OWL Working Group

Draft Minutes of 16 July 2008

Present
Rob Shearer Uli Sattler Ian Horrocks Boris Motik Alan Ruttenberg Bernardo Cuenca Grau Peter Patel-Schneider Bijan Parsia Ivan Herman Zhe Wu Ratnesh Sahay Achille Fokoue Jeff Pan Achille Fokoue Ivan Herman Zhe Wu Bijan Parsia Boris Motik Uli Sattler Ian Horrocks Ratnesh Sahay Rob Shearer Peter Patel-Schneider Sandro Hawke Evan Wallace Michael Schneider Jie Bao
Scribe
Boris Motik
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions
  1. Accept previous minutes (9 July) link
  2. Close ISSUE-31 as withdrawn link
  3. Close ISSUE-67 by introducing new shadow vocabulary link
Topics
00:00:00 <bmotik> PRESENT: rob (muted), uli (muted), IanH, bmotik (muted), alan_ruttenberg, bcuencagrau (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan (muted), Ivan, Zhe (muted), ratnesh, Achille, JeffP, Achille, ivan, Zhe, bijan, bmotik, uli, IanH, ratnesh, rob, pfps, sandro, ewallace, m_schnei, baojie
17:02:01 <IanH> IanH has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.07.16/Agenda

Ian Horrocks: IanH has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.07.16/Agenda

17:02:26 <IanH> ScribeNick: bmotik

(Scribe set to Boris Motik)

17:05:16 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: No agenda amendments

Alan Ruttenberg: No agenda amendments

17:05:48 <bmotik> PROPOSED: Accept previous minutes (9 July)

PROPOSED: Accept previous minutes (9 July)

17:05:50 <pfps> they have all the requisite parts - their veracity I can't determine

Peter Patel-Schneider: they have all the requisite parts - their veracity I can't determine

17:05:24 <rob> looked reasonable to me

Rob Shearer: looked reasonable to me

17:05:27 <IanH> Minutes look good to me

Ian Horrocks: Minutes look good to me

17:06:03 <bmotik> RESOLVED: Accept previous minutes (9 July)

RESOLVED: Accept previous minutes (9 July)

17:06:11 <bmotik> Topic: 3F2F

1. 3F2F

17:06:28 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Please register whether you'll be or not at 3F2F

Alan Ruttenberg: Please register whether you'll be or not at 3F2F

17:06:39 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Please give us feedback about the agenda

Alan Ruttenberg: Please give us feedback about the agenda

17:07:06 <bmotik> Topic: Action item status

2. Action item status

17:07:59 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: I can't invest more time into ACTION-159 , so let's drop it

Alan Ruttenberg: I can't invest more time into ACTION-159 , so let's drop it

17:08:17 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: I produced input for ACTION-166

Alan Ruttenberg: I produced input for ACTION-166

17:08:28 <bmotik> pfps: I don't see any rationale to using two files in the write-up

Peter Patel-Schneider: I don't see any rationale to using two files in the write-up

17:08:48 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: We are discussing here the completion of the action, not the contents

Alan Ruttenberg: We are discussing here the completion of the action, not the contents

17:08:56 <bmotik> pfps: I consider the action finished

Peter Patel-Schneider: I consider the action finished

17:09:08 <bmotik> Topic: Due and overdue actions

3. Due and overdue actions

17:09:38 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Jie has initiated discussion about ACTION-150

Alan Ruttenberg: Jie has initiated discussion about ACTION-150

17:10:04 <bmotik> ivan: Someone from our side should check owl:internationalizedString

Ivan Herman: Someone from our side should check owl:internationalizedString

17:10:33 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Michael, what is the status of the OWL-Full semantics?

Alan Ruttenberg: Michael, what is the status of the OWL-Full semantics?

17:10:42 <m_schnei> OWL Full: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/FullDraft

Michael Schneider: OWL Full: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/FullDraft

17:10:48 <bmotik> m_schnei: There is a draft

Michael Schneider: There is a draft

17:10:59 <bmotik> m_schnei: It is half-finished

Michael Schneider: It is half-finished

17:11:12 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Where do we stand? How far are we from the working draft?

Alan Ruttenberg: Where do we stand? How far are we from the working draft?

17:11:31 <bmotik> m_schnei: I have already added most of the semantic conditions.

Michael Schneider: I have already added most of the semantic conditions.

17:11:42 <bmotik> m_schnei: There is some editorial work and some open issues.

Michael Schneider: There is some editorial work and some open issues.

17:11:49 <bmotik> m_schnei: The import question is open.

Michael Schneider: The import question is open.

17:12:11 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Can you produce a single document by the F2F?

Alan Ruttenberg: Can you produce a single document by the F2F?

17:12:31 <bmotik> m_schnei: The present document can't be turned into a working draft by the F2F -- not enough time.

Michael Schneider: The present document can't be turned into a working draft by the F2F -- not enough time.

17:12:51 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: It would be great to have  a document ready for review by 3F3F.

Alan Ruttenberg: It would be great to have a document ready for review by 3F3F.

17:12:56 <bmotik> m_schnei: I hope so.

Michael Schneider: I hope so.

