IRC log of owl on 2007-12-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

09:12:08 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
09:12:08 [RRSAgent]
logging to
09:12:16 [ivan]
scribenick: JeffP
09:12:30 [ivan]
rrsagent, set log public
09:12:36 [alanr]
Major issue seems to be whether to use xsd datatype semantics
09:12:51 [ivan]
chair: Ian Horrocks
09:12:53 [JeffP]
Topic: Datatypes
09:12:55 [jluciano]
Alanr, let's meet when you get back
09:13:02 [peterhaase]
peterhaase has joined #owl
09:13:06 [ivan]
scribe: jeff
09:13:19 [JeffP]
scribe: JeffP
09:14:31 [JeffP]
Uli is presenting
09:14:55 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
09:14:58 [bijan]
bijan has joined #owl
09:15:11 [thomassch]
thomassch has joined #owl
09:15:17 [jluciano]
are we starting with issue 25 as in the agenda?
09:15:35 [JeffP]
OWL DL does not support user defined datatypes
09:16:00 [JeffP]
uli: users want to represent internals
09:16:19 [JeffP]
... and comparisons
09:16:30 [Michael_Smith]
09:16:34 [IanH]
slides available at
09:16:45 [jluciano]
09:17:22 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl
09:18:03 [JeffP]
... in OWL DL no inverse functional datatype properties
09:18:41 [vit]
vit has joined #OWL
09:18:44 [JeffP]
... not to mention composite keys (not even OWL Full supports this)
09:21:43 [jluciano]
09:22:12 [jluciano]
it got quiet (no audio yet) - I'm dependent on scribe
09:26:01 [JeffP]
boris: we might want to keep the unit mapping out of TBox
09:27:10 [JeffP]
jeremy: second
09:28:02 [sandro]
Jeremy's triangles:
09:29:44 [JeffP]
sebastian: there are real world examples
09:29:47 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
09:29:59 [JeffP]
... that we need datatype mapping in the TBox
09:30:08 [JeffP]
bijan:both needed
09:31:48 [JeffP]
uli: we have examples of seeing class subsumption checking based on datatype constraints
09:32:41 [JeffP]
casten: it is difficult to choose one standard set, e.g. covering integers, rational, +, *, ...
09:32:52 [JeffP]
uli: as many as possible
09:33:46 [JeffP]
jeremy: each simple example is easy
09:34:30 [JeffP]
... but have concern on having all of them, which makes it hard
09:35:59 [bijan]
Sebatian's use case:
09:36:12 [JeffP]
sebastian: combining DL and data values are important and useful, there are many tasks that you could not solve if you treat datatypes externally
09:42:41 [JeffP]
alanr: do we want to detect the problematic cases?
09:43:31 [jluciano]
what does alan mean by "detect"?
09:46:19 [JeffP]
jeffp: there are existing works on datatype groups, a mechanism is already there
09:46:29 [thomassch]
Uli has just added "[Alan] add support to check whether this mechanism (second item of '3.') has been used 'safely'". Does this help?
09:46:41 [dlm]
dlm has joined #owl
09:47:03 [JeffP]
... even in OWL DL, freely combinations are not possible, e.g. transitive properties are not allowed to used in number restrictions
09:47:13 [alanr]
I mean during species validation, for example. Or via declarations of what features are used and flagging incompatible combinations
09:47:43 [JeffP]
jeremy: what happen if data in the user databases having both integers, rationals + and * ...
09:47:54 [Michael_Smith]
link again
09:48:44 [JeffP]
boris: we need some datatype profile
09:49:16 [JeffP]
casten: second boris point
09:53:48 [JeffP]
jeffp: two points: 1) profiling is a good idea, there have been work there such as datatype groups
09:54:16 [JeffP]
... and we could provide a list of feasible datatype groups
09:55:22 [JeffP]
2) if users have integers, rationals + and *, we could simply have type promotion, promoting integers into rational, and it is still decidable
09:56:09 [JeffP]
alanr: maybe we could have a stroll poll on this
09:56:53 [JeffP]
bijan: we all agree that some sort of datatypes are needed, no matter in OWL or RIF
09:57:19 [JeffP]
... many of our cases cannot be addressed by RIF
10:00:19 [JeffP]
jeremy: transitive issue is different
10:05:43 [sandro]
dlm, GiorgosStoilos - the minutes of your sessions yesterday are now available for cleanup on the wiki:
10:06:15 [bijan]
linear polynomial (in-)equations over the reals or cardinals with order relations,
10:06:25 [sandro]
MarkusK - the minutes of your scribe session yesterday are now available on the wiki for you to clean up:
10:06:34 [bijan]
nonlinear multivariate polynomial (in-)equations over complex numbers,
10:07:07 [bijan]
(from the racer manual: )
10:07:14 [bijan]
page 11
10:08:26 [bijan]
See page 47 and 48
10:08:57 [bijan]
e.g., (* real AN ) (AN of type real or complex)
10:09:01 [MarkusK]
Sandro - OK, I will check.
10:12:51 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #owl
10:14:05 [JeffP]
jeffp: besides Racer, an extension of FaCT (FaCT-DG) also supports n-ary and datatype groups
10:14:26 [JeffP]
uli: we could have some more general proposal, rather than specific ones
10:16:02 [JeffP]
bijan: we don't have to require all our implementors to implement everything, so we should be flexible somehow
10:16:21 [JeffP]
uli: the 4th point: easy keys
10:19:20 [JeffP]
markusk: in foaf people use b-nodes rather than individuals, so the easy key might not solve the foat problem
10:22:20 [bijan]
What I meant: It's a bad idea to, in committee, to significantly and somewhat arbitrarily increase the implementation burden. But without adding a hook, implementors *can't* (compatibly) experiment
10:22:40 [bijan]
So, let's add the hook and be cautious about how we fill in the hook
10:25:02 [JeffP]
stall poll 1: many 1, no -1, four 0
10:25:36 [JeffP]
10:26:00 [JeffP]
straw poll 2: (all) 1
10:28:49 [JeffP]
straw poll 3 (about 2-b): many 1, two (conditional) -1, six 0
10:33:57 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #owl
10:34:40 [JeffP]
straw poll 4 (n-ary datatype): twelve +1, six -1, five 0
10:39:49 [JeffP]
straw poll 5(easy key): 22 +1, one -1
10:41:55 [JeffP]
boris: one profile proposal: a set of default profiles and allowing users to have arbitrary profiles
10:42:31 [Uli]
Uli has joined #owl
10:42:51 [bmotik]
or people would be able to define their own profiles
10:43:09 [bmotik]
sorryJeff, I got confused here
10:44:52 [JeffP]
Another go, boris' profile: a fixed set of profile and also allowing people to define their owl profiles
10:45:07 [Evan]
Evan has joined #owl
10:45:09 [JeffP]
alanr's proposal: a fixed set of profile
10:47:45 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #owl
10:47:50 [bijan]
Note the current support for unary datatypes is already fragmenty:
10:49:25 [JeffP]
straw poll on profiling on datatype: eighteen +1, four 0
10:50:03 [thomassch]
dmitry tsarkov introduced himself ...
10:50:15 [thomassch]
... email:
10:50:32 [GiorgosStoilos]
GiorgosStoilos has joined #owl
10:51:56 [JeffP]
scribers should clean up yesterday's minutes by next telecon
10:52:10 [JeffP]
(by IanH and no objections)
10:56:58 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
10:59:29 [IanH_]
IanH_ has joined #owl
11:03:16 [jluciano]
please let me know when audio is available. thanks!
11:11:05 [Evan]
Evan has joined #owl
11:12:04 [Rinke]
ScribeNick: Evan
11:12:39 [IanH_]
We now have Zakim connected for those who want to dial in.
11:12:41 [thomassch]
thomassch has joined #owl
11:13:24 [Evan]
ScribeNick: Evan
11:13:52 [peterhaase]
peterhaase has joined #owl
11:14:55 [Evan]
Topic: OWL DL and OWL Full
11:15:59 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
11:18:33 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #owl
11:19:02 [Rinke]
zakim, this will be owl
11:19:02 [Zakim]
ok, Rinke, I see SW_OWL(F2F)6:00AM already started
11:19:35 [Rinke]
ScribeNick: Evan
11:20:14 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
11:20:14 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P0
11:20:36 [Evan]
Peter presenting
11:20:45 [sandro]
Zakim, ??P0 is Meeting_Room
11:20:45 [Zakim]
+Meeting_Room; got it
11:20:56 [GiorgosStoilos]
GiorgosStoilos has joined #owl
11:21:26 [Evan]
Here's a brief description of how model theoretic semantics works
11:22:09 [Uli]
Uli has joined #owl
11:22:20 [Evan]
Peter: OWL DL has a fairly straightforward take on this
11:22:29 [IanH_]
IanH_ has joined #owl
11:22:56 [Evan]
Peter: OWL Full and RDF take a slightly weird take on this
11:24:13 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
11:24:14 [Evan]
Peter: wherein properties and classes live in the world with real objects
11:25:10 [Evan]
Peter: Here are the differences between OWL DL and Full semantics
11:26:23 [Evan]
See "Two Model Theories" slide
11:27:33 [Evan]
Peter: things like rdf:type and owl:Class are not in the world in DL but are in Full
11:28:42 [Evan]
Alan: In OWL DL Universe what is the status of Ontologies?
