
18:03:29 [Zakim]
... Evan_Wallace, IanH, ??P27
18:03:36 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
18:03:36 [Vipul]
Vipul has joined #owl
18:03:39 [Zakim]
On IRC I see bcuencag, Conrad, pfps, Carsten, bijan, Ratnesh, uli, IanH, bmotik, JeffP, MichaelSmith, achille, alanr, RRSAgent, Zakim, jeremy, ivan, MartinD, trackbot-ng, sandro,
18:03:42 [Zakim]
... ewallace
18:03:45 [uli]
zakim, ??P19 is me
18:03:46 [Zakim]
I don't understand '?? P24 is Ratnesh', Ratnesh
18:03:47 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
18:03:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see jeremy (muted), achille, bmotik (muted), MichaelSmith, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, pfps, bijan (muted), ??P19 (muted), Vipul_Kashyap, MartinD (muted), ??P24,
18:03:53 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
18:03:55 [Zakim]
... Evan_Wallace, IanH (muted), ??P27
18:03:56 [zhe]
zhe has joined #owl
18:03:57 [Zakim]
+Conrad
18:04:01 [Zakim]
+uli; got it
18:04:05 [Zakim]
On IRC I see pfps, Vipul, bcuencag, Conrad, Carsten, bijan, Ratnesh, uli, IanH, bmotik, JeffP, MichaelSmith, achille, alanr, RRSAgent, Zakim, jeremy, ivan, MartinD, trackbot-ng,
18:04:12 [Zakim]
... sandro, ewallace
18:04:14 [Zakim]
On the phone I see jeremy (muted), achille, bmotik (muted), MichaelSmith, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, pfps, bijan (muted), uli (muted), Vipul_Kashyap, MartinD (muted), ??P24, Evan_Wallace,
18:04:17 [Zakim]
... IanH (muted), ??P27, +1.301.975.aaee
18:04:19 [Zakim]
+Sandro
18:04:25 [Zakim]
On IRC I see zhe, pfps, Vipul, bcuencag, Conrad, Carsten, bijan, Ratnesh, uli, IanH, bmotik, JeffP, MichaelSmith, achille, alanr, RRSAgent, Zakim, jeremy, ivan, MartinD,
18:04:30 [Zakim]
... trackbot-ng, sandro, ewallace
18:04:34 [Zakim]
+??P30
18:04:47 [JeffP]
zakim, who is talking?
18:04:54 [bcuencag]
zakim, ??P30 is me
18:04:54 [Zakim]
+bcuencag; got it
18:04:57 [Zakim]
JeffP, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Alan (5%), Vipul_Kashyap (76%), Sandro (36%), ??P30 (17%)
18:05:05 [bmotik]
I have quite a lot of static on the line. Do others have the same problem?
18:05:12 [Ratnesh]
zakim, ??P24 is Ratnesh
18:05:12 [Zakim]
+Ratnesh; got it
18:05:14 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
18:05:14 [Zakim]
On the phone I see jeremy (muted), achille, bmotik (muted), MichaelSmith, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, pfps, bijan (muted), uli (muted), Vipul_Kashyap, MartinD (muted), Ratnesh,
18:05:17 [Zakim]
... Evan_Wallace, IanH (muted), ??P27, +1.301.975.aaee, Sandro, bcuencag
18:05:18 [Zakim]
On IRC I see zhe, pfps, Vipul, bcuencag, Conrad, Carsten, bijan, Ratnesh, uli, IanH, bmotik, JeffP, MichaelSmith, achille, alanr, RRSAgent, Zakim, jeremy, ivan, MartinD,
18:05:21 [Zakim]
... trackbot-ng, sandro, ewallace
18:05:26 [MartinD]
i can hear well and clearly, as well...
18:05:30 [bcuencag]
zakim, mute me
18:05:30 [Zakim]
bcuencag should now be muted
18:05:49 [jeremy]
conrad is not recorded on the phone
18:06:03 [jeremy]
41#
18:06:12 [jeremy]
is the magic
18:06:27 [jeremy]
Zakim, aaee is Conrad
18:06:27 [Zakim]
+Conrad; got it
18:06:35 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
18:06:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see jeremy (muted), achille, bmotik (muted), MichaelSmith, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, pfps, bijan (muted), uli (muted), Vipul_Kashyap, MartinD (muted), Ratnesh,
18:06:38 [Zakim]
... Evan_Wallace, IanH (muted), ??P27, Conrad, Sandro, bcuencag (muted)
18:06:40 [Zakim]
On IRC I see zhe, pfps, Vipul, bcuencag, Conrad, Carsten, bijan, Ratnesh, uli, IanH, bmotik, JeffP, MichaelSmith, achille, alanr, RRSAgent, Zakim, jeremy, ivan, MartinD,
18:06:42 [Zakim]
... trackbot-ng, sandro, ewallace
18:06:55 [sandro]
zakim, drop ??P27
18:06:55 [Zakim]
??P27 is being disconnected
18:06:57 [Zakim]
-??P27
18:07:08 [zhe]
Zhe that is me been dropped
18:07:20 [alanr]
call back in please
18:07:27 [Zakim]
+??P27
18:07:28 [GiorgosStoilos]
GiorgosStoilos has joined #OWL
18:07:54 [sandro]
Zakim, ??P27 is Deb
18:07:54 [Zakim]
+Deb; got it
18:07:56 [Zakim]
+??P31
18:08:05 [IanH]
zakim, ??p31 is zhe
18:08:05 [Zakim]
+zhe; got it
18:08:08 [Zakim]
+GiorgosStoilos
18:08:09 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
18:08:09 [Zakim]
On the phone I see jeremy (muted), achille, bmotik (muted), MichaelSmith, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, pfps, bijan (muted), uli (muted), Vipul_Kashyap, MartinD (muted), Ratnesh,
18:08:12 [Zakim]
... Evan_Wallace, IanH (muted), Conrad, Sandro, bcuencag (muted), Deb, zhe, GiorgosStoilos
18:08:15 [Zakim]
On IRC I see GiorgosStoilos, zhe, pfps, Vipul, bcuencag, Conrad, Carsten, bijan, Ratnesh, uli, IanH, bmotik, JeffP, MichaelSmith, achille, alanr, RRSAgent, Zakim, jeremy, ivan,
18:08:17 [Zakim]
... MartinD, trackbot-ng, sandro, ewallace
18:08:22 [pfps]
a faq on how to handle Zakim would probably be useful
18:08:35 [bijan]
I could report on rif meeting
18:09:02 [JeffP]
topic: ADMIN
18:09:11 [bijan]
http://www.w3.org/2002/01/UsingZakim
18:09:19 [JeffP]
comments of the minutes?