17:13:18 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: ACTION-157: I have a response from Judy Brewer

Alan Ruttenberg: ACTION-157: I have a response from Judy Brewer

17:13:41 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: ACTION-157 gets postponed

Alan Ruttenberg: ACTION-157 gets postponed

17:13:59 <bmotik> bijan: I could take it around to Robert Stevens

Bijan Parsia: I could take it around to Robert Stevens

17:14:10 <ivan> bijan++

Ivan Herman: bijan++

17:14:14 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: That would be very good

Alan Ruttenberg: That would be very good

17:14:31 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Please add an action for that

Alan Ruttenberg: Please add an action for that

17:14:44 <bijan> ACTION on Bijan to test our documents for accessibility with Robert Stevens

Bijan Parsia: ACTION on Bijan to test our documents for accessibility with Robert Stevens

17:14:44 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on

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

17:14:52 <bijan> ACTION: Bijan to test our documents for accessibility with Robert Stevens

ACTION: Bijan to test our documents for accessibility with Robert Stevens

17:14:52 <trackbot> Created ACTION-168 - Test our documents for accessibility with Robert Stevens [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-07-23].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-168 - Test our documents for accessibility with Robert Stevens [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-07-23].

17:14:53 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Uli, what is the status on the top/bottom roles?

Alan Ruttenberg: Uli, what is the status on the top/bottom roles?

17:14:57 <bmotik> uli: The action is done

Uli Sattler: The action is done

17:15:09 <bijan> He's supposed to send email about it

Bijan Parsia: He's supposed to send email about it

17:15:33 <bmotik> bmotik: I have already added these roles to the document

Boris Motik: I have already added these roles to the document

17:15:41 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Just send an e-mail documenting it

Alan Ruttenberg: Just send an e-mail documenting it

17:16:03 <bmotik> Topic: Proposals to resolve issues

4. Proposals to resolve issues

17:17:22 <bmotik> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-31 as withdrawn

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-31 as withdrawn

17:17:28 <ewallace> +1

Evan Wallace: +1

17:17:29 <m_schnei> +1 (FZI)

Michael Schneider: +1 (FZI)

17:17:30 <alan_ruttenberg> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

17:17:32 <bijan> +1

Bijan Parsia: +1

17:17:33 <pfps> +inf

Peter Patel-Schneider: +inf

17:17:34 <bmotik> bmotik: +1

Boris Motik: +1

17:17:34 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

17:17:35 <IanH_> +1

Ian Horrocks: +1

17:17:35 <bijan> +1

Bijan Parsia: +1

17:17:36 <Zhe> +1

Zhe Wu: +1

17:17:38 <uli> +1

Uli Sattler: +1

17:17:39 <Achille> +1

Achille Fokoue: +1

17:17:40 <bcuencagrau> +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

17:17:46 <bmotik> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-31 as withdrawn

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-31 as withdrawn

17:18:15 <bmotik> Topic: Proposals to resovle issues

5. Proposals to resovle issues

17:18:59 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Ian, could you tell us how to resolve ISSUE-67?

Alan Ruttenberg: Ian, could you tell us how to resolve ISSUE-67?

17:19:54 <bmotik> ianh: We already decided to use owl:Axiom instead of rdf:Statement

Ian Horrocks: We already decided to use owl:Axiom instead of rdf:Statement

17:20:15 <bmotik> ianh: There has been no discussion for a long time, so it seems to me that the issue has been resolved.

Ian Horrocks: There has been no discussion for a long time, so it seems to me that the issue has been resolved.

17:20:31 <bmotik> m_schnei: My statement that "there is no problem" referred to something else

Michael Schneider: My statement that "there is no problem" referred to something else

17:21:02 <bmotik> m_schnei: This is a question that I can't decide and I asked people at FZI

Michael Schneider: This is a question that I can't decide and I asked people at FZI

17:21:12 <bmotik> m_schnei: RDF people dislike reification

Michael Schneider: RDF people dislike reification

17:21:39 <bmotik> m_schnei: Feedback from FZI: There was noone in favor of reification; a few people said "either way"; a few people were against

Michael Schneider: Feedback from FZI: There was noone in favor of reification; a few people said "either way"; a few people were against

17:21:52 <bmotik> m_schnei: My proposal is to use a shadow vocabulary

Michael Schneider: My proposal is to use a shadow vocabulary

17:22:22 <bmotik> ianh: I don't have a problem with that

Ian Horrocks: I don't have a problem with that

17:22:45 <bmotik> ianh: I don't think it is reasonable to object to resolving issues by arguments of the sort "I don't quite like it...because?"

Ian Horrocks: I don't think it is reasonable to object to resolving issues by arguments of the sort "I don't quite like it...because?"

17:22:57 <bmotik> ianh: Shadow vocabulary seems fine

Ian Horrocks: Shadow vocabulary seems fine

17:23:51 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Bijan, have you got a general comment?

Alan Ruttenberg: Bijan, have you got a general comment?

17:24:01 <bmotik> bparsia: I wanted to ask Michael about his polling methodology

Bijan Parsia: I wanted to ask Michael about his polling methodology

17:24:20 <bmotik> bparsia: We introduced vocabulary for property punning which gives additional functionality

Bijan Parsia: We introduced vocabulary for property punning which gives additional functionality

17:24:35 <bmotik> bparsia: We now need to introduce new vocabulary for no new functionality

Bijan Parsia: We now need to introduce new vocabulary for no new functionality

17:24:58 <bmotik> Zhe: I wanted to ask whether the base triples should be included into serialization?

Zhe Wu: I wanted to ask whether the base triples should be included into serialization?

