OWL Working Group

Draft Minutes of 18 June 2008

Present
Bijan Parsia Michael Schneider Achille Fokoue Boris Motik Ian Horrocks Michael Smith Zhe Wu Uli Sattler Jie Bao Alan Ruttenberg Bernardo Cuenca Grau Sandro Hawke Peter Patel-Schneider Martin Dzbor
Scribe
Peter Patel-Schneider
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions
  1. Resolve ISSUE-112 adding top and bottom properties with the names owl:TopObjectProperty, owl:BottomObjectProperty, owl:TopDataProperty, owl:BottomDataProperty link
Topics
00:00:00 <pfps> PRESENT: bijan, m_schnei, Achille, bmotik, IanH, msmith, Zhe, uli, jie, Alan Ruttenberg, bcuencagrau, sandro, pfps, MartinD
16:48:42 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-owl-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-owl-irc

16:49:07 <pfps> pfps has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.06.18/Agenda

Peter Patel-Schneider: pfps has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.06.18/Agenda

16:49:28 <pfps> ScribeNick: pfps

(Scribe set to Peter Patel-Schneider)

17:02:24 <pfps> Topic: Admin

(No events recorded for 12 minutes)

1. Admin

17:02:55 <pfps> Subtopic: Roll call

1.1. Roll call

17:05:31 <pfps> Subtopic: Agenda amendments

1.2. Agenda amendments

17:05:47 <pfps> alanr: move imports from resolve to discuss

Alan Ruttenberg: move imports from resolve to discuss

17:05:57 <pfps> alanr: quick update on testing

Alan Ruttenberg: quick update on testing

17:06:16 <pfps> Subtopic: Approve Minutes

1.3. Approve Minutes

17:06:31 <pfps> PROPOSED: Accept Previous Previous Minutes (04 June)

PROPOSED: Accept Previous Previous Minutes (04 June)

17:07:18 <pfps> pfps: formatting looks different

Peter Patel-Schneider: formatting looks different

17:07:29 <pfps> alanr: other opinions?

Alan Ruttenberg: other opinions?

17:07:50 <pfps> uli: 4th are OK, 11th worse

Uli Sattler: 4th are OK, 11th worse

17:08:19 <uli> no

Uli Sattler: no

17:08:21 <pfps> alanr: review minutes next week for formatting issues

Alan Ruttenberg: review minutes next week for formatting issues

17:08:28 <pfps> alanr: objections? - none

Alan Ruttenberg: objections? - none

17:08:58 <pfps> Subtopic: F2F3

1.4. F2F3

17:09:07 <pfps> alanr: please indicate registration status

Alan Ruttenberg: please indicate registration status

17:09:20 <pfps> Subtopic: Action item status

1.5. Action item status

17:09:20 <pfps> ACTION-160

ACTION-160

17:09:51 <pfps> alanr: ACTION-160 pending

Alan Ruttenberg: ACTION-160 pending

17:10:07 <pfps> boris: everything OK except status of top in EL++

Boris Motik: everything OK except status of top in EL++

17:10:13 <pfps> alanr: Zhe?

Alan Ruttenberg: Zhe?

17:10:31 <uli> ...say againb

Uli Sattler: ...say againb

17:10:36 <pfps> Zhe: OK with current status

Zhe Wu: OK with current status

17:10:51 <pfps> alanr: should bottom role be added separately where OK?

Alan Ruttenberg: should bottom role be added separately where OK?

17:10:59 <msmith> q+ to ask about dl-lite

Michael Smith: q+ to ask about dl-lite

17:11:07 <pfps> boris: they should be added as pairs as they are converses

Boris Motik: they should be added as pairs as they are converses

17:11:25 <pfps> msmith: is top OK in dl-lite

Michael Smith: is top OK in dl-lite

17:11:57 <pfps> boris: might change complexity, but I don't know, so an investigation would be needed to add it

Boris Motik: might change complexity, but I don't know, so an investigation would be needed to add it

17:12:08 <pfps> alanr: add an issue for this?

Alan Ruttenberg: add an issue for this?

17:12:34 <msmith> +1 to close action. this can be discussed on list.

Michael Smith: +1 to close action. this can be discussed on list.

17:12:35 <pfps> uli: action on me to ask Diego whether dl-lite can accept top

Uli Sattler: action on me to ask Diego whether dl-lite can accept top

17:12:55 <pfps> alanr: ACTION-160 closed

Alan Ruttenberg: ACTION-160 closed

17:13:07 <pfps> ACTION-42

ACTION-42

17:13:14 <pfps> alanr: Bijan not here so pass

Alan Ruttenberg: Bijan not here so pass

17:13:18 <pfps> ACTION-150

ACTION-150

17:13:23 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternalizedString

Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternalizedString

17:13:39 <pfps> alanr: has anyone looked at the document

Alan Ruttenberg: has anyone looked at the document

17:13:55 <pfps> alanr: intent of action is to also start discussion

Alan Ruttenberg: intent of action is to also start discussion

17:14:14 <pfps> jie: I gathered information

Jie Bao: I gathered information

17:14:39 <pfps> alanr: can you also initiate discussion with RIF WG?