18:09:30 [JeffP]
minutes accepted
18:09:38 [JeffP]
alanr: action items ...
18:10:03 [JeffP]
action 4: continued
18:10:11 [bijan]
alanr, I could take the imports action ifyou'd like
18:10:26 [bijan]
ok
18:10:30 [Zakim]
+Carsten
18:10:32 [jeremy]
yes - I claim victory on action
18:10:36 [Carsten]
zakim, mute me
18:10:36 [Zakim]
sorry, Carsten, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
18:10:46 [JeffP]
action 27 is close
18:11:15 [Carsten]
zakim, mute me
18:11:15 [Zakim]
sorry, Carsten, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
18:11:18 [MichaelSmith]
yes
18:11:20 [JeffP]
action 29 is close
18:11:33 [jeremy]
(I put the action number in the e-mail so the tracker tracks)
18:11:39 [dlm]
dlm has joined #owl
18:12:21 [JeffP]
alanr: any furhter suggestions of the f2f agenda?
18:12:29 [JeffP]
q?
18:12:30 [jeremy]
Zakim, q- ??P15
18:12:31 [Zakim]
I see ??P11, ??P19, +49.351.4.aaff on the speaker queue
18:12:31 [bijan]
alanr got cut off
18:12:41 [jeremy]
q- ??P19
18:12:45 [IanH]
q?
18:12:48 [jeremy]
no we don't
18:12:52 [MichaelSmith]
the queue doesn't update when names are correlated
18:12:54 [jeremy]
q- ??P11
18:13:00 [JeffP]
zakim, who is on the call?
18:13:00 [Zakim]
On the phone I see jeremy (muted), achille, bmotik (muted), MichaelSmith, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, pfps, bijan (muted), uli (muted), Vipul_Kashyap, MartinD (muted), Ratnesh,
18:13:03 [Zakim]
... Evan_Wallace, IanH, Conrad, Sandro, bcuencag (muted), Deb, zhe, GiorgosStoilos, +49.351.4.aaff
18:13:08 [sandro]
(thanks Jeremy)
18:13:13 [IanH]
q?
18:13:38 [Carsten]
I think I inadvertedly added myself to the queue
18:13:42 [Carsten]
sorry
18:13:53 [jeremy]
Zakim, aaff is Carsten
18:13:53 [Zakim]
+Carsten; got it
18:13:57 [jeremy]
q- aaff
18:14:03 [Carsten]
thanks!
18:14:09 [jeremy]
q- +49.351.4.aaff
18:15:00 [dlm]
+queue
18:15:08 [Carsten]
yes, thanks
18:15:27 [JeffP]
alanr: we might need to move the import and rich annotation to first day
18:15:55 [bijan]
Can we swap fragments and imports and RAs?
18:15:56 [JeffP]
... since alan won't be in day 2
18:16:25 [JeffP]
ian: we could discuss it offline, there are other constraints
18:16:34 [JeffP]
q?
18:16:35 [Conrad]
Where is the draft agenda?
18:16:39 [IanH]
q?
18:16:41 [JeffP]
ack dlm
18:16:42 [alanr]
q?http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F.2007.12-Manchester/Agenda
18:16:46 [alanr]
q?
18:16:49 [jeremy]
+1
18:17:16 [JeffP]
alan: we should move the user facing part to later part of the day
18:17:26 [dlm]
-queue
18:17:31 [alanr]
q?
18:17:38 [alanr]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Manchester_F2F
18:17:41 [jeremy]
Elisa and Deborah are remote participants in UFDTF
18:18:07 [JeffP]
topic: Teleconference 2007.12.05 ?
18:18:13 [jeremy]
-1
18:18:14 [JeffP]
alanr: I cannot
18:18:18 [pfps]
there is already a conflicting event on the 5th
18:18:19 [dlm]
i think jim h wants to participate in the ufdtf as well
18:18:22 [alanr]
-1
18:18:22 [bijan]
It's traditional not to have such telecons
18:18:24 [pfps]
which is which?
18:18:27 [JeffP]
-1
18:18:27 [bijan]
-1
18:18:28 [MichaelSmith]
-1 on telecon on 5th
18:18:29 [ivan]
-1
18:18:31 [bcuencag]
-1
18:18:33 [pfps]
-1
18:18:48 [JeffP]
Resolved: no telecon on Dec 5th
18:18:57 [pfps]
transit? I expect to be in the meeting at the Kro2!
18:19:33 [IanH]
Well, that still means no teleconf :-)
18:19:50 [bijan]
Functional Syntax and Structural Spec, Semantics, Rdf mapping
18:19:57 [jeremy]
(for me - the issue list is in good shape for reflecting the lack of consensus)
18:19:57 [bijan]
Were the original proposal
18:19:58 [JeffP]
Topic: Discussions (35 min)
18:20:02 [JeffP]
q?