17:25:11 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: This is a separate issue; should go on the Issues list

Alan Ruttenberg: This is a separate issue; should go on the Issues list

17:25:35 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: I don't think it is good to rule out the RDF shorthand

Alan Ruttenberg: I don't think it is good to rule out the RDF shorthand

17:26:07 <bmotik> ianh: Let's just use the shadow vocabulary and be done with it.

Ian Horrocks: Let's just use the shadow vocabulary and be done with it.

17:26:15 <bmotik> ianh: Is there any reason not to do that?

Ian Horrocks: Is there any reason not to do that?

17:26:53 <bmotik> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-67 by introducing new shadow vocabulary

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-67 by introducing new shadow vocabulary

17:26:59 <ewallace> +1

Evan Wallace: +1

17:27:00 <IanH_> +1

Ian Horrocks: +1

17:27:01 <bmotik> bmotik: +1

Boris Motik: +1

17:27:03 <JeffP> +0

Jeff Pan: +0

17:27:05 <alan_ruttenberg> -0

Alan Ruttenberg: -0

17:27:06 <Achille> 0

Achille Fokoue: 0

17:27:20 <uli> 0

Uli Sattler: 0

17:27:21 <ratnesh> 0

Ratnesh Sahay: 0

17:27:24 <pfps> 0

Peter Patel-Schneider: 0

17:27:24 <ivan> 0

Ivan Herman: 0

17:27:26 <Zhe> 0

Zhe Wu: 0

17:27:30 <bijan> -0.00001

Bijan Parsia: -0.00001

17:27:32 <bcuencagrau> +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

17:27:33 <m_schnei> +1 (FZI)

Michael Schneider: +1 (FZI)

17:27:45 <bijan> I don't like it, but I'm broken on this so don't care :)

Bijan Parsia: I don't like it, but I'm broken on this so don't care :)

17:27:46 <m_schnei> sorry, my line broke down

Michael Schneider: sorry, my line broke down

17:27:54 <bmotik> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-67 by introducing new shadow vocabulary

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-67 by introducing new shadow vocabulary

17:28:13 <bmotik> bmotik: We'll add owl:subject, owl:object, and owl:predicate

Boris Motik: We'll add owl:subject, owl:object, and owl:predicate

17:28:32 <bmotik> bmotik: I'll change the spec accordingly

Boris Motik: I'll change the spec accordingly

17:28:58 <bmotik> Topic: The state of OWL-R and OWL-R DL/Full unification

6. The state of OWL-R and OWL-R DL/Full unification

17:30:12 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: There is a proposal from Boris

Alan Ruttenberg: There is a proposal from Boris

17:30:36 <bmotik> m_schnei: There is a proposal from Boris, but I don't think I understand it

Michael Schneider: There is a proposal from Boris, but I don't think I understand it

17:30:55 <bmotik> m_schnei: As far as I understand, all the triple rules will remain

Michael Schneider: As far as I understand, all the triple rules will remain

17:31:04 <bmotik> m_schnei: Is this still true?

Michael Schneider: Is this still true?

17:31:06 <bmotik> bmotik: yes

Boris Motik: yes

17:31:27 <bmotik> m_schnei: How do I understand on the OWL-R DL side?

Michael Schneider: How do I understand on the OWL-R DL side?

17:31:42 <bmotik> m_schnei: Until now, there were two parallel specification of two langauges.

Michael Schneider: Until now, there were two parallel specification of two langauges.

17:31:57 <bmotik> m_schnei: These two languages had not much in common

Michael Schneider: These two languages had not much in common

17:32:46 <bmotik> m_schnei: Is it that we'd need to parse the triples, check the syntax, and if that's accepted, then one goes to the semantics document?

Michael Schneider: Is it that we'd need to parse the triples, check the syntax, and if that's accepted, then one goes to the semantics document?

17:33:47 <bmotik> bmotik: currently, we have two languages which are different

Boris Motik: currently, we have two languages which are different

17:33:55 <bmotik> bmotik: this is undesirable

Boris Motik: this is undesirable

17:34:18 <bmotik> bmotik: the ideal situation would be to define the profiles in exactly the same way

Boris Motik: the ideal situation would be to define the profiles in exactly the same way

17:34:29 <bmotik> bmotik: that is, as syntactic fragments of OWL 2

Boris Motik: that is, as syntactic fragments of OWL 2

17:35:11 <bmotik> bmotik: an RDF graph falls within any of the fragments if it corresponfs to an ontology in the functional syntax according to the RDF mapping

Boris Motik: an RDF graph falls within any of the fragments if it corresponfs to an ontology in the functional syntax according to the RDF mapping

17:35:25 <bmotik> bmotik: the rules in OWL-R could be used directly in an implementation

Boris Motik: the rules in OWL-R could be used directly in an implementation

17:35:35 <bmotik> bmotik: no need to look at the OWl Full semantics

Boris Motik: no need to look at the OWl Full semantics

17:35:48 <bmotik> bmotik: then, we would unify the language

Boris Motik: then, we would unify the language

17:35:59 <bmotik> bmotik: Ivan has raised some objections

Boris Motik: Ivan has raised some objections

17:36:13 <bmotik> bmotik: what if a graph does not fall within OWL-R

Boris Motik: what if a graph does not fall within OWL-R

17:36:28 <bmotik> bmotik: in my opinion, the user should be warned

Boris Motik: in my opinion, the user should be warned

17:36:40 <bmotik> bmotik: but still the rules could be fired

Boris Motik: but still the rules could be fired

17:36:57 <bmotik> bmotik: but not with the guarantees that you would have within OWL-R

Boris Motik: but not with the guarantees that you would have within OWL-R

17:37:31 <bmotik> m_schnei: I have no objection to this

Michael Schneider: I have no objection to this

17:37:31 <bmotik> bmotik: an implementation could also apply the rules to ontologies that do not fall within OWL-R

Boris Motik: an implementation could also apply the rules to ontologies that do not fall within OWL-R

17:37:50 <bmotik> m_schnei: The question for me is what is the DL semantics of ...

