OWL Working Group

Draft Minutes of 11 June 2008

Present
Ian Horrocks Boris Motik Ivan Herman Evan Wallace Markus Krötzsch Uli Sattler Michael Smith Sandro Hawke Bernardo Cuenca Grau Diego Calvanese Achille Fokoue Peter Patel-Schneider Zhe Wu Alan Ruttenberg Bijan Parsia Jeff Pan Carsten Lutz Michael Schneider
Scribe
Markus Krötzsch
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions
  1. Resolve Issue 124 as per http://www.w3.org/mid/0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A096B434@judith.fzi.de link
  2. add easy keys and top and bottom roles to the spec; review when we get to next publication round link
Topics
00:00:00 <sandro> PRESENT: IanH, bmotik, Ivan, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli, msmith, Sandro, bcuencagrau, calvanese, Achille, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe, alanru, bijan, JeffPan, clu, m_schnei
16:59:55 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/11-owl-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/11-owl-irc

16:59:55 <Zakim> bmotik, you need to end that query with '?'

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik, you need to end that query with '?'

17:00:01 <bmotik> Zakim, who is here?

Boris Motik: Zakim, who is here?

17:00:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see IanH, bmotik (muted)

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see IanH, bmotik (muted)

17:00:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, MarkusK, ivan, ewallace, IanH, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, sandro, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see RRSAgent, MarkusK, ivan, ewallace, IanH, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, sandro, trackbot

17:00:32 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip

Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip

17:00:36 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made

17:00:39 <Zakim> +Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan

17:00:40 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace

Zakim IRC Bot: +Evan_Wallace

17:00:47 <Zakim> +??P4

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4

17:00:54 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

17:00:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see IanH, bmotik (muted), Ivan, Evan_Wallace, ??P4

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see IanH, bmotik (muted), Ivan, Evan_Wallace, ??P4

17:00:55 <Zakim> On IRC I see msmith, uli, RRSAgent, MarkusK, ivan, ewallace, IanH, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, sandro, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see msmith, uli, RRSAgent, MarkusK, ivan, ewallace, IanH, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, sandro, trackbot

17:01:10 <Zakim> +??P5

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P5

17:01:13 <uli> zakim, ??P5 is me

Uli Sattler: zakim, ??P5 is me

17:01:13 <Zakim> +uli; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +uli; got it

17:01:20 <uli> zakim, mute me

Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me

17:01:20 <Zakim> uli should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted

17:01:24 <Zakim> +msmith

Zakim IRC Bot: +msmith

17:01:36 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?

Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer?

17:01:36 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/06/11-owl-irc#T17-01-36

RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/06/11-owl-irc#T17-01-36

17:01:46 <Zakim> +Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro

17:01:55 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

17:01:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see IanH, bmotik (muted), Ivan, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli (muted), msmith, Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see IanH, bmotik (muted), Ivan, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli (muted), msmith, Sandro

17:01:57 <Zakim> On IRC I see calvanese, bcuencagrau, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, MarkusK, ivan, ewallace, IanH, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, sandro, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see calvanese, bcuencagrau, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, MarkusK, ivan, ewallace, IanH, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, sandro, trackbot

17:04:00 <ivan> scribe: Markus

(Scribe set to Markus Krötzsch)

17:04:14 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

17:04:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see IanH, bmotik (muted), Ivan, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli (muted), msmith, Sandro, bcuencagrau, calvanese

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see IanH, bmotik (muted), Ivan, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli (muted), msmith, Sandro, bcuencagrau, calvanese

17:04:16 <Zakim> On IRC I see calvanese, bcuencagrau, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, MarkusK, ivan, ewallace, IanH, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, sandro, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see calvanese, bcuencagrau, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, MarkusK, ivan, ewallace, IanH, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, sandro, trackbot

17:04:29 <ewallace> Who has the machine that goes "ping"?

Evan Wallace: Who has the machine that goes "ping"?

17:04:48 <> Topic: Admin

1. Admin

17:04:48 <MarkusK> Subtopic: Agenda amendments

1.1. Agenda amendments

17:04:48 <MarkusK> no agenda amendments

no agenda amendments

17:04:54 <Zakim> +[IBM]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM]

17:05:08 <MarkusK> Subtopic: Previous minutes

1.2. Previous minutes

17:06:07 <MarkusK> Ian: can someone approve previous minutes?

Ian Horrocks: can someone approve previous minutes?

17:06:02 <uli> they aren't pretty

Uli Sattler: they aren't pretty

17:06:05 <pfps> the previous minutes were not acceptable yesterday

Peter Patel-Schneider: the previous minutes were not acceptable yesterday

17:06:22 <msmith> msmith has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.06.11/Agenda

Michael Smith: msmith has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.06.11/Agenda

17:06:33 <MarkusK> Ian: Minutes may need new mechanism to be prepared.

Ian Horrocks: Minutes may need new mechanism to be prepared.

17:06:46 <MarkusK> Sandro: The old partial minutes have confused people.

Sandro Hawke: The old partial minutes have confused people.

17:07:05 <MarkusK> Link to unformatted minutes: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Chatlog_2008-06-04

Link to unformatted minutes: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Chatlog_2008-06-04

17:07:31 <MarkusK> Sandro: the scribe should edit the IRC log and it should be reformatted later on request.

Sandro Hawke: the scribe should edit the IRC log and it should be reformatted later on request.

17:07:36 <pfps> no fixes were performed on the minutes at all -

Peter Patel-Schneider: no fixes were performed on the minutes at all -

17:08:01 <pfps> what is "the right place"?

Peter Patel-Schneider: what is "the right place"?

17:08:03 <MarkusK> Ian: previous minutes cannot be accepted yet since not many people saw the final version

Ian Horrocks: previous minutes cannot be accepted yet since not many people saw the final version

17:08:55 <MarkusK> Subtopic: F2F3 registration

1.3. F2F3 registration

17:08:55 <MarkusK> Ian: registration for F2F3 still should be completed

Ian Horrocks: registration for F2F3 still should be completed

17:09:06 <MarkusK> Topic: Action item review

2. Action item review

17:09:06 <MarkusK> Subtopic: Action 148

2.1. ACTION-148

17:09:58 <MarkusK> Achille: Review of RDF mapping document completed last week. I found them to be OK, though primer still needs to be updated. My only point was in the syntax document.

Achille Fokoue: Review of RDF mapping document completed last week. I found them to be OK, though primer still needs to be updated. My only point was in the syntax document.