18:20:06 [jeremy]
q+ to suggest shading ...
18:20:15 [alanr]
q?
18:20:18 [jeremy]
Zakim, unmute me
18:20:18 [Zakim]
jeremy should no longer be muted
18:20:21 [alanr]
ack jeremy
18:20:21 [Zakim]
jeremy, you wanted to suggest shading ...
18:21:17 [bijan]
We have some issues that touch everything so "shady" per se won't work
18:21:17 [JeffP]
jeremy: editors might want to relate part of the documents with issues in the issue list
18:21:25 [bijan]
E.g., Typed constructs
18:21:38 [JeffP]
ian: we need to see whether it is practical
18:21:49 [uli]
is it me or is there an echo?
18:21:55 [JeffP]
zakim, who is talking?
18:21:55 [jeremy]
Zakim, mute me
18:21:55 [Zakim]
jeremy should now be muted
18:22:07 [Zakim]
JeffP, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Alan (3%), Sandro (44%)
18:22:12 [uli]
ah - echo gone!
18:22:24 [jeremy]
+1 to sandro as an alternative
18:22:30 [alanr]
+1
18:22:41 [pfps]
how about putting the disclaimer in the document status, pointing to the issue list?
18:22:45 [jeremy]
to my suggestion!
18:22:53 [jeremy]
for me yes
18:23:06 [bmotik]
q+
18:23:06 [jeremy]
(yes to RDF Mapping with such riders)
18:23:38 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:23:38 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:23:43 [IanH]
q?
18:23:44 [pfps]
the mapping between sections and issues is not particularly easy
18:23:46 [JeffP]
alanr: should issues be written in the beginning part of the sections?
18:23:52 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:23:54 [IanH]
q?
18:24:00 [JeffP]
boris: some issues are more meta issues
18:24:04 [jeremy]
A list of other issues might be good
18:24:16 [JeffP]
alanr: we meant the specific ones
18:24:21 [pfps]
q+
18:24:23 [bijan]
I think we're in editor's choice space
18:24:28 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
18:24:28 [Zakim]
pfps was not muted, pfps
18:24:31 [bijan]
some issues are minor, don't need huge highlighting
18:24:32 [jeremy]
I agree with bijan
18:24:32 [alanr]
we don't have editors yet
18:24:37 [bijan]
Some are important and controversial
18:24:41 [JeffP]
boris: I meant more issues are meta ones
18:24:43 [bijan]
And need to be highlighted
18:24:48 [IanH]
We don't need to insist that every issue is mentioned in some document
18:24:56 [alanr]
+1 to Ian
18:25:02 [jeremy]
I agree with bijan again!
18:25:12 [bijan]
How about we task someone(s) to add some issue texts to a document?
18:25:19 [JeffP]
boris: and who should do this?
18:25:21 [bijan]
And experiement a bit
18:25:35 [JeffP]
alan: we could assign them to some people, including me
18:25:53 [JeffP]
ian: which document?
18:26:00 [JeffP]
alanr: does not matter
18:26:19 [pfps]
q?
18:26:29 [IanH]
ack pfps
18:26:35 [JeffP]
sandro: you still need to be familiar with the documents enough to do the job properly
18:26:58 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
18:26:58 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
18:27:11 [bijan]
Yes
18:27:16 [bijan]
On behalf of carsten
18:27:17 [JeffP]
ian: do we need to have such fine-grain issule list mechanism
18:27:25 [dlm]
+1 to grouping
18:27:27 [bijan]
I'm big +1 on grouping issues loosely
18:27:30 [jeremy]
-1 to grouping
18:27:43 [bmotik]
+1 to grouping (not all, but some should be grouped)
18:27:49 [JeffP]
dlm, it is also hard to follow
18:27:58 [pfps]
we are supposed to be spending 8 hours a week on this, minimum
18:28:29 [jeremy]
(peter's days might be longer than mine! 7.5 hrs)
18:28:42 [JeffP]
sandro, do we want a hierartical issue list?
18:28:43 [bijan]
I tried this on rich annotations...addding all the issues related to annotations
18:28:47 [bijan]
Peter complained about this :)
18:28:57 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:28:57 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:29:08 [jeremy]
We can group issues by 'product'
18:29:08 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:29:08 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:29:22 [JeffP]
sandro, we should take a simplified approach
18:29:34 [jeremy]
q+ to explain a separation
18:29:46 [JeffP]
q?
18:29:46 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:29:47 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:29:51 [jeremy]
Zakim, unmute me
18:29:51 [Zakim]
jeremy should no longer be muted
18:29:53 [alanr]
q?
18:29:54 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
18:29:54 [Zakim]
pfps was already muted, pfps
18:29:56 [bijan]
How about soem web pages for this
18:30:04 [JeffP]
ian, we just started but we have 81 issues already
18:30:15 [JeffP]
ack jeremy
18:30:15 [Zakim]
jeremy, you wanted to explain a separation
18:30:36 [bijan]
Issues are a tool for the chairs
18:30:36 [jeremy]
Zakim, unmute me
18:30:36 [Zakim]
jeremy was not muted, jeremy
18:30:42 [uli]
ha ha
18:30:46 [bijan]
The chairs should figure out what works for them
18:30:48 [jeremy]
Zakim, mute me
18:30:48 [Zakim]
jeremy should now be muted
18:31:07 [JeffP]
Topic: Publication Schedule and First Public Working Drafts
18:31:17 [jeremy]
jeremy: lots of small issues are easier to make progress on than a few big issues
18:31:40 [JeffP]
alanr, a quick poll to see if the solution is acceptable by everyone
18:32:04 [bijan]
q+
18:32:11 [bijan]
ack bijan
18:32:17 [JeffP]
alanr: three documents: syntax, semantics and mapping to RDF
18:32:54 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:32:54 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:33:00 [JeffP]
q?