Michael Schneider: The question for me is what is the DL semantics of ...

17:38:04 <bmotik> m_schnei: The current rule set has subproperty chains

Michael Schneider: The current rule set has subproperty chains

17:38:21 <bmotik> m_schnei: You need to support subproperty chains

Michael Schneider: You need to support subproperty chains

17:38:35 <bmotik> bmotik: we do support subproperty chains

Boris Motik: we do support subproperty chains

17:38:39 <bmotik> bmotik: I thing you are wrong

Boris Motik: I thing you are wrong

17:38:49 <bmotik> m_schnei: I'll check

Michael Schneider: I'll check

17:39:19 <bmotik> bmotik: OWL-R DL mimicks everything that is in OWL-R Full

Boris Motik: OWL-R DL mimicks everything that is in OWL-R Full

17:39:42 <bmotik> bmotik: both OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full have been guided to allow for rule-based implementations

Boris Motik: both OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full have been guided to allow for rule-based implementations

17:39:58 <bmotik> bmotik: the intention was the same for both

Boris Motik: the intention was the same for both

17:40:19 <bmotik> bmotik: they both should support the same, and if not it is a bug

Boris Motik: they both should support the same, and if not it is a bug

17:40:49 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Could Zhe or Ivan say something?

Alan Ruttenberg: Could Zhe or Ivan say something?

17:40:58 <bmotik> ivan: I'll try to summarize the discussion

Ivan Herman: I'll try to summarize the discussion

17:41:18 <bmotik> ivan: I understand the whole mechanism that Boris has descirbed

Ivan Herman: I understand the whole mechanism that Boris has descirbed

17:41:28 <bmotik> ivan: The problem is the marketing side, rather than the technical side

Ivan Herman: The problem is the marketing side, rather than the technical side

17:41:55 <bmotik> ivan: If we do this way, then RDF users and implementors use a clear possibility to reference something that is clearly standardized

Ivan Herman: If we do this way, then RDF users and implementors use a clear possibility to reference something that is clearly standardized

17:42:49 <bmotik> ivan: The problem is that there are "almost" OWL-DL graphs, that can be managed by the rules

Ivan Herman: The problem is that there are "almost" OWL-DL graphs, that can be managed by the rules

17:43:26 <bmotik> ivan: I don't care whether you call this a "Profile"; however, we need a clear reference

Ivan Herman: I don't care whether you call this a "Profile"; however, we need a clear reference

17:43:33 <alan_ruttenberg> two statements worth verification : "these are two very different languages" "there are no issues with the list vocabulary and the rules"

Alan Ruttenberg: two statements worth verification : "these are two very different languages" "there are no issues with the list vocabulary and the rules"

17:43:42 <bmotik> bmotik: it is a fair summary

Boris Motik: it is a fair summary

17:44:03 <bmotik> Zhe: I don't have too much new stuff to say

Zhe Wu: I don't have too much new stuff to say

17:44:11 <bmotik> Zhe: I'm happy with the spec as it is

Zhe Wu: I'm happy with the spec as it is

17:44:30 <bmotik> Zhe: But I can see that the unification might be good

Zhe Wu: But I can see that the unification might be good

17:44:52 <bmotik> Zhe: I tend to agree that we need some name from a markeeting perspective

Zhe Wu: I tend to agree that we need some name from a markeeting perspective

17:45:14 <Achille> +1 for ivan

Achille Fokoue: +1 for ivan

17:45:23 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Michael said that these are two different langauges; Zhe, is this your sentiment as well?

Alan Ruttenberg: Michael said that these are two different langauges; Zhe, is this your sentiment as well?

17:45:31 <bmotik> Zhe: I don't see them as totally different languages

Zhe Wu: I don't see them as totally different languages

17:45:56 <bmotik> ianh: I was quite surprised ot hear Ivan come up with the marketing argument

Ian Horrocks: I was quite surprised ot hear Ivan come up with the marketing argument

17:46:14 <bmotik> ianh: The current situation actually seems pretty bad from an RDF implementation point of view

Ian Horrocks: The current situation actually seems pretty bad from an RDF implementation point of view

17:46:32 <bmotik> ianh: I would imagine that many of the existing implementations basically try to implement as much of OWL Full

Ian Horrocks: I would imagine that many of the existing implementations basically try to implement as much of OWL Full

17:46:36 <m_schnei> I remember that I originally saw two *very* different languages, having different language constructs, but this might have changed over time

Michael Schneider: I remember that I originally saw two *very* different languages, having different language constructs, but this might have changed over time

17:46:46 <bmotik> ianh: These implementations would become invalid OWL_R/RDF implementations

Ian Horrocks: These implementations would become invalid OWL_R/RDF implementations

17:46:56 <pfps> +1 to Ian's comment

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to Ian's comment

17:47:03 <bmotik> ianh: You would not be allowed to add additional rules, as you would become unsound

Ian Horrocks: You would not be allowed to add additional rules, as you would become unsound

17:47:34 <bmotik> ianh: If we went with the current proposal, all existing rule-based implementations could say that they are valid OWL-R implementations

Ian Horrocks: If we went with the current proposal, all existing rule-based implementations could say that they are valid OWL-R implementations

17:47:43 <bmotik> ianh: This seems a big advantage for the DL community

Ian Horrocks: This seems a big advantage for the DL community

17:48:00 <bmotik> ianh: The name that people have for describing their system is "OWL-R".

Ian Horrocks: The name that people have for describing their system is "OWL-R".

17:48:07 <bmotik> ianh: What is OWL-R? It is a fragment of OWL-Full.

Ian Horrocks: What is OWL-R? It is a fragment of OWL-Full.

17:48:23 <bmotik> ianh: I think that people prefer the current situation because they don't understand all the consequences of the current spec.

Ian Horrocks: I think that people prefer the current situation because they don't understand all the consequences of the current spec.

17:48:43 <bmotik> ivan: The vendos usually something as PDFS++, OWL-Prime...

Ivan Herman: The vendos usually something as PDFS++, OWL-Prime...

17:48:54 <bmotik> ivan: All of the implementors implement subset of the current OWL-R.

Ivan Herman: All of the implementors implement subset of the current OWL-R.

17:49:13 <bmotik> ivan: The message I got from people is that they'd like to say whatever they implemented is a standard

Ivan Herman: The message I got from people is that they'd like to say whatever they implemented is a standard

17:49:56 <bmotik> ivan: The problem is that there would be several OWL-R graphs that OWL-R implementations would not accept

Ivan Herman: The problem is that there would be several OWL-R graphs that OWL-R implementations would not accept

17:50:26 <bmotik> ianh: Ivan, you said that most people implement a subset of these rules; but then, they are not OWL-R reasoners

Ian Horrocks: Ivan, you said that most people implement a subset of these rules; but then, they are not OWL-R reasoners

17:50:33 <bmotik> ivan: Yes, but they want a standard

Ivan Herman: Yes, but they want a standard

17:50:46 <bmotik> ianh: Most people implemented a superset, but then, they are not a standard

Ian Horrocks: Most people implemented a superset, but then, they are not a standard

17:51:10 <m_schnei> since owl R has sub property chains, i very much doubt that any triple rule implementation is a superset of owl r

Michael Schneider: since owl R has sub property chains, i very much doubt that any triple rule implementation is a superset of owl r

17:51:14 <bmotik> ianh: Implementors usually want to implement more

Ian Horrocks: Implementors usually want to implement more

17:51:30 <bmotik> ianh: If we changed their spec, this would prevent people from implementing more

Ian Horrocks: If we changed their spec, this would prevent people from implementing more

17:51:52 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Suppose you add a rule to OWL-R that is unsound w.r.t. OWL Full

Alan Ruttenberg: Suppose you add a rule to OWL-R that is unsound w.r.t. OWL Full

17:52:37 <Zhe> which rule?

Zhe Wu: which rule?

17:52:07 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Would that be considered OWL-R conformant?

Alan Ruttenberg: Would that be considered OWL-R conformant?

17:52:24 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: The current spec is permissive in the sense that anything would be OWL-R comformant

Alan Ruttenberg: The current spec is permissive in the sense that anything would be OWL-R comformant

17:53:26 <bmotik> ianh: You would add as many rules as you like

Ian Horrocks: You would add as many rules as you like

17:53:44 <bmotik> bparsia: I am not as convinced by the marketing argument

Bijan Parsia: I am not as convinced by the marketing argument

17:54:06 <bmotik> bparsia: It is imporant to focus on a subset where we can really understand what the functionality is

Bijan Parsia: It is imporant to focus on a subset where we can really understand what the functionality is

17:54:28 <bmotik> bparsia: We should allow people to do extensions

Bijan Parsia: We should allow people to do extensions

17:54:55 <bmotik> bparsia: It is important for the users to understand what each construct means in terms of the language

Bijan Parsia: It is important for the users to understand what each construct means in terms of the language

17:55:28 <bmotik> bcuencagrau: If we do this as proposed currently, you need to support at least the specified rules

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: If we do this as proposed currently, you need to support at least the specified rules

17:55:54 <bmotik> bcuencagrau: You could add as much as you want, you would not any semantic guarantees, but you can add it it the users really need it

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: You could add as much as you want, you would not any semantic guarantees, but you can add it it the users really need it

17:56:33 <bmotik> ivan: I don't understand how this all issue of extensions came into the discussions.

Ivan Herman: I don't understand how this all issue of extensions came into the discussions.

17:57:05 <bmotik> ivan: According to the planned spec, there will be a set of rules, and if I just implement this set of rules and apply it to the set of graphs, then I implement not exactly OWL-R but a bit more

Ivan Herman: According to the planned spec, there will be a set of rules, and if I just implement this set of rules and apply it to the set of graphs, then I implement not exactly OWL-R but a bit more

17:57:06 <bijan> More than OWL-R is an extension yes?

Bijan Parsia: More than OWL-R is an extension yes?

17:57:10 <bmotik> ivan: This is what bothers me

Ivan Herman: This is what bothers me

17:57:23 <bmotik> ivan: I'd like to be able to say to the world what exaxctly I'm implementing

Ivan Herman: I'd like to be able to say to the world what exaxctly I'm implementing

17:57:25 <bijan> We have a nice syntactic criterion...you handle what's in by the parser

Bijan Parsia: We have a nice syntactic criterion...you handle what's in by the parser

17:57:47 <bmotik> ivan: I would like to signal the fact that I'm accepting more than OWL-R graphs

Ivan Herman: I would like to signal the fact that I'm accepting more than OWL-R graphs

17:58:17 <bmotik> m_schnei: If a reasoner produces inferences that are not entailed by the languages, then the reasoner is unsoud

Michael Schneider: If a reasoner produces inferences that are not entailed by the languages, then the reasoner is unsoud

17:58:28 <bmotik> m_schnei: If a reasoner produces more than OWL-R, then the reasoner is unsound

Michael Schneider: If a reasoner produces more than OWL-R, then the reasoner is unsound

17:58:37 <IanH_> NOT TRUE -- because this only happens for graphs that are *outside* the syntactic fragment

Ian Horrocks: NOT TRUE -- because this only happens for graphs that are *outside* the syntactic fragment

17:59:02 <IanH_> Such reasoners are SOUND for OWL-R

Ian Horrocks: Such reasoners are SOUND for OWL-R

17:58:57 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: We should resume the discussion next week

Alan Ruttenberg: We should resume the discussion next week

17:59:12 <bmotik> Topic: Normative datatypes

7. Normative datatypes

18:00:04 <pfps> see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0306.html

Peter Patel-Schneider: see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0306.html

18:00:35 <bmotik> bmotik: proposal for datatypes

Boris Motik: proposal for datatypes

18:00:49 <bmotik> bmotik: we would have numbers^+

Boris Motik: we would have numbers^+

18:01:04 <bmotik> bmotik: which contains the reals plus +inf, -inf, etc.

Boris Motik: which contains the reals plus +inf, -inf, etc.

18:01:27 <bmotik> bmotik: then we would have the `numbers', which would contain the reals

Boris Motik: then we would have the `numbers', which would contain the reals

18:02:51 <bmotik> bmotik: implementers discretion as to how many decimal digits to be supported

Boris Motik: implementers discretion as to how many decimal digits to be supported

18:02:27 <pfps> I think that Boris means "minimally conforming" as in the XML Schema spec

Peter Patel-Schneider: I think that Boris means "minimally conforming" as in the XML Schema spec

18:01:37 <bmotik> bmotik: scribe lost

Boris Motik: scribe lost

18:02:48 <pfps> This is all in the message, so I don't think that Bernardo needs to scribe everything.

Peter Patel-Schneider: This is all in the message, so I don't think that Bernardo needs to scribe everything.

18:02:59 <bijan> There's an email about all this

Bijan Parsia: There's an email about all this

18:03:28 <IanH_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0306.html

Ian Horrocks: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0306.html

18:04:25 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Evan, you had some question about the floats?

Alan Ruttenberg: Evan, you had some question about the floats?

18:04:37 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Could you comment on that?

Alan Ruttenberg: Could you comment on that?

18:04:49 <bmotik> evan: Are computational effects going to cause problems?

Evan Wallace: Are computational effects going to cause problems?

18:05:09 <bmotik> evan: Will be get ropunding problems?

Evan Wallace: Will be get ropunding problems?

18:05:59 <alan_ruttenberg> 1) Can you use float constants to specify real facets?

Alan Ruttenberg: 1) Can you use float constants to specify real facets?

18:06:10 <rob> "0.1"^^xsd.float != "0.1"^^xsd:decimal

Rob Shearer: "0.1"^^xsd.float != "0.1"^^xsd:decimal

18:06:24 <alan_ruttenberg> 2) Any reason not to have base64binary with octet value space?

Alan Ruttenberg: 2) Any reason not to have base64binary with octet value space?

18:06:32 <bmotik> bmotik: every constant will have a precise interpretation

Boris Motik: every constant will have a precise interpretation

18:06:44 <bmotik> bmotik: floats will be interpreted as in the IEEE spec

Boris Motik: floats will be interpreted as in the IEEE spec

18:07:13 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: You could use a float contant to specify a facet on owl:real?

Alan Ruttenberg: You could use a float contant to specify a facet on owl:real?

18:07:18 <bmotik> bmotik: Yes, no problem.

Boris Motik: Yes, no problem.

18:07:47 <bmotik> bmotik: every constant just maps to one value

Boris Motik: every constant just maps to one value

18:07:51 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: You couldn't get more precision by using extra digits?

Alan Ruttenberg: You couldn't get more precision by using extra digits?

18:08:00 <bmotik> bmotik: No, there is no problem.

Boris Motik: No, there is no problem.

18:08:20 <bmotik> bmotik: we could have it as a synonym

Boris Motik: we could have it as a synonym

18:08:30 <bmotik> bmotik: value spaces will be synonyms

Boris Motik: value spaces will be synonyms

18:08:30 <bmotik> bmotik: value spaces will be synonyms

Boris Motik: value spaces will be synonyms

18:08:44 <bmotik> bmotik: I didn't include it for redundancy

Boris Motik: I didn't include it for redundancy

18:09:04 <bmotik> Zhe: In your proposal, would the value spaces of xsd:float and xsd:double be disjoint?

Zhe Wu: In your proposal, would the value spaces of xsd:float and xsd:double be disjoint?

18:09:08 <bmotik> bmotik: no

Boris Motik: no

18:09:35 <bmotik> bmotik: that is Jena's problem

Boris Motik: that is Jena's problem

18:09:36 <alan_ruttenberg> in that case they map to same value

Alan Ruttenberg: in that case they map to same value

18:10:14 <ewallace> value comparison was exactly my issue

Evan Wallace: value comparison was exactly my issue

18:12:19 <alan_ruttenberg> comparison of .1d, .1f has different result in real space then when promoting to double

Alan Ruttenberg: comparison of .1d, .1f has different result in real space then when promoting to double

18:09:45 <bmotik> bmotik: you are comparing a double with a float

Boris Motik: you are comparing a double with a float

18:10:00 <bmotik> bmotik: that could be implemented correctly

Boris Motik: that could be implemented correctly

18:10:31 <bmotik> bmotik: the problem is not in the disjointness

Boris Motik: the problem is not in the disjointness

18:11:11 <bmotik> bmotik: java would map 0.1 float into a 32bit representation

Boris Motik: java would map 0.1 float into a 32bit representation

18:11:27 <bmotik> bmotik: it would map 0.1 double into a different number

Boris Motik: it would map 0.1 double into a different number

18:11:51 <bmotik> bmotik: it doesn't seem to be a SPARQL problem

Boris Motik: it doesn't seem to be a SPARQL problem

18:12:03 <bmotik> bmotik: probably it is an RDF problem

Boris Motik: probably it is an RDF problem

18:13:31 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: I think that there might be a point on the comparison of numbers

Alan Ruttenberg: I think that there might be a point on the comparison of numbers

18:14:13 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: I believe that rounding of a float to a double and then comparing it to a double is not going to give you the same thing as compariong values in the value space

Alan Ruttenberg: I believe that rounding of a float to a double and then comparing it to a double is not going to give you the same thing as compariong values in the value space

18:14:54 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: We are promoting to owl:number, so implementations can't use IEEE semantics

Alan Ruttenberg: We are promoting to owl:number, so implementations can't use IEEE semantics

18:15:19 <bmotik> achille: We should stay compatible with XML Schema

Achille Fokoue: We should stay compatible with XML Schema

18:15:44 <bmotik> achille: Why are we departing from XML Schema?

Achille Fokoue: Why are we departing from XML Schema?

18:16:02 <bmotik> uli: I hear all these concerns about compatibility.

Uli Sattler: I hear all these concerns about compatibility.

18:16:24 <bmotik> uli: I'm sure that we'll be compatible with XML Schema; in fact, we won't be able to tell the difference

Uli Sattler: I'm sure that we'll be compatible with XML Schema; in fact, we won't be able to tell the difference

18:16:55 <bmotik> bmotik: XML Schema has benn designed for different purpuse

Boris Motik: XML Schema has benn designed for different purpuse

18:17:06 <bmotik> bmotik: in OWL you can quantify over values

Boris Motik: in OWL you can quantify over values

18:17:31 <bmotik> bmotik: in XML Schema it is pointless whether a value space is continuous or not

Boris Motik: in XML Schema it is pointless whether a value space is continuous or not

18:17:47 <bmotik> bmotik: in OWL we need to define behavior of data ranges during reasoning

Boris Motik: in OWL we need to define behavior of data ranges during reasoning

18:17:45 <Achille> but they also care about comparisons

Achille Fokoue: but they also care about comparisons

18:17:58 <bmotik> bmotik: and hence go beyond XML Schema

Boris Motik: and hence go beyond XML Schema

18:18:31 <bmotik> bmotik: in OWL you can distinguish whether the value space is discreet or continuos

Boris Motik: in OWL you can distinguish whether the value space is discreet or continuos

18:18:32 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: We are almost out of time

Alan Ruttenberg: We are almost out of time

18:18:51 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: We should see which areas of the proposal are uncontentious

Alan Ruttenberg: We should see which areas of the proposal are uncontentious

18:19:01 <bmotik> ivan: I had two points

Ivan Herman: I had two points

18:19:24 <bmotik> bmotik: I don't know

Boris Motik: I don't know

18:19:25 <alan_ruttenberg> it does say that

Alan Ruttenberg: it does say that

18:19:27 <pfps> in XML schema double and float have disjoint values spaces

Peter Patel-Schneider: in XML schema double and float have disjoint values spaces

18:19:37 <rob> they are colored differently, but defined mathematically

Rob Shearer: they are colored differently, but defined mathematically

18:19:45 <alan_ruttenberg> but they say that implementations can do cross comparisons

Alan Ruttenberg: but they say that implementations can do cross comparisons

18:19:46 <bmotik> ivan: Have you checked what XML Schema says about value spaces?

Ivan Herman: Have you checked what XML Schema says about value spaces?

18:20:30 <bmotik> bparsia: 1.0 spec says that the value spaces are disjoint. 1.1 says that implementations can interpret this as they want

Bijan Parsia: 1.0 spec says that the value spaces are disjoint. 1.1 says that implementations can interpret this as they want

18:20:35 <alan_ruttenberg> SPARQL would be incomplete wrt to OWL. no surprise

Alan Ruttenberg: SPARQL would be incomplete wrt to OWL. no surprise

18:20:36 <ivan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0223.html

Ivan Herman: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0223.html

18:21:04 <bmotik> ivan: The guys who looked at the internationalize string datatype described an alternative.

Ivan Herman: The guys who looked at the internationalize string datatype described an alternative.

18:21:34 <bmotik> ivan: Essentially, one wants ot define a whole family of datatypes by saying that each datatype would be identified by a different URI.

Ivan Herman: Essentially, one wants ot define a whole family of datatypes by saying that each datatype would be identified by a different URI.

18:21:40 <bmotik> ivan: what is the relationship?

Ivan Herman: what is the relationship?

18:21:42 <bijan> That doesn't seem workable

Bijan Parsia: That doesn't seem workable

18:22:33 <bmotik> Achille: I still think that XML Shema is a standard. There is clearly the need for comparing datatypes from different registries.

Achille Fokoue: I still think that XML Shema is a standard. There is clearly the need for comparing datatypes from different registries.

18:23:00 <bmotik> Achille: Applications might be broken if we depart on this

Achille Fokoue: Applications might be broken if we depart on this

18:23:18 <Zhe> +1 to Achille

Zhe Wu: +1 to Achille

18:23:26 <bmotik> bparsia: I've been on both sides of the disjointness issue

Bijan Parsia: I've been on both sides of the disjointness issue

18:23:53 <bmotik> bparsia: Reasoners differ on this

Bijan Parsia: Reasoners differ on this

18:23:57 <alan_ruttenberg> ditto xfunction, xquery

Alan Ruttenberg: ditto xfunction, xquery

18:24:06 <rob> all Cerebra's users were sensitive to it

Rob Shearer: all Cerebra's users were sensitive to it

18:24:07 <bmotik> bparsia: It seems to me that people are not sensitive to this

Bijan Parsia: It seems to me that people are not sensitive to this

18:24:12 <rob> it was reported as a bug several times

Rob Shearer: it was reported as a bug several times

18:24:17 <alan_ruttenberg> We can cite this email stream

Alan Ruttenberg: We can cite this email stream

18:24:30 <bmotik> bparsia: I was shocked that the XML Schema guys thought there was no problem in making them disjoint

Bijan Parsia: I was shocked that the XML Schema guys thought there was no problem in making them disjoint

18:24:54 <bmotik> bparsia: I've switched from disjointness to believeing that people don't care that much about disjointness

Bijan Parsia: I've switched from disjointness to believeing that people don't care that much about disjointness

18:25:05 <bmotik> bparsia: We'll have to make a pick, and we'll have to pick something

Bijan Parsia: We'll have to make a pick, and we'll have to pick something

18:25:05 <Achille> We have people we have implemented it in IBM stack

Achille Fokoue: We have people we have implemented it in IBM stack

18:25:19 <pfps> I seem to remember that the disjointness in XML Schema Datatypes 1.0 was in response to an email message that I sent pointing out that, at the time, the XML Schema documents clearly stated that xsd:float and xsd:integer did *not* have disjoint value spaces.

Peter Patel-Schneider: I seem to remember that the disjointness in XML Schema Datatypes 1.0 was in response to an email message that I sent pointing out that, at the time, the XML Schema documents clearly stated that xsd:float and xsd:integer did *not* have disjoint value spaces.

18:25:33 <Achille> I will like to talk to them about their position on this issue

Achille Fokoue: I will like to talk to them about their position on this issue

18:26:10 <pfps> That's not an implementation *restriction*!

Peter Patel-Schneider: That's not an implementation *restriction*!

18:25:32 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: I'll try to test agreement

Alan Ruttenberg: I'll try to test agreement

18:25:44 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: owl:number(Plus) seems like a good idea

Alan Ruttenberg: owl:number(Plus) seems like a good idea

18:25:59 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: I've heard questions from implementors regarding rationals

Alan Ruttenberg: I've heard questions from implementors regarding rationals

18:26:10 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: The restrictions on integers seem uncontroversial

Alan Ruttenberg: The restrictions on integers seem uncontroversial

18:26:18 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Dittoxsd:decimal

Alan Ruttenberg: Dittoxsd:decimal

18:26:26 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Floats seem controversial

Alan Ruttenberg: Floats seem controversial

18:26:37 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: We need coordination regarding strings

Alan Ruttenberg: We need coordination regarding strings

18:27:07 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: The empty language tag seem to address some of the problems of previous proposals

Alan Ruttenberg: The empty language tag seem to address some of the problems of previous proposals

18:27:22 <bmotik> alan: boolean, hexDecimal seem OK

Alan Ruttenberg: boolean, hexDecimal seem OK

18:27:31 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Date/time need more discussion

Alan Ruttenberg: Date/time need more discussion

18:27:43 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: It seems to me that we've made quite a lot of progress

Alan Ruttenberg: It seems to me that we've made quite a lot of progress

18:28:05 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: There are not as many open issues

Alan Ruttenberg: There are not as many open issues

18:28:07 <bmotik> Topic: Other business

8. Other business

18:28:32 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Should we have a meeting next week?

Alan Ruttenberg: Should we have a meeting next week?

18:28:38 <bmotik> alan_ruttenberg: Ian and I think yes.

Alan Ruttenberg: Ian and I think yes.

18:28:30 <pfps> +1 to meet next week

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to meet next week


This revision (#2) generated 2008-07-17 07:31:18 UTC by 'bmotik2', comments: None