17:11:34 <MarkusK> Ian: The above refered to Action 148, which was still open, though not mentioned in the agenda

Ian Horrocks: The above refered to ACTION-148, which was still open, though not mentioned in the agenda

17:12:04 <MarkusK> Ian: Action 148 completed

Ian Horrocks: ACTION-148 completed

17:12:23 <MarkusK> Ian: Boris' Action 131 shall be deferred until later

Ian Horrocks: Boris' ACTION-131 shall be deferred until later

17:12:41 <MarkusK> Subtopic: Action 42

2.2. ACTION-42

17:13:11 <MarkusK> Bijan: Action is ongoing, I hope to have it done by next week

Bijan Parsia: Action is ongoing, I hope to have it done by next week

17:13:36 <MarkusK> Subtopic: Action 147

2.3. ACTION-147

17:13:45 <MarkusK> Ian: A detailed review has been provided already.

Ian Horrocks: A detailed review has been provided already.

17:14:00 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

17:14:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see IanH, bmotik (muted), Ivan, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli (muted), msmith, Sandro, bcuencagrau (muted), calvanese (muted), Achille, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe, jar,

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see IanH, bmotik (muted), Ivan, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli (muted), msmith, Sandro, bcuencagrau (muted), calvanese (muted), Achille, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe, jar,

17:14:03 <Zakim> ... ??P8, JeffPan

Zakim IRC Bot: ... ??P8, JeffPan

17:14:04 <Zakim> On IRC I see alanr, bijan, JeffPan, JeffP, Zhe, Achille, calvanese, bcuencagrau, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, MarkusK, ivan, ewallace, IanH, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, sandro, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see alanr, bijan, JeffPan, JeffP, Zhe, Achille, calvanese, bcuencagrau, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, MarkusK, ivan, ewallace, IanH, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, sandro, trackbot

17:14:05 <MarkusK> Ian: But Michael Schneider is not on the call to comment.

Ian Horrocks: But Michael Schneider is not on the call to comment.

17:14:53 <MarkusK> Boris: I did look at Michael's review, though without checking all details.

Boris Motik: I did look at Michael's review, though without checking all details.

17:14:53 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

17:14:53 <Zakim> On the phone I see IanH, bmotik, Ivan, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli (muted), msmith, Sandro, bcuencagrau (muted), calvanese (muted), Achille, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe, jar, ??P8,

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see IanH, bmotik, Ivan, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli (muted), msmith, Sandro, bcuencagrau (muted), calvanese (muted), Achille, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe, jar, ??P8,

17:14:56 <Zakim> ... JeffPan

Zakim IRC Bot: ... JeffPan

17:14:57 <Zakim> On IRC I see alanr, bijan, JeffPan, JeffP, Zhe, Achille, calvanese, bcuencagrau, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, MarkusK, ivan, ewallace, IanH, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, sandro, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see alanr, bijan, JeffPan, JeffP, Zhe, Achille, calvanese, bcuencagrau, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, MarkusK, ivan, ewallace, IanH, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, sandro, trackbot

17:15:29 <MarkusK> Boris: The points Michael Schnieder made appear to be minor suggestions for the most part, and I will try to implement the easy comments first. I will come back with any non-obvious comments for further discussion.

Boris Motik: The points Michael Schnieder made appear to be minor suggestions for the most part, and I will try to implement the easy comments first. I will come back with any non-obvious comments for further discussion.

17:16:19 <MarkusK> Ian: Then let us close Action 147 for the moment.

Ian Horrocks: Then let us close ACTION-147 for the moment.

17:16:43 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

17:16:44 <Zakim> On the phone I see IanH, bmotik (muted), Ivan, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli (muted), msmith, Sandro, bcuencagrau (muted), calvanese (muted), Achille, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe,

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see IanH, bmotik (muted), Ivan, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli (muted), msmith, Sandro, bcuencagrau (muted), calvanese (muted), Achille, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe,

17:16:47 <Zakim> ... alanr, ??P8, JeffPan

Zakim IRC Bot: ... alanr, ??P8, JeffPan

17:16:48 <Zakim> On IRC I see m_schnei, alanr, bijan, JeffPan, JeffP, Zhe, Achille, calvanese, bcuencagrau, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, MarkusK, ivan, ewallace, IanH, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, sandro,

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see m_schnei, alanr, bijan, JeffPan, JeffP, Zhe, Achille, calvanese, bcuencagrau, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, MarkusK, ivan, ewallace, IanH, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, sandro,

17:16:50 <Zakim> ... trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: ... trackbot

17:16:57 <MarkusK> Ian: ??P8 and jar are unidentified participants who must be identified.

Ian Horrocks: ??P8 and jar are unidentified participants who must be identified.

17:17:13 <MarkusK> Bijan: I fixed this now

Bijan Parsia: I fixed this now

17:16:57 <MarkusK> (all participants have then been identified)

(all participants have then been identified)

17:17:10 <bijan> zakim, who is here?

Bijan Parsia: zakim, who is here?

17:17:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see IanH, bmotik (muted), Ivan, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli (muted), msmith, Sandro, bcuencagrau (muted), calvanese (muted), Achille, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe,

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see IanH, bmotik (muted), Ivan, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli (muted), msmith, Sandro, bcuencagrau (muted), calvanese (muted), Achille, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe,

17:17:13 <Zakim> ... alanr, bijan, JeffPan

Zakim IRC Bot: ... alanr, bijan, JeffPan

17:17:14 <Zakim> On IRC I see m_schnei, alanr, bijan, JeffPan, JeffP, Zhe, Achille, calvanese, bcuencagrau, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, MarkusK, ivan, ewallace, IanH, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, sandro,

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see m_schnei, alanr, bijan, JeffPan, JeffP, Zhe, Achille, calvanese, bcuencagrau, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, MarkusK, ivan, ewallace, IanH, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, sandro,

17:17:16 <Zakim> ... trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: ... trackbot

17:17:34 <MarkusK> Subtopic: Action 150

2.4. ACTION-150

17:17:48 <MarkusK> Ian: Jie Bao is not here to comment, so Action 150 remains open until next week.

Ian Horrocks: Jie Bao is not here to comment, so ACTION-150 remains open until next week.

17:18:34 <m_schnei> I have finished action 147

Michael Schneider: I have finished ACTION-147

17:18:20 <MarkusK> Topic: Issues

3. Issues

17:18:20 <MarkusK> Subtopic: Issue 124

3.1. ISSUE-124

17:18:46 <MarkusK> Ian: Issue 124 appeared to be a rather obvious fix for the OWL Full semantics

Ian Horrocks: ISSUE-124 appeared to be a rather obvious fix for the OWL Full semantics

17:19:14 <MarkusK> Boris: Yes, we can change the mapping to address that issue.

Boris Motik: Yes, we can change the mapping to address that issue.

17:20:00 <MarkusK> Ian: So we can propose to resolve Issue 124.

Ian Horrocks: So we can propose to resolve ISSUE-124.