18:33:01 [jeremy]
no we cannot decide to publish docs until they are ready
18:33:15 [jeremy]
I can confirm informally the plan
18:33:17 [bijan]
actually, we can
18:33:17 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Annotate the Syntax, Semantics, and Mapping-to-RDF documents with links to all issues, as they might affect the text....
18:33:25 [pfps]
we can publish subject to editorial changes
18:33:33 [bijan]
We can say, "We will publish these docuemnts pace soem editoral mod...
18:34:00 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Annotate the Syntax, Semantics, and Mapping-to-RDF documents with links to all issues, as they might affect the text, and then (give or take editorial changes) we will publish.
18:34:02 [jeremy]
i guess i bow to pfps and bijan here, but some rider
18:34:28 [pfps]
+1, as long as I'm not doing the work!
18:34:28 [alanr]
+1
18:34:32 [IanH]
would prefer to say "issues" rather than all issues
18:34:32 [jeremy]
ok
18:34:35 [achille]
+1
18:34:36 [uli]
+1
18:34:39 [dlm]
+1
18:34:40 [ivan]
+1
18:34:41 [bijan]
+1 with "issues"
18:34:41 [zhe]
+1
18:34:44 [Conrad]
-1
18:34:45 [MartinD]
+1
18:34:46 [Ratnesh]
+1
18:34:48 [MichaelSmith]
+1
18:34:48 [IanH]
+1 otherwise
18:34:49 [GiorgosStoilos]
+1
18:34:57 [JeffP]
+1
18:35:00 [sandro]
-0 concerned about deciding before deciding, but it seems vaguely okay.
18:35:02 [Carsten]
Regarding my issues discussed here:
18:35:03 [Carsten]
- I saw lots small issues before, so I was just trying to follow common practice
18:35:04 [bcuencag]
+1
18:35:05 [Carsten]
- Several of my issues I wouldn't call "small"
18:35:06 [Carsten]
- I can live with grouping as long as decisions are taken individually (this
18:35:08 [Carsten]
is why I separated them)
18:35:10 [Carsten]
+1
18:35:13 [bmotik]
-0 This might be a lot of work
18:35:17 [ewallace]
0
18:36:07 [uli]
-0 is the slightly more negative vote than the neutral o?
18:36:17 [ewallace]
+1 with metamodel issue included
18:36:34 [Carsten]
-o ?
18:36:38 [JeffP]
sandro, I don't think we should have a resolution here
18:36:41 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
18:36:41 [Zakim]
pfps was already muted, pfps
18:36:48 [jeremy]
(I find Sandro compelling, but can't say why)
18:36:54 [JeffP]
... but it seems that it is good enough to proceed?
18:36:58 [pfps]
that's an action, not a resolution
18:37:16 [JeffP]
sandro, I think people need to review how it is done
18:37:41 [bijan]
I think the difference between a blessing and vote is not good
18:37:44 [jeremy]
(Personally I would like to see the post-Wiki doc before the vote)
18:37:51 [sandro]
So the only future discussion will be about issue links.
18:37:56 [jeremy]
q+ to put JimH points
18:38:00 [JeffP]
action or resolution?
18:38:05 [JeffP]
q?
18:38:08 [ewallace]
I'm confused now
18:38:12 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:38:12 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:38:21 [IanH]
q?
18:38:25 [ewallace]
Are we to do an up or down vote later?
18:39:35 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:39:35 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:39:39 [jeremy]
q-
18:39:50 [JeffP]
alanr: no resolution but general agreement to the direction
18:40:12 [ewallace]
yes
18:40:12 [jeremy]
The chairs appoint editors
18:40:19 [JeffP]
ian, chairs may deligate the tasks
18:40:34 [bijan]
I hate the idea, but I think UManchester can mobilize some resources to this end
18:40:40 [bijan]
(er.. the idea of workign on it :)
18:42:12 [bmotik]
q+
18:42:35 [jeremy]
I feel the discussion needs booze
18:43:19 [alanr]
q?
18:43:21 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:43:26 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:43:44 [JeffP]
s/deligate/delegate
18:43:55 [Conrad]
Alan, I filed the metamodel issue on Syntax at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/82.
18:44:22 [alanr]
thanks, conrad
18:44:34 [bijan]
Hmm. I think it is a fragment
18:44:49 [JeffP]
boris, owl dl is not 100% sub-language of owl full
18:45:13 [bijan]
I'm looking at 5.3...what's the difference?
18:45:16 [alanr]
qq+
18:45:18 [alanr]
q+
18:45:19 [IanH]
Also, even to the extent that we believe that it is a fragment, this is a belief/conjecture and not a proven fact
18:45:20 [JeffP]
q?
18:45:22 [alanr]
ack bmoik
18:45:26 [alanr]
ack bmotik
18:45:27 [jeremy]
q- bmotik
18:45:35 [bijan]
q+
18:45:42 [bijan]
to reply to Boris
18:45:44 [IanH]
q?
