IRC Log: Original and Cleaned Up
5 scribe-format errors are present in the chatlog. Please correct them and reload this page. They are labeled on this page in a red box, like this message.
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
17:00:06 <IanH> Thanks!
Ian Horrocks: Thanks!
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
17:01:41 <IanH> Peter, are you there and ready to scribe?
Ian Horrocks: Peter, are you there and ready to scribe?
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
17:02:04 <ewallace> sandro: what is "pointer"
Sandro Hawke: what is "pointer" [ Scribe Assist by Evan Wallace ]
17:02:29 <sandro> ewallace, it's the URL for where things are being logged at this point.
Sandro Hawke: ewallace, it's the URL for where things are being logged at this point.
17:02:38 <ewallace> cool
Evan Wallace: cool
17:02:43 <sandro> RRSAgent, make log public
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, make log public
17:03:07 <MarkusK> ok,. I can scribe
Markus Krötzsch: ok,. I can scribe
17:03:35 <MarkusK> ok, fine
Markus Krötzsch: ok, fine
17:03:37 <Zakim> +??P13
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P13
17:03:43 <MarkusK> scribenick MarkusK
Markus Krötzsch: scribenick MarkusK
17:03:45 <ivan> scribenick: MarkusK
(Scribe set to Markus Krötzsch)
17:03:47 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, ??P13 is me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, ??P13 is me
17:03:47 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bcuencagrau; got it
17:04:00 <ivan> scribe: Markus
17:04:05 <Zakim> +calvanese
Zakim IRC Bot: +calvanese
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
17:04:25 <calvanese> zakim, mute me
Diego Calvanese: zakim, mute me
17:04:25 <Zakim> calvanese should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: calvanese should now be muted
17:04:29 <ewallace> Who has the machine that goes "ping"?
Evan Wallace: Who has the machine that goes "ping"?
17:04:34 <Zakim> +Alan_Ruttenberg
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alan_Ruttenberg
17:04:48 <MarkusK> no agenda amendments
no agenda amendments
17:04:54 <Zakim> +[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM]
17:05:08 <MarkusK> Previous minutes
Previous minutes
17:05:09 <pfps> oops, i'm here now
Peter Patel-Schneider: oops, i'm here now
17:05:15 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: +Peter_Patel-Schneider
17:05:30 <Achille> Zakim, IBM is me
Achille Fokoue: Zakim, IBM is me
17:05:30 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Achille; got it
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
17:06:07 <MarkusK> Ian: can someone apprve previous minutes
Ian Horrocks: can someone apprve previous minutes
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
17:06:54 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Chatlog_2008-06-04
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Chatlog_2008-06-04
17:07:02 <bcuencagrau> zakim, mute me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: zakim, mute me
17:07:02 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:07:05 <MarkusK> (link to unformatted minutes)
(link to unformatted minutes)
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 -
17:07:59 <Zakim> + +1.603.438.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.603.438.aaaa
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
17:08:13 <Zhe> Zakim, +1.603.438.aaaa is me
Zhe Wu: Zakim, +1.603.438.aaaa is me
17:08:13 <Zakim> +Zhe; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Zhe; got it
17:08:18 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
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
17:09:07 <ewallace> topic: Pending Review Actions
17:09:14 <ewallace> sorry
Evan Wallace: sorry
17:09:25 <MarkusK> you're welcome to assist :-)
you're welcome to assist :-)
17:09:50 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:09:58 <MarkusK> Achille: Review of RDF mapping document completed last week
Achille Fokoue: Review of RDF mapping document completed last week
17:10:13 <MarkusK> ... found them to be OK, though primer still needs to be updated
... found them to be OK, though primer still needs to be updated
17:10:21 <pfps> Ian - today is 11 June, *not* 4 June!
Peter Patel-Schneider: Ian - today is 11 June, *not* 4 June!
17:10:28 <pfps> q+
17:10:29 <MarkusK> ... my only point was in the syntax document
... my only point was in the syntax document
17:10:33 <Zakim> -Alan_Ruttenberg
Zakim IRC Bot: -Alan_Ruttenberg
17:10:37 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:11:34 <MarkusK> Ian: the above refered to Action 148, which was still open, though not menitioned in the agenda
Ian Horrocks: the above refered to Action 148, which was still open, though not menitioned in the agenda
17:11:43 <Zakim> +jar
Zakim IRC Bot: +jar
17:11:48 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:11:52 <MarkusK> s/menitioned/mentioned/
s/menitioned/mentioned/
17:11:59 <ivan> ack pfps
Ivan Herman: ack pfps
17:12:04 <MarkusK> Ian: Action 148 completed
Ian Horrocks: Action 148 completed
17:12:23 <MarkusK> ... Boris' Action 131 shall be deferred until later
... Boris' Action 131 shall be deferred until later
17:12:24 <Zakim> +??P8
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P8
17:12:39 <Zakim> +qhreul
Zakim IRC Bot: +qhreul
17:12:41 <MarkusK> Ian: Action 42 (Bijan)
Ian Horrocks: Action 42 (Bijan)
17:12:50 <JeffPan> zakim, qhreul is me
Jeff Pan: zakim, qhreul is me
17:12:50 <Zakim> +JeffPan; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +JeffPan; got it
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> Ian: Action 147 (Michael)
Ian Horrocks: Action 147 (Michael)
17:13:45 <MarkusK> ... a detailed review was provided
... a detailed review was provided
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> ... Michael is not on the call to comment
... Michael is not on the call to comment
17:14:20 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me
17:14:20 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted
17:14:44 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
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> ... the points appear to be minor suggestions for the most part, and I will try to implement the easy comments first
... the points appear to be minor suggestions for the most part, and I will try to implement the easy comments first
17:15:45 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me
17:15:45 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted
17:15:47 <MarkusK> ... I wil come back with any non-obvious comments for further discussion
... I wil come back with any non-obvious comments for further discussion
17:15:53 <MarkusK> s/wil/will/
s/wil/will/
17:16:14 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1
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
17:16:27 <alanr> zakim, jar is alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, jar is alanr
17:16:27 <Zakim> +alanr; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +alanr; got it
17:16:41 <bijan> I htink that's me
Bijan Parsia: I htink that's me
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
17:16:52 <bijan> zakim, ??P8 is me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, ??P8 is me
17:16:52 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bijan; got it
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
17:16:57 <m_schnei> sorry, today only IRC
Michael Schneider: sorry, today only IRC
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
17:17:13 <MarkusK> Bijan: I fixed it
Bijan Parsia: I fixed it
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
17:17:22 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me
17:17:22 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted
17:17:34 <MarkusK> Ian: Action 150 (Jie Bao)
Ian Horrocks: Action 150 (Jie Bao)
17:17:43 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:17:48 <MarkusK> ... Jie Bao is not here to comment
... Jie Bao is not here to comment
17:17:56 <MarkusK> ... so Action remains open until next week
... so Action remains open until next week
17:18:11 <m_schnei> action 147 is finished
Michael Schneider: action 147 is finished
17:18:11 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 147
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - 147
17:18:20 <MarkusK> Topic: Issues
17:18:34 <m_schnei> i have finished action 147
Michael Schneider: i have finished action 147
17:18:38 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me
17:18:38 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted
17:18:46 <MarkusK> Ian: Issue 104 appeared to be a rather obvious fix for the OWL Full semantics
Ian Horrocks: Issue 104 appeared to be a rather obvious fix for the OWL Full semantics
17:19:04 <m_schnei> i have just sent a mail regarding 104
Michael Schneider: i have just sent a mail regarding 104
17:19:05 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
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 104
Ian Horrocks: so we can propose to resolve Issue 104
17:20:19 <ewallace> 104 or 124?
Evan Wallace: 104 or 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
17:20:39 <MarkusK> s/104/124/
s/104/124/
17:20:40 <pfps> +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
17:20:52 <MarkusK> +1
+1
17:20:55 <ewallace> +1
Evan Wallace: +1
17:20:56 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1
17:21:03 <Zakim> +??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1
17:21:09 <clu> zakim, ??p1 is me
Carsten Lutz: zakim, ??p1 is me
17:21:09 <Zakim> +clu; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +clu; got it
17:21:12 <IanH> RESOLVED: esolve Issue 124 as per http://www.w3.org/mid/0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A096B434@judith.fzi.de
RESOLVED: esolve Issue 124 as per http://www.w3.org/mid/0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A096B434@judith.fzi.de
17:21:13 <clu> zakim, mute me
Carsten Lutz: zakim, mute me
17:21:13 <Zakim> clu should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: clu should now be muted
17:21:17 <clu> Sorry for being late.
Carsten Lutz: Sorry for being late.
17:21:20 <ivan> s/esolve/resolve/
Ivan Herman: s/esolve/resolve/
17:21:46 <MarkusK> Ian: Issue 104 was discussed in many emails
Ian Horrocks: Issue 104 was discussed in many emails
17:21:54 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:21:59 <MarkusK> ... many people raised concerns
... many people raised concerns
17:22:06 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+
17:22:10 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me
17:22:10 <Zakim> bmotik was not muted, bmotik
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik was not muted, bmotik
17:22:45 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me
17:22:45 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted
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
17:23:10 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me
17:23:10 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted
17:23:46 <MarkusK> ... I send a proposal for having a shadow-vocabulary for OWL, but this met little approval
... I send 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
17:23:58 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+
17:24:02 <alanr> ack bmotik
Alan Ruttenberg: ack bmotik
17:24:16 <MarkusK> ... the technical problem is that we have no ObjectProperty/DatatypeProperty puning
... the technical problem is that we have no ObjectProperty/DatatypeProperty puning
17:24:21 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
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
17:24:45 <MarkusK> ... hence vocabulary like rdf:first are not easy to define in OWL: one would have to asign a fixed type
... hence vocabulary like rdf:first are not easy to define in OWL: one would have to asign a fixed type
17:24:58 <alanr> s/asign/assign/
Alan Ruttenberg: s/asign/assign/
17:25:14 <MarkusK> ... rdf:first may then get many types in different applications and I propose to not allow it in OWL DL vocabulary
... rdf:first may then get many types in different applications and I propose to not allow it in OWL DL vocabulary
17:25:15 <bijan> Or a shadow vocabualry
Bijan Parsia: Or a shadow vocabualry
17:25:19 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:25:43 <MarkusK> AlanR: there were various proposals to address this
Alan Ruttenberg: there were various proposals to address this
17:26:17 <MarkusK> ... one was to have an OWL shadow vocabulary, such as owl:first, to resolve possible typing conflicts
... one was to have an OWL shadow vocabulary, such as owl:first, to resolve possible typing conflicts
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
17:26:32 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+
17:26:33 <MarkusK> ... the other proposal was to admit rdf:first and leave typing to modellers
... the other proposal was to admit rdf:first and leave typing to modellers
17:26:37 <ivan> ack alanr
Ivan Herman: ack alanr
17:26:42 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:26:50 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik
17:26:52 <m_schnei> rdf:first would then be just an URI like any other
Scribe Error: the name 'rdf' does not match any of the 21 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: 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 Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot
Unknown rdf: first would then be just an URI like any other [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ]
17:26:56 <MarkusK> ... one would then need to use OWL Full if conflicting types for collection properties would occur
... one would then need to use OWL Full if conflicting types for collection properties would occur
17:27:01 <alanr> why?
Alan Ruttenberg: why?
17:27:12 <msmith> q+ to ask what use case shadow vocab addresses
Michael Smith: q+ to ask what use case shadow vocab addresses
17:27:34 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:27:37 <alanr> "messy" is subjective
Alan Ruttenberg: "messy" is subjective
17:27:41 <MarkusK> Boris: I do think that having an explicit type for rdf:first would be no good modelling practice
Boris Motik: I do think that having an explicit type for rdf:first would be no good modelling practice
17:27:51 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+
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
17:28:04 <MarkusK> ... ontologies should not contain declarations for such properties, and I would rather like to not have it
... ontologies should not contain declarations for such properties, and I would rather like to not have it
17:28:14 <bijan> Subjective considerations aren't invalid (as we've seen :))
Bijan Parsia: Subjective considerations aren't invalid (as we've seen :))
17:28:15 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+
17:28:20 <ivan> ack msmith
Ivan Herman: ack msmith
17:28:20 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to ask what use case shadow vocab addresses
Zakim IRC Bot: msmith, you wanted to ask what use case shadow vocab addresses
17:28:37 <alanr> shadow was for internal use
Alan Ruttenberg: shadow was for internal use
17:28:38 <bijan> Interop
Bijan Parsia: Interop
17:28:47 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:28:52 <MarkusK> MSmith: I do not agree with Boris: I would allow users to define types for rd:type
Michael Smith: I do not agree with Boris: I would allow users to define types for rd:type
17:29:01 <alanr> yes
Alan Ruttenberg: yes
17:29:02 <MarkusK> ... I see no use case for a shadow vocabulary though
... I see no use case for a shadow vocabulary though
17:29:05 <alanr> yes
Alan Ruttenberg: yes
17:29:07 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+
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
17:29:35 <ivan> ack ivan
Ivan Herman: ack ivan
17:29:36 <msmith> The first scribing above is the opposite of what I intended to say. I agree with Boris exactly.
Michael Smith: The first scribing above is the opposite of what I intended to say. I agree with Boris exactly.
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
17:29:56 <MarkusK> Oh, sorry!
Oh, sorry!
17:30:11 <MarkusK> Please fix this, I misheard you
Please fix this, I misheard you
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
17:30:22 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+
17:30:24 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:30:25 <pfps> q+
17:30:31 <ivan> ack alanr
Ivan Herman: ack alanr
17:30:35 <msmith> thank you, I will verify the correct version is in the minutes
Michael Smith: thank you, I will verify the correct version is in the minutes
17:30:52 <MarkusK> AlanR: the shadow vocabulary would be for our own serialisation, not for users
Alan Ruttenberg: the shadow vocabulary would be for our own serialisation, not for users
17:31:06 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:31:21 <MarkusK> ... restricting uses of rdf:first in a certain way may still be better than not allowing it at all
... 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"
17:32:18 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:32:32 <ivan> msmith: you are not the only one:-)
Michael Smith: you are not the only one:-) [ Scribe Assist by Ivan Herman ]
17:32:58 <ivan> ack bmotik
Ivan Herman: ack bmotik
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
Boris Motik: switching from RDF lists to something else in serialisation seems to be no good idea
17:33:30 <ivan> +1 to boris
Ivan Herman: +1 to boris
17:33:34 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:33:41 <MarkusK> ... many ontologies are also already using RDF lists
... many ontologies are also already using RDF lists
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
17:34:01 <MarkusK> ... I think it is not a major backward compatibility issue
... I think it is not a major backward compatibility issue
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 :)
17:34:59 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
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
17:35:29 <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
17:35:38 <ivan> +1 again to Boris
Ivan Herman: +1 again to Boris
17:35:41 <MarkusK> ... but the drawback is that we get into modelling discussions here
... but the drawback is that we get into modelling discussions here
17:35:42 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:35:59 <MarkusK> ... we cannot really reason about lists logically
... we cannot really reason about lists logically
17:36:09 <alanr> q+ to say we are *not* getting in to modeing. We are getting out of the way of modelers.
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ to say we are *not* getting in to modeing. We are getting out of the way of modelers.
17:36:13 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
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
17:36:34 <MarkusK> ... the list is just a part of data, not a true semantic construct
... the list is just a part of data, not a true semantic construct
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
17:36:41 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me
17:36:41 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted
17:36:43 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:36:47 <ivan> ack bijan
Ivan Herman: ack bijan
17:37:12 <MarkusK> Bijan: I second Boris' concern on the lack of utility of the list vocabulary
Bijan Parsia: I second Boris' concern on the lack of utility of the list 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?
17:37:43 <MarkusK> ... I often suggest to users to not employ RDF collections or containers in OWL ontologies
... I often suggest to users to not employ RDF collections or containers in OWL ontologies
17:37:47 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
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. :)
17:38:11 <MarkusK> ... in our practical experience, users were willing to use a custom vocabulary to model lists
... in our practical experience, users were willing to use a custom vocabulary to model lists
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.
17:38:41 <MarkusK> ... it is usually easy to migrate RDF lists to some custom vocabulary
... it is usually easy to migrate RDF lists to some custom vocabulary
17:38:44 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
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
17:38:51 <ivan> ack pfps
Ivan Herman: ack pfps
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
17:39:41 <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!
17:39:47 <MarkusK> Ivan: mostly in the serialisation of OWL
Ivan Herman: mostly in the serialisation of OWL
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?
17:40:02 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
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, T meant.
Boris Motik: Yes, in FOL, T 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
17:40:23 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:40:27 <alanr> any ontology that uses owl2:first is owl 2
Alan Ruttenberg: any ontology that uses owl2:first is owl 2
17:40:28 <bmotik> s/T meant/I meant
Boris Motik: s/T meant/I meant
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: :-)
17:41:13 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+
17:41:19 <ivan> ack alanr
Ivan Herman: ack alanr
17:41:19 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to say we are *not* getting in to modeing. We are getting out of the way of modelers.
Zakim IRC Bot: alanr, you wanted to say we are *not* getting in to modeing. We are getting out of the way of modelers.
17:41:22 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:41:51 <MarkusK> Alanr: I do not think that we truly need to use a shadow vocabulary
Alan Ruttenberg: I do not think that we truly need to use a shadow vocabulary
17:42:21 <MarkusK> ... a shadow vocabulary would be closed, hence one can check for occurrences of this vocabulary to decide if a serialisation belongs to OWL 2
... a shadow vocabulary would be closed, hence one can check for occurrences of this vocabulary to decide if a serialisation belongs to OWL 2
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?
17:42:56 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:43:08 <sandro> q+ to support Alan
Sandro Hawke: q+ to support Alan
17:43:10 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+
17:43:15 <alanr> michael is not here, he supports
Alan Ruttenberg: michael is not here, he supports
17:43:18 <alanr> markus?
Alan Ruttenberg: markus?
17:43:26 <MarkusK> ... OWL should allow lists as data, since people adopt them due to their syntactic shortness in Turtle and SPARQL
... OWL should allow lists as data, since people adopt them due to their syntactic shortness in Turtle and SPARQL
17:43:35 <pfps> q+
17:43:36 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:44:14 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me
17:44:14 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was not muted, bijan
17:44:17 <MarkusK> AlanR: Michael may also support my position, but is not on the call
Alan Ruttenberg: Michael may also support my position, but is not on the call
17:44:18 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:44:34 <MarkusK> ... I am certainly not convinced by the current arguments against it
... I am certainly not convinced by the current arguments against it
17:44:53 <MarkusK> I have not voiced any oppinion on this issue, I am scribing
I have not voiced any oppinion on this issue, I am scribing
17:45:05 <alanr> sorry - my mistake
Alan Ruttenberg: sorry - my mistake
17:45:11 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me
17:45:11 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted
17:45:59 <alanr> http://bibliontology.com/
Alan Ruttenberg: http://bibliontology.com/
17:46:05 <ewallace> +1 to Sandro's suggestion
Evan Wallace: +1 to Sandro's suggestion
17:46:10 <alanr> exactly
Alan Ruttenberg: exactly
17:46:22 <MarkusK> Sandro: can we have a straw poll to get some impression here?
Sandro Hawke: can we have a straw poll to get some impression here?
17:46:37 <msmith> alanr, what part of that ontology?
Michael Smith: alanr, what part of that ontology?
17:46:37 <IanH> Michael: q?
Scribe Error: the name 'Michael' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Michael Smith Michael Schneider . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.
Unknown Michael: q? [ Scribe Assist by Ian Horrocks ]
17:46:42 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:46:43 <pfps> q?
17:46:43 <MarkusK> ... at least to measure general motivation in the group
... at least to measure general motivation in the group
17:46:50 <alanr> hunting - discussion was in email
Alan Ruttenberg: hunting - discussion was in email
17:46:54 <pfps> q-
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
17:47:18 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:47:39 <MarkusK> Boris: the technical questions seem to be rather severe
Boris Motik: the technical questions seem to be rather severe
17:47:49 <MarkusK> ... changing the vocabulary is not a trivial change
... changing the vocabulary is not a trivial change
17:47:49 <sandro> Sandro: proposed strawpoll: It would be nice, if we can find a workable technical solution, to support RDF List in OWL DL.
Sandro Hawke: proposed strawpoll: It would be nice, if we can find a workable technical solution, to support RDF List in OWL DL. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]
17:48:26 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:48:33 <sandro> q-
Sandro Hawke: q-
17:48:34 <ivan> ack bmotik
Ivan Herman: ack bmotik
17:48:38 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me
17:48:38 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted
17:48:42 <ivan> ack bijan
Ivan Herman: ack bijan
17:48:46 <MarkusK> ... using things like rdf:first in conjunction with OWL constructs like nominals may have unexpected/complex consequences both in OWL DL and OWL Full
... using things like rdf:first in conjunction with OWL constructs like nominals may have unexpected/complex consequences both in OWL DL and OWL Full
17:49:08 <alanr> Could we get documentation on how Pellet accomodates?
Alan Ruttenberg: Could we get documentation on how Pellet accomodates?
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
17:49:35 <bijan> See the code :)
Bijan Parsia: See the code :)
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
17:50:02 <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.
17:50:11 <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 ;-)
17:50:13 <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
17:50:24 <MarkusK> +1
+1
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
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
17:51:30 <bijan> alanr, re: code, I don't know off hand
Bijan Parsia: alanr, re: code, I don't know off hand
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
17:51:44 <alanr> I will volunteer if Michael (S) will
Alan Ruttenberg: I will volunteer if Michael (S) will
17:52:08 <msmith> S == Schneider
Michael Smith: S == Schneider
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?
17:52:13 <alanr> (sm)
Alan Ruttenberg: (sm)
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 MSchneider to pursue the issue
Ian Horrocks: AlanR and MSchneider to 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].
17:53:57 <bijan> nary!
Bijan Parsia: nary!
17:54:14 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
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!
17:54:18 <MarkusK> Ian: discussion on "at risk" features such as EasyKeys
Ian Horrocks: discussion on "at risk" features such as EasyKeys
17:54:23 <m_schnei> bye for now!
Michael Schneider: bye for now!
17:54:24 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:54:57 <MarkusK> ... especially regarding whether or not such features should appear in the spec with an appropraite disclaimer
... especially regarding whether or not such features should appear in the spec with an appropraite disclaimer
17:55:03 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:55:08 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+
17:55:14 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me
17:55:14 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was not muted, bijan
17:55:15 <MarkusK> Ian: Any comments?
Ian Horrocks: Any comments?
17:55:25 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:55:29 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan
17:56:12 <MarkusK> Bijan: Many discussions are not finished yet at the current state, and we still need to gather more information.
Bijan Parsia: Many discussions are not finished yet at the current state, and we still need to gather more information.
17:56:16 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:56:30 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+
17:56:44 <MarkusK> ... We need to decide on the current status of each feature, and we can add our concerns to the spec to gather feedback.
... We need to decide on the current status of each feature, and we can add our concerns to the spec to gather feedback.
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"
17:57:18 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:57:24 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik
17:57:25 <MarkusK> Bijan: "At risk" comments are not problem, I would like the features to be in the spec in general
Bijan Parsia: "At risk" comments are not problem, I would like the features to be in the spec in general
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
Boris Motik: I do not like to add feartures to the spec now that we may remove later on
17:57:50 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:58:06 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan
17:58:06 <Zakim> bijan, you wanted to mention spec work
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan, you wanted to mention spec work
17:58:15 <MarkusK> ... I would prefer to first do some investigations, and then start modifying the spec
... 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
Bijan Parsia: For EasyKeys, extending the spec should not be hard, since the existing text is almost ready for use in the spec
17:59:08 <MarkusK> ... I agree that implementation experiences are good, but adding the features to the spec would still further more feedback.
... I agree that implementation experiences are good, but adding the features to the spec would still further more feedback.
17:59:13 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
17:59:23 <MarkusK> Ian: do you consider the features to be modular?
Ian Horrocks: do you consider the 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: Straw poll
Ian Horrocks: Straw poll
18:00:07 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me
18:00:08 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted
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
18:00:37 <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.
18:00:45 <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
18:00:59 <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
18:01:00 <Zhe> +1
Zhe Wu: +1
18:01:00 <MarkusK> +1
+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
18:01:18 <pfps> +0
18:01:28 <alanr> is -0 = 0- ?
Alan Ruttenberg: is -0 = 0- ?
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"
18:01:44 <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
18:01:48 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+
18:01:55 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
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.
18:02:19 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me
18:02:19 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted
18:02:25 <alanr> absolutely
Alan Ruttenberg: absolutely
18:02:40 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q?
18:02:51 <MarkusK> Bijan: we first need a resolution.
Bijan Parsia: we first need a 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> 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].
18:03:49 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1
18:03:54 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1
18:03:55 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1
18:03:58 <MarkusK> +1
+1
18:04:00 <Zhe> +1
Zhe Wu: +1
18:04:02 <bcuencagrau> +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
18:04:28 <MarkusK> s/RESOLVED/PROPOSED/
s/RESOLVED/PROPOSED/
18:04:29 <msmith> +1
Michael Smith: +1
18:04:33 <pfps> +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
18:05:08 <MarkusK> Ian: Issue 109 (XML namespace)
Ian Horrocks: Issue 109 (XML namespace)
18:05:24 <MarkusK> .. are there new technical arguments on that?
.. are there new technical arguments on that?
18:05:29 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
18:05:33 <uli> pfff
Uli Sattler: pfff
18:05:36 <bmotik> -q
Boris Motik: -q
18:05:37 <IanH> ack boris
Ian Horrocks: ack boris
18:05:41 <MarkusK> ... or shall we just vote?
... or shall we just vote?
18:05:45 <bijan> I do!
Bijan Parsia: I do!
18:05:46 <bijan> I do!
Bijan Parsia: I do!
18:05:50 <ivan> I do!
Ivan Herman: I do!
18:05:56 <ivan> but I wrote it down
Ivan Herman: but I wrote it down
18:05:57 <bijan> I do more!
Bijan Parsia: I do more!
18:06:03 <pfps> I do! I do! (but not as much)
Peter Patel-Schneider: I do! I do! (but not as much)
18:06:12 <uli> I care, but I do we have new arguments
Uli Sattler: I care, but I do we have new arguments
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
Ivan Herman: Bijan and I tried to compile all pros and cons to support the 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
18:07:42 <ivan> i did
Ivan Herman: i did
18:07:44 <uli> I did
Uli Sattler: I did
18:07:44 <MarkusK> Ian: The email is rather long, so we should give people the chance of reading the email
Ian Horrocks: The email is rather long, so we should give people the chance of reading the email
18:07:45 <pfps> 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
18:08:18 <MarkusK> Ian: Poll on who read the email and who did not.
Ian Horrocks: Poll on who read the email and who did not.
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.
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.
18:09:13 <alanr> is BIJAN one of the options?
Alan Ruttenberg: is BIJAN one of the options?
18:09:19 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]
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
Bijan Parsia: someValuesFrom [ Scribe Assist by Alan Ruttenberg ]
18:09:41 <m_schnei> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
Michael Schneider: zakim, [IPcaller] is me
18:09:41 <Zakim> +m_schnei; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +m_schnei; got it
18:09:45 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me
18:09:45 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should now be muted
18:09:52 <MarkusK> Ian: so the issue will be voted on next week
Ian Horrocks: so the issue will be voted on next week
18:10:10 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
18:10:32 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
18:10:39 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
18:10:45 <bmotik> +1 to resolve these issues
Boris Motik: +1 to resolve these issues
18:10:48 <MarkusK> Ian: Issues 21 and 24
Ian Horrocks: Issues 21 and 24
18:11:03 <MarkusK> ... are we ready to try to resolve those?
... are we ready to try to resolve those?
18:11:16 <pfps> q+
18:11:20 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
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
18:12:01 <alanr> 24 reject, no inconsistencies
Alan Ruttenberg: 24 reject, no inconsistencies
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
18:12:41 <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> Ian: Issue 111
Ian Horrocks: Issue 111
18:12:54 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+
18:12:55 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+
18:13:02 <MarkusK> ... User intent signaling
... User intent signaling
18:13:05 <pfps> q-
18:13:06 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
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)
18:13:15 <ivan> ack alanr
Ivan Herman: ack alanr
18:13:20 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
18:13:47 <bmotik> +q
Boris Motik: +q
18:13:53 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
18:13:59 <MarkusK> AlanR: I thought of the case where someone writes an ontology that needs to be interpreted correctly
Alan Ruttenberg: I thought of the case where someone writes an ontology that needs to be interpreted correctly
18:14:11 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
18:14:27 <MarkusK> ... the idea of "intents" is not so clear in some cases
... the idea of "intents" is not so clear in some cases
18:14:35 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me
18:14:35 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was not muted, bijan
18:14:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
18:14:46 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan
18:14:58 <MarkusK> ... the main use case I see is really when one requires specific conclusions to be drawn and specifies an intent for that.
... the main use case I see is really when one requires specific conclusions to be drawn and specifies an intent for that.
18:15:16 <MarkusK> Bijan: I raised this issue but would like to withdraw it now
Bijan Parsia: I raised this issue but would like to withdraw it now
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
18:15:59 <MarkusK> ... I agree that the use of "intents" is not always clear
... I agree that the use of "intents" is not always clear
18:16:21 <MarkusK> ... having intents in ontologies may eventually create more noise
... having intents in ontologies may eventually create more noise
18:16:49 <sandro> Bijan: 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.
Bijan Parsia: 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. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]
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
18:17:22 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
18:17:30 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+
18:17:31 <MarkusK> Bijan: overall, the issue appears to get more complicated than first expected
Bijan Parsia: overall, the issue appears to get more complicated than first expected
18:17:47 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me
18:17:47 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted
18:17:48 <MarkusK> ... thus I propose to defer that until we may have more experiences
... thus I propose to defer that until we may have more experiences
18:18:19 <bijan> alanr, if not wsdl, some description, perhaps english
Bijan Parsia: alanr, if not wsdl, some description, perhaps english
18:18:32 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
18:18:36 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik
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
18:18:41 <IanH> ack sandro
Ian Horrocks: ack sandro
18:18:43 <bijan> Insane? Moi?
Bijan Parsia: Insane? Moi?
18:18:53 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me
18:18:53 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted
18:19:22 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
18:19:22 <alanr> what about dl versus r?
Alan Ruttenberg: what about dl versus r?
18:19:22 <uli> q+
Uli Sattler: q+
18:19:46 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
18:19:47 <bmotik> Not at the DL side
Boris Motik: Not at the DL side
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
18:20:16 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
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
18:20:26 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
18:20:36 <m_schnei> q+
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
Bijan Parsia: I thought that OWL-R would be a syntactic fragment that entails all consequences that the larger fragments would entail
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
18:21:02 <MarkusK> ... if it is not true for OWL-R Full, I would consider this a bug in OWL-R Full
... if it is not true for OWL-R Full, I would consider this a bug in OWL-R Full
18:21:06 <bmotik> I can
Boris Motik: I can
18:21:06 <bijan> Are there examples?