Alan Ruttenberg: can you also initiate discussion with RIF WG?

17:14:46 <pfps> jie: OK

Jie Bao: OK

17:14:58 <pfps> boris: is this all going to a new document?

Boris Motik: is this all going to a new document?

17:15:17 <pfps> jie: the page is not part of the spec, but it will lead to something

Jie Bao: the page is not part of the spec, but it will lead to something

17:15:40 <msmith> Yes, I thought it was to be a spec, in case we beat RIF forward

Michael Smith: Yes, I thought it was to be a spec, in case we beat RIF forward

17:15:43 <pfps> alanr: Ivan was suggesting a mini-specification, but the WG stance was not clear

Alan Ruttenberg: Ivan was suggesting a mini-specification, but the WG stance was not clear

17:16:32 <pfps> alanr: there should be some publication in some form

Alan Ruttenberg: there should be some publication in some form

17:17:05 <pfps> alanr: there would then be something for both WGs to point to

Alan Ruttenberg: there would then be something for both WGs to point to

17:17:19 <pfps> ACTION-155

ACTION-155

17:17:42 <pfps> alanr: Ivan not here so postpone

Alan Ruttenberg: Ivan not here so postpone

17:17:52 <pfps> ACTION-156 and ACTION-157

ACTION-156 and ACTION-157

17:18:06 <pfps> alanr: I'm behind so postpone

Alan Ruttenberg: I'm behind so postpone

17:18:15 <pfps> Topic: Issues

2. Issues

17:18:25 <pfps> Subtopic: ISSUE-109

2.1. ISSUE-109

17:18:48 <pfps> alanr: what namespace to use for owl xml syntax

Alan Ruttenberg: what namespace to use for owl xml syntax

17:19:02 <pfps> alanr: Ivan's email summarizes the situation

Alan Ruttenberg: Ivan's email summarizes the situation

17:19:11 <pfps> alanr: vote on the issue

Alan Ruttenberg: vote on the issue

17:19:36 <bijan> Hi

Bijan Parsia: Hi

17:20:35 <pfps> PROPOSED: Use one namespace (vote 1) two namespaces (vote 2) or don't care (vote 0)

PROPOSED: Use one namespace (vote 1) two namespaces (vote 2) or don't care (vote 0)

17:20:44 <pfps> pfps: 1

Peter Patel-Schneider: 1

17:20:45 <bmotik> 2

Boris Motik: 2

17:20:46 <jie> 0

Jie Bao: 0

17:20:49 <uli> 1

Uli Sattler: 1

17:20:49 <IanH> 1

Ian Horrocks: 1

17:20:49 <bijan> 1

Bijan Parsia: 1

17:20:53 <bcuencagrau> 0

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: 0

17:20:55 <m_schnei> 2 (fzi)

Michael Schneider: 2 (fzi)

17:21:05 <MartinD> 2

Martin Dzbor: 2

17:21:14 <alanr> Ivan - 2

Alan Ruttenberg: Ivan - 2

17:21:38 <msmith> vote 0 (C&P)

Michael Smith: vote 0 (C&amp;P)

17:21:49 <alanr> 2 (science commons)

Alan Ruttenberg: 2 (science commons)

17:21:51 <pfps> Achille: if we use the same namespace, will there be different things using the same URI

Achille Fokoue: if we use the same namespace, will there be different things using the same URI

17:22:29 <pfps> bijan: no overlap (URI vs Qname), no overlap even discounting this

Bijan Parsia: no overlap (URI vs Qname), no overlap even discounting this

17:22:39 <Zhe> 0 (Oracle)

Zhe Wu: 0 (Oracle)

17:22:39 <Achille> 1

Achille Fokoue: 1

17:22:44 <jie> 0(RPI)

Jie Bao: 0(RPI)

17:22:46 <Achille> 1 (Achille)

Achille Fokoue: 1 (Achille)

17:22:50 <Achille> 1 (IBM)

Achille Fokoue: 1 (IBM)

17:22:52 <msmith> revised vote 1 (C&P)

Michael Smith: revised vote 1 (C&amp;P)

17:23:29 <bijan> yes

Bijan Parsia: yes

17:23:29 <uli> yes

Uli Sattler: yes

17:23:40 <uli> 1 (Manchester)

Uli Sattler: 1 (Manchester)

17:24:09 <MartinD> revision ... 2 (Open University)

Martin Dzbor: revision ... 2 (Open University)

17:24:12 <bmotik> Oxford - 0

Boris Motik: Oxford - 0

17:25:14 <msmith> I see 4x0 3x1 4x2

Michael Smith: I see 4x0 3x1 4x2

17:25:23 <bijan> 4 x 1

Bijan Parsia: 4 x 1

17:25:49 <alanr> 3x0 4x1 4x2

Alan Ruttenberg: 3x0 4x1 4x2

17:25:50 <alanr> ?

Alan Ruttenberg: ?

17:27:48 <pfps> alanr: and the result is a tie!  the chairs will figure out if it really is a tie

Alan Ruttenberg: and the result is a tie! the chairs will figure out if it really is a tie

17:28:16 <pfps> Subtopic:  ISSUE-112

2.2. ISSUE-112

17:28:26 <pfps> alanr: names of top and bottom properties

Alan Ruttenberg: names of top and bottom properties

17:28:40 <pfps> boris: topObjectProperty, bottomObjectProperty, ...

Boris Motik: topObjectProperty, bottomObjectProperty, ...

17:28:56 <pfps> boris: ..., topDataProperty, bottomDataProperty

Boris Motik: ..., topDataProperty, bottomDataProperty

17:29:07 <bmotik> They are called owl:TopObjectProperty, owl:BottomObjectProperty, owl:TopDataProperty, owl:BottomDataProperty

Boris Motik: They are called owl:TopObjectProperty, owl:BottomObjectProperty, owl:TopDataProperty, owl:BottomDataProperty

17:29:39 <pfps> PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-112 adding top and bottom properties with the names owl:TopObjectProperty, owl:BottomObjectProperty, owl:TopDataProperty, owl:BottomDataProperty

PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-112 adding top and bottom properties with the names owl:TopObjectProperty, owl:BottomObjectProperty, owl:TopDataProperty, owl:BottomDataProperty

17:29:41 <bijan> Nope

Bijan Parsia: Nope

17:30:05 <m_schnei> if there is bottomDataProperty, why isn't there owl:DataNothing?

Michael Schneider: if there is bottomDataProperty, why isn't there owl:DataNothing?

17:30:07 <pfps> alanr: Does this mess up the "single" root of property hierarchies?

Alan Ruttenberg: Does this mess up the "single" root of property hierarchies?

17:30:30 <bmotik> +1

Boris Motik: +1

17:30:32 <bijan> +1

Bijan Parsia: +1

17:30:32 <msmith> +1 to resolve issue-112 as stated

Michael Smith: +1 to resolve ISSUE-112 as stated

17:30:33 <jie> +1

Jie Bao: +1

17:30:36 <alanr> 0

Alan Ruttenberg: 0

17:30:36 <bcuencagrau> +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

17:30:42 <m_schnei> +1

Michael Schneider: +1

17:30:47 <uli> +1

Uli Sattler: +1

17:30:49 <MartinD> +1

Martin Dzbor: +1

17:30:51 <pfps> pfps:+1 to resolve issue-112 as stated

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to resolve ISSUE-112 as stated

17:30:52 <Zhe> +1

Zhe Wu: +1

17:30:54 <Achille> 0

Achille Fokoue: 0

17:30:56 <IanH> +1

Ian Horrocks: +1

17:31:07 <pfps> RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-112 adding top and bottom properties with the names owl:TopObjectProperty, owl:BottomObjectProperty, owl:TopDataProperty, owl:BottomDataProperty

RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-112 adding top and bottom properties with the names owl:TopObjectProperty, owl:BottomObjectProperty, owl:TopDataProperty, owl:BottomDataProperty

17:32:08 <pfps> m_schnei: is there a difference between Nothing and the empty datatype?

Michael Schneider: is there a difference between Nothing and the empty datatype?

17:32:27 <pfps> m_schnei: do we need a name for the empty datatype?

Michael Schneider: do we need a name for the empty datatype?

17:33:04 <pfps> boris: for properties we need the two bottom properties to allow for syntactic typing of expressions

Boris Motik: for properties we need the two bottom properties to allow for syntactic typing of expressions

17:33:31 <pfps> m_schneid: what about empty datatype name?

Michael Schneider: what about empty datatype name?

17:33:43 <alanr> complementOf(rdfs:literal)?

Alan Ruttenberg: complementOf(rdfs:literal)?

17:33:49 <pfps> boris: we can have it - but there is already syntax for it

Boris Motik: we can have it - but there is already syntax for it

17:34:04 <pfps> bijan: i go either way

Bijan Parsia: i go either way

17:34:32 <pfps> Subtopic: ISSUE-21 and ISSUE-24

2.3. ISSUE-21 and ISSUE-24

17:35:54 <pfps> IanH: there has been extensive discussion leading to a "resolution"

Ian Horrocks: there has been extensive discussion leading to a "resolution"

17:36:21 <pfps> IanH: see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jun/0126.html

Ian Horrocks: see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jun/0126.html

17:37:23 <pfps> pfps: wording has problems for me - also incompatibleWith gives syntactic invalidity

Peter Patel-Schneider: wording has problems for me - also incompatibleWith gives syntactic invalidity

17:37:39 <pfps> boris: this has been there a few weeks

Boris Motik: this has been there a few weeks

17:38:29 <pfps> pfps: my problem was the wording of Alan's message - syntactic invalidity

Peter Patel-Schneider: my problem was the wording of Alan's message - syntactic invalidity

17:38:41 <pfps> boris: incompatibleWith has been in a while

Boris Motik: incompatibleWith has been in a while

17:39:18 <pfps> boris: still a should - only change is to call the problem a syntactic invalidity

Boris Motik: still a should - only change is to call the problem a syntactic invalidity

17:40:30 <pfps> alanr: two cases - 1 - imports of two different versions of the ontology - 2 - importing incompatibleWith ontologies

Alan Ruttenberg: two cases - 1 - imports of two different versions of the ontology - 2 - importing incompatibleWith ontologies

17:40:51 <pfps> alanr: were treated differently - changed to be the same way

Alan Ruttenberg: were treated differently - changed to be the same way

17:41:24 <pfps> alanr: syntactic invalidity was borrowed from case 1

Alan Ruttenberg: syntactic invalidity was borrowed from case 1

17:42:00 <pfps> boris: intention was to treat both cases the same

Boris Motik: intention was to treat both cases the same

17:42:09 <IanH> no! ??

Ian Horrocks: no! ??

17:42:38 <pfps> boris: now they are both treated the same way

Boris Motik: now they are both treated the same way

17:43:18 <pfps> pfps: I don't consider this to be a syntactic problem - instead it is something else

Peter Patel-Schneider: I don't consider this to be a syntactic problem - instead it is something else

17:44:02 <pfps> IanH: then what should happen

Ian Horrocks: then what should happen

17:44:28 <pfps> boris: should allows exceptions

Boris Motik: should allows exceptions

17:44:45 <pfps> IanH: both cases should be the same

Ian Horrocks: both cases should be the same

17:44:55 <pfps> pfps: both are the same

Peter Patel-Schneider: both are the same

17:45:28 <pfps> pfps: syntactic validity *should* not involved a should

Peter Patel-Schneider: syntactic validity *should* not involved a should

17:45:41 <pfps> IanH: let's take this to email

Ian Horrocks: let's take this to email

17:45:57 <m_schnei> in reverse RDF mapping, what happens if incompatibleWith occurs? is rdf graph rejected to be syntactically invalid OWL DL?

Michael Schneider: in reverse RDF mapping, what happens if incompatibleWith occurs? is rdf graph rejected to be syntactically invalid OWL DL?

17:46:38 <pfps> alanr: status of incompatibleWith on third-party ontologies

Alan Ruttenberg: status of incompatibleWith on third-party ontologies

17:46:43 <pfps> boris: resolve together

Boris Motik: resolve together

17:47:09 <pfps> IanH: let's push for a single solution

Ian Horrocks: let's push for a single solution

17:47:25 <pfps> Subtopic: ISSUE-108

2.4. ISSUE-108

17:47:37 <pfps> alanr: what to name the profiles

Alan Ruttenberg: what to name the profiles

17:47:53 <alanr> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008May/0120.html

Alan Ruttenberg: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008May/0120.html

17:48:01 <pfps> alanr: contenders - one- and two-letter suffixes (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008May/0120.html)

Alan Ruttenberg: contenders - one- and two-letter suffixes (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008May/0120.html)

17:48:47 <pfps> alanr: [lists the possibilities]

Alan Ruttenberg: [lists the possibilities]

17:48:50 <bijan> I'll note that I was misremembering earlier :( I just brain farted about e.g., owl:ObjectProprety. I'll send an email :(

Bijan Parsia: I'll note that I was misremembering earlier :( I just brain farted about e.g., owl:ObjectProprety. I'll send an email :(

17:48:52 <bmotik> DDL is bad because it sounds too much like "distributed description logics"

Boris Motik: DDL is bad because it sounds too much like "distributed description logics"

17:49:08 <pfps> alanr: I prefer the one-letter versions

Alan Ruttenberg: I prefer the one-letter versions

17:49:31 <uli> ..the link above seems to be broken

Uli Sattler: ..the link above seems to be broken

17:49:41 <IanH> Not for me!

Ian Horrocks: Not for me!

17:50:07 <uli> ...the ")" was the culprit, it works

Uli Sattler: ...the ")" was the culprit, it works

17:50:42 <alanr> 1) OWL2E 2) OWL2 E 3) OWL E

Alan Ruttenberg: 1) OWL2E 2) OWL2 E 3) OWL E

17:50:58 <bmotik> In general, we have write "OWL 2" (with a space)

Boris Motik: In general, we have write "OWL 2" (with a space)

17:51:03 <bmotik> s/write/written

Boris Motik: s/write/written

17:51:14 <alanr> 4) OWL 2 E

Alan Ruttenberg: 4) OWL 2 E

17:51:17 <bmotik> Yes

Boris Motik: Yes

17:51:18 <pfps> pfps: yes

Peter Patel-Schneider: yes

17:51:21 <bijan> OWL 2e

Bijan Parsia: OWL 2e

17:51:29 <m_schnei> OWL E 2

Michael Schneider: OWL E 2

17:51:37 <alanr> 5) OWL 2E

Alan Ruttenberg: 5) OWL 2E

17:51:43 <m_schnei> I mean this seriously...

Michael Schneider: I mean this seriously...

17:51:51 <alanr> 6) OWL E 2

Alan Ruttenberg: 6) OWL E 2

17:51:55 <bijan> But isnt' the first version of OWL E?

Bijan Parsia: But isnt' the first version of OWL E?

17:51:59 <IanH> OWL E2?

Ian Horrocks: OWL E2?

17:52:20 <IanH> OWLE2?

Ian Horrocks: OWLE2?

17:52:23 <alanr> 2 be or not 2 be

Alan Ruttenberg: 2 be or not 2 be

17:52:32 <IanH> Not serious

Ian Horrocks: Not serious

17:52:35 <bijan> I just meant that I don't understand 6)

Bijan Parsia: I just meant that I don't understand 6)

17:53:13 <alanr> 1) "OWL2E" 2) "OWL2 E" 3) "OWL E" 4) "OWL 2 E" 5) "OWL 2E"  6) "OWL E 2"

Alan Ruttenberg: 1) "OWL2E" 2) "OWL2 E" 3) "OWL E" 4) "OWL 2 E" 5) "OWL 2E" 6) "OWL E 2"

17:53:55 <uli> ...no it wouldn't help us

Uli Sattler: ...no it wouldn't help us

17:54:00 <pfps> m_schnei: so consider OWL 2 Lite, ...

Michael Schneider: so consider OWL 2 Lite, ...

17:54:05 <bijan> "OWL E 2" sounds like the second version of OWL E, not the E version of OWL 2 :)

Bijan Parsia: "OWL E 2" sounds like the second version of OWL E, not the E version of OWL 2 :)

17:54:14 <bmotik> 4

Boris Motik: 4

17:54:18 <m_schnei> 3

Michael Schneider: 3

17:54:19 <pfps> Straw Poll: put in preference (single vote)

Straw Poll: put in preference (single vote)

17:54:21 <bcuencagrau> 4

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: 4

17:54:25 <alanr> 3

Alan Ruttenberg: 3

17:54:27 <Zhe> 3 or 4

Zhe Wu: 3 or 4

17:54:28 <pfps> pfps: 4

Peter Patel-Schneider: 4

17:54:33 <bijan> 5 (lowercase)

Bijan Parsia: 5 (lowercase)

17:54:36 <uli> 1 or 4

Uli Sattler: 1 or 4

17:54:41 <IanH> 4

Ian Horrocks: 4

17:54:51 <MartinD> 4 or 3

Martin Dzbor: 4 or 3

17:54:52 <bijan> OOo, OWL^2^e

Bijan Parsia: OOo, OWL^2^e

17:54:55 <msmith> 2

Michael Smith: 2

17:55:01 <jie> 1

Jie Bao: 1

17:55:06 <Achille> 3

Achille Fokoue: 3

17:55:06 <bcuencagrau> hey, what about the single vote?

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: hey, what about the single vote?

17:55:33 <m_schnei> ok, I am going to withdraw 6 ;-)

Michael Schneider: ok, I am going to withdraw 6 ;-)

17:55:55 <pfps> msmith: we are talking about spacing

Michael Smith: we are talking about spacing

17:55:56 <uli> good idea!

Uli Sattler: good idea!

17:56:54 <IanH> We didn't consider hyphens!

Ian Horrocks: We didn't consider hyphens!

17:56:55 <alanr> 1) E, D, R 2) EL, DB, LP for  EL++, DL Lite, OWL R

Alan Ruttenberg: 1) E, D, R 2) EL, DB, LP for EL++, DL Lite, OWL R

17:57:24 <uli> there was an alternative for the 2letter version for LP

Uli Sattler: there was an alternative for the 2letter version for LP

17:57:52 <bmotik> 2

Boris Motik: 2

17:57:54 <bcuencagrau> 2

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: 2

17:57:55 <pfps> alanr: if the choice is two-letters we will later decide on which letters

Alan Ruttenberg: if the choice is two-letters we will later decide on which letters

17:57:59 <Zhe> 1

Zhe Wu: 1

17:58:00 <alanr> 1

Alan Ruttenberg: 1

17:58:01 <MartinD> 2 chars

Martin Dzbor: 2 chars

17:58:04 <m_schnei> 1

Michael Schneider: 1

17:58:09 <Achille> 2

Achille Fokoue: 2

17:58:10 <pfps> Staw Poll: one letter vs two letters

Staw Poll: one letter vs two letters

17:58:11 <pfps> pfps: 0

Peter Patel-Schneider: 0

17:58:12 <msmith> 1 to reduce search space

Michael Smith: 1 to reduce search space

17:58:12 <uli> 1

Uli Sattler: 1

17:58:15 <bijan> 0

Bijan Parsia: 0

17:58:19 <IanH> 2

Ian Horrocks: 2

17:58:21 <jie> 1

Jie Bao: 1

17:58:48 <bijan> I guess I could change to 1

Bijan Parsia: I guess I could change to 1

17:59:07 <bmotik> +q

Boris Motik: +q

17:59:09 <IanH> I should own up to the fact that 3 twos came from Oxford

Ian Horrocks: I should own up to the fact that 3 twos came from Oxford

17:59:12 <pfps> alanr: and the result is ............. 1 letter ...... by a hair

Alan Ruttenberg: and the result is ............. 1 letter ...... by a hair

17:59:23 <bcuencagrau> +q

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +q

17:59:44 <alanr> phone crapped out. back in a sec

Alan Ruttenberg: phone crapped out. back in a sec

17:59:55 <Achille> +1 for boris

Achille Fokoue: +1 for boris

18:00:09 <pfps> boris: we should consider which one-letter names

Boris Motik: we should consider which one-letter names

18:01:11 <pfps> boris: OWL 2 E could be OWL 2 T (for tboxes)

Boris Motik: OWL 2 E could be OWL 2 T (for tboxes)

18:01:19 <bmotik> OWL 2 Tax

Boris Motik: OWL 2 Tax

18:01:24 <uli> eee

Uli Sattler: eee

18:01:54 <pfps> bernardo: E doesn't mean anything, we need a better letter for it

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: E doesn't mean anything, we need a better letter for it

18:02:01 <IanH> Agree with Bernardo!

Ian Horrocks: Agree with Bernardo!

18:02:45 <m_schnei> expand "tbox"... "T" for defining "[T]erminologies

Michael Schneider: expand "tbox"... "T" for defining "[T]erminologies

18:02:47 <Zhe> second Bijan

Zhe Wu: second Bijan

18:03:01 <uli> ...a bit of mnemonic helps, but there can be too much in a name!

Uli Sattler: ...a bit of mnemonic helps, but there can be too much in a name!

18:03:02 <bmotik> +q

Boris Motik: +q

18:03:08 <pfps> bijan: the names should just be "names", i.e., with no inherent meaning

Bijan Parsia: the names should just be "names", i.e., with no inherent meaning

18:03:14 <bcuencagrau> right

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: right

18:03:17 <pfps> boris: then use A,B,C

Boris Motik: then use A,B,C

18:03:19 <pfps> bijan: OK

Bijan Parsia: OK

18:03:28 <IanH> Disagree with A,B,C!

Ian Horrocks: Disagree with A,B,C!

18:03:44 <pfps> uli: a little bit of mnemonic is useful

Uli Sattler: a little bit of mnemonic is useful

18:03:49 <IanH> +1

Ian Horrocks: +1

18:04:22 <bijan> I wouldn't select A, B, C, obviously. THe current names are better!

Bijan Parsia: I wouldn't select A, B, C, obviously. THe current names are better!

18:04:35 <m_schnei> A=[A]ssertionbox, B = data[B]ase, C = [C]lasses

Michael Schneider: A=[A]ssertionbox, B = data[B]ase, C = [C]lasses

18:04:41 <pfps> alanr: think about this during the week and a proposal may show up for next week

Alan Ruttenberg: think about this during the week and a proposal may show up for next week

18:04:44 <IanH> For EL and R, I don't see what is wrong with EL and R

Ian Horrocks: For EL and R, I don't see what is wrong with EL and R

18:05:01 <pfps> Topic: General Discussion

3. General Discussion

18:05:15 <pfps> List of normative datatypes

List of normative datatypes

18:05:30 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/126

Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/126

18:06:04 <pfps> boris: the current list of datatypes includes lots of XML schema datatypes, some of which are problematics

Boris Motik: the current list of datatypes includes lots of XML schema datatypes, some of which are problematics

18:06:12 <pfps> boris: Jeremy had a paper on this

Boris Motik: Jeremy had a paper on this

18:06:22 <MartinD> MartinD has left #OWL

Martin Dzbor: MartinD has left #OWL

18:06:43 <pfps> boris: decimal datatype not useful - no division - rational better

Boris Motik: decimal datatype not useful - no division - rational better

18:07:15 <pfps> boris: float and double are even worse - finite but huge, with bad mathematical properties

Boris Motik: float and double are even worse - finite but huge, with bad mathematical properties

18:07:34 <pfps> boris: these could end up with strange consequences

Boris Motik: these could end up with strange consequences

18:07:35 <alanr> q+ to ask whether if we don't use these in class expressions, could we leave them for annotations

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ to ask whether if we don't use these in class expressions, could we leave them for annotations

18:07:49 <pfps> boris: Jeremy points out that operations are not associative on these

Boris Motik: Jeremy points out that operations are not associative on these

18:08:03 <pfps> boris: let's use instead rational and/or real

Boris Motik: let's use instead rational and/or real

18:08:31 <pfps> boris: date datatypes have some problems

Boris Motik: date datatypes have some problems

18:09:09 <pfps> boris: pattern facet can be applied to numbers with hard-to-predict results

Boris Motik: pattern facet can be applied to numbers with hard-to-predict results

18:09:31 <pfps> boris: these datatypes are in XML schema to handle input and don't match reasoning

Boris Motik: these datatypes are in XML schema to handle input and don't match reasoning

18:09:42 <pfps> uli: I wildly agree with Boris

Uli Sattler: I wildly agree with Boris

18:09:50 <pfps> uli: RacerPro people also agree

Uli Sattler: RacerPro people also agree

18:10:13 <pfps> alanr: what about using them in annotations?

Alan Ruttenberg: what about using them in annotations?

18:10:52 <pfps> msmith: several different problems, should we split them?

Michael Smith: several different problems, should we split them?

18:11:03 <pfps> msmith: rational/real is already on the table

Michael Smith: rational/real is already on the table

18:11:05 <msmith> msmith: I suggest breaking this into multiple issues, for reals we have ISSUE-87 with proposed resolution http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/OWL_Rational

Michael Smith: msmith: I suggest breaking this into multiple issues, for reals we have ISSUE-87 with proposed resolution http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/OWL_Rational

18:11:50 <pfps> pfps: input could have odd datatypes, provided they could be mapped to "better" datatypes

Peter Patel-Schneider: input could have odd datatypes, provided they could be mapped to "better" datatypes

18:12:17 <alanr> q+ to ask if approximating annotation values would mean you wouldn't get back what you put in sometimes.

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ to ask if approximating annotation values would mean you wouldn't get back what you put in sometimes.

18:12:33 <pfps> boris: numerics issues intertwined - if rational and real are included then this solves some of the problems

Boris Motik: numerics issues intertwined - if rational and real are included then this solves some of the problems

18:12:56 <m_schnei> so what would then be the mandatory types? string, integer, rational, real? something else? (reasoning about quaternions in 3d apps might be cool :))

Michael Schneider: so what would then be the mandatory types? string, integer, rational, real? something else? (reasoning about quaternions in 3d apps might be cool :))

18:12:58 <pfps> boris: against allowing input-only datatype

Boris Motik: against allowing input-only datatype

18:13:51 <pfps> alanr: couldn't annotation values just be left alone?

Alan Ruttenberg: couldn't annotation values just be left alone?

18:14:08 <pfps> alanr: wouldn't approximating input values lead to roundtripping problems

Alan Ruttenberg: wouldn't approximating input values lead to roundtripping problems

18:14:38 <pfps> alanr: what about OWL accepting experimental data (which will be in some existing format)

Alan Ruttenberg: what about OWL accepting experimental data (which will be in some existing format)

18:17:08 <pfps> boris: input data should be mapped into better datatypes prior to input to OWL

Boris Motik: input data should be mapped into better datatypes prior to input to OWL

18:17:36 <alanr> link http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/people/boris.motik/publications/mh08datatypes.pdf is broken

Alan Ruttenberg: link http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/people/boris.motik/publications/mh08datatypes.pdf is broken

18:17:57 <msmith> use http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/people/boris.motik/pubs/mh08datatypes.pdf

Michael Smith: use http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/people/boris.motik/pubs/mh08datatypes.pdf

18:17:53 <pfps> boris: could also allow input that looks like "2.5"^^xsd:float, but this would be translated into the real / rational 2.5

Boris Motik: could also allow input that looks like "2.5"^^xsd:float, but this would be translated into the real / rational 2.5

18:18:12 <pfps> pfps: that was essentially my proposal

Peter Patel-Schneider: that was essentially my proposal

18:18:59 <pfps> bijan: can't give up input with double/float/... but ...

Bijan Parsia: can't give up input with double/float/... but ...

18:19:34 <pfps> boris: in most cases nothing bad would happen, but double/float are finite and having a datarange of float is dangerous

Boris Motik: in most cases nothing bad would happen, but double/float are finite and having a datarange of float is dangerous

18:19:44 <pfps> boris: for dates even the names are problematic

Boris Motik: for dates even the names are problematic

18:19:56 <pfps> bijan: this breaks existing ontologies

Bijan Parsia: this breaks existing ontologies

18:20:07 <pfps> boris: but OWL 1 only had integer and string

Boris Motik: but OWL 1 only had integer and string

18:20:11 <msmith> one doc says sting & integer, one says everything but duration

Michael Smith: one doc says sting &amp; integer, one says everything but duration

18:20:18 <pfps> bijan: it allowed others and they were used

Bijan Parsia: it allowed others and they were used

18:20:30 <pfps> alanr: more investigation needed

Alan Ruttenberg: more investigation needed

18:20:53 <pfps> alanr: my main concern is scientific use of OWL

Alan Ruttenberg: my main concern is scientific use of OWL

18:21:31 <pfps> uli: for numerics - internal space can be larger (input) but input space can be as in XML

Uli Sattler: for numerics - internal space can be larger (input) but input space can be as in XML

18:21:50 <pfps> uli: could even have xsd:float being internally the same as real

Uli Sattler: could even have xsd:float being internally the same as real

18:22:10 <msmith> not xsd:float though, really xsd:decimal

Michael Smith: not xsd:float though, really xsd:decimal

18:22:15 <pfps> alanr: what about rounding

Alan Ruttenberg: what about rounding

18:22:34 <IanH> cerebra

Ian Horrocks: cerebra

18:22:47 <pfps> boris: network inference datatype reasoner did this remapping

Boris Motik: network inference datatype reasoner did this remapping

18:23:08 <IanH> s/network inference/cerebra/

Ian Horrocks: s/network inference/cerebra/

18:23:21 <pfps> boris: we could just do the remapping internally

Boris Motik: we could just do the remapping internally

18:23:23 <alanr> q+ to ask if we could have a small writeup of this proposal that we could shop around to interested parties

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ to ask if we could have a small writeup of this proposal that we could shop around to interested parties

18:23:34 <msmith> q+ to react to remapping

Michael Smith: q+ to react to remapping

18:23:42 <m_schnei> computer languages generally have LongFloat libraries, with arbitrary length decimals

Michael Schneider: computer languages generally have LongFloat libraries, with arbitrary length decimals

18:23:43 <pfps> boris: rounding would not be a problem (if nothing is done on the value)

Boris Motik: rounding would not be a problem (if nothing is done on the value)

18:24:21 <pfps> alanr: could we have a writeup or a pointer on the mapping solution

Alan Ruttenberg: could we have a writeup or a pointer on the mapping solution

18:24:39 <pfps> boris: I'll do it

Boris Motik: I'll do it

18:25:58 <pfps> Topic: Other Business

4. Other Business

18:26:03 <pfps> Subtopic: Testing

4.1. Testing

18:26:09 <msmith> msmith: I've started by using the WebOnt tests.  See http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/User:MikeSmith#WebOnt

Michael Smith: I've started by using the WebOnt tests. See http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/User:MikeSmith#WebOnt [ Scribe Assist by Michael Smith ]

18:26:22 <msmith> ... rather than move them all, I moved one of each test type and am beginning to develop the supporting infrastructure around that

Michael Smith: ... rather than move them all, I moved one of each test type and am beginning to develop the supporting infrastructure around that

18:26:30 <msmith> ... there are a few different hierarchies for tests (e.g., type, "species", etc)  See http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Category:Test_Case

Michael Smith: ... there are a few different hierarchies for tests (e.g., type, "species", etc) See http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Category:Test_Case

18:26:55 <msmith> ... people can base new tests on what's there, but it shouldn't be considered stable yet and you're probably better waiting

Michael Smith: ... people can base new tests on what's there, but it shouldn't be considered stable yet and you're probably better waiting

18:27:21 <pfps> alanr: questions?

Alan Ruttenberg: questions?

18:27:38 <pfps> alanr: Adjourn

Alan Ruttenberg: Adjourn


This revision (#2) generated 2008-07-02 13:25:39 UTC by 'sandro', comments: 'fix tracker links'