18:45:51 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:45:51 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:46:17 [JeffP]
bijan, it seems that part of the issue what counts as compatibility
18:46:24 [sandro]
JeffP, the scribe convention is to scribe like "Sandro: what sandro said" not "Sandro, what sandro said"
18:46:39 [JeffP]
thx, sandro
18:47:16 [alanr]
There is a strictly increasing chain of sets of entailments
18:47:18 [alanr]
>
18:47:19 [alanr]
> Simple <= RDF <= RDFS <= D- <= OWL DL <= OWL Full
18:47:21 [alanr]
>
18:47:22 [alanr]
> It was a design goal that the last strict inclusion should be an equality; see
18:47:24 [alanr]
>
18:47:26 [alanr]
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.3-Semantic-Layering
18:47:28 [alanr]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Oct/0022.html
18:47:29 [JeffP]
bijan, your idea is a stronger version of compatibility
18:47:29 [alanr]
>
18:47:31 [alanr]
> In other words (subject to the syntactic constraints of OWL DL) the
18:47:32 [alanr]
> entailments of OWL DL are exactly those of OWL Full. This goal
18:47:34 [alanr]
> slipped a little: see
18:47:35 [alanr]
>
18:47:37 [alanr]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/byFunction#function-Thing
18:47:39 [alanr]
q?
18:47:40 [alanr]
q?
18:47:42 [dlm]
+1 to getting clear on a working defn of compatibility
18:47:45 [alanr]
ack bijan
18:47:55 [jeremy]
OWL 1.0
18:48:37 [JeffP]
ian: we had similar discussion in WebOnt
18:48:38 [uli]
but the entailments aren't the same.
18:49:11 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:49:11 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
18:49:11 [jeremy]
THe two known exceptions are size of universe and certain entailments involving annotations
18:49:15 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:49:15 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:49:17 [ivan]
ack alanr
18:49:35 [JeffP]
alanr: I want more compatibility than what is between RDF and OWL
18:50:03 [pfps]
where are the new sources of "incompatability"?
18:50:04 [bijan]
I agree with alanr...the corner case semantic alignment is much less important than bringing in more wffs
18:50:35 [alanr]
q?
18:50:38 [IanH]
q?
18:50:53 [JeffP]
dlm, it is a good idea to clarify compatibility
18:50:57 [jeremy]
Zakim, unmute me
18:50:57 [Zakim]
jeremy should no longer be muted
18:51:46 [bijan]
That was a goal of, e.g., adding punnings
18:52:03 [bijan]
I.e., to align to owl full
18:52:19 [bmotik]
q+
18:52:55 [pfps]
my understanding is that semantic-full annotations are the result of not having black triples in RDF
18:53:08 [pfps]
s/black/dark/
18:53:22 [alanr]
s/dark/graphite/
18:53:22 [bijan]
I thought we *did* implement anntotions per the spec...I would love a pointer to where this is not the case
18:53:41 [pfps]
there is a solution to backward compatability wrt annotations (but I don't like it)
18:53:48 [IanH]
q+
18:53:52 [bijan]
I would love there to be a unity OWL
18:53:53 [JeffP]
q?
18:54:07 [alanr]
q+ to ask how we can tell whether annotations are correctly implemented
18:54:15 [alanr]
ack boris
18:54:17 [jeremy]
Zakim, mute me
18:54:17 [Zakim]
jeremy should now be muted
18:54:20 [IanH]
q?
18:54:25 [ivan]
ack bmotik
18:55:05 [JeffP]
boris: one design principle of OWL 1.1 is that ...
18:55:05 [jeremy]
who are users???
18:55:31 [JeffP]
boris: annotations have no serious semantics
18:55:49 [jeremy]
No Boris said no semantics not 'no serious semantics'
18:55:50 [JeffP]
boris: comments are simply comments
18:55:51 [alanr]
ack ianh
18:56:21 [JeffP]
Ian, in the charter we say to refine and extend OWL
18:56:26 [alanr]
three cases of disparity: annotations, punning, (forget third)
18:56:35 [alanr]
third: bnodes
18:56:54 [jeremy]
wrong - strong disagreement
18:57:05 [alanr]
wrong what, jeremy?
18:57:11 [jeremy]
q+ to defend the quality of Sean's work
18:57:28 [JeffP]
Ian: an OWL document should be one that could be translated from the one written in abstract syntax
18:57:34 [JeffP]
... according to the spec
18:57:50 [JeffP]
q?
18:57:53 [JeffP]
ack alanr
18:57:53 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to ask how we can tell whether annotations are correctly implemented
18:58:03 [bmotik]
Yes, there is
18:58:04 [bijan]
There seem to be test cases
18:58:08 [IanH]
Sean's work was *excellent*, but it shouldn't have been *needed*
18:58:17 [jeremy]
Zakim, unmute me
18:58:17 [Zakim]
jeremy should no longer be muted
18:58:19 [bmotik]
Ontology O1 does not entail O2 even if O1 and O2 are the same save for annotations.
18:58:45 [JeffP]
jeremy, the semantics document is hard to get interpretation
18:59:06 [JeffP]
Ian: this is completely different order
18:59:13 [alanr]
Does any tool implement ontology entailment?
18:59:18 [bijan]
Yes
18:59:18 [JeffP]
... the semantics document is technical
18:59:19 [bijan]
Pellet
18:59:28 [bmotik]
We don't know even if it decidable
18:59:31 [JeffP]
... and understood by many people
18:59:32 [alanr]
Pellet has it commented out last time I checked
18:59:36 [bijan]
?
18:59:38 [bijan]
No
18:59:46 [jeremy]
Zakim, mute me
18:59:46 [Zakim]
jeremy should now be muted
18:59:55 [bijan]
could do more on this
19:00:15 [bmotik]
No need to continue now. We should have a strategy to address this issue soon.
19:00:22 [bijan]
Usage: java Pellet OPTIONS
19:00:22 [bijan]
{-if,-inputFile} <file URI> Input ontology URI
19:00:22 [bijan]
{-is,-inputString} string A string representation of the input file
19:00:23 [bijan]
-cf,-conclusionsFile} <URI> Check if all the triples in this ontology is
19:00:23 [bijan]
entailed by the input ontology
19:00:23 [bijan]
{-cs,-conclusionsString} str A string representation of the conclusions fil
19:00:33 [Carsten]
have to leave, sorry
19:00:37 [Zakim]
-Carsten
19:00:56 [JeffP]
Topic: Issues (35 min)
19:01:09 [JeffP]
Topic: PROPOSAL: Base abbreviated URIs in Functional-style Syntax on CURIES not QNAMES (see Issue 14)
19:01:09 [alanr]
PROPOSAL: Base abbreviated URIs in Functional-style Syntax on CURIES not QNAMES (see Issue 14)
19:01:48 [alanr]
+1
19:01:53 [IanH]
+1
19:01:56 [pfps]
+1 issue-14 proposal
19:01:58 [MichaelSmith]
+1
19:02:01 [jeremy]
HP abstain (but no desire for further discussion)
19:02:03 [ivan]
+1
19:02:04 [ewallace]
+1
19:02:05 [bcuencag]
+1
19:02:05 [Ratnesh]
+1
19:02:06 [achille]
+1
19:02:09 [JeffP]
0
19:02:12 [bmotik]
0
19:02:16 [dlm]
0
19:02:20 [MartinD]
0
19:02:22 [sandro]
0
19:02:23 [ivan]
q+
19:02:27 [jeremy]
q-
19:02:29 [JeffP]
q?
19:02:32 [alanr]
ack jeremy
19:02:40 [jeremy]
Zakim, mute me
19:02:40 [Zakim]
jeremy should now be muted
19:03:19 [alanr]
q?
19:03:21 [bmotik]
Could someone please point out the main benefit of using CURIES?
19:03:24 [alanr]
qck ivan
19:03:26 [alanr]
ack ivan
19:03:27 [JeffP]
ivan: it seems that we could do that without too much danger
19:03:35 [pfps]
curies allow abbreviating all IRIs
19:03:44 [pfps]
qnames don't
19:03:55 [jeremy]
The main benefit is ids like http://ex.og/id/9324
19:03:57 [JeffP]
Resolved: Base abbreviated URIs in Functional-style Syntax on CURIES not QNAMES (see Issue 14)
19:04:08 [JeffP]
PROPOSAL: Structural specification, XML Schema, and RDF mapping be extended to allow for multiple facet--value pairs in data ranges (see Issue 28)
19:04:16 [alanr]
+1
19:04:20 [JeffP]
+1
19:04:22 [jeremy]
+1
19:04:22 [ewallace]
+1
19:04:23 [uli]
+1
19:04:24 [pfps]
+1
19:04:24 [MichaelSmith]
+1
19:04:25 [IanH]
+1
19:04:27 [dlm]
+1
19:04:27 [bijan]
+1
19:04:29 [MartinD]
+1
19:04:31 [GiorgosStoilos]
+1
19:04:34 [ivan]
ivan: what I said is (for the minutes) we can normatively refer to the CURIE document (http://www.w3.org/TR/curie)
19:04:37 [bcuencag]
+1
19:04:38 [sandro]
0
19:04:39 [ivan]
+1
19:04:43 [achille]
0
19:04:50 [bmotik]
+1
19:05:30 [JeffP]
Resolved: PROPOSAL: Structural specification, XML Schema, and RDF mapping be extended to allow for multiple facet--value pairs in data ranges (see Issue 28)
19:05:46 [JeffP]
PROPOSAL: Issue 64 be resolved as per this email
19:06:05 [MichaelSmith]
the email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Nov/0391.html
19:06:10 [JeffP]
object property chains in triples: confusion of list with property
19:06:24 [alanr]
+1
19:06:26 [bmotik]
+1
19:06:30 [IanH]
+1
19:06:32 [pfps]
+1
19:06:32 [sandro]
0
19:06:33 [achille]
+1
19:06:35 [MichaelSmith]
+1
19:06:37 [bcuencag]
+1
19:06:42 [dlm]
+1
19:06:44 [ewallace]
0
19:06:45 [MartinD]
+1
19:06:45 [uli]
+1
19:06:49 [JeffP]
0
19:06:51 [ivan]
0 (do not remember the detail, but no reason for discussion for me)
19:06:52 [jeremy]
+1
19:06:55 [alanr]
q?
19:07:10 [bijan]
+1
19:07:21 [JeffP]
Resolved: Issue 64 be resolved as per this email
19:07:32 [jeremy]
q+ to ask about publications
19:07:36 [Ratnesh1]
Ratnesh1 has joined #owl
19:07:41 [alanr]
ack jeremy
19:07:42 [jeremy]
Zakim, unmute me
19:07:43 [Zakim]
jeremy, you wanted to ask about publications
19:07:46 [Zakim]
jeremy was not muted, jeremy
19:08:16 [jeremy]
Zakim, mute me
19:08:16 [Zakim]
jeremy should now be muted
19:08:41 [jeremy]
OK
19:09:07 [alanr]
Issue 2 revisited: RDF syntax for other "n-ary constructs"? (See [1] and thread.)
19:09:15 [jeremy]
jeremy: do the issues resolved go into abput to be published docs
19:09:18 [jeremy]
alan: yes
19:09:30 [JeffP]
thx, jeremy
19:09:58 [JeffP]
(abput?)