11:29:04 [Evan]
Peter: There is a separate place for them because of annotations
11:29:51 [Evan]
Peter: This description is about the spec. and not practice
11:30:28 [Evan]
Bijan: The things in the OWL Full universe are in there with a theory
11:31:25 [Evan]
Peter: None of this matters in some sense
11:31:41 [Evan]
Peter: What matters is the behavior which results
11:31:56 [Evan]
Peter: ...such as entailments
11:34:16 [Evan]
Peter: Differences: It's possible to make assertions about the OWL vocabulary that change their interpretation
11:35:25 [Evan]
Jeremy to take over presenting
11:36:44 [Evan]
Alan: question about the intention of compatibility to be entailments of DL and Full be identical
11:37:42 [Evan]
Jeremy: for me the whole point is to get compatibility with RDF
11:40:39 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
11:40:39 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Meeting_Room
11:40:50 [sandro]
jluciano, we are on the phone now, I believe.
11:40:55 [Evan]
Jeremy: A goal is "least surprise" for users of RDF when using OWL
11:42:59 [Evan]
Jeremy: OWL annotations are intended to behave as RDF annotations
11:43:27 [Evan]
Alan: There are implications for RDF annotations that users may not be aware of
11:43:54 [Evan]
Alan: I want to make a distinction between usage and consequences of the semantics
11:45:33 [Evan]
Bijan: I don't understand what you mean by RDF triple-by-triple semantics
11:46:44 [Evan]
Jeremy: In the OWL 1.0 semantics there are correspondence theorems between OWL Full and DL Semantics
11:49:01 [Evan]
Evan has joined #owl
11:49:23 [Zakim]
11:49:29 [Evan]
Jeremy listed Issues related to the FULL and DL differences
11:49:55 [Evan]
such as 63, 76, 81, 69, 72, 55, 73
11:50:21 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
11:50:25 [Evan]
Jeremy: Do we want to allow semantic subsetting for fragments
11:51:19 [jluciano]
is that Bijan speaking?
11:51:26 [Evan]
11:51:55 [Evan]
I failed to capture it however.
11:52:40 [Evan]
Bijan: If we are going to support OWL Full do we need to support the full RDF umbrella
11:52:46 [jluciano]
He said something about if he wanted to reproduce what is in Jena, he'd like to have that info available to know what to reproduce
11:53:01 [Evan]
Bijan: described in Jeremy presentation
11:53:38 [Evan]
Jeremy: The semantic of RDF reification are essentially none
11:54:11 [Evan]
Bijan: There exists somewhere in the known universe a Statement that includes: S, P, O
11:55:10 [Evan]
Jeremy: There is no clear statement in the specs for how reification can work interoperably from system to system
11:56:43 [Evan]
Bijan: In the OWL full situation you have to interpret the reification syntax somehow
11:57:35 [Evan]
More discussion about how this can be done
11:58:20 [Evan]
Jeremy: Punning
11:59:33 [Uli]
Uli has joined #owl
11:59:49 [Evan]
In some peoples mind the web arch specifies that a URI corresponds to a single meaning
12:00:27 [Evan]
Punning is weaker than OWL Full because it violates this principle
12:01:48 [Evan]
Jeremy: this seems to cause user confusion
12:01:57 [Evan]
Mapping rules
12:03:26 [Evan]
In my view, the mapping rules were the hardest part of the OWL Rec
12:04:38 [Evan]
Jeremy: The drivers behind the mapping rules in OWL 1.1 are different
12:05:28 [jluciano]
who's speaking?
12:05:30 [Evan]
Jeremy: ...and this will lead to considerable change and probably
12:05:43 [Evan]
Boris Motik is speaking
12:06:03 [Evan]
Jeremy: ...issues later on.
12:06:30 [jluciano]
What's he saying is one of the biggest problems?
12:06:41 [Evan]
Boris: In my opinion many of these problems are the result of
12:06:52 [jluciano]
"these problems"???
12:07:04 [Evan]
Boris: ...shoe-horning everything in the same universe.
12:07:53 [Evan]
Point for discussion later:
12:08:04 [jluciano]
please distribute (and reference here for later). which sldie # of URI / slide ref
12:08:16 [jluciano]
\me Thanks Peter.
12:09:06 [Evan]
Boris: if we came up with an OWL Full that has a clean model theoritic framework
12:09:17 [Evan]
...then we could fix this.
12:09:46 [Evan]
Alan:This would be a smaller OWL Full?
12:10:21 [Evan]
Bijan: Punning was intended to meet the goals of Full at least quarter way
12:11:21 [Evan]
Peter: The dogma in this case is the same syntax extension of RDF
12:12:18 [Evan]
Bernardo: The people who like OWL Full should really come up
12:12:34 [Evan]
...with features for OWL Full that they like and use
12:12:48 [Evan]
...Then we could do some research.
12:13:48 [Evan]
Ian: The point I wanted to make was how much of this proposed
12:14:01 [Evan] will be part of the work of this WG?
12:14:28 [Evan]
Boris: Cleaning this up would be a huge accomplishment for this group.
12:15:28 [Evan]
Alan: To my mind, it's not clear that cleaning up OWL Full is desirable to
12:15:39 [Evan]
... the Full/RDF community.
12:16:10 [Evan]
Jeremy: Dropping the comprehension principles seems like the
12:16:23 [Evan]
... smallest change that would be of value.
12:17:22 [Evan]
Alan: Is this in scope for our group? Strictly speaking I don't think so.
12:18:03 [Evan]
Ian: This kind of work just isn't in scope.
12:18:19 [Evan]
Bijan: Form an OWLED task force to look at this.
12:19:40 [Evan]
Alan: We need to have a discussion about what compatibility means.
12:20:59 [Evan]
Alan: If we allow OWL Full semantics changing that will affect backwards compatibility
12:23:15 [Evan]
Discussion of semantic fragments
12:25:33 [Evan]
Alan: we have a delta now in the sublanguage entailments
12:26:04 [Evan]
Bijan: finding some delta that makes sense that makes the languages
12:26:15 [Evan] close as possible would be a good thing.
12:26:34 [Evan]
Ian: If we are comfortable with this semantic subsetting then
12:26:54 [Evan]
... we should be happy with the Full - DL differences
12:27:48 [Evan]
Ian: One slight difference in Jeremy's proposal would be allowing
12:28:16 [Evan]
... more syntactic freedom but actually reducing the entailments
12:28:36 [Evan]
... by removing the comprehension principles for e.g.
12:29:18 [Evan]
Jeremy: HP might be happy with such a result if it is consistent
12:29:37 [Evan]
... with some broader framework.
12:30:56 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
12:31:26 [Evan]
Jeremy: There are easy bits in the OWL 1.1 language.
12:32:04 [Evan]
... getting those bits working are a bounded and achievable task.
12:33:10 [Evan]
Bijan: My experience is that users are concerned about not
12:33:46 [jluciano]
can't hear Bijan
12:34:05 [dlm]
dlm has joined #owl
12:34:06 [jluciano]
what did he say about channelling Jim?
12:34:08 [Evan]
... being able to process large numbers of RDF graphs
12:34:15 [Evan]
...with DL reasoners.
12:34:51 [jluciano]
#/me Sandro ... I'm a mac book pro user
12:35:11 [Evan]
... Features like punning improves this situation.
12:36:09 [Evan]
Ian: I wonder how hard it would really be to extend the status quo
12:36:45 [Evan]
... with some acceptable differences.
12:37:11 [Evan]
Ian: This is a strawman for something that we could do.
12:37:58 [Evan]
Jeremy: I'd need to take this proposal back to HP before commenting on it.
12:41:10 [Evan]
Bijan: I would like us to keep the political and the user requirements seperate
12:41:11 [Rinke]
Rinke has left #owl
12:41:51 [Evan]
Action: jeremy describe how punning and cardinality play poorly with each other
12:41:51 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-47 - Describe how punning and cardinality play poorly with each other [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2007-12-14].
12:42:48 [sandro]
Jeremy: maybe we can say in the spec that punning is a concession to implementors, not a basic part of the semantics, that univocality is intended.
12:43:36 [Evan]
Ian: I'd like to see suggestions for concrete ways of moving forward to address these problems
12:43:55 [Rinke]
Rinke has joined #owl
12:44:03 [Evan]
Jeremy: Why don't we start with Qualified Cardinality Description?
12:45:03 [Evan]
PFPS: Someone made comment that Qualified Cardinality Descriptions leads to non-monitonicity
12:45:25 [Evan]
... and I remember finding it believable
12:46:22 [sandro]
trackbot-ng, list
12:46:29 [sandro]
trackbot-ng, help
12:46:29 [trackbot-ng]
See for help (use the IRC bot link)
12:46:34 [sandro]
trackbot-ng, info
12:46:34 [Jeremy]
Jeremy has joined #owl
12:46:51 [pfps]
ACTION: pfps inform the WG on absurdity of QCR / OWL Full
12:46:51 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - pfps
12:47:26 [peterhaase]
peterhaase has joined #owl
12:47:30 [Jeremy]
action: jeremy attempt Wiki sketch of QCR semantics OWL Full
12:47:30 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-48 - Attempt Wiki sketch of QCR semantics OWL Full [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2007-12-14].
12:47:56 [pfps]
ACTION: peter inform the WG on absurdity of QCR / OWL Full
12:47:56 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - peter
12:47:56 [trackbot-ng]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ppatelsc, phaase)
12:48:27 [pfps]
ACTION: peterpatel-schneider inform the WG on the absurdity of QCR / OWL Full
12:48:28 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - peterpatel-schneider
12:48:31 [Evan]
action: ppatelsc inform the WG on absurdity of QCR / OWL Full
12:48:31 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-49 - Inform the WG on absurdity of QCR / OWL Full [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2007-12-14].
12:49:28 [Evan]
Alan: on concrete actions...
12:49:32 [sandro]
Alan: How about we say: If you manage to game the system to have different meanings for a URI, you can't count on that
12:49:39 [Evan]
... we have a set of options
12:50:10 [Evan]
Jeremy: a suggestion that Jeremy concentrate on OWL Full
12:50:43 [Evan]
... Semantics and drop out of User Facing Documents
12:51:16 [Evan]
Alan: Any other specific proposals
12:51:42 [Evan]
Ian: Let's try and extend where are now and see where we end up.
12:52:34 [Evan]
Alan: When do we evaluate when this approach is failing
12:52:45 [Evan]
... so that we can try another approach.
12:53:06 [Evan]
... I want to have some ideas about where we would go if this
12:53:12 [Evan]
... doesn't work.
12:53:34 [Evan]
Jeremy: We have had two variants proposed today.
12:54:29 [Evan]
... Sacrifice backwards compatibility and work towards 1.1
12:55:05 [jluciano]
jluciano has joined #owl
12:56:45 [Jeremy_]
Jeremy_ has joined #owl
12:57:13 [Evan]
Bijan: We are spending a lot of time on this
12:57:59 [Evan]
... I would like to know how much interest in this WG
12:58:12 [sandro]
If there were a task force, who would be on it -- Alan, Jeremy, Sandro
12:58:13 [Evan]
... with Full compatibility
12:58:36 [Jeremy_]
jeremy: variant 2 - peter - drop same syntax requirement, and allow OWL 1.1 DL to have different syntax from RDF
12:58:51 [Evan]
12:59:09 [Evan]
How many people want to use OWL Full for 1.1?
12:59:32 [jluciano]
2nd question... +1 (not listed yet)
13:00:10 [Evan]
Jeremy rephrase: When using 1.1 do you want to use Full semantics?
13:00:23 [jluciano]
hard to hear on the phone
13:00:34 [sandro]
Q1- Are you a potential customer for OWL 1.1 Full -- you'll be using the document
13:00:43 [sandro]
customer or reseller
13:00:45 [jluciano]
OK, thanks, no :-)
13:01:38 [jluciano]
Q1 No.
13:01:54 [Evan]
5 in room
13:02:25 [sandro]
s/5 in room/5 yes in room/
13:02:39 [Evan]
Q1 no 15
13:03:10 [dlm]
jim would also be in the positive count for that question
13:03:42 [clu]
clu has joined #owl
13:04:06 [Evan]
q2 are you a potential customer for Bijan's description of patch-up
13:04:23 [Evan]
13:04:28 [sandro]
Q2- Are you a potential customer/reseller of a specification of techniques for translation RDF graphs (in the spirit of OWL Full) to OWL 1.1 DL
13:04:40 [sandro]
Q2- Are you a potential customer/reseller of a specification of techniques for translating RDF graphs (in the spirit of OWL Full) to OWL 1.1 DL
13:04:59 [jluciano]
Q2 yes
13:05:26 [jluciano]
Q2 +1
13:05:35 [Evan]
many in favor
13:05:36 [sandro]
Q2 yes except for 2 abstainers
13:06:25 [sandro]
13:07:46 [Jeremy_]
Jeremy_ has joined #owl
13:08:20 [peterhaase]
peterhaase has joined #owl
13:19:47 [Jeremy_]
Jeremy_ has joined #owl
13:29:50 [Jeremy_]
Jeremy_ has joined #owl
13:41:34 [Jeremy_]
Jeremy_ has joined #owl
13:43:17 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
13:43:51 [Rinke]
Rinke has joined #owl
13:44:15 [Zakim]
+ +1.603.897.aaaa
13:47:05 [Zhe]
please connect to
13:47:22 [sandro]
13:47:30 [Zhe]
the conference id is: 96360063
13:47:38 [sandro]
Um, no.
13:47:42 [sandro]
13:49:24 [Zhe]
this is for owlprime review
13:49:42 [ivan]
jim, we are having lunch
13:49:48 [sandro]
So, who are you talking to , Zhe?
13:49:51 [ivan]
the session starts in 10 minutes
13:49:59 [ivan]
with the fragment agenda item
13:50:02 [Zhe]
I know that. I just want to send the ID out to the group
13:50:05 [sandro]
Zakim, aaaa is Zhe
13:50:05 [Zakim]
+Zhe; got it
13:50:22 [sandro]
I doubt anyone but me is reading this. :)
13:50:48 [Rinke]
eh, not true ;)
13:53:08 [hendler]
thanks Sandro - btw, are the logs being recorded somewhere? We used to always put those in the irc topic so people could find them (and to make them member readable)
13:55:29 [thomassch]
thomassch has joined #owl
13:57:35 [sandro]
sandro has changed the topic to:
13:57:49 [sandro]
sandro has changed the topic to: See for agenda, minutes, etc
13:58:20 [sandro]
Jim, the minutes are linked from the agenda, meeting page, etc. I put them there at the end of a session.
13:58:36 [sandro]
the raw irc can be found by:
13:58:39 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
13:58:39 [RRSAgent]
13:59:46 [hendler]
right, thanks - forgot RRSAgent - been a while :-)
14:00:02 [sandro]
14:00:44 [sandro]
I've been really wishing you were here. Occasionally one of us channels you, "Jim would say.....", but it's hard to find out more details and try to convince you, when you're not here.
14:01:01 [sandro]
(that last session was about OWL Full.)
14:03:42 [peterhaase]
peterhaase has joined #owl
14:05:00 [hendler]
yeah - it's frustrating - I had wanted to come (although I suspect I'd of spent a lot of time fighting) -- I see "channeling Jim" in the logs a couple of times :-)
14:05:32 [hendler]
Unfortunately, I have a telecon with Tim BL at 9:30, so was hoping to at least get some of the fragments talk in first...
14:07:03 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
14:07:03 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
14:07:10 [msmith]
ScribeNick: msmith
14:07:32 [Zhe]
please connect to using IE
14:07:41 [Zhe]
the conference id is: 96360063
14:07:45 [jluciano]
Hi Jim.... another remoterer here - I'd gone to the airport but 2 minutes shy of 1 hr before flight and the closed checkin!
14:07:45 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
14:08:38 [msmith]
Topic: Fragments - OWL Prime
14:08:39 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #owl
14:09:07 [ivan]
zakim, who is here?
14:09:07 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Meeting_Room, Joanne_Luciano, Zhe
14:09:08 [Zakim]
On IRC I see JeffP, alanr, msmith, IanH, peterhaase, thomassch, Rinke, Zhe, Jeremy, clu, jluciano, Uli, pfps, GiorgosStoilos, Zakim, vit, sandro, bijan, RRSAgent, Battle, ivan,
14:09:11 [Zakim]
... MarkusK, seanb, Ratnesh, pascalhitzler, hendler, trackbot-ng
14:09:15 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.472.aabb
14:09:26 [hendler]
zakim, aabb is jhendler
14:09:26 [Zakim]
+jhendler; got it
14:10:14 [Jeremy]
Hi zhe, I've turned off pop up blocker, where do I go?
14:10:23 [Zhe]
please connect to using IE
14:10:36 [Zhe]
you will see a join conference portlet
14:11:42 [jluciano]
Can you repeat that?
14:11:55 [msmith]
the conference id is: 96360063
14:11:55 [Zhe]
14:13:04 [msmith]
alanr: there is a proposal to have a joint OWL & RIF task force
14:13:12 [msmith]
... peter is there. is there anyone else?
14:13:25 [msmith]
...uli is a second.
14:13:32 [IanH_]
IanH_ has joined #owl
14:13:33 [msmith]
sandro: I may sort of be on it for both
14:13:53 [msmith]
bijan: I am liason to RIF and will continue to be
14:15:16 [Zhe]
Jim, I just send a ppt to your rpi email address.
14:15:16 [hendler]
slides would be better for archive purposes
14:15:24 [hendler]
14:15:46 [dlm]
dlm has joined #owl
14:15:53 [msmith]
jeremy is still working on getting the conference room connected
14:16:18 [pfps]
In future WG "events" it would be nice to get the infrastructure set up in advance!
14:16:36 [jluciano]
I can't connect to the oracle conferencing either
14:17:27 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
14:17:28 [ivan]
joanne, ian will send you the slids
14:17:35 [ivan]
14:17:43 [jluciano]
14:17:43 [sandro]
alanr apologizes for not setting this up during lunch.
14:18:23 [jluciano]
I hope we'll not have to have alanr give up his lunch, then.
14:18:43 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
14:19:01 [msmith]
agenda slide
14:19:04 [Zakim]
14:19:29 [sandro]
Zakim, [IBM] is temporarily Achille
14:19:29 [Zakim]
+Achille; got it
14:19:31 [IanH_]
slides just sent to public-... list
14:19:49 [msmith]
slide: oracle 10gR2 RDF
14:20:45 [msmith]
some technical difficulties continue w.r.t slide presentation
14:21:59 [bijan]
bijan has joined #owl
14:22:04 [msmith]
zhe: many ways to insert data.
14:22:38 [msmith] 10r2 we also support some inferencing and rules. we use forward chaining approach
14:23:13 [msmith]
...also query using a SPARQL-like syntax
14:23:21 [msmith]
... this was all in 2005
14:23:32 [msmith]
slide 11gR1
14:24:00 [msmith]
zhe: this year new release with new features. faster loading, owl reasoning with proof generation
14:24:05 [Uli]
\me Zhe, can you speak louder again, please?
14:24:21 [sandro]
zakim, who is talking?
14:24:23 [msmith]
... overhauled performance w.r.t. load and query
14:24:31 [Zakim]
sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Meeting_Room (52%), Zhe (32%), jhendler (33%)
14:24:40 [sandro]
zakim, mute jhendler
14:24:40 [Zakim]
jhendler should now be muted
14:24:49 [msmith]
... just recently added Jena / Oracle adapter
14:24:51 [sandro]
hendler, I muted you.
14:24:56 [msmith]
... joint with HP
14:25:15 [msmith]
new slide
14:25:16 [Zakim]
14:25:57 [msmith]
zhe: subset of owl is supported
14:26:10 [msmith]
uli: i'm curious about what scalable and efficient means
14:26:20 [msmith]
zhe: i will show some numbers later
14:27:24 [msmith]
... re: what is supported - forward chaining rules implementation for fast query answer
14:27:31 [msmith]
slide "why?"
14:29:15 [msmith]
zhe: ... conclusion in ISWC 2006 paper was that existing reasoners had problems with large ABox data
14:29:33 [Achille]
14:29:37 [msmith]
slide 7 - owl subsets supported
14:30:13 [msmith]
zhe: rdfs++ added as a "minimal" extension to RDFS
14:30:50 [msmith]
...owl prime, what is now proposed as rdfs 3.0
14:31:25 [msmith]
slide - semantics characterized by entailment rules
14:31:41 [msmith]
zhe: owl prime has ~50 rules
14:31:41 [pascalhitzler]
does somebody know the exact literature reference for OWLPrime and can send it?
14:32:13 [msmith]
slide - applications of partial dl semantics
14:32:37 [pascalhitzler]
similar for OWLSIF - literature reference ...
14:33:11 [thomassch]
BTW The pdf with these slides can be found under :)
14:34:15 [msmith]
slide - support semantics beyond owl prime
14:35:27 [msmith]
jeremy: question about example being supported directly in the future
14:35:32 [msmith]
zhe: exactly
14:35:40 [Rinke]
14:36:40 [msmith]
achille: question about updates to abox
14:36:48 [msmith]
zhe: i'll get to that later
14:36:57 [Rinke]
ack Achille
14:38:03 [msmith]
slide 13 - advanced options
14:39:55 [msmith]
alanr: question about time, can we focus on questions now
14:40:12 [msmith]
zhe: ok, i'll quickly browse remaining slides, then go to questions
14:40:44 [bijan]
BTW, the survey paper mentioned in the talk on slide 9 is at:
14:41:59 [bijan]
It has more fine grained analyses, including in terms of AL, ALHF, SHIF, and SHOIN, on the one hand, and RDFS(DL), DL-Lite, EL++, and "non-tractable"
14:42:39 [bijan]
It also discusses "repairable" OWL Full ontologies and (sketchily) how the non-repairable ones fall into OWL Full
14:43:33 [bijan]
It's not at all clear to me how to map the analyses in that paper to OWL Prime (in part because I don't understand OWL Prime)
14:44:00 [msmith]
slide - implementation in rules
14:44:12 [msmith]
zhe: I want to stress that we did not handle one property at a time
14:44:59 [hendler]
paper also took a DL approach to the world, the raw data showed the great bulk of the stuff out there, pre-change, was low expressivity RDF or RDF with a little OWL - it's where the RDF 3.0 proposal came from
14:45:46 [msmith]
zhe: I'll jump to query answering slide
14:46:34 [msmith]
...that's all I wanted to cover, open for questions
14:46:53 [bijan]
Uhm...I don't knwo what you mean by "raw data" and "great bulk"
14:47:18 [msmith]
ian: the tractable fragments doc describes fragments with known database mapping. wondering why you didn't choose one of those
14:47:42 [bijan]
In fact, I don't see that anything I said had anything to do with what fell into RDFS or not
14:47:53 [msmith]
zhe: we started by asking existing customers what they needed. most told us they just needed simple extension into owl from rdf
14:47:54 [bijan]
The repair had mostly to do with the nominally owl full documents.
14:48:25 [msmith]
... pretty much the approach was driven by customers and need to implement efficiently
14:49:02 [bijan]
In fact, if you look at table 2 and table 3, the second part of your assertion is at least questionable
14:49:09 [msmith]
ian: but, customers said you needed something small (rdf + a bit) which is exactly what the fragments are. instead you chose a large fragment and implemented incompletely
14:49:46 [msmith]
zhe: so far, for those other fragments we have not found a complete rule set (except pdstar)
14:49:58 [sandro]
(I find the "small fragment" vs "large fragment" language very confusing, because I don't know what the metric is. large number of terms? large number of users? large implementation effort needed?
14:50:36 [bijan]
Expressivity, I think
14:50:38 [bijan]
"""Of the 307 OWL Full documents that can be patched, 63% become OWL Lite documents, and just 37% become OWL DL. Two observations can be made. First, The majority (91%) of the OWL Full documents (from Table 2) can be turned into a decideable portions of the languages by adding type triples. Secondly, the majority of RDFS documents (95%) can transition to OWL easily by adding type triples and use OWL vocabulary instead of RDFS vocabulary."""
14:50:44 [msmith]
uli: I want to echo ian and point out that you don't allow intersection, but a clever user would have it
14:51:00 [msmith]
...and to be complete complexity becomes a problem
14:51:11 [msmith]
alan: they're not trying to be complete
14:51:17 [pascalhitzler]
the mentioned paper by ter Horst seems to be the following: Herman J. ter Horst, Completeness, decidability and complexity of entailment for RDF Schema and a semantic extension involving the OWL vocabulary, Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide WebVolume 3, Issues 2-3, , Selcted Papers from the International Semantic Web Conference, 2004 - ISWC, 2004, October 2005, Pages 79-115.
14:51:17 [pascalhitzler]
14:51:17 [pascalhitzler]
Keywords: Ontology; Semantics; Entailment; Completeness; Computational complexity
14:51:17 [sandro]
Uil: Complete with respect to one reasoning problem is sound with respect to another. [[ In OWL? Really?? ]]
14:52:03 [msmith]
boris: echo ian, observes that fragments exist which can be implemented with a set of complete rules
14:52:45 [msmith]
bernardo: i'm worried about soundness and worried about what "sound and complete" means here. I don't understand the semantics
14:53:07 [msmith]
...b/c you haven't implemented the OWL semantics, you've chosen some of the OWL DL vocabulary
14:53:38 [bijan]
From a spec perspective, this fragment seems to be *implementation* defined...which is a bit worrisome
14:53:49 [msmith]
zhe: we do care about completeness, but don't consider it critical
14:54:15 [msmith]
... completeness is evaluated w.r.t. query answering for some benchmarks, etc.
14:54:34 [bijan]
My test for this would be, without looking at thier rules or using your rule engine per se, can i write an implementation from a publically available description?
14:54:41 [msmith]
jeremy: what I hear from customers echos Zhe's comments.
14:54:58 [msmith]
...I note that much of the questioning is hostile
14:55:00 [hendler]
I would point out that DB communities tend to do language/sublanguage without model theories very comfortably
14:55:01 [msmith]
alan: I agree
14:55:18 [bijan]
I would disagree with the assessment of it even relevant?
14:55:24 [clu]
I would strengthen Boris claim and say that most (if not all) other fragments admit forward chaining, which is sound and even complete,
14:55:26 [clu]
and the rules are easily derived.
14:55:36 [msmith]
jeremy: that may be b/c much of the questioning is coming from members with different user groups
14:55:44 [hendler]
I also find that Web 3.0 companies, including the folks interacting with us on the billion triple challenge, also come from the perspective Zhe represents
14:56:22 [hendler]
14:56:42 [msmith]
ian: it wasn't intended to be hostile. I was trying to understand whether Oracle would be interested in more well understood and explainable fragments
14:57:05 [sandro]
Ian: DL Lite, not PD*
14:57:06 [msmith]
...e.g., dl-lite which can be implemented in a database system, and also in a rule system
14:57:14 [clu]
Same applied to EL++
14:57:26 [clu]
applied => applies
14:57:59 [msmith]
discussion of PD* soundness and completeness in a rule based implementation
14:58:25 [hendler]
fwiw, those fragments got little or no traction with the folks I consult for - they care about parallelizability and performance over the more understood stuf - their work is largely heuristic anyway
14:58:25 [msmith]
ian: the problem with PD* is that it doesn't implement a subset of OWL, it implements PD*
14:58:41 [msmith]
jeremy: it depends on what you mean by fragment of OWL
14:59:28 [msmith]
alan: I hear interest in co-ordinating on database fragments with Oracle
14:59:30 [Uli]
Zhe, I might have sounded hostile, which wasn't intended: some of us simply have a specific reading for certain words like "reasoner", and I couldn't see how this could be possible.
15:00:01 [msmith]
bijan: to standardize a fragment, we need a well defined semantics that we can all understand
15:00:19 [bijan]
Correction to scribe: I didn't say *semantics* I said *specification*
15:00:27 [Uli]
Zhe, also, if you want to see how IntersectionOf can be simulated with someValues and AllValues, ask Carsten.
15:00:31 [bijan]
we need an *implementation independant* spec
15:00:31 [hendler]
What I am arguing for is that there are some important communities out there to whom the fragments they care about are not those tied to Uli's definition of reasoner
15:00:35 [thomassch]
thomassch has joined #owl
15:00:51 [msmith]
Topic: Fragments: (Tractable) Fragments and other Fragment Proposals
15:01:16 [sandro]
hendler, people are not really paying attention to IRC.
15:01:17 [Uli]
Jim, I appreciate this -- but "reasoner" was used on Zhe's slides, and i simply wanted to know in which sense.
15:01:30 [msmith]
bernardo presenting from slides in person
15:02:05 [hendler]
Bijan - agree with needing a spec, but I'd point out most programming languages get by just fine with operational semantics - in fact, since you implement Pellet in JAva, in a certain sense you're trusting that they get it right in some sense -
15:02:24 [msmith]
bernardo: motivation of owl-lite was easier owl. b/c owl dl and full are rich and complex.
15:02:25 [Rinke]
Rinke has joined #owl
15:02:46 [msmith]
...problem is owl-lite is broken b/c it doesn't address interactions between constructors
15:03:02 [Uli]
Jim, I guess what we would like to see is a consensus of what we mean by "Tool/reasoner X supports feature Y"
15:03:16 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
15:03:30 [IanH_]
Bernardo's talk in email and at
15:03:55 [msmith]
bernardo: most features held out of owl-lite can be recovered through "back doors"
15:03:56 [bijan]
First, I'm not saying anything about the specification style....but at the moment we don't have a clear spec. I don't know where to start other than by looking at Oracle's implementation
15:03:56 [hendler]
Uli, how do we show "Java" supports "begin/end loops"? that seems to be something in the real world that we could model for some (not all) of our work
15:04:39 [msmith]
bernardo: existing document includes fragments which
15:04:44 [hendler]
this is the point!! thw Owl language features all have operational semantics that are good enough for many people in many situations - so when Oracle says we support X, why do we need more than that
15:04:48 [bijan]
Second, there are differences between programming languages and ontology/data modeling languages. I hear your point, but find the analogy rather unconvincing.
15:04:57 [Uli]
Jim, I would never dream of trying to do this - but i would like to try to say what it means for a reasoner to support feature X
15:04:58 [msmith]
.... are well understood, documented, etc.
15:05:01 [bijan]
A precursor to OWL Lite giving some of the rationale:
15:05:02 [Evan]
Evan has joined #owl
15:05:30 [bijan]
Er...precursor discussion
15:05:39 [hendler]
What I'm arguing is that RDFS 3.0, or OWL Prime, might be better looked at less as ontology languages (leave that to OWL DL) then as useful data analysis languages
15:06:03 [msmith]
bernardo: we don't expect users to go over recent literature on tractable fragments, so wanted a single document
15:06:05 [bijan]
But I don't see why "useful data analysis langauges" don't need a clear spec
15:06:10 [hendler]
this is what my nose is rubbed in when I attend the Sem Tech conference and places like that
15:06:27 [hendler]
bijan - the question is what is the definition of a clear spec.
15:06:43 [msmith]
bernardo: most of the languages I will describe are "families" of languages, we decided to keep 1 from each
15:06:49 [bijan]
Furthermore, model theory is pretty easy way to specify the moment, no one has proposed anythign else
15:06:51 [Zhe]
if there is a set of rules defined as those in RDFS spec, is that clear?
15:07:01 [msmith]
bernardo: 1st is EL family
15:07:07 [bijan]
Zhe, perhaps
15:07:13 [bijan]
note that they are informative
15:07:14 [msmith]
...used in bio-medical already
15:07:29 [bijan]
But I would be interested in looking at such
15:07:33 [Zhe]
they may be informative, however, that is how most people understand semantics
15:07:40 [hendler]
but there are no model theories for many things, and model theory is not the only way to spec other things - like these rule-based examples
15:07:44 [Uli]
Zhe, we would call this "operational semantics" or such like and would be split about how clear this is
15:07:45 [bijan]
Understand != spec
15:07:53 [msmith]
bernardo: stress that these fragments are not academic exercises, there are direct applications to existing ontologies
15:08:04 [bijan]
Again, my test is can I write an interoperable implementation without looking at your implementation
15:08:13 [Uli]
+1 Bijan's inequality
15:08:17 [bijan]
At least my first test
15:08:30 [hendler]
i.e. Inverse(A,B) IFF s A p -> p B s
15:08:37 [msmith]
bernardo: 2nd is DL-Lite family
15:08:39 [hendler]
seems like a fine definition of inverse
15:08:42 [Zhe]
if we agree on a set of rules, then interoperability is not an issue
15:08:49 [bijan]
Not at all since I don't know what you -> means
15:08:55 [msmith]
... designed for large number of instances in database technology
15:08:58 [bijan]
Zhe, no
15:09:04 [bijan]
Not clear at all
15:09:18 [bijan]
For example, i might no use those rules *in* my implementation
15:09:24 [Zhe]
using Hendler's example rule,
15:09:27 [bijan]
I might want to use a very different technique
15:09:37 [Zhe]
if we agree on that, then we are interoperable
15:09:56 [bijan]
Is that rule controposable?
15:10:04 [Uli]
The reading of rules, for example, differ in whether you have contraposition or not
15:10:07 [bijan]
Was it meant as <->?
15:10:20 [hendler]
Bijan, that is either easily defined, or can be left to philosophers trying to write PhDs, in the real world, lots og languages work this way - but if you want something better - okay, we'll use SCL
15:10:27 [Uli]
and whether you "apply" it to all named individuals or to *all* individuals
15:10:31 [bijan]
hendler, that's not true
15:10:50 [bijan]
But c'mon, that wasn't even a partial spec
15:10:57 [bijan]
And it was of one of the easiest bits
15:10:58 [msmith]
bernardo: approach is similar to what zhe described, do work in tbox, then pass to database system for query answering
15:10:58 [bijan]
15:10:59 [Uli]
so, I agree that your defintion of inverse seems clear, but when you want to implement it, there are questions coming up
15:10:59 [Achille]
could someone send Bernardo's presentation to the public mailing list?
15:11:02 [bijan]
Consider complementOf
15:11:06 [hendler]
ok, KIF
15:11:11 [bijan]
English would do
15:11:12 [hendler]
I agree with Zhe
15:11:29 [hendler]
complementOf not in RDFS 3.0 for precisely that reason
15:11:30 [Zakim]
15:11:36 [bijan]
It was in OWL Prime
15:11:38 [ivan]
Achille: this is done
15:11:47 [sandro]
room is calling back.
15:11:48 [Zhe]
i could not hear anything
15:11:49 [Uli]
Again, I find englisch often clearer than things like "->' or such like
15:11:52 [Evan]
Or did you mean CLIF from the ISO standard, Common Logic
15:11:58 [hendler]
English ok w/me
15:12:11 [msmith]
carsten: reiterate bernardo, but contrast with zhe's approach. dl-lite change the ontology to use database technology, not change the database technology
15:12:12 [Zakim]
15:12:13 [pascalhitzler]
would be nice to get a literature reference to OWLPrima - the description on the slides was not clear enough
15:12:29 [pascalhitzler]
I could find nothing on the web defining OWLPrime
15:12:29 [bijan]
In any case, I'm asking for a spec. We can beat on the spec and if we find problems we find problems
15:12:30 [sandro]
Zhe, we are dialing back in.
15:12:35 [bijan]
If we don't we don't
15:12:36 [msmith]
alan: another difference is in oracle you can query for classes, in dl-lite only instances
15:12:37 [Zakim]
15:12:37 [Achille]
I am no longer hearing anything on the phone
15:12:40 [hendler]
but anyway, the point I'm making is not to oppose model theory - but the problem is to get the model heory right we have to put restrictions on the languge that some of us cannot live with easily
15:12:56 [bijan]
I don't know that that's true
15:13:02 [Zhe]
I just did. still I hear nothing
15:13:07 [bmotik]
Pascal, pD* has been described here:
15:13:07 [msmith]
bernardo: you can do tbox reasoning, but designed for abox answering.
15:13:09 [Uli]
Jim, I disagree:
15:13:09 [sandro]
15:13:13 [hendler]
this is why OWL LITE is a subset of DL - not of Full, so there is no fragments for Full - which is what i often get asked for
15:13:16 [Achille]
should we dial in again
15:13:24 [sandro]
15:13:26 [Zakim]
15:13:28 [Uli]
Jim, model theorey doesn't restrict things?
15:13:32 [Zhe]
it is working now
15:13:37 [sandro]
Zakim, ??P11 is Meeting_Room
15:13:37 [Zakim]
+Meeting_Room; got it
15:13:41 [bijan]
I'm very skeptical about it, but Id on't knwo because I don't know what the current fragment actually *is*
15:13:43 [sandro]
15:13:46 [Achille]
15:13:50 [Achille]
15:13:52 [jluciano]
15:14:01 [hendler]
Uli, so we could define the langauge fragment based on other concerns and then dfine it via model theory - that doesn't bother me at all - I'd be fine with that
15:14:06 [msmith]
bernardo: I picked the particular dl-lite language b/c it is between rdfs schema and owl dl
15:14:16 [msmith]
... next is Horn-SHIQ
15:14:23 [bijan]
But I'm open to being convinced otherwise...but I'm more convincable by a proof of concept (at least) than high level discussion
15:14:29 [msmith]
...can reason without disjunctions
15:14:35 [Zhe]
is there a scalable implementation of dl-lite? commercial tool?
15:14:38 [Uli]
Jim, what would you define via model theory? The fragment or its semantics?
15:14:42 [msmith]
...and low complexity for query answering
15:14:44 [bijan]
Zhe, to the first, yes
15:14:47 [bijan]
To the second, no
15:14:50 [hendler]
so Oracle has implemented OWL prime - what did I miss?
15:14:50 [bijan]
15:14:52 [bijan]
(Not yet)
15:14:59 [Uli]
Zhe, yes ther is, I think: search for Quonto
15:15:02 [bijan]
Implementation != specification
15:15:08 [hendler]
Uli - whichever you want - I'm not going to need to read that document anyway ;-)
15:15:27 [bijan]
And this is true for programming langauges as well
15:15:45 [Zhe]
Uli: what kind of tool? what is the scalability?
15:15:46 [Uli]
Jim, I think we simply disagree what it means to *implement* a fragment
15:15:52 [bijan]
There are langauges defined by *specs* (including Java, Common Lisp, C, C++) and those defined by *implementation* Perl, Python
15:15:53 [msmith]
bernardo: other fragments dlp as a bridge to rules
15:15:57 [bijan]
(at least historically)
15:16:09 [msmith]
... but it may be more "hacky" that horn-shiq
15:16:24 [bijan]
So, frankly, I don't want to port Oracles implementation. That's probably not even legal
15:16:33 [Uli]
Zhe, it is as scalable as it can get:
15:16:34 [hendler]
fine - I want a fragment of OWL that is defined by *specs*
15:16:43 [bijan]
I want a specification sufficient for independant implementation
15:16:58 [Uli]
Zhe, because it translates queries into SQL queries and leaves everything in the DB.
15:17:03 [msmith]
bernardo: questions for wg
15:17:07 [clu]
Zhe: I understand that you would like to do forward chaining. A lot of fragments can be captured in a sound
15:17:09 [clu]
(and even complete) way with this technique. I would like to learn what is your idea of tractability and
15:17:10 [clu]
scalability. Is it forward chaining per se, or is it a rule set that does not produce too many new facts?
15:17:11 [msmith]
....1 do we fix owl lite
15:17:11 [bijan]
But jim, if the specs happen to do it by model theory and capture the language you want, what do you care?
15:17:23 [msmith]
....2 does that mean select one of these fragments
15:17:34 [msmith]
....3 or do we present a menu of fragments?
15:17:43 [bijan]
If the specs are clear enough for me I don't necessarily require model theory ( though it helps so we can understand the relation to existing OWL specs)
15:17:55 [msmith]
bernardo: not in slides - do we want semantic subsets of owl full?
15:18:07 [hendler]
bijan - the poiunt is I don't care - and I said that - what I care is what is in the fragment first, how to define it second
15:18:22 [msmith]
....e.g., owl full versions of these fragments? do we care about complexity of the full fragments? about compatibility?
15:18:22 [Zhe]
Clu: the scability and performan requires are determined by the market.
15:18:26 [bijan]
How do you know what's *in the fragment* without a definitio of what the fragmetn is?
15:18:32 [bijan]
What's the difference?
15:18:49 [Zhe]
Clu: people are asking for hundreds of millions of triples and beyond
15:18:52 [sandro]
zakim, who is muted?
15:18:52 [Zakim]
I see no one muted
15:18:59 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:18:59 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Joanne_Luciano, Achille, Zhe, Meeting_Room
15:19:10 [sandro]
hendler, please stop talkin on IRC.
15:19:24 [hendler]
Bijan - you're arguing circularly - but I can cut through it - I have created a wiki page with a description of exactly which language features I want to include - how to define it in a spec is something I'm happy to discuss
15:19:28 [msmith]
ivan: request to drop side conversations
15:19:36 [msmith]
... and focus
15:19:54 [sandro]
Jim, we're talkin in the room now, and need to focus on this discussion in the voice channel, so no more chatter on IRC, please.
15:20:00 [msmith]
alan: little time, can we start with semantic subset of owl full?
15:20:37 [msmith]
ian: semantic subset means no change to syntax, but sanction smaller set of conclusions
15:21:13 [hendler]
15:21:19 [hendler]
15:21:20 [alanr]
15:21:20 [msmith]
jeremy: example is pd*, which specifies what semantic rules are thrown away
15:21:33 [hendler]
15:21:35 [msmith]
peter: pd* throws away *parts* of rules
15:21:47 [msmith]
ian: this is picky
15:22:02 [sandro]
hendler, are you able to call on the phone?
15:22:09 [hendler]
sandro, no.
15:22:12 [msmith]
alan: how comfortable are people with this type of fragment
15:22:22 [msmith]
... does anyone want to say this is a lousy idea.
15:22:30 [jluciano]
hendler, type what you want us to speak for you
15:22:34 [msmith]
peter: yes, its lousy b/c you can be arbitrarily picky
15:22:34 [hendler]
what kind of fragment?
15:22:47 [msmith]
ian: its a lousy idea b/c it blows away the idea of interoperability
15:23:17 [sandro]
Alan is chairing this session.
15:23:39 [jluciano]
hendler, do you have access to the slides?
15:23:47 [msmith]
bijan: qualm that methodological design principles are "unclear"
15:24:16 [msmith]
...guidance for making decisions seem more arbitrary, a dangerous rat-hole
15:24:40 [msmith]
... would rather people say they are incomplete than building incompleteness into fragments
15:25:18 [msmith]
jeremey: in response to ian, any semantic subsetting would need to be clear that it is a subset of spec and an explicit, agreed semantic subset
15:26:12 [msmith]
...e.g., oracle and hp would agree on semantic subset and interop on at-least the semantic subset
15:26:19 [jluciano]
to Hendler: fragments of OWL 1.1, which: are the result of years of research, have “nice” computational properties, are already supported by tools
15:26:24 [msmith]
15:26:45 [sandro]
+1 Jeremy -- "incompleteness" is fine When It's In A Specified Fragment, that is implementated in multiple places, etc.
15:26:48 [msmith]
alan: if we call this fragment or conformance level, it seems useful
15:26:57 [jluciano]
to hendler: cover most existing ontologies
15:27:12 [msmith]
...that baseline entailments are necessary, but additional entailments may be ok
15:27:52 [Zhe]
15:27:53 [msmith]
bijan: if we shift from language fragments to reasoner conformance I'm more comfortable
15:27:55 [hendler]
But there are fragments which are not included that have all those things as well - Oracle Prime being a perfect example
15:27:56 [sandro]
Bijan: "Reasoner Conformance" might be a more useful notion here than "Language Fragments".
15:28:15 [alanr]
Jim, please call in if you want to participate
15:28:21 [jluciano]
to hendler: Fragment Goals: suggest possible fixes to OWL Lite, inform the OWL community about recent research results, help users & tool designers
15:28:24 [msmith]
...I have examples of people specifying this at a tool level.
15:28:48 [msmith]
jeremy: i'd be happy with such a rewording. i don't see it as notable
15:28:57 [msmith]
alan: does such a distinction help others
15:29:00 [hendler]
hendler has left #owl
15:29:10 [msmith]
some affiermation to alan in room
15:30:00 [msmith]
zhe: ?
15:30:21 [msmith]
alan: he said it would be useful to say we support same entailments
15:31:26 [msmith]
ian: more comfortable defining conformance that fragments
15:31:55 [Zhe]
15:32:02 [IanH_]
ian: and jeremy's suggestion sounds like standardising implementations
15:32:18 [alanr]
Jim, you still there. Hard to follow the IRC. I can read what you write if you want to respond.
15:32:31 [msmith]
bernardo: users are comfortable with incomplete reasoning. swoop offering rdfs reasoner as a choice is an example of this
15:32:45 [pascalhitzler]
+1 to bernardo
15:32:57 [msmith]
...more comfortable with that than trying to specify semantic subsets
15:33:23 [msmith]
jeff: i agree with bernardo and others.
15:33:38 [msmith]
... implementation does not specify fragment.
15:33:45 [pascalhitzler]
bernardo also stressed the importance of a clear semantics as reference ...
15:34:36 [msmith]
boris: i just looked at pd* , this seems like definition. I think it is a useful fragment if evaluated a certain way.
15:35:18 [msmith]
ian: i didn't say pd* was bad, that we'd be standardizing an implementation. it was a reaction to jeremey's comments on what hp and oracle might do
15:36:08 [msmith]
sandro: owl is unique to me b/c it doesn't specify what the tools do, people read into that. specifying the tools would be useful. as a customer I expect that and would like it
15:36:41 [jluciano]
what's "pd*"?
15:36:48 [Zhe]
ina: it is not just hp and oracle, owlim, allegrograph as well
15:36:53 [sandro]
PD* is referred to in Zhe's presentation.
15:37:10 [sandro]
(from Herman ter Horst)
15:37:15 [msmith]
bijan: justifying discomfort - seems likely that over time fragments specified in such a way are likely to move
15:37:53 [msmith]
bernardo: on sandro's comment - we should specify reasoning services
15:38:46 [msmith]
... it's not in the spec for OWL DL. for fragments the services descriptions would be uesful
15:38:59 [msmith]
sandro: i don't know what the terms are, the market decides
15:39:14 [msmith]
ian: its difficult to imagine semantic subsets not drifting apart
15:39:30 [sandro]
Sandro: It should be customer driven. When they want to find on the shelf, those should be the things defined in the spec.
15:39:36 [msmith]
... it has been a success for owl that interoperability is so good, considering
15:40:15 [msmith]
jeremy: responding to standardizing tools - yes. there is value to user if they know different tools perform the same
15:40:36 [msmith]
... this wg could provide appropriate conformance levels where vendors and user community come together
15:40:50 [sandro]
+1 Jeremy: there is real value to the customers in knowing that a set of products will all do (at least) the same thing. It would be a service to the community for this WG to provide that.
15:41:01 [msmith]
... clear that motivations from academic community are useful, but they aren't the only motivations
15:41:11 [msmith]
alan: no one is saying market is unimportant
15:41:31 [msmith]
uli: clarification on user needs?
15:41:58 [msmith]
jeremy: users need some sort of specification, but don't need to know behavior is exact
15:42:41 [msmith]
alan: I want to poll for consensus on how to procede
15:42:47 [jluciano]
15:42:48 [msmith]
sandro: i don't understand
15:43:09 [msmith]
alan: I want to know if people think these fragments are useful
15:43:18 [msmith]
... defined as a minimum set of entailments
15:43:36 [msmith]
bijan: reasoners can conform to the language to different degrees
15:43:52 [Ratnesh]
subset of language + conformance level, is something similar to the way current languages (e.g) doing, like, Deprecated apis + core language( and specialized apis)
15:43:55 [msmith]
subsets of entailments == conformance levels
15:44:16 [msmith]
alan: we should aim for something specified like pd*
15:44:22 [msmith]
ian: declarative...
15:44:32 [msmith]
alan: yes, declarative
15:45:16 [dlm]
dlm has joined #owl
15:45:18 [sandro]
Q1 - The Working Group should (formally, precisely) define conformance levels, defining groups of reasoner which can do certain kinds of reasoning (all for a given OWL Fragment).
15:45:30 [sandro]
Q1 - The Working Group should (formally, precisely) define conformance levels, defining groups of reasoners which can do certain kinds of reasoning (all for a given OWL Fragment).
15:45:45 [msmith]
uli: we would later know e.g., what it would mean for a reasoner to conform to particular level?
15:45:52 [msmith]
alan: yes.
15:46:07 [msmith]
jeff: what does conformance level mean? is it in terms of benchmark?
15:46:41 [msmith]
uli: provides example
15:47:06 [IanH_]
The Working Group should (formally, precisely) define conformance levels, defining minimum levels of inference that would be found?
15:47:57 [Zhe]
15:48:17 [msmith]
carsten: degrees of incompleteness?
15:48:17 [IanH_]
The Working Group should (declaratively) define conformance levels, defining minimum levels of inference that would be found?
15:48:24 [msmith]
alan: degree of completeness
15:48:25 [sandro]
Q1 - The Working Group should (declaratively) define (one or more) conformance levels, defining minimum levels of inference which would be performed (for a given OWL Fragment).
15:48:27 [Achille]
yes if we are talking about a declarative way of defining minimum levels of inference
15:48:38 [msmith]
...fragments are syntactic fragments
15:48:51 [msmith]
...conformance levels are distinct
15:49:09 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #owl
15:50:30 [msmith]
jeff: there might be difference between alan's and uli's suggestions
15:50:41 [msmith]
alan: distinction is unimportant now
15:50:42 [Zhe]
when we, as a group define confromance levels, it is very useful to look at current market
15:50:59 [Zhe]
including HP, Oracle, AllegroGraph, OWLIM etc.
15:50:59 [msmith]
alan: reads Q1 as above
15:51:20 [sandro]
against: Jeff, Carsten, Ian
15:51:28 [Achille]
+1 ( for a declarative approach)
15:51:32 [jluciano]
joanne raises hand
15:51:32 [sandro]
abstain: none.
15:51:38 [sandro]
15:51:48 [jluciano]
joanne lowers hand
15:51:52 [sandro]
for - lots and lots of hands
15:52:03 [sandro]
for - lots and lots of hands
15:52:19 [sandro]
in favor: lots and lots of hands
15:52:30 [sandro]
in favor - lots and lots of hands
15:52:38 [sandro]
zakim, what the heck are you doing?
15:52:38 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, sandro.
15:52:42 [Zhe]
15:52:48 [jluciano]
Joanne +1 h and rais e for last q.
15:52:53 [sandro]
lots and lots of people raise their hands in favor.
15:52:59 [sandro]
testing - something
15:53:03 [sandro]
for - testing
15:53:11 [sandro]
for - lots andlots of testing
15:53:15 [sandro]
for - lots and lots of testing
15:53:19 [sandro]
for - lots and lots of hands
15:53:29 [sandro]
for - lots and lots of raised hands
15:53:37 [sandro]
testing for - lots and lots of raised hands
15:53:42 [sandro]
testing raised hands
15:54:20 [sandro]
so I can talk about hands
16:00:36 [thomassch]
thomassch has joined #owl
16:21:52 [hendler]
hendler has joined #owl
16:22:39 [hendler]
hendler has left #owl
16:31:31 [dlm]
dlm has joined #owl
16:33:39 [Evan]
Evan has joined #owl
16:36:57 [jluciano]
good afternoon, welome back!
16:37:52 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
16:37:53 [Uli]
Jeremy: has resigned from UFDT, but
16:38:05 [Uli]
... wants to cancel next monday?
16:38:08 [msmith]
scribenick: uli
16:38:23 [msmith]
ScribeNick: Uli
16:39:01 [Uli]
AlanR: will arrange next UFDT
16:39:19 [Uli]
ACTION on AlanR to arrange next UFDT meeting
16:39:32 [Uli]
ACTION: on AlanR to arrange next UFDT meeting
16:39:32 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - on
16:39:40 [jluciano]
alan, contact me when you're back in town (and rested)
16:40:22 [IanH_]
IanH_ has joined #owl
16:40:30 [IanH_]
16:40:39 [Uli]
Sandro: has seen 7 sessions' minutes, currently 57 pages and asks how to read to accept them
16:40:56 [Uli]
... and asks the scribes, when cleaning them up, to add sub headers
16:41:10 [Uli]
... syntax is "===" for sub headers
16:41:10 [Evan]
Action: AlanR to arrange next UFDT meeting
16:41:10 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - AlanR
16:41:10 [IanH_]
ack testing
16:41:15 [IanH_]
16:41:24 [IanH_]
ack raised
16:41:28 [IanH_]
16:42:03 [Uli]
msmith: asks whether to serialize shuffled subdiscussions
16:42:22 [Uli]
sandro: yes, please disentangle
16:42:34 [jluciano]
please speak a little louder
16:43:06 [jluciano]
what did alanr just say?
16:43:06 [Uli]
IanH: asks what to do with parallel discussions, esp. on the IRC
16:43:16 [Uli]
Sandro: keep them if they are relevant
16:43:40 [Uli]
sandro: scribes finish cleaning up this wednesday
16:44:07 [Uli]
Jeremy: wants to see actions & resolutions in the minutes
16:44:40 [sandro]
Yeah -- keep IRC threads in if they are topical.
16:45:15 [Uli]
Bijan: subgroups affected by discussions at F2F should update their documents with pointers to minutes
16:45:16 [jluciano]
I'd like to see things fleshed out a little in the minutes -
16:45:32 [Uli]
Jeremy: suggests to minimize effort on minutes
16:45:37 [jluciano]
add links and pointers of a few definitions
16:45:45 [Uli]
AlanR: asks for subjects for discussions
16:45:59 [jluciano]
raise hand
16:46:00 [Uli]
Bijan: non-OWL full issues with RDF mapping
16:46:30 [Uli]
AlanR: agrees with Bijan, mentions reification
16:47:29 [Uli]
Bijan: axioms annotation asserted versus reified
16:47:38 [Uli]
AlanR: wants to see both
16:48:05 [Uli]
IanH: we already agreed that we should explore both assertions & reifications
16:48:37 [Uli]
Sandro: what about b-nodes and reification
16:48:53 [Uli]
Bijan: can we discuss now some RDF mapping issues?
16:49:04 [jluciano]
raise hand
16:49:13 [Uli]
msmith: has added such an issue wrt declarations
16:50:20 [Uli]
bijan: impossible to determine signature in owl full
16:50:29 [Uli]
... under some conditions
16:50:58 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
16:51:07 [sandro]
alanr, jluciano is on the queue
16:51:48 [jluciano]
is that horridge?
16:51:49 [Uli]
MattH: reports on user complaints regarding declarations
16:52:16 [msmith]
the issue on this is ISSUE-89
16:52:35 [Uli]
JLuciano: asks for summary sections of minutes\
16:53:00 [Uli]
JLuciano: wants to discuss evaluation issues
16:53:02 [bijan]
bijan has joined #owl
16:53:05 [bijan]
correction for scribe: it's that you can't specify a signature for an ontology without using the elements of that signature in an axiom or a declaration (which requires owl 11 terms)
16:53:34 [Uli]
PeterPS: disagrees with JLucianos suggestions: scribes should never paraphrase
16:54:38 [Uli]
AlanR: suggests to have summaries outside minutes
16:54:51 [Uli]
IanH: suggests to post summaries on the mailinlist
16:55:34 [Uli]
Sandro: add links to presentations in minutes
16:56:02 [Uli]
IanH: suggests clean up/mark up other material as well
16:56:41 [Uli]
Sandro: mentions that chairs could, if they wanted, blog meetings
16:57:19 [Uli]
Jeremy: doesn't want do them
16:57:28 [sandro]
or anyone else could blog meetings.... (ie summarize them).
16:57:48 [Uli]
AlanR: hasn't seen a lot about evaluation
16:58:32 [sandro]
alanr, adenda+ F2F2 ?
16:59:01 [Uli]
Jeremy: wants to give 2 examples reg. OWL Full compatibility
16:59:55 [Uli]
... first one: we have an OWL11 document with reified annotions, we safe and modify it....
17:00:58 [Uli]
MattH: do we discuss punning or declaredAs?
17:01:38 [bijan]
SUBPROPERTYOF[op1,...,opn] expands to rdfs:subPropertyOf if OnlyOP(opi) = true for each 1 ≤ i ≤ n, and to owl11:subObjectPropertyOf otherwise;
17:01:40 [Uli]
Jeremy: is worried about (starts reading out from ..please provide link)
17:01:50 [bijan]
That's the text
17:02:23 [sandro]
17:02:43 [Uli]
Jeremy: there are various rules like this one, and they are the wrong ones
17:03:40 [Uli]
Bijan: understand why: if we have r subproperty of s, and then i add a composition, then this addition would lead to different kind of serialization
17:04:07 [Uli]
Bijan: suggests that using different syntax for SubPropertyOf would solve this issue
17:04:26 [Uli]
Bijan: this is different from round tripping
17:05:46 [Uli]
Jeremy: have some form of switch that safes an ontology in OWL11, then we shouldn't expect it to be safed in an OWL10 format unless i require this explicitly
17:06:12 [Uli]
MattH: asks whether the spec shouldn't specify this behaviour
17:06:46 [Uli]
msmith: asks whether Jeremy wants to safe tools only in OWL10 if explicitly asked to do so
17:07:17 [Uli]
Jeremy: observes a subtle relationship between the 2 OWL syntaxes
17:08:05 [Uli]
IanH: comes back to AlanR, and points out that it would introduce nasty non-determinism wrt serialisation
17:08:38 [Uli]
... and that our n-ary disjointness axioms would cause trouble
17:09:15 [Uli]
AlanR: regards this as a bug
17:09:35 [Uli]
... (to have these 2 possibilities for reading n-ary disjointness)
17:10:27 [Uli]
Bijan: sees an issue with the mapping, we need to decide what to do with it: deal with it or not
17:10:52 [Uli]
... and it would be nice to be clear on our decision in the spec
17:10:57 [Uli]
... asks for test cases
17:11:14 [Uli]
AlanR: declarations fall into similar league
17:11:30 [Uli]
MattH: disagree - we can throw them in/out
17:11:45 [Uli]
msmith: points back to issue 89
17:11:57 [Uli]
AlanR: asks whether we like declarations
17:12:28 [Uli]
Bijan: mentions that we can have both, declarations and roundtripping, but with a different mapping
17:12:45 [Uli]
oups - the last was MattH, not Bijan!
17:13:15 [Uli]
MattH: mentions discussions on the mailinglist, gives to Boris
17:13:34 [Uli]
Boris: explains that there are 2 readings of declarations
17:14:15 [Uli]
... what is the meaning of rdf:type? To be used as linting/simple syntactic check?
17:14:21 [sandro]
Boris: the point of declarations is to performing 'linting'
17:14:29 [sandro]
Bijan: there are other use cases.
17:14:41 [Uli]
Bijan: adds that we can also throw out some "used terms"
17:15:34 [Zakim]
17:15:36 [Uli]
Boris: wants to distinguish declaredAs from type.
17:16:11 [sandro]
17:16:33 [Uli]
... this will become tricky with imports. Since there is no notion of typing of RDF, things become problematic
17:17:07 [Uli]
... eg, do we need to re-declare when importing?
17:17:40 [Uli]
... in the old spec, there was no difference between "class" and "declaration"
17:18:10 [Uli]
AlanR: there wasn't even a notion of an ontology containing an axiom
17:19:01 [Uli]
Bijan: there is something about documents and ontologies (how to get one from the other)
17:19:30 [Uli]
Jeremy: suggests to use lateral thinking to solve this: use a new way of imports, namely one where
17:20:48 [Uli]
... we put import statements at the top of our ontologies and then all declarations will be there!
17:21:17 [Uli]
Boris: seems to agree that this will help tools - if i knew what the type of things are, i can use streaming mode
17:21:50 [Uli]
Bijan: if they come late, they can still be useful (eg to find typos), but they are most useful at the top
17:22:17 [Uli]
Jeremy: suggests that we can do this via searching & process imports first
17:22:54 [Uli]
Boris: asks whether typed vocabulary will be obsolote - if yes, we can re-use it
17:23:50 [Uli]
Boris: we can merge the notion of typing and declarations, but cleanly
17:24:09 [Uli]
Jeremy: wouldn't it make a difference wrt model theory
17:24:16 [Uli]
Boris: no, it's all syntax
17:25:12 [Uli]
MattH: we need orphaned entities rather than declarations
17:26:11 [Uli]
msmith: parphrases that we want to be clear whether rdf type is a declaration or ...?
17:26:32 [Uli]
Boris: can we add a class to an ontology without adding an axiom?
17:27:03 [Uli]
... declarations are a way to mention an entity outside any axiom
17:27:48 [Uli]
AlanR: asks whether in OWL11, can we have X owl:class Class?
17:28:17 [Uli]
Bijan: yes, it's in OWL Full, but it disappears in the OWL DL mapping
17:29:20 [Uli]
Sandro: wants to add next F2F meeting to agenda
17:29:29 [Uli]
Bijan: and XML syntax
17:30:00 [Uli]
Bijan: wants to see from Boris examples explicating differences and consequences of both solutions
17:30:25 [Uli]
AlanR: and we need to check our claims re. what appears/disappears in mappings
17:30:58 [Uli]
AlanR: wants to see backwards compatibility on the agenda
17:31:08 [sandro]
Topic: F2F2
17:31:25 [sandro]
April 3-4
17:31:34 [Uli]
PeterPS: April 3 and 4, in the Washington DC are, venue to be determined
17:31:37 [Rinke]
Rinke has joined #owl
17:31:53 [Uli]
... OWLED might be in the area, but perhaps not
17:32:14 [jluciano]
where is Peter you talking about
17:32:17 [Uli]
... one possibility is to make use of NIST, but access is restricted
17:32:25 [jluciano]
I might be able to host it at MITRE
17:32:37 [Uli]
EvanW: access is a bit tricky, but only first time
17:32:41 [jluciano]
Helooooo :-)
17:33:09 [Uli]
PeterPS: downtown DC or near to NIST are possible to
17:33:48 [Uli]
PeterPS: possibility to move 1 day earlier to make AlanRector happier
17:34:04 [jluciano]
Who's the NIST person?
17:34:35 [jluciano]
hand up
17:34:35 [Uli]
JLuciano: has mentioned MITRE
17:34:55 [Uli]
PeterPS: says that access at MITRE is even more difficult than at NIST
17:35:48 [Uli]
... mentions that it will be busy and that we need to book Hotels early
17:36:07 [Uli]
Bijan: offers to make use of C&P rooms
17:37:07 [Uli]
PeterPS: reinforces the need to book hotels early
17:37:43 [Uli]
PeterPS: will come up with proposal together with Kendall Clark
17:38:25 [jluciano]
how many people?
17:39:07 [Uli]
ACTION: on Peter to tell us by 2 weeks where F2F2 will be
17:39:07 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - on
17:41:10 [pfps]
ACTION: ppatelsc to tell us by 2 weeks where F2F2 will be
17:41:11 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-50 - Tell us by 2 weeks where F2F2 will be [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2007-12-14].
17:41:56 [Uli]
AlanR: wants to talk about backwards compatibility
17:42:21 [seanb]
seanb has left #owl
17:42:25 [JeffP_]
JeffP_ has joined #owl
17:42:28 [msmith]
msmith has left #owl
17:42:36 [Uli]
IanH: closes, thanks Sean Bechhofer for hosting
17:42:39 [Zhe]
17:42:48 [sandro]
17:43:32 [Zakim]
17:43:39 [Zakim]
17:43:44 [Zakim]
17:43:45 [Zakim]
SW_OWL(F2F)6:00AM has ended
17:43:47 [Zakim]
Attendees were Meeting_Room, Joanne_Luciano, +1.603.897.aaaa, Zhe, +1.518.472.aabb, jhendler, Achille
17:47:07 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
17:53:05 [thomassch]
thomassch has joined #owl
17:53:10 [thomassch]
thomassch has left #owl
20:38:52 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl
21:29:28 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
21:33:26 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl