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 (link)
16:59:55 <Zakim> bmotik, you need to end that query with '?'
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik, you need to end that query with '?' (link)
17:00:01 <bmotik> Zakim, who is here?
Boris Motik: Zakim, who is here? (link)
17:00:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see IanH, bmotik (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see IanH, bmotik (muted) (link)
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 (link)
17:00:32 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip (link)
17:00:36 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made (link)
17:00:39 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan (link)
17:00:40 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: +Evan_Wallace (link)
17:00:47 <Zakim> +??P4
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4 (link)
17:00:54 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? (link)
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 (link)
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 (link)
17:01:10 <Zakim> +??P5
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P5 (link)
17:01:13 <uli> zakim, ??P5 is me
Uli Sattler: zakim, ??P5 is me (link)
17:01:13 <Zakim> +uli; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +uli; got it (link)
17:01:20 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me (link)
17:01:20 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted (link)
17:01:24 <Zakim> +msmith
Zakim IRC Bot: +msmith (link)
17:01:36 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? (link)
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 (link)
17:01:46 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro (link)
17:01:55 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? (link)
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 (link)
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 (link)
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? (link)
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 (link)
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 (link)
17:04:29 <ewallace> Who has the machine that goes "ping"?
Evan Wallace: Who has the machine that goes "ping"? (link)
17:04:48 <> Topic: Admin
17:04:48 <MarkusK> Subtopic: Agenda amendments
17:04:48 <MarkusK> no agenda amendments
no agenda amendments (link)
17:04:54 <Zakim> +[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] (link)
17:05:08 <MarkusK> Subtopic: Previous minutes
17:06:07 <MarkusK> Ian: can someone approve previous minutes?
Ian Horrocks: can someone approve previous minutes? (link)
17:06:02 <uli> they aren't pretty
Uli Sattler: they aren't pretty (link)
17:06:05 <pfps> the previous minutes were not acceptable yesterday
Peter Patel-Schneider: the previous minutes were not acceptable yesterday (link)
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 (link)
17:06:33 <MarkusK> Ian: Minutes may need new mechanism to be prepared.
Ian Horrocks: Minutes may need new mechanism to be prepared. (link)
17:06:46 <MarkusK> Sandro: The old partial minutes have confused people.
Sandro Hawke: The old partial minutes have confused people. (link)
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 (link)
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. (link)
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 - (link)
17:08:01 <pfps> what is "the right place"?
Peter Patel-Schneider: what is "the right place"? (link)
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 (link)
17:08:55 <MarkusK> Subtopic: F2F3 registration
17:08:55 <MarkusK> Ian: registration for F2F3 still should be completed
Ian Horrocks: registration for F2F3 still should be completed (link)
17:09:06 <MarkusK> Topic: Action item review
17:09:06 <MarkusK> Subtopic: 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. (link)
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 (link)
17:12:04 <MarkusK> Ian: Action 148 completed
Ian Horrocks: Action 148 completed (link)
17:12:23 <MarkusK> Ian: Boris' Action 131 shall be deferred until later
Ian Horrocks: Boris' Action 131 shall be deferred until later (link)
17:12:41 <MarkusK> Subtopic: 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 (link)
17:13:36 <MarkusK> Subtopic: Action 147
17:13:45 <MarkusK> Ian: A detailed review has been provided already.
Ian Horrocks: A detailed review has been provided already. (link)
17:14:00 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? (link)
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, (link)
17:14:03 <Zakim> ... ??P8, JeffPan
Zakim IRC Bot: ... ??P8, JeffPan (link)
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 (link)
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. (link)
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. (link)
17:14:53 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? (link)
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, (link)
17:14:56 <Zakim> ... JeffPan
Zakim IRC Bot: ... JeffPan (link)
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 (link)
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. (link)
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. (link)
17:16:43 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? (link)
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, (link)
17:16:47 <Zakim> ... alanr, ??P8, JeffPan
Zakim IRC Bot: ... alanr, ??P8, JeffPan (link)
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, (link)
17:16:50 <Zakim> ... trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: ... trackbot (link)
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. (link)
17:17:13 <MarkusK> Bijan: I fixed this now
Bijan Parsia: I fixed this now (link)
17:16:57 <MarkusK> (all participants have then been identified)
(all participants have then been identified) (link)
17:17:10 <bijan> zakim, who is here?