19:10:11 [jeremy]
(about)
19:10:17 [Zakim]
-Vipul_Kashyap
19:10:18 [bmotik]
Yes
19:10:23 [JeffP]
s/abput/about
19:10:36 [pfps]
q+
19:10:40 [alanr]
acl peter
19:10:40 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
19:10:40 [Zakim]
pfps should no longer be muted
19:10:43 [alanr]
ack peter
19:10:49 [bmotik]
Yes
19:10:56 [Ratnesh3]
Ratnesh3 has joined #owl
19:10:56 [alanr]
q+ alanr
19:11:01 [alanr]
ack pfps
19:11:01 [bmotik]
q+
19:11:03 [jeremy]
I am against
19:11:16 [uli]
against what
19:11:19 [uli]
?
19:11:23 [sandro]
Zakim, list attendees
19:11:23 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been jeremy, MIchaelSmith, bmotik, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, achille, bijan, Vipul_Kashyap, MartinD, pfps, Evan_Wallace, IanH, Conrad, uli, Sandro,
19:11:23 [JeffP]
pfps: I am not conviced that it would solve the round-tripping problem (?)
19:11:24 [jeremy]
against more vocab
19:11:27 [Zakim]
... bcuencag, Ratnesh, Deb, zhe, GiorgosStoilos, Carsten
19:11:27 [pfps]
what about the case for n=2?
19:11:32 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
19:11:32 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
19:11:45 [JeffP]
q?
19:11:49 [bijan]
With suitable annotations, we could round trip without new vocab!
19:11:58 [pfps]
agreed
19:11:59 [IanH]
against adding explicit rdf syntax for all n-ary constructs
19:12:00 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the phone?
19:12:00 [Zakim]
On the phone I see jeremy (muted), achille, bmotik, MichaelSmith, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, pfps (muted), bijan (muted), uli (muted), MartinD (muted), Ratnesh, Evan_Wallace, IanH, Conrad,
19:12:00 [alanr]
ack alanr
19:12:02 [ivan]
ack alanr
19:12:03 [alanr]
ack boris
19:12:04 [Zakim]
... Sandro, bcuencag (muted), Deb, zhe, GiorgosStoilos
19:12:16 [alanr]
q?
19:12:20 [alanr]
ack bmotik
19:13:10 [IanH]
q?
19:13:11 [JeffP]
boris, the spec should be more implementable
19:13:14 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
19:13:14 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
19:13:39 [sandro]
Present: Jeremy, Achille, bmotik, MichaelSmith, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, pfps, bijan, uli, MartinD, Ratnesh, Evan_Wallace, IanH, Conrad, Sandro, bcuencag, Deb, zhe, GiorgosStoilos, Vipul_Kashyap, Conrad, Carsten
19:14:25 [JeffP]
bijan: need to make things easier
19:14:31 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
19:14:31 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
19:15:12 [bijan]
Oh, I have users who really like nice serializations...that was a big deal
19:15:20 [bijan]
So I would like to reduce *parser* freedom
19:15:32 [bijan]
(sorry, illness making me think slow...)
19:15:52 [bijan]
IT's not just an implementator issue, but a user issue
19:16:30 [bijan]
Not if you use the binary constructs
19:16:58 [JeffP]
alanr: if so, then an OWL DL ontology could become something not a proper OWL DlL ontology after some parsing
19:17:00 [bijan]
I think Protege4 is using some aggressive pretty printing
19:17:25 [jeremy]
(for me this is hitting the bigger issues about what are the goals ....)
19:17:40 [IanH]
Yes, I guess that P4 "helps" you by turning multiple binary into an nary?
19:17:49 [alanr]
this is not a help
19:17:49 [bijan]
It may
19:17:53 [pfps]
but what if you are building an OWL 1.0 ontology in Protege? then you would generate OWL 1.1, not OWL 1.0, in the RDF
19:18:13 [bijan]
Yep...this may be a bug in the serializer
19:18:13 [Zakim]
-Conrad
19:18:16 [uli]
...but this is about P4 and not about "what is possible/should be done"
19:18:39 [IanH]
but this is a tool issue
19:18:39 [JeffP]
is this n-ary thing done by Protete using the well known design pattern for n-ary relations?
19:18:54 [IanH]
P4 should allow you to explicitly save as 1.0
19:19:09 [bijan]
It should respect how you construct
19:19:09 [IanH]
See numerous Microsoft tools for details
19:19:23 [bijan]
That's the intend of the roundtripping design
19:19:24 [JeffP]
alanr: annotation properties would be changed too
19:19:25 [uli]
But Alan, these are still P4 issues -- or are any of them due to OWL1.1?
19:20:05 [jeremy]
Zakim, unmute me
19:20:05 [Zakim]
jeremy should no longer be muted
19:20:12 [IanH]
Q+
19:20:12 [JeffP]
(maybe we should take this offline)
19:20:18 [JeffP]
zakim, who is talking?
19:20:29 [jeremy]
Zakim, mute me
19:20:29 [Zakim]
jeremy should now be muted
19:20:30 [Zakim]
JeffP, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: jeremy (5%), Alan (39%)
19:20:32 [alanr]
q?
19:20:32 [JeffP]
q?
19:20:32 [IanH]
q?
19:20:57 [JeffP]
Ian, I think this is a tool issue rather than a language issue
19:21:43 [Zakim]
-jeremy
19:21:43 [JeffP]
... tools supporting OWL 1.1 will produce OWL1.1 files by default
19:21:44 [bijan]
But you need to distinguish the tool issues from langauge issues
19:21:55 [jeremy]
Please let me know when we are on topic
19:22:02 [ivan]
:-)
19:22:10 [jeremy]
and I will rejoin
19:22:14 [achille]
+1 for Ian's view that it is a tool issue
19:22:19 [bijan]
Round tripping, as boris described, should work fine. If protege does some munging in its serialization...that's different
19:22:24 [JeffP]
rool call on issue 2?
19:22:27 [alanr]
roll call on issue 2 revisited?
19:22:33 [jeremy]
-1
19:22:36 [bmotik]
+1 to extend all n-ary constructs to n-ary
19:22:39 [JeffP]
Issue 2 revisited: RDF syntax for other "n-ary constructs"? (See [1] and thread.)
19:22:40 [bijan]
Yeah, what'st he resolution?
19:22:53 [uli]
did we not already do this call?
19:22:58 [pfps]
no proposal was in the minutes
19:23:01 [IanH]
+1 to either extend all n-ary constructs to n-ary or remove them from functional syntax
19:23:20 [pfps]
s/minutes/agenda/
19:23:23 [bijan]
IanH, really?
19:23:31 [bijan]
Including AllDisjoint?
19:23:47 [IanH]
yes -- I want the various syntaxes to be properly aligned
19:23:47 [jeremy]
AllDisjoint was solved and agreed
19:24:05 [bijan]
That was my understanding too, jeremy
19:24:23 [bijan]
IanH do you propose reopening AllDisjoint? What about AllDifferent?
19:24:25 [uli]
mine too, Jeremy
19:24:29 [IanH]
My preference would be to extend the RDF, not emasculate the functional syntax
19:24:42 [alanr]
alldifferent is already in this form in 1.0 iirc
19:24:47 [IanH]
I don't ropose reopening AllDisjoint? What about AllDifferent? -- they are in alignment
19:24:52 [jeremy]
yes
19:24:52 [pfps]
what about objectunionof, objectintersectionof?
19:25:04 [bijan]
Can we move this to email?
19:25:38 [JeffP]
Ian, I would like to see some alignment between the two syntax
19:25:54 [Zakim]
+jeremy
19:26:03 [jeremy]
zakim, mute me
19:26:03 [Zakim]
jeremy should now be muted
19:26:10 [ewallace]
agree with Ivan, but can we have an action to record where we are on this
19:26:12 [bijan]
sire
19:26:17 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
19:26:17 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
19:26:17 [ivan]
:-)
19:26:24 [JeffP]
Topic: RIF meeting
19:26:37 [alanr]
open to suggestions of which one might have been easier :)
19:26:47 [JeffP]
bijan, there is a draft on compatibility between RIF and OWL
19:26:53 [alanr]
apologies for taking liberty with chair
19:27:04 [pfps]
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/SWC/OWL-Compatibility
19:27:06 [JeffP]
... people suggested RIF should talk to us on it
19:27:34 [JeffP]
... proposed a joint TF
19:27:50 [JeffP]
... between the two WGs
19:28:10 [JeffP]
alanr: do we need nominate someone?
19:28:27 [JeffP]
Sandro: we didn't remember the exact number
19:28:44 [JeffP]
bijan, ChrisW will contact the chairs of this WG
19:29:11 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
19:29:13 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
19:29:27 [uli]
bye bye
19:29:28 [Zakim]
-Evan_Wallace
19:29:30 [bmotik]
bye
19:29:34 [MichaelSmith]
bye
19:29:35 [Zakim]
-IanH
19:29:36 [Zakim]
-jeremy
19:29:36 [Zakim]
-bcuencag
19:29:37 [Zakim]
-uli
19:29:38 [achille]
bye
19:29:39 [Zakim]
-MichaelSmith
19:29:40 [ivan]
bye bye, see some of you next week in Manchester
19:29:40 [Ratnesh3]
bye
19:29:40 [Zakim]
-bmotik
19:29:41 [Zakim]
-Alan
19:29:42 [Zakim]
-GiorgosStoilos
19:29:43 [Zakim]
-zhe
19:29:44 [Zakim]
-MartinD
19:29:46 [Zakim]
-bijan
19:29:48 [Zakim]
-Sandro
19:29:50 [Zakim]
-Ivan
19:29:52 [Zakim]
-Deb
19:29:52 [uli]
uli has left #owl
19:29:54 [Zakim]
-achille
19:29:56 [Zakim]
-pfps
19:29:58 [dlm]
dlm has left #owl
19:30:00 [Zakim]
-Ratnesh
19:30:05 [sandro]
JeffP, can you hang on for 2 minutes?
19:30:08 [sandro]
(on IRC)
19:30:11 [JeffP]
ok
19:30:14 [Zakim]
-JeffP
19:30:16 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()12:00PM has ended
19:30:18 [Zakim]
Attendees were jeremy, MIchaelSmith, bmotik, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, achille, bijan, Vipul_Kashyap, MartinD, pfps, Evan_Wallace, IanH, Conrad, uli, Sandro, bcuencag, Ratnesh, Deb, zhe,
19:30:20 [Zakim]
... GiorgosStoilos, Carsten
19:30:47 [bijan]
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/SWC/OWL-Compatibility
19:31:00 [MartinD]
MartinD has left #OWL
19:31:57 [sandro]
Thanks, Bijan!
19:32:15 [bijan]
np, kitchen dude
19:32:25 [sandro]
or scribe-helping dude right now
19:32:33 [JeffP]
:-)
19:33:06 [bijan]
I was tempted to retort "What, you don't have a web browser in the kitchen? Isn't that a w3c team requriement?"
19:33:26 [JeffP]
haha
19:34:06 [sandro]
Anyway, Jeff, I think http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.11.28/Minutes is now ready for you.
19:34:45 [sandro]
There are lot of [BOT] lines which can be simply deleted. If any lines are marked BOT when they should not be, or aren't when they should be, please let me know.
19:34:56 [sandro]
simple deleted after reading them. :)
19:35:06 [JeffP]
ok
19:35:31 [sandro]
okay later!
19:35:37 [JeffP]
bye
19:46:01 [jeremy]
jeremy has left #owl
21:35:41 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl