Ian: agenda amendments
... no agenda amendments
ACCEPTED: Last telecon's minutes
Ian: people should not use IRC for chit-chat<alanr> sandro are you there?
ACTION-23 not resolved
Ian: ACTION-31 status, not done yet
Bijan: Would like to close ACTION-31
... lost the track of what is the purpose of this action
Ian: we'll abandon the remaining actions from UFDTF
... ...because neither Evan dor Deborah are here
Bijan, I didn't do that yet (I yet have to describe imports)
Ian: Does anyone need a recap of F2F?
... Nobody answered, so we'll not do it
Ian and Boris: ACTION-35 done at F2F, action closed
Ian: What else do we need to do to publish the working draft?
... we decided that the attibutions on the documents will be extended to include the editors that will do the document clean-up
Ivan: We have to wait for Sandro to come back to resolve the issue of short names in the URI of the documents
Ian: Our preference will be owl11
Ivan: We have to ask the W3C web master
Ian: Will add an action to this effect
Ivan: Questionable whether the documents will be published before Christmas
Correction by Alan: It was decided at the F2F that the attributions will be left as-is, and the authors will be responsible for producing the final documents
Ian: Does anything else need to be done?
... Nothing else needs to be done<bmotik> pfps: Sandro should push the button so that we see what needs to be done at the technical level<bmotik> Ian: good idea
pfps: We should try with the syntax document
... Other documents will be easy
Ian: bmotik and Bernardo should do one each for the semantics and RDF mapping
Iam: Sandro will produce the actual html document, and the editors (i.e., authors) will need to do some manual tweaking to the html to make if W3C OK
AlanR: The editors will make changes to the Wiki source, and Sandro will tweak the script
Ian: This might put a lot of work on Sandro
Alanr: Let's leave this open
Ian: Let's leave this item to Sandro and editors (= authors)
... we cannot fix a date, because there aer many variables open
Ivan: We can try to set ourselves a deadline
Ian: we can set our selves the goal of having the documents publishable by next week, modulo short name
... Will add action with deadlien next week to have documents in a publishable order
... I suspect there was no progress with he user-facing documents from F2F, so we can skip the topic
Alanr: I've been looking into rdf:type mapping in OWL 1.0
... removing one mapping rules will allow rdf:type to be used as declarations
... This was issue 89
Ian: ISSUE-89 not yet on the agenda; we are discussing UFD now; we'll come back to this item shortly
Alanr and Ivan: What is the operational definition of a fragment that Jim wants to define?
Ian: We might look up the definition of operational semantics in Wikipedia, but we need a clearer proposal for a fragment
... It is up to Jim to make a clear proposal that we can all understand
... It shouldn't be up to us to reconstruct his proposal
Bernardo: The proposal by Jim on RDFS 3.0 is a proper fragment of Horn-SHIQ
... I determined that it was Horn-SHIQ by a bit of guessing
Zhe: What kind of grammar are you looking for exactly?
Bijan: I would look at grammars that are presented in the existing fragments
Zhe: Can we make OWL 1.1 provide semantic conditions just like pD*
... The system should be scalable, it should process any SPARQL query
Ian: Will you take an action to come up with a more specific proposal of the syntax and semantics?
Zhe: Yez
s/Yez/yes
Jeremy: I would want to argue that pD* is a well-defined semantic fragment
... We should not limit subsets to syntactic subsets only; we should allow for semantic subsets as well
Ian: No, we're not
s/Jim#s/Jim's
Zhe: I'm waiting for Carsten to give me some paper
Bmotik: pD* is closely related to DLP - should look at that
Alanr: What do you mean by "support SPARQL query"?
Jeremy: Maybe we should wait for next year when Jim will be on call and then continue witht the discussion
Ian: Moving on to issues
Alanr: Can we all agree that pD* is a well-defined fragment?
pfps: I don't argue that pD* is ill-defined; who is doing that?
Ian: We'll look at newly reported issues (we didin't have a mechanism for accepting issues)
... Each person raising an issue should explain what an issue is about
Uli: I do have an idea what ISSUE-85 could mean
... Alan Rector thinks that this could be handled using annotation properties
ian: does this mean we should close the issue?
Uli: What Alan Rector wants is to have a special annotation property that gives hints to the reasoner how to handle certain classes
... This property does not change the model theory; it is used only for addictional syntactical checks
Ian: what is the propoal for the issue? Should be accept it and discuss it?
s/be/we
Ian: Issue accepted, Uli gets an action to explain the issue more clearly
... ISSUE-86 - that is this about?
Alanr: Need to accept it
Ian: ISSUE-87: We agreed at F2F to have rationals, so we'll accept it<alanr> Accept on rational.
Uli: We'll work out a proposal for it
... doens't mind to accept ISSUE-87 as an action item
Ian: ISSUE-88
Alanr: We should reject the issue
Ian: ISSUE-89
Alanr: We should accept the issue and resolve it when we discuss declarations
Ian: ISSUE-35 is an examlpe of such an issue
... There was some confusion about the resolution of ISSUE-13, not accept the resolution at this poitn
s/poitn/point<bmotik> Ian: ISSUE-13 will be left on the agenda for next week
Ian: ISSUE-83
Alanr: ISSUE-83 is not decidable (and will never be), so it will bever be in OWL 1.1 DL
... We can have this in OWL 1.1 Full. If the editor of OWL 1.1 wants to do this, it is at his discretion
Ivan: Alanr, are you proposing to put a feature into OWL Full without giving it semantics?
Ian: There is lots of stuff that you can have in OWL 1.1 Full
Ivan: There should be some requirement that the features included into OWL 1.1 Full should have some use case requirement, and also some implementation evidence
Ian: We don't suggest to put this into OWL 1.1 Full; we are just not prohibiting it
Jeremy: Let me summarize: Vipul means that this would be useful; OWL DL will not implement it; OWL Full will give it desired meaning, but nobody is likely to implement it
Ian: We can't resolve ISSUE-83; alanr should provide some wording in the spec
Alanr: We should come with a policy for dealing similar issues in future
Ian: Issue discussions
Jeremy: we have two concepts and we don't know when to use which
Alanr: Why do we have DataRanges in OWL 1.0?
Jeremy: DataRanges don't have a lexical value mapping
pfps: We might use rdfs:Datatype throughout
bmotik: we should stick to DataRanges because they fit well with the object model
Jeremy: We can have anonymous datatypes in RDF; they are awkward but legal
Ian: report from RIF meeting from Bijan
Ian, no we don't have the report
Ivan: Did we agree on next meeting?
Ian: Let's go to any other business
Ivan: When should we have the next telco?
Ian: Next week we should have a meeting
... We should have a meeting next week (this is too early for Christmas)
Jeremy: Some POWDER issues are relatded to OWL<bijan> POWDER: http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/
s/relatded/related
Ian: POWDER is not on the dependecy list, but we might want to use some features in OWL 1.1
<JeffP> ack \
Jeremy: POWDER people want annotation on axioms; we might look for inspiration over there
Ivan: POWDER is not on the dependency list because the charter of POWDER says that everything as the level of RDF
... The OWL consturct came up later
Ian: Jeremy will act as a liaison
Jeremy: Will erport next wee to OWL-WG on progress