Bijan Parsia: zakim, who is here? (link)
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, (link)
17:17:13 <Zakim> ... alanr, bijan, JeffPan
Zakim IRC Bot: ... alanr, bijan, JeffPan (link)
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, (link)
17:17:16 <Zakim> ... trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: ... trackbot (link)
17:17:34 <MarkusK> Subtopic: 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. (link)
17:18:34 <m_schnei> I have finished action 147
Michael Schneider: I have finished action 147 (link)
17:18:20 <MarkusK> Topic: Issues
17:18:20 <MarkusK> Subtopic: 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 (link)
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. (link)
17:20:00 <MarkusK> Ian: So we can propose to resolve Issue 124.
Ian Horrocks: So we can propose to resolve Issue 124. (link)
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 (link)
17:20:28 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 (link)
17:20:32 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 (link)
17:20:36 <Zhe> +1
17:20:37 <bcuencagrau> +1
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1 (link)
17:20:40 <pfps> +1
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (link)
17:20:42 <sandro> 0 (sorry, not up to speed on issue)
Sandro Hawke: 0 (sorry, not up to speed on issue) (link)
17:20:46 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 (link)
17:20:47 <JeffPan> 0
17:20:49 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 (link)
17:20:50 <msmith> +1
Michael Smith: +1 (link)
17:20:55 <ewallace> +1
Evan Wallace: +1 (link)
17:20:56 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 (link)
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 (link)
17:21:17 <clu> Sorry for being late.
Carsten Lutz: Sorry for being late. (link)
17:18:20 <MarkusK> Subtopic: 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. (link)
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. (link)
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. (link)
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. (link)
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. (link)
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. (link)
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. (link)
17:25:15 <bijan> Or a shadow vocabulary
Bijan Parsia: Or a shadow vocabulary (link)
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. (link)
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 (link)
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 (link)
17:27:12 <msmith> q+ to ask what use case shadow vocab addresses
Michael Smith: q+ to ask what use case shadow vocab addresses (link)
17:27:37 <alanr> "messy" is subjective
Alan Ruttenberg: "messy" is subjective (link)
17:28:14 <bijan> Subjective considerations aren't invalid (as we've seen :))
Bijan Parsia: Subjective considerations aren't invalid (as we've seen :)) (link)
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. (link)
17:27:53 <alanr> then owl full
Alan Ruttenberg: then owl full (link)
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 (link)
17:28:37 <alanr> shadow was for internal use
Alan Ruttenberg: shadow was for internal use (link)
17:28:38 <bijan> Interop
Bijan Parsia: Interop (link)
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. (link)
17:29:05 <alanr> yes
Alan Ruttenberg: yes (link)
17:29:15 <alanr> reverse mapping
Alan Ruttenberg: reverse mapping (link)
17:29:18 <alanr> fixes this
Alan Ruttenberg: fixes this (link)
17:29:31 <alanr> not
Alan Ruttenberg: not (link)
17:29:50 <alanr> billions and billions
Alan Ruttenberg: billions and billions (link)
17:29:53 <msmith> yes
Michael Smith: yes (link)
17:29:54 <alanr> served
Alan Ruttenberg: served (link)
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. (link)
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. (link)
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. (link)
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" (link)
17:32:32 <ivan> msmith, you are not the only one:-)
Ivan Herman: msmith, you are not the only one:-) (link)
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 (link)
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. (link)
17:33:30 <ivan> +1 to boris
Ivan Herman: +1 to boris (link)
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. (link)
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 (link)
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 (link)
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 :) (link)
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. (link)
17:35:38 <ivan> +1 again to Boris
Ivan Herman: +1 again to Boris (link)
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 (link)
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. (link)
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. (link)
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. (link)
17:36:23 <alanr> no no
Alan Ruttenberg: no no (link)
17:36:29 <alanr> we are trying to let more rdf be owl
Alan Ruttenberg: we are trying to let more rdf be owl (link)
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 (link)
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. (link)
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? (link)
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. :) (link)
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. (link)
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 (link)
17:38:57 <alanr> just not convinced
Alan Ruttenberg: just not convinced (link)
17:39:06 <bijan> "seeing" is subjective :)
Bijan Parsia: "seeing" is subjective :) (link)
17:39:15 <sandro> what about promoting a standard list vocabulary?
Sandro Hawke: what about promoting a standard list vocabulary? (link)
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? (link)
17:39:47 <MarkusK> Ivan: Mostly in the serialisation of OWL.
Ivan Herman: Mostly in the serialisation of OWL. (link)
17:39:41 <sandro> (owl:ObjectList and owl:DataList, etc.... )
Sandro Hawke: (owl:ObjectList and owl:DataList, etc.... ) (link)
17:39:43 <alanr> if it can be done unambiguously then great!
Alan Ruttenberg: if it can be done unambiguously then great! (link)
17:39:48 <bijan> sandro, without proper list semantics?
Bijan Parsia: sandro, without proper list semantics? (link)
17:39:55 <sandro> no, with.
Sandro Hawke: no, with. (link)
17:40:00 <bmotik> What is the proper list semantics?
Boris Motik: What is the proper list semantics? (link)
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 (link)
17:40:07 <bmotik> Lists cannot be modeled semantically!
Boris Motik: Lists cannot be modeled semantically! (link)
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 :) (link)
17:40:18 <bmotik> Yes, in FOL, I meant.
Boris Motik: Yes, in FOL, I meant. (link)
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 (link)
17:40:27 <alanr> any ontology that uses owl2:first is owl 2
Alan Ruttenberg: any ontology that uses owl2:first is owl 2 (link)
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 (link)
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 (link)
17:40:54 <ivan> :-)
Ivan Herman: :-) (link)
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. (link)
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. (link)
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 (link)
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? (link)
17:43:08 <sandro> q+ to support Alan
Sandro Hawke: q+ to support Alan (link)
17:43:15 <alanr> michael is not here, he supports
Alan Ruttenberg: michael is not here, he supports (link)
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. (link)
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. (link)
17:45:05 <alanr> sorry - my mistake
Alan Ruttenberg: sorry - my mistake (link)
17:45:59 <alanr> http://bibliontology.com/
Alan Ruttenberg: http://bibliontology.com/ (link)
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. (link)
17:46:05 <ewallace> +1 to Sandro's suggestion
Evan Wallace: +1 to Sandro's suggestion (link)
17:46:37 <msmith> alanr, what part of that ontology?
Michael Smith: alanr, what part of that ontology? (link)
17:46:10 <alanr> exactly
Alan Ruttenberg: exactly (link)
17:46:50 <alanr> hunting - discussion was in email
Alan Ruttenberg: hunting - discussion was in email (link)
17:46:58 <MarkusK> Ian: still some speakers on the queue first
Ian Horrocks: still some speakers on the queue first (link)
17:47:15 <alanr> http://bibliontology.com/#term_contributorList
Alan Ruttenberg: http://bibliontology.com/#term_contributorList (link)
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. (link)
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 (link)
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 (link)
17:49:08 <alanr> Could we get documentation on how Pellet accomodates?
Alan Ruttenberg: Could we get documentation on how Pellet accomodates? (link)
17:49:35 <bijan> See the code :)
Bijan Parsia: See the code :) (link)
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 ;-) (link)
17:51:30 <bijan> I don't know off hand
Bijan Parsia: I don't know off hand (link)
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. (link)
17:50:13 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 (link)
17:50:15 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (link)
17:50:16 <bijan> That's the straw poll?
Bijan Parsia: That's the straw poll? (link)
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 (link)
17:50:25 <Achille> +1
Achille Fokoue: +1 (link)
17:50:26 <JeffPan> 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. (link)
17:50:31 <m_schnei> +1 (would be nice, but no shaddow vocab)
Michael Schneider: +1 (would be nice, but no shaddow vocab) (link)
17:50:35 <ewallace> +0
Evan Wallace: +0 (link)
17:50:35 <Zhe> +1 would be nice
Zhe Wu: +1 would be nice (link)
17:50:37 <ivan> +1 would be nice...
Ivan Herman: +1 would be nice... (link)
17:50:37 <uli> +1 but not too optimistic
Uli Sattler: +1 but not too optimistic (link)
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 (link)
17:50:43 <alanr> +1 to transmutation
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 to transmutation (link)
17:50:46 <bcuencagrau> 0
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: 0 (link)
17:50:49 <bijan> +0 but I wouldn't mind free puppies either
Bijan Parsia: +0 but I wouldn't mind free puppies either (link)
17:50:49 <clu> 0
Carsten Lutz: 0 (link)
17:51:08 <pfps> who is going to bell this cat?
Peter Patel-Schneider: who is going to bell this cat? (link)
17:51:13 <bijan> Er... if someone wants to , they should do so
Bijan Parsia: Er... if someone wants to , they should do so (link)
17:51:14 <alanr> Can we get a list of issues to start?
Alan Ruttenberg: Can we get a list of issues to start? (link)
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 (link)
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 (link)
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? (link)
17:51:44 <alanr> I will volunteer if Michael Schneider will
Alan Ruttenberg: I will volunteer if Michael Schneider will (link)
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 ;-) (link)
17:52:22 <msmith> I can talk to you about Pellet
Michael Smith: I can talk to you about Pellet (link)
17:52:36 <m_schnei> please say in irc, alan!
Michael Schneider: please say in irc, alan! (link)
17:52:56 <alanr> yes
Alan Ruttenberg: yes (link)
17:52:56 <MarkusK> Ian: AlanR and Michael Schneider shall pursue the issue
Ian Horrocks: AlanR and Michael Schneider shall pursue the issue (link)
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. (link)
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 (link)
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]. (link)
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! (link)
17:54:23 <m_schnei> bye for now!
Michael Schneider: bye for now! (link)
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? (link)
17:53:57 <bijan> nary!
Bijan Parsia: nary! (link)
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. (link)
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 (link)
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" (link)
17:57:46 <bijan> q+ to mention spec work
Bijan Parsia: q+ to mention spec work (link)
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. (link)
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. (link)
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. (link)
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 (link)
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? (link)
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. (link)
17:59:48 <MarkusK> Boris: I agree.
Boris Motik: I agree. (link)
17:59:48 <bijan> yep
Bijan Parsia: yep (link)
17:59:53 <MarkusK> Ian: I will prepare a straw poll.
Ian Horrocks: I will prepare a straw poll. (link)
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. (link)
18:00:45 <bmotik> But I can live with that
Boris Motik: But I can live with that (link)
18:00:50 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 (link)
18:00:57 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 (link)
18:00:58 <Achille> +1
Achille Fokoue: +1 (link)
18:00:59 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 (link)
18:01:00 <Zhe> +1
18:01:00 <clu> +1
Carsten Lutz: +1 (link)
18:01:00 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 (link)
18:01:01 <ewallace> +1
Evan Wallace: +1 (link)
18:01:05 <msmith> +1
Michael Smith: +1 (link)
18:01:05 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (link)
18:01:06 <bmotik> -0
Boris Motik: -0 (link)
18:01:09 <JeffPan> 0-
18:01:10 <bcuencagrau> 0
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: 0 (link)
18:01:18 <pfps> +0
Peter Patel-Schneider: +0 (link)
18:01:28 <alanr> is -0 = 0- ?
Alan Ruttenberg: is -0 = 0- ? (link)
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. (link)
18:01:38 <bmotik> Frankly, we don't need a comment.
Boris Motik: Frankly, we don't need a comment. (link)
18:01:39 <alanr> which can also be read as "is someone looking"
Alan Ruttenberg: which can also be read as "is someone looking" (link)
18:02:07 <bijan> A joint action?
Bijan Parsia: A joint action? (link)
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? (link)
18:02:12 <bijan> We'd need a resolution.
Bijan Parsia: We'd need a resolution. (link)
18:02:17 <MarkusK> Ian: I think so.
Ian Horrocks: I think so. (link)
18:02:25 <alanr> absolutely
Alan Ruttenberg: absolutely (link)
18:02:51 <MarkusK> Bijan: we first need an official resolution.
Bijan Parsia: we first need an official resolution. (link)
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. (link)
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 (link)
18:03:49 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 (link)
18:03:54 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (link)
18:03:55 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 (link)
18:04:00 <Zhe> +1
18:04:02 <bcuencagrau> +1
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1 (link)
18:04:05 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 (link)
18:04:06 <JeffPan> +1
18:04:09 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 (link)
18:04:13 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 (link)
18:04:21 <msmith> +!
Michael Smith: +! (link)
18:04:24 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 (link)
18:04:29 <msmith> +1
Michael Smith: +1 (link)
18:04:33 <pfps> +0
Peter Patel-Schneider: +0 (link)
18:04:34 <ewallace> +1
Evan Wallace: +1 (link)
18:04:36 <clu> +1
Carsten Lutz: +1 (link)
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 (link)
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 (link)
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]. (link)
18:05:08 <MarkusK> Subtopic: 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? (link)
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. (link)
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. (link)
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 (link)
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? (link)
18:07:42 <ivan> i did
Ivan Herman: i did (link)
18:07:44 <uli> I did
Uli Sattler: I did (link)
18:07:45 <pfps> me
Peter Patel-Schneider: me (link)
18:07:45 <bijan> I did
Bijan Parsia: I did (link)
18:07:49 <alanr> me
Alan Ruttenberg: me (link)
18:07:59 <sandro> I didn't. :-(
Sandro Hawke: I didn't. :-( (link)
18:08:00 <bijan> Michael did
Bijan Parsia: Michael did (link)
18:08:01 <Achille> I did not
Achille Fokoue: I did not (link)
18:08:03 <ewallace> I didn't
Evan Wallace: I didn't (link)
18:08:06 <Zhe> am reading it now
Zhe Wu: am reading it now (link)
18:08:07 <bcuencagrau> I didn't
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: I didn't (link)
18:08:16 <JeffPan> I just did but didn't finish
Jeff Pan: I just did but didn't finish (link)
18:08:29 <alanr> action to all who haven't read it?
Alan Ruttenberg: action to all who haven't read it? (link)
18:08:29 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - to (link)
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. (link)
18:09:13 <alanr> is BIJAN one of the options?
Alan Ruttenberg: is BIJAN one of the options? (link)
18:09:23 <bijan> Ivan did a good job with the email
Bijan Parsia: Ivan did a good job with the email (link)
18:09:24 <alanr> bijan :someValuesFrom
Alan Ruttenberg: bijan :someValuesFrom (link)
18:10:48 <MarkusK> Subtopic: 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? (link)
18:10:45 <bmotik> +1 to resolve these issues
Boris Motik: +1 to resolve these issues (link)
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 (link)
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 (link)
18:12:01 <alanr> 24 reject, no inconsistencies
Alan Ruttenberg: 24 reject, no inconsistencies (link)
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 (link)
18:12:51 <MarkusK> Subtopic: Issue 111
18:12:51 <MarkusK> (User intent signaling)
(User intent signaling) (link)
18:13:11 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call? (link)
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, (link)
18:13:14 <Zakim> ... bijan, JeffPan, clu (muted), m_schnei (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: ... bijan, JeffPan, clu (muted), m_schnei (muted) (link)
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. (link)
18:15:35 <alanr> Sandro, were you not concerned about this one too?
Alan Ruttenberg: Sandro, were you not concerned about this one too? (link)
18:15:50 <sandro> absolutely
Sandro Hawke: absolutely (link)
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 (link)
18:18:19 <bijan> alanr, if not wsdl, some description, perhaps english
Bijan Parsia: alanr, if not wsdl, some description, perhaps english (link)
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. (link)
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 (link)
18:19:22 <alanr> what about dl versus r?
Alan Ruttenberg: what about dl versus r? (link)
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. (link)
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 (link)
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 (link)
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 (link)
18:20:48 <alanr> we discussed this in detail at the last f2f
Alan Ruttenberg: we discussed this in detail at the last f2f (link)
18:21:00 <alanr> so patient...
Alan Ruttenberg: so patient... (link)
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 (link)
18:21:06 <bijan> Are there examples?
Bijan Parsia: Are there examples? (link)
18:21:41 <pfps> sounds good to me
Peter Patel-Schneider: sounds good to me (link)
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 (link)
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. (link)
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 (link)
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. (link)
18:23:35 <alanr> what about owl-r full versus owl-full
Alan Ruttenberg: what about owl-r full versus owl-full (link)
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. (link)
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 (link)
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? (link)
18:25:21 <bijan> Obviously we don't have a clear understanding!
Bijan Parsia: Obviously we don't have a clear understanding! (link)
18:25:24 <MarkusK> Michael Schneider: Nominals are not in!?
Michael Schneider: Nominals are not in!? (link)
18:25:45 <MarkusK> Ian: Syntactically nominals are allowed
Ian Horrocks: Syntactically nominals are allowed (link)
18:26:03 <MarkusK> Michael Schneider: Indeed
Michael Schneider: Indeed (link)
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 (link)
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). (link)
18:26:33 <bijan> Eek!
Bijan Parsia: Eek! (link)
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 :) (link)
18:26:39 <bijan> That wasn't my undersatnding
Bijan Parsia: That wasn't my undersatnding (link)
18:26:11 <MarkusK> Topic: Any other business?
18:26:11 <MarkusK> No other business.
No other business. (link)
This revision (#8) generated 2008-06-13 19:05:15 UTC by 'sandro', comments: 'No change to meeting record; just regenerating presentation file to take advantage of some code changes.'