Bijan Parsia: Are there examples?
18:21:31 <m_schnei> q+ on explaining the difference
Michael Schneider: q+ on explaining the difference
18:21:41 <pfps> sounds good to me
Peter Patel-Schneider: sounds good to me
18:22:00 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
18:22:07 <m_schnei> q+ on explaining OWL R Full vs. OWL Full
Michael Schneider: q+ on explaining 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
18:22:11 <m_schnei> q+ explaining OWL R Full vs. OWL Full
Michael Schneider: q+ explaining OWL R Full vs. OWL Full
18:22:12 <uli> zakim, unmute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, unmute me
18:22:13 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should no longer be muted
18:22:14 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
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
18:22:31 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
18:22:37 <IanH> ack uli
Ian Horrocks: ack uli
18:22:47 <MarkusK> Uli: there seems to be a misunderstanding
Uli Sattler: there seems to be a misunderstanding
18:23:11 <MarkusK> ... Sandro asked whether OWL Full ontologies should always signal this
... Sandro asked whether OWL Full ontologies should always signal this
18:23:35 <alanr> what about owl-r full versus owl-full
Alan Ruttenberg: what about owl-r full versus owl-full
18:23:39 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
18:23:43 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me
18:23:43 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:23:43 <MarkusK> ... Bijan referred to the option of signalling OWL Full if this interpretation as OWL Full is considered crucial
... Bijan referred to the option of signalling OWL Full if this interpretation as OWL Full is considered crucial
18:23:45 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me
18:23:45 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted
18:23:50 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
18:23:56 <IanH> ack m_schnei
Ian Horrocks: ack m_schnei
18:24:19 <MarkusK> Michael: OWL-R Full still lacks some syntactic features of OWL Full
Scribe Error: the name 'Michael' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Michael Smith Michael Schneider . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.
Unknown Michael: OWL-R Full still lacks some syntactic features of OWL Full
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
18:24:46 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
18:24:53 <m_schnei> q-
18:24:56 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q?
18:25:04 <MarkusK> ... I can give an example, but it is probably better to give it by email
... I can give an example, but it is probably better to give it by email
18:25:17 <MarkusK> Pfps: What is not in OWL-R Full
Peter Patel-Schneider: What is not in OWL-R Full
18:25:21 <bijan> Obviously we don't have a claer understanding!
Bijan Parsia: Obviously we don't have a claer understanding!
18:25:24 <MarkusK> Michael: Nominals are not in?
Scribe Error: the name 'Michael' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Michael Smith Michael Schneider . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.
Unknown Michael: Nominals are not in?
18:25:45 <MarkusK> Ian: Syntactically nominals are allowed
Ian Horrocks: Syntactically nominals are allowed
18:25:50 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me
18:25:50 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should now be muted
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
18:26:03 <MarkusK> Michael: Indeed
Scribe Error: the name 'Michael' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Michael Smith Michael Schneider . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.
Unknown Michael: Indeed
18:26:11 <MarkusK> Any other business?
Any other business?
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 :)
18:26:35 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: -Evan_Wallace
18:26:38 <JeffPan> bye
Jeff Pan: bye
18:26:39 <bijan> That wasn't my undersatnding
Bijan Parsia: That wasn't my undersatnding
18:26:40 <Zakim> -bmotik
Zakim IRC Bot: -bmotik
18:26:41 <msmith> bye, thanks all
Michael Smith: bye, thanks all
18:26:41 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
Zakim IRC Bot: -bcuencagrau
18:26:41 <MarkusK> Adjourn
Adjourn
18:26:42 <Zakim> -Achille
Zakim IRC Bot: -Achille
18:26:43 <Zakim> -msmith
Zakim IRC Bot: -msmith
18:26:43 <Zhe> second peter
Zhe Wu: second peter
18:26:43 <Zakim> -JeffPan
Zakim IRC Bot: -JeffPan
18:26:45 <clu> bye
Carsten Lutz: bye
18:26:45 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: -Peter_Patel-Schneider
18:26:46 <Zakim> -IanH
Zakim IRC Bot: -IanH
18:26:46 <Zhe> bye
Zhe Wu: bye
18:26:48 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro
18:26:49 <Zakim> -uli
Zakim IRC Bot: -uli
18:26:51 <Zakim> -calvanese
Zakim IRC Bot: -calvanese
18:26:53 <Zakim> -Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: -Zhe