17:20:21 <IanH> PROPOSED: Resolve Issue 124 as per http://www.w3.org/mid/0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A096B434@judith.fzi.de

PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-124 as per http://www.w3.org/mid/0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A096B434@judith.fzi.de

17:20:28 <bmotik> +1

Boris Motik: +1

17:20:32 <IanH> +1

Ian Horrocks: +1

17:20:36 <Zhe> +1

Zhe Wu: +1

17:20:37 <bcuencagrau> +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

17:20:40 <pfps> +1

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1

17:20:42 <sandro> 0 (sorry, not up to speed on issue)

Sandro Hawke: 0 (sorry, not up to speed on issue)

17:20:46 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

17:20:47 <JeffPan> 0

Jeff Pan: 0

17:20:49 <uli> +1

Uli Sattler: +1

17:20:50 <msmith> +1

Michael Smith: +1

17:20:55 <ewallace> +1

Evan Wallace: +1

17:20:56 <bijan> +1

Bijan Parsia: +1

17:21:12 <IanH> RESOLVED: Resolve Issue 124 as per http://www.w3.org/mid/0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A096B434@judith.fzi.de

RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-124 as per http://www.w3.org/mid/0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A096B434@judith.fzi.de

17:21:17 <clu> Sorry for being late.

Carsten Lutz: Sorry for being late.

17:18:20 <MarkusK> Subtopic: Issue 104

3.2. ISSUE-104

17:21:46 <MarkusK> Ian: Issue 104 was discussed in many emails, and many people raised concerns.

Ian Horrocks: ISSUE-104 was discussed in many emails, and many people raised concerns.

17:23:02 <MarkusK> Boris: One issue is that reification and collections are the only ones that make sense to take out of the reserved vocabulary.

Boris Motik: One issue is that reification and collections are the only ones that make sense to take out of the reserved vocabulary.

17:23:46 <MarkusK> Boris: I sent a proposal for having a shadow-vocabulary for OWL, but this met little approval.

Boris Motik: I sent a proposal for having a shadow-vocabulary for OWL, but this met little approval.

17:23:52 <alanr> The proposal was to define our own terminology for the serialization.

Alan Ruttenberg: The proposal was to define our own terminology for the serialization.

17:24:16 <MarkusK> Boris: the technical problem is that we have no ObjectProperty/DatatypeProperty puning, hence vocabulary like rdf:first are not easy to define in OWL: one would have to asign a fixed type.

Boris Motik: the technical problem is that we have no ObjectProperty/DatatypeProperty puning, hence vocabulary like rdf:first are not easy to define in OWL: one would have to asign a fixed type.

17:24:44 <alanr> We need not assign a type in the language - leave it to the modeler.

Alan Ruttenberg: We need not assign a type in the language - leave it to the modeler.

17:25:14 <MarkusK> Boris: rdf:first may then get many types in different applications and I thus propose to not allow it to be used in OWL DL vocabulary. Otherwise modelling could become very messy.

Boris Motik: rdf:first may then get many types in different applications and I thus propose to not allow it to be used in OWL DL vocabulary. Otherwise modelling could become very messy.

17:25:15 <bijan> Or a shadow vocabulary

Bijan Parsia: Or a shadow vocabulary

17:25:43 <MarkusK> AlanR: There were various proposals to address this. One was to have an OWL shadow vocabulary, such as owl:first, to resolve possible typing conflicts. The other proposal was to admit rdf:first and leave typing to modellers. One would then need to use OWL Full if conflicting types for collection properties would occur.

Alan Ruttenberg: There were various proposals to address this. One was to have an OWL shadow vocabulary, such as owl:first, to resolve possible typing conflicts. The other proposal was to admit rdf:first and leave typing to modellers. One would then need to use OWL Full if conflicting types for collection properties would occur.

17:26:20 <m_schnei> in my mail I argue for not treat lists at all in OWL DL, so people may declare it to be either a data or a object property, if they wish

Michael Schneider: in my mail I argue for not treat lists at all in OWL DL, so people may declare it to be either a data or a object property, if they wish

17:26:52 <m_schnei> The property rdf:first would then be just an URI like any other

Michael Schneider: The property rdf:first would then be just an URI like any other

17:27:12 <msmith> q+ to ask what use case shadow vocab addresses

Michael Smith: q+ to ask what use case shadow vocab addresses

17:27:37 <alanr> "messy" is subjective

Alan Ruttenberg: "messy" is subjective

17:28:14 <bijan> Subjective considerations aren't invalid (as we've seen :))

Bijan Parsia: Subjective considerations aren't invalid (as we've seen :))

17:27:41 <MarkusK> Boris: I do think that having an explicit type for rdf:first would be no good modelling practice. Ontologies should not contain declarations for such properties, and I would rather like to not have it.

Boris Motik: I do think that having an explicit type for rdf:first would be no good modelling practice. Ontologies should not contain declarations for such properties, and I would rather like to not have it.

17:27:53 <alanr> then owl full

Alan Ruttenberg: then owl full

17:27:59 <m_schnei> a shadow vocabulary for lists can be used /always/ by users - no need to say anything about it

Michael Schneider: a shadow vocabulary for lists can be used /always/ by users - no need to say anything about it

17:28:37 <alanr> shadow was for internal use

Alan Ruttenberg: shadow was for internal use

17:28:38 <bijan> Interop

Bijan Parsia: Interop

17:28:52 <MarkusK> MSmith: I exactly agree with Boris. I see no use case for a shadow vocabulary though.

Michael Smith: I exactly agree with Boris. I see no use case for a shadow vocabulary though.

17:29:05 <alanr> yes

Alan Ruttenberg: yes

17:29:15 <alanr> reverse mapping

Alan Ruttenberg: reverse mapping

17:29:18 <alanr> fixes this

Alan Ruttenberg: fixes this

17:29:31 <alanr> not

Alan Ruttenberg: not

17:29:50 <alanr> billions and billions

Alan Ruttenberg: billions and billions

17:29:53 <msmith> yes

Michael Smith: yes

17:29:54 <alanr> served

Alan Ruttenberg: served

17:30:15 <bmotik> By the way, I have just fixed the mapping document regarding owl:datatypeComplementOf.

Boris Motik: By the way, I have just fixed the mapping document regarding owl:datatypeComplementOf.

17:30:19 <MarkusK> Ivan: Existing OWL ontologies may already use RDF constructs, so it is not clear that we even have an option for disallowing that now in OWL 2.

Ivan Herman: Existing OWL ontologies may already use RDF constructs, so it is not clear that we even have an option for disallowing that now in OWL 2.

17:30:52 <MarkusK> AlanR: the shadow vocabulary would be for our own serialisation, not for users. Restricting uses of rdf:first in a certain way may still be better than not allowing it at all.

Alan Ruttenberg: the shadow vocabulary would be for our own serialisation, not for users. Restricting uses of rdf:first in a certain way may still be better than not allowing it at all.

17:32:17 <msmith> I am now confused about the intended use of the "shadow vocabulary"

Michael Smith: I am now confused about the intended use of the "shadow vocabulary"

17:32:32 <ivan> msmith, you are not the only one:-)

Ivan Herman: msmith, you are not the only one:-)

17:33:05 <alanr> idea is that we use owl:first, owl:next, owl:nil in our serialization

Alan Ruttenberg: idea is that we use owl:first, owl:next, owl:nil in our serialization

17:33:29 <MarkusK> Boris: switching from RDF lists to something else in serialisation seems to be no good idea. Many ontologies are also already using RDF lists.

Boris Motik: switching from RDF lists to something else in serialisation seems to be no good idea. Many ontologies are also already using RDF lists.

17:33:30 <ivan> +1 to boris

Ivan Herman: +1 to boris

17:33:29 <MarkusK> Boris: But I think it is not a major backwards compatibility issue.

Boris Motik: But I think it is not a major backwards compatibility issue.

17:33:54 <alanr> I'd like the backwards compatibility case spelled out clearly, please

Alan Ruttenberg: I'd like the backwards compatibility case spelled out clearly, please

17:34:07 <bijan> I think mike was looking for the utility of the shadow vocabulary

Bijan Parsia: I think mike was looking for the utility of the shadow vocabulary

17:34:15 <bijan> I wonder that so many people can't understand mike :)

Bijan Parsia: I wonder that so many people can't understand mike :)

17:35:25 <MarkusK> Boris: I proposed the shadow vocabulary, so that users are freed of some burdon reinventing vocabulary for standard tasks.

Boris Motik: I proposed the shadow vocabulary, so that users are freed of some burdon reinventing vocabulary for standard tasks.

17:35:38 <ivan> +1 again to Boris

Ivan Herman: +1 again to Boris

17:35:29 <alanr> Can't introduce it to the RDFS users - they are the ones that we want to bring in to the fold

Alan Ruttenberg: Can't introduce it to the RDFS users - they are the ones that we want to bring in to the fold

17:35:41 <MarkusK> Boris: But the drawback is that we get into modelling discussions here. We cannot really reason about lists logically.

Boris Motik: But the drawback is that we get into modelling discussions here. We cannot really reason about lists logically.

17:36:09 <alanr> q+ to say we are *not* getting into modelling. We are getting out of the way of modelers.

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ to say we are *not* getting into modelling. We are getting out of the way of modelers.

17:36:34 <MarkusK> Boris: the list is just a part of data, not a true semantic construct.

Boris Motik: the list is just a part of data, not a true semantic construct.

17:36:23 <alanr> no no

Alan Ruttenberg: no no

17:36:29 <alanr> we are trying to let more rdf be owl

Alan Ruttenberg: we are trying to let more rdf be owl

17:36:41 <alanr> they can all be defined as annotation properties if need be

Alan Ruttenberg: they can all be defined as annotation properties if need be

17:37:12 <MarkusK> Bijan: I second Boris' concern on the lack of utility of the list vocabulary. I often suggest to users to not employ RDF collections or containers in OWL ontologies. In our practical experience, users were willing to use a custom vocabulary to model lists. It is usually easy to migrate RDF lists to some custom vocabulary.

Bijan Parsia: I second Boris' concern on the lack of utility of the list vocabulary. I often suggest to users to not employ RDF collections or containers in OWL ontologies. In our practical experience, users were willing to use a custom vocabulary to model lists. It is usually easy to migrate RDF lists to some custom vocabulary.

17:37:29 <alanr> this is clearly getting in to the modeling business - we think it is bad modeling, so we will forbid it?

Alan Ruttenberg: this is clearly getting in to the modeling business - we think it is bad modeling, so we will forbid it?

17:38:10 <m_schnei> do i understand this right? rdf:first as an annotation property? and if a reasoner throws away all annotations? then there are a lot of unconnected nodes around. :)

Michael Schneider: do i understand this right? rdf:first as an annotation property? and if a reasoner throws away all annotations? then there are a lot of unconnected nodes around. :)

17:38:28 <bmotik> Alan, we will prohibit the usage of rdf:List for technical reasons that are not negligible. People can model lists using their own vocabulary if they want.

Boris Motik: Alan, we will prohibit the usage of rdf:List for technical reasons that are not negligible. People can model lists using their own vocabulary if they want.

17:38:47 <alanr> I don't see the technical reasons as being very much

Alan Ruttenberg: I don't see the technical reasons as being very much

17:38:57 <alanr> just not convinced

Alan Ruttenberg: just not convinced

17:39:06 <bijan> "seeing" is subjective :)

Bijan Parsia: "seeing" is subjective :)

17:39:15 <sandro> what about promoting a standard list vocabulary?

Sandro Hawke: what about promoting a standard list vocabulary?

17:39:37 <MarkusK> Pfps: Where exactly are RDF lists used in OWL ontologies?

Peter Patel-Schneider: Where exactly are RDF lists used in OWL ontologies?

17:39:47 <MarkusK> Ivan: Mostly in the serialisation of OWL.

Ivan Herman: Mostly in the serialisation of OWL.

17:39:41 <sandro> (owl:ObjectList and owl:DataList, etc.... )

Sandro Hawke: (owl:ObjectList and owl:DataList, etc.... )

17:39:43 <alanr> if it can be done unambiguously then great!

Alan Ruttenberg: if it can be done unambiguously then great!

17:39:48 <bijan> sandro, without proper list semantics?

Bijan Parsia: sandro, without proper list semantics?

17:39:55 <sandro> no, with.

Sandro Hawke: no, with.

17:40:00 <bmotik> What is the proper list semantics?

Boris Motik: What is the proper list semantics?

17:40:06 <bijan> Now we're out of first order logic at least

Bijan Parsia: Now we're out of first order logic at least

17:40:07 <bmotik> Lists cannot be modeled semantically!

Boris Motik: Lists cannot be modeled semantically!

17:40:08 <m_schnei> there are no RDF lists customly used in OWL DL, since this is not allowed :)

Michael Schneider: there are no RDF lists customly used in OWL DL, since this is not allowed :)

17:40:18 <bmotik> Yes, in FOL, I meant.

Boris Motik: Yes, in FOL, I meant.

17:40:19 <bijan> Since normally lists are well founded and defined with transitive closure

Bijan Parsia: Since normally lists are well founded and defined with transitive closure

17:40:27 <alanr> any ontology that uses owl2:first is owl 2

Alan Ruttenberg: any ontology that uses owl2:first is owl 2

17:40:45 <alanr> every ontology that is owl2 is serialized with mention of owl2:first

Alan Ruttenberg: every ontology that is owl2 is serialized with mention of owl2:first

17:40:51 <msmith> the times I have seen lists in OWL, the type of items is also restricted, which would require specializing any "standard" shadow vocabulary

Michael Smith: the times I have seen lists in OWL, the type of items is also restricted, which would require specializing any "standard" shadow vocabulary

17:40:54 <ivan> :-)

Ivan Herman: :-)

17:41:19 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to say we are *not* getting in to modeling. We are getting out of the way of modelers.

Zakim IRC Bot: alanr, you wanted to say we are *not* getting in to modeling. We are getting out of the way of modelers.

17:41:51 <MarkusK> Alanr: I do not think that we truly need to use a shadow vocabulary. A shadow vocabulary would be closed, hence one can check for occurrences of this vocabulary to decide if a serialisation belongs to OWL 2. OWL should allow lists as data, since people adopt them due to their syntactic simpliciy in Turtle and SPARQL.

Alan Ruttenberg: I do not think that we truly need to use a shadow vocabulary. A shadow vocabulary would be closed, hence one can check for occurrences of this vocabulary to decide if a serialisation belongs to OWL 2. OWL should allow lists as data, since people adopt them due to their syntactic simpliciy in Turtle and SPARQL.

17:42:32 <bijan> http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.1/generic/ObjectList.owl

Bijan Parsia: http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.1/generic/ObjectList.owl

17:42:40 <pfps> if you don't use owl2 vocabulary but do use lists in an object sense, are you in owl1 then?

Peter Patel-Schneider: if you don't use owl2 vocabulary but do use lists in an object sense, are you in owl1 then?

17:43:08 <sandro> q+ to support Alan

Sandro Hawke: q+ to support Alan

17:43:15 <alanr> michael is not here, he supports

Alan Ruttenberg: michael is not here, he supports

17:44:17 <MarkusK> AlanR: Michael may also support my position, but is not on the call. I am certainly not convinced by the current arguments against it.

Alan Ruttenberg: Michael may also support my position, but is not on the call. I am certainly not convinced by the current arguments against it.

17:44:53 <MarkusK> MarkusK: There was some confusion here. I have not voiced any oppinion on this issue, I am scribing.

Markus Krötzsch: There was some confusion here. I have not voiced any oppinion on this issue, I am scribing.

17:45:05 <alanr> sorry - my mistake

Alan Ruttenberg: sorry - my mistake

17:45:59 <alanr> http://bibliontology.com/

Alan Ruttenberg: http://bibliontology.com/

17:46:22 <MarkusK> Sandro: can we have a straw poll to get some impression here? At least to measure general motivation in the group. Proposed strawpoll: It would be nice, if we can find a workable technical solution, to support RDF List in OWL DL.

Sandro Hawke: can we have a straw poll to get some impression here? At least to measure general motivation in the group. Proposed strawpoll: It would be nice, if we can find a workable technical solution, to support RDF List in OWL DL.

17:46:05 <ewallace> +1 to Sandro's suggestion

Evan Wallace: +1 to Sandro's suggestion

17:46:37 <msmith> alanr, what part of that ontology?

Michael Smith: alanr, what part of that ontology?

17:46:10 <alanr> exactly

Alan Ruttenberg: exactly

17:46:50 <alanr> hunting - discussion was in email

Alan Ruttenberg: hunting - discussion was in email

17:46:58 <MarkusK> Ian: still some speakers on the queue first

Ian Horrocks: still some speakers on the queue first

17:47:15 <alanr> http://bibliontology.com/#term_contributorList

Alan Ruttenberg: http://bibliontology.com/#term_contributorList

17:47:39 <MarkusK> Boris: the technical questions seem to be rather severe. Changing the vocabulary is not a trivial change. Using things such as rdf:first in conjunction with OWL constructs such as nominals may have unexpected/complex consequences both in OWL DL and in OWL Full.

Boris Motik: the technical questions seem to be rather severe. Changing the vocabulary is not a trivial change. Using things such as rdf:first in conjunction with OWL constructs such as nominals may have unexpected/complex consequences both in OWL DL and in OWL Full.

17:49:18 <m_schnei> In OWL Full, there isn't any restriction on the use of rdf:first, anyway

Michael Schneider: In OWL Full, there isn't any restriction on the use of rdf:first, anyway

17:49:39 <MarkusK> Bijan: I see a user need for expressing lists, but we can leave it to implementors and future work to properly solve that

Bijan Parsia: I see a user need for expressing lists, but we can leave it to implementors and future work to properly solve that

17:49:08 <alanr> Could we get documentation on how Pellet accomodates?

Alan Ruttenberg: Could we get documentation on how Pellet accomodates?

17:49:35 <bijan> See the code :)

Bijan Parsia: See the code :)

17:50:11 <alanr> yes, will check code, but if you could give a hint, that would be greatly appreciated ;-)

Alan Ruttenberg: yes, will check code, but if you could give a hint, that would be greatly appreciated ;-)

17:51:30 <bijan> I don't know off hand

Bijan Parsia: I don't know off hand

17:50:02 <IanH> STRAWPOLL: It would be nice, if we can find a workable technical solution, to support RDF List in OWL DL.

PROPOSED: It would be nice, if we can find a workable technical solution, to support RDF List in OWL DL.

17:50:13 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

17:50:15 <alanr> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

17:50:16 <bijan> That's the straw poll?

Bijan Parsia: That's the straw poll?

17:50:22 <msmith> +1 it would be nice.  it doesn't seem feasible

Michael Smith: +1 it would be nice. it doesn't seem feasible

17:50:25 <Achille> +1

Achille Fokoue: +1

17:50:26 <JeffPan> 0-

Jeff Pan: 0-

17:50:28 <pfps> +1, in the same sense that it would be nice to have rules, self-knowledge, etc., etc.

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1, in the same sense that it would be nice to have rules, self-knowledge, etc., etc.

17:50:31 <m_schnei> +1 (would be nice, but no shaddow vocab)

Michael Schneider: +1 (would be nice, but no shaddow vocab)

17:50:35 <ewallace> +0

Evan Wallace: +0

17:50:35 <Zhe> +1 would be nice

Zhe Wu: +1 would be nice

17:50:37 <ivan> +1 would be nice...

Ivan Herman: +1 would be nice...

17:50:37 <uli> +1 but not too optimistic

Uli Sattler: +1 but not too optimistic

17:50:41 <bmotik> +1 it would be nice, but I strongly doubt we can solve this

Boris Motik: +1 it would be nice, but I strongly doubt we can solve this

17:50:43 <alanr> +1 to transmutation

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 to transmutation

17:50:46 <bcuencagrau> 0

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: 0

17:50:49 <bijan> +0 but I wouldn't mind free puppies either

Bijan Parsia: +0 but I wouldn't mind free puppies either

17:50:49 <clu> 0

Carsten Lutz: 0

17:51:08 <pfps> who is going to bell this cat?

Peter Patel-Schneider: who is going to bell this cat?

17:51:13 <bijan> Er... if someone wants to , they should do so

Bijan Parsia: Er... if someone wants to , they should do so

17:51:14 <alanr> Can we get a list of issues to start?

Alan Ruttenberg: Can we get a list of issues to start?

17:51:15 <MarkusK> Sandro: maybe a follow-up straw poll on the amount of resources to invest in the issue would be useful

Sandro Hawke: maybe a follow-up straw poll on the amount of resources to invest in the issue would be useful

17:51:43 <m_schnei> for me, the question is, whether we can just say /nothing/ about RDF lists, and it would work

Michael Schneider: for me, the question is, whether we can just say /nothing/ about RDF lists, and it would work

17:52:11 <MarkusK> Ian: are there volunteers for trying to solve the problem?

Ian Horrocks: are there volunteers for trying to solve the problem?

17:51:44 <alanr> I will volunteer if Michael Schneider will

Alan Ruttenberg: I will volunteer if Michael Schneider will

17:52:22 <m_schnei> I don't know what to volunteer for, but if it sounds good, I will do it ;-)

Michael Schneider: I don't know what to volunteer for, but if it sounds good, I will do it ;-)

17:52:22 <msmith> I can talk to you about Pellet

Michael Smith: I can talk to you about Pellet

17:52:36 <m_schnei> please say in irc, alan!

Michael Schneider: please say in irc, alan!

17:52:56 <alanr> yes

Alan Ruttenberg: yes

17:52:56 <MarkusK> Ian: AlanR and Michael Schneider shall pursue the issue

Ian Horrocks: AlanR and Michael Schneider shall pursue the issue

17:53:15 <MarkusK> Alanr: I will start by compiling a list of concerns that were raised so far.

Alan Ruttenberg: I will start by compiling a list of concerns that were raised so far.

17:53:47 <alanr> action: Alan to work with M_schnei to collect, propose how to address issues in making rdf list vocabulary

ACTION: Alan to work with M_schnei to collect, propose how to address issues in making rdf list vocabulary

17:53:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-159 - Work with M_schnei to collect, propose how to address issues in making rdf list vocabulary  [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-06-18].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-159 - Work with M_schnei to collect, propose how to address issues in making rdf list vocabulary [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-06-18].

17:54:16 <m_schnei> OK, people, I need to stop for about 15 minutes. My battery is down. Sorry!

Michael Schneider: OK, people, I need to stop for about 15 minutes. My battery is down. Sorry!

17:54:23 <m_schnei> bye for now!

Michael Schneider: bye for now!

17:54:18 <MarkusK> Ian: discussion on "at risk" features such as EasyKeys, especially regarding whether or not such features should appear in the spec with an appropriate disclaimer. Any comments?

Ian Horrocks: discussion on "at risk" features such as EasyKeys, especially regarding whether or not such features should appear in the spec with an appropriate disclaimer. Any comments?

17:53:57 <bijan> nary!

Bijan Parsia: nary!

17:56:12 <MarkusK> Bijan: Many discussions are not finished yet at the current state, and we still need to gather more information. We need to decide on the current status of each feature, and we can add our concerns to the spec to gather feedback. "At risk" comments are not a problem, I would like the features to be in the spec in general.

Bijan Parsia: Many discussions are not finished yet at the current state, and we still need to gather more information. We need to decide on the current status of each feature, and we can add our concerns to the spec to gather feedback. "At risk" comments are not a problem, I would like the features to be in the spec in general.

17:57:05 <bijan> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Easy_Keys#Spec_Proposal

Bijan Parsia: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Easy_Keys#Spec_Proposal

17:57:09 <sandro> +1 Bijan add them now, no need for "At Risk"

Sandro Hawke: +1 Bijan add them now, no need for "At Risk"

17:57:46 <bijan> q+ to mention spec work

Bijan Parsia: q+ to mention spec work

17:57:48 <MarkusK> Boris: I do not like to add feartures to the spec now that we may remove later on. I would prefer to first do some investigations, and then start modifying the spec.

Boris Motik: I do not like to add feartures to the spec now that we may remove later on. I would prefer to first do some investigations, and then start modifying the spec.

17:58:43 <MarkusK> Bijan: For EasyKeys, extending the spec should not be hard, since the existing text is almost ready for use in the spec. I agree that implementation experiences are good, but adding the features to the spec would still help to gather more feedback.

Bijan Parsia: For EasyKeys, extending the spec should not be hard, since the existing text is almost ready for use in the spec. I agree that implementation experiences are good, but adding the features to the spec would still help to gather more feedback.

18:00:37 <bmotik> My main comment is that it is not only the structural spec that changes: most of the documents will need to change.

Boris Motik: My main comment is that it is not only the structural spec that changes: most of the documents will need to change.

18:00:59 <bijan> Boris, yes, I'm working on bits for rdf mapping and sematncis as well

Bijan Parsia: Boris, yes, I'm working on bits for rdf mapping and sematncis as well

17:59:23 <MarkusK> Ian: do you generally consider these features to be modular?

Ian Horrocks: do you generally consider these features to be modular?

17:59:41 <MarkusK> Bijan: EasyKeys and Top/Bottom properties both seem to be modular.

Bijan Parsia: EasyKeys and Top/Bottom properties both seem to be modular.

17:59:48 <MarkusK> Boris: I agree.

Boris Motik: I agree.

17:59:48 <bijan> yep

Bijan Parsia: yep

17:59:53 <MarkusK> Ian: I will prepare a straw poll.

Ian Horrocks: I will prepare a straw poll.

18:00:36 <IanH> STRAWPOLL: easy keys and top and bottom roles should be added to spec with comment that they could be removed later if implementation experience is negative.

PROPOSED: easy keys and top and bottom roles should be added to spec with comment that they could be removed later if implementation experience is negative.

18:00:45 <bmotik> But I can live with  that

Boris Motik: But I can live with that

18:00:50 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

18:00:57 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

18:00:58 <Achille> +1

Achille Fokoue: +1

18:00:59 <uli> +1

Uli Sattler: +1

18:01:00 <Zhe> +1

Zhe Wu: +1

18:01:00 <clu> +1

Carsten Lutz: +1

18:01:00 <bijan> +1

Bijan Parsia: +1

18:01:01 <ewallace> +1

Evan Wallace: +1

18:01:05 <msmith> +1

Michael Smith: +1

18:01:05 <alanr> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

18:01:06 <bmotik> -0

Boris Motik: -0

18:01:09 <JeffPan> 0-

Jeff Pan: 0-

18:01:10 <bcuencagrau> 0

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: 0

18:01:18 <pfps> +0

Peter Patel-Schneider: +0

18:01:28 <alanr> is -0 = 0- ?

Alan Ruttenberg: is -0 = 0- ?

18:01:44 <MarkusK> Ian: so it seems that it is OK for the group to add both with some comment.

Ian Horrocks: so it seems that it is OK for the group to add both with some comment.

18:01:38 <bmotik> Frankly, we don't need a comment.

Boris Motik: Frankly, we don't need a comment.

18:01:39 <alanr> which can also be read as "is someone looking"

Alan Ruttenberg: which can also be read as "is someone looking"

18:02:07 <bijan> A joint action?

Bijan Parsia: A joint action?

18:02:08 <MarkusK> Boris: Is that a resolution? Shall we have an action?

Boris Motik: Is that a resolution? Shall we have an action?

18:02:12 <bijan> We'd need a resolution.

Bijan Parsia: We'd need a resolution.

18:02:17 <MarkusK> Ian: I think so.

Ian Horrocks: I think so.

18:02:25 <alanr> absolutely

Alan Ruttenberg: absolutely

18:02:51 <MarkusK> Bijan: we first need an official resolution.

Bijan Parsia: we first need an official resolution.

18:03:34 <MarkusK> AlanR: we can also consider that again before the next publication.

Alan Ruttenberg: we can also consider that again before the next publication.

18:03:34 <IanH> PROPOSED: add easy keys and top and bottom roles to the spec; review when we get to next publication round

PROPOSED: add easy keys and top and bottom roles to the spec; review when we get to next publication round

18:03:49 <bijan> +1

Bijan Parsia: +1

18:03:54 <alanr> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

18:03:55 <bmotik> +1

Boris Motik: +1

18:04:00 <Zhe> +1

Zhe Wu: +1

18:04:02 <bcuencagrau> +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

18:04:05 <IanH> +1

Ian Horrocks: +1

18:04:06 <JeffPan> +1

Jeff Pan: +1

18:04:09 <uli> +1

Uli Sattler: +1

18:04:13 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

18:04:21 <msmith> +!

Michael Smith: +!

18:04:24 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

18:04:29 <msmith> +1

Michael Smith: +1

18:04:33 <pfps> +0

Peter Patel-Schneider: +0

18:04:34 <ewallace> +1

Evan Wallace: +1

18:04:36 <clu> +1

Carsten Lutz: +1

18:04:42 <IanH> RESOLVED: add easy keys and top and bottom roles to the spec; review when we get to next publication round

RESOLVED: add easy keys and top and bottom roles to the spec; review when we get to next publication round

18:03:42 <bmotik> ACTION: bmotik2 to Add easy keys and Top and Bottom role to the spec

ACTION: bmotik2 to Add easy keys and Top and Bottom role to the spec

18:03:42 <trackbot> Created ACTION-160 - Add easy keys and Top and Bottom role to the spec [on Boris Motik - due 2008-06-18].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-160 - Add easy keys and Top and Bottom role to the spec [on Boris Motik - due 2008-06-18].

18:05:08 <MarkusK> Subtopic: Issue 109

3.3. ISSUE-109

18:05:24 <MarkusK> Ian: are there new technical arguments on that or shall we just vote?

Ian Horrocks: are there new technical arguments on that or shall we just vote?

18:06:26 <MarkusK> AlanR: Ivan and Bijan might be able to reach an agreement.

Alan Ruttenberg: Ivan and Bijan might be able to reach an agreement.

18:06:49 <MarkusK> Ivan: Bijan and I tried to compile all pros and cons to support the decision. The working group now has to consider these and make a decision.

Ivan Herman: Bijan and I tried to compile all pros and cons to support the decision. The working group now has to consider these and make a decision.

18:07:16 <IanH> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jun/0031.html

Ian Horrocks: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jun/0031.html

18:07:44 <MarkusK> Ian: The email is rather long, so we should give people the chance of reading the email. Who read it already?

Ian Horrocks: The email is rather long, so we should give people the chance of reading the email. Who read it already?

18:07:42 <ivan> i did

Ivan Herman: i did

18:07:44 <uli> I did

Uli Sattler: I did

18:07:45 <pfps> me

Peter Patel-Schneider: me

18:07:45 <bijan> I did

Bijan Parsia: I did

18:07:49 <alanr> me

Alan Ruttenberg: me

18:07:59 <sandro> I didn't.  :-(

Sandro Hawke: I didn't. :-(

18:08:00 <bijan> Michael did

Bijan Parsia: Michael did

18:08:01 <Achille> I did not

Achille Fokoue: I did not

18:08:03 <ewallace> I didn't

Evan Wallace: I didn't

18:08:06 <Zhe> am reading it now

Zhe Wu: am reading it now

18:08:07 <bcuencagrau> I didn't

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: I didn't

18:08:16 <JeffPan>  I just did but didn't finish

Jeff Pan: I just did but didn't finish

18:08:29 <alanr> action to all who haven't read it?

Alan Ruttenberg: action to all who haven't read it?

18:08:29 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - to

18:09:12 <MarkusK> Ian: I will postpone that to next week, and every participant next week should be prepared to vote on that issue, i.e. should have read the email. So the issue will be voted on next week.

Ian Horrocks: I will postpone that to next week, and every participant next week should be prepared to vote on that issue, i.e. should have read the email. So the issue will be voted on next week.

18:09:13 <alanr> is BIJAN one of the options?

Alan Ruttenberg: is BIJAN one of the options?

18:09:23 <bijan> Ivan did a good job with the email

Bijan Parsia: Ivan did a good job with the email

18:09:24 <alanr> bijan :someValuesFrom

Alan Ruttenberg: bijan :someValuesFrom

18:10:48 <MarkusK> Subtopic: Issues 21 and 24

3.4. Issues 21 and 24

18:11:03 <MarkusK> Ian: are we ready to try to resolve those?

Ian Horrocks: are we ready to try to resolve those?

18:10:45 <bmotik> +1 to resolve these issues

Boris Motik: +1 to resolve these issues

18:11:40 <MarkusK> AlanR: I think we should announce it on the agenda for next week

Alan Ruttenberg: I think we should announce it on the agenda for next week

18:12:17 <MarkusK> Pfps: when putting the issues on the agenda, the concrete proposals should be made explicit as well, especially for Issue 24

Peter Patel-Schneider: when putting the issues on the agenda, the concrete proposals should be made explicit as well, especially for ISSUE-24

18:12:01 <alanr> 24 reject, no inconsistencies

Alan Ruttenberg: 24 reject, no inconsistencies

18:12:41 <MarkusK> Ian: Alan and I will prepare a wording for both proposals

Ian Horrocks: Alan and I will prepare a wording for both proposals

18:12:51 <MarkusK> Subtopic: Issue 111

3.5. ISSUE-111

18:12:51 <MarkusK> (User intent signaling)

(User intent signaling)

18:13:11 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?

Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call?

18:13:11 <Zakim> On the phone I see IanH, bmotik, Ivan, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli (muted), msmith, Sandro, bcuencagrau (muted), calvanese (muted), Achille, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe, alanr,

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see IanH, bmotik, Ivan, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli (muted), msmith, Sandro, bcuencagrau (muted), calvanese (muted), Achille, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe, alanr,

18:13:14 <Zakim> ... bijan, JeffPan, clu (muted), m_schnei (muted)

Zakim IRC Bot: ... bijan, JeffPan, clu (muted), m_schnei (muted)

18:13:59 <MarkusK> AlanR: I thought of the case where someone writes an ontology that needs to be interpreted correctly, e.g. for exchanging messages. The idea of "intents" is not so clear in some other use cases. Some ontology building tools may support only a particular profile of OWL 2, but should they add an intent to their ontologies? The main use case I really see is when one strictly requires specific conclusions to be drawn and specifies an intent for that.

Alan Ruttenberg: I thought of the case where someone writes an ontology that needs to be interpreted correctly, e.g. for exchanging messages. The idea of "intents" is not so clear in some other use cases. Some ontology building tools may support only a particular profile of OWL 2, but should they add an intent to their ontologies? The main use case I really see is when one strictly requires specific conclusions to be drawn and specifies an intent for that.

18:15:35 <alanr> Sandro, were you not concerned about this one too?

Alan Ruttenberg: Sandro, were you not concerned about this one too?

18:15:50 <sandro> absolutely

Sandro Hawke: absolutely

18:17:09 <alanr> one question is whether I must use wsdl for message

Alan Ruttenberg: one question is whether I must use wsdl for message

18:18:19 <bijan> alanr, if not wsdl, some description, perhaps english

Bijan Parsia: alanr, if not wsdl, some description, perhaps english

18:15:16 <MarkusK> Bijan: I raised this issue but would like to withdraw it now. I agree that the use of "intents" is not always clear. Having intents in ontologies may eventually create more noise. You can always do the work-around of including an OWL Full tautology in your DL, if you want to tell people it's OWL Full. Overall, the issue appears to get more complicated than first expected. Thus I propose to defer that until we may have more experiences.

Bijan Parsia: I raised this issue but would like to withdraw it now. I agree that the use of "intents" is not always clear. Having intents in ontologies may eventually create more noise. You can always do the work-around of including an OWL Full tautology in your DL, if you want to tell people it's OWL Full. Overall, the issue appears to get more complicated than first expected. Thus I propose to defer that until we may have more experiences.

18:18:40 <m_schnei> conventions might arise outside the WG, where people use an rdfs:comment on the ontology header which tells the profile

Michael Schneider: conventions might arise outside the WG, where people use an rdfs:comment on the ontology header which tells the profile

18:19:22 <alanr> what about dl versus r?

Alan Ruttenberg: what about dl versus r?

18:19:56 <MarkusK> Sandro: there are non-entailments for OWL-R that are entailed by other OWL versions.

Sandro Hawke: there are non-entailments for OWL-R that are entailed by other OWL versions.

18:20:12 <bmotik> Not at the OWL R DL side: if you're in OWL R DL, then the entailements coincide with OWL 2 DL

Boris Motik: Not at the OWL R DL side: if you're in OWL R DL, then the entailements coincide with OWL 2 DL

18:20:26 <m_schnei> OWL R Full is both a /syntactic/ AND a /semantic/ subset of Full

Michael Schneider: OWL R Full is both a /syntactic/ AND a /semantic/ subset of Full

18:20:37 <MarkusK> Bijan: I thought that OWL-R would be a syntactic fragment that entails all consequences that the larger fragments would entail. If this is not true for OWL-R Full, I would consider this a bug in OWL-R Full

Bijan Parsia: I thought that OWL-R would be a syntactic fragment that entails all consequences that the larger fragments would entail. If this is not true for OWL-R Full, I would consider this a bug in OWL-R Full

18:20:48 <alanr> we discussed this in detail at the last f2f

Alan Ruttenberg: we discussed this in detail at the last f2f

18:21:00 <alanr> so patient...

Alan Ruttenberg: so patient...

18:21:01 <bijan> Then I didn't understand it in detail at the last f2f

Bijan Parsia: Then I didn't understand it in detail at the last f2f

18:21:06 <bijan> Are there examples?

Bijan Parsia: Are there examples?

18:21:41 <pfps> sounds good to me

Peter Patel-Schneider: sounds good to me

18:22:07 <m_schnei> q+ to explain OWL R Full vs. OWL Full

Michael Schneider: q+ to explain OWL R Full vs. OWL Full

18:22:10 <MarkusK> Ian: In OWL-R Full one can state arbitrary DL statements, on account of being "Full", but it would not entail the DL consequences.

Ian Horrocks: In OWL-R Full one can state arbitrary DL statements, on account of being "Full", but it would not entail the DL consequences.

18:22:30 <MarkusK> Bijan: I would consider OWL-R Full to be broken then

Bijan Parsia: I would consider OWL-R Full to be broken then

18:22:47 <MarkusK> Uli: there seems to be a potential misunderstanding here. Sandro asked whether OWL Full ontologies should always signal this. Bijan referred to the option of signalling OWL Full if the interpretation as OWL Full is considered crucial.

Uli Sattler: there seems to be a potential misunderstanding here. Sandro asked whether OWL Full ontologies should always signal this. Bijan referred to the option of signalling OWL Full if the interpretation as OWL Full is considered crucial.

18:23:35 <alanr> what about owl-r full versus owl-full

Alan Ruttenberg: what about owl-r full versus owl-full

18:24:19 <MarkusK> Michael Schneider: OWL-R Full still lacks some syntactic features of OWL Full. I can give an example for the semantic differences, but it is probably better to give it by email.

Michael Schneider: OWL-R Full still lacks some syntactic features of OWL Full. I can give an example for the semantic differences, but it is probably better to give it by email.

18:24:38 <pfps> q+ to ask what syntactic features are missing in OWL-R Full

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ to ask what syntactic features are missing in OWL-R Full

18:25:17 <MarkusK> Pfps: What syntax is not in OWL-R Full then?

Peter Patel-Schneider: What syntax is not in OWL-R Full then?

18:25:21 <bijan> Obviously we don't have a clear understanding!

Bijan Parsia: Obviously we don't have a clear understanding!

18:25:24 <MarkusK> Michael Schneider: Nominals are not in!?

Michael Schneider: Nominals are not in!?

18:25:45 <MarkusK> Ian: Syntactically nominals are allowed

Ian Horrocks: Syntactically nominals are allowed

18:26:03 <MarkusK> Michael Schneider: Indeed

Michael Schneider: Indeed

18:25:52 <bcuencagrau> The OWL-R Full specification is telling you what you are allowed to entail

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: The OWL-R Full specification is telling you what you are allowed to entail

18:26:12 <pfps> OWL R Full allows *all* RDF graphs, but does not provide any "extra" semantics for several constructs that are in OWL (even in OWL DL).

Peter Patel-Schneider: OWL R Full allows *all* RDF graphs, but does not provide any "extra" semantics for several constructs that are in OWL (even in OWL DL).

18:26:33 <bijan> Eek!

Bijan Parsia: Eek!

18:26:34 <m_schnei> yes, I was a bit confused at the moment :)

Michael Schneider: yes, I was a bit confused at the moment :)

18:26:39 <bijan> That wasn't my undersatnding

Bijan Parsia: That wasn't my undersatnding

18:26:11 <MarkusK> Topic: Any other business?

4. Any other business?

18:26:11 <MarkusK> No other business.

No other business.


This revision (#9) generated 2008-07-02 13:26:39 UTC by 'sandro', comments: 'fix tracker links'