14:58:48 <sandro> Present: Evan, msmith, mschnei, haase, zhe, sandro, ruttenberg, ian, boris, pfps, Miroslav, Achille, JonathanRees, Jie, rob, bijan, uli, Carsten, Deborah, Karen
12:49:29 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/07/28-owl-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/07/28-owl-irc ←
12:49:35 <pfps> zakim, this is owl
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, this is owl ←
12:49:35 <Zakim> pfps, I see SW_OWL()8:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be owl".
Zakim IRC Bot: pfps, I see SW_OWL()8:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be owl". ←
12:49:47 <pfps> zakim, this will be owl
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, this will be owl ←
12:49:47 <Zakim> ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL()8:00AM scheduled to start 49 minutes ago
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL()8:00AM scheduled to start 49 minutes ago ←
12:55:08 <pfps> zakim, who is on the phone
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, who is on the phone ←
12:55:08 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', pfps
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'who is on the phone', pfps ←
12:56:29 <IanH> RRSAgent, make records public
Ian Horrocks: RRSAgent, make records public ←
12:58:35 <Zakim> SW_OWL()8:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL()8:00AM has now started ←
12:58:37 <Zakim> + +1.617.253.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.617.253.aaaa ←
13:00:46 <Zakim> +??P7
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P7 ←
13:00:50 <bparsia> zakim, ??p7 is me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, ??p7 is me ←
13:00:50 <Zakim> +bparsia; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bparsia; got it ←
13:00:53 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
13:00:53 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
13:01:21 <bparsia> I'm in
Bijan Parsia: I'm in ←
13:01:24 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
13:01:24 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should no longer be muted ←
13:01:50 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
13:01:50 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
13:03:26 <pfps> ScribeNick: pfps
(Scribe set to Peter Patel-Schneider)
13:06:22 <pfps> Topic: Welcome, local arrangements, introductions (9-9:15)
13:11:10 <pfps> alanr: dinner possibilities - black sheep / elephant walk
Alan Ruttenberg: dinner possibilities - black sheep / elephant walk ←
13:12:08 <pfps> alanr: elephant by acclamation
Alan Ruttenberg: elephant by acclamation ←
13:12:45 <pfps> alanr: other local arrangements?
Alan Ruttenberg: other local arrangements? ←
13:12:57 <pfps> alanr: leaving times
Alan Ruttenberg: leaving times ←
13:13:21 <pfps> pfps: 5ish
Peter Patel-Schneider: 5ish ←
13:13:34 <sandro> peter -- taxi south station 5ish
Sandro Hawke: peter -- taxi south station 5ish ←
13:13:53 <sandro> evan, michael -- taxi to airport 5ish
Sandro Hawke: evan, michael -- taxi to airport 5ish ←
13:15:41 <pfps> alanr: scribing?
Alan Ruttenberg: scribing? ←
13:16:10 <pfps> datatype session - m_schneider
datatype session - m_schneider ←
13:16:17 <pfps> annotations - boris
annotations - boris ←
13:16:27 <pfps> profiles - evan
profiles - evan ←
13:17:42 <pfps> introductions
introductions ←
13:18:07 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
13:19:21 <pfps> topic: roadmap, publication schedule
13:20:49 <bijan> Fine
Bijan Parsia: Fine ←
13:21:19 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
13:21:19 <Zakim> sorry, bijan, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, bijan, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you ←
13:21:26 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call? ←
13:21:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.617.253.aaaa, bparsia (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see +1.617.253.aaaa, bparsia (muted) ←
13:21:40 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
13:21:40 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should no longer be muted ←
13:21:54 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
13:21:54 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
13:22:43 <pfps> alanr: schedule change - move datatypes earlier - no complaints voiced
Alan Ruttenberg: schedule change - move datatypes earlier - no complaints voiced ←
13:22:44 <sandro> Jie is missing
Sandro Hawke: Jie is missing ←
13:23:03 <pfps> alanr: we may start on datatypes early
Alan Ruttenberg: we may start on datatypes early ←
13:23:23 <pfps> alanr: karen meyers may come for discussion on profile names
Alan Ruttenberg: karen meyers may come for discussion on profile names ←
13:23:41 <pfps> alanr: tomorrow's schedule is on tomorrow
Alan Ruttenberg: tomorrow's schedule is on tomorrow ←
13:24:14 <pfps> Topic: Roadmap, Publication Schedule
13:24:25 <pfps> alanr presents some slides
alanr presents some slides ←
13:24:35 <pfps> alanr: were are we (in schedule)
Alan Ruttenberg: were are we (in schedule) ←
13:24:57 <pfps> alanr: 9.5 months in
Alan Ruttenberg: 9.5 months in ←
13:25:07 <pfps> alanr: when can we do last call (on what documents0
Alan Ruttenberg: when can we do last call (on what documents0 ←
13:25:59 <pfps> alanr: try for last call decision on core documents at next F2F (late Oct)
Alan Ruttenberg: try for last call decision on core documents at next F2F (late Oct) ←
13:26:11 <pfps> alanr: last call documents published immediately after
Alan Ruttenberg: last call documents published immediately after ←
13:26:24 <bparsia> For the record, I've delayed working on the primer (a bit) in order to let the core documents to settle. I could synch or I could stagger its last call. (Requirement document will need some primer lovin' as well.)
Bijan Parsia: For the record, I've delayed working on the primer (a bit) in order to let the core documents to settle. I could synch or I could stagger its last call. (Requirement document will need some primer lovin' as well.) ←
13:26:51 <pfps> ianh: we want review before F2F so the F2F would be a vote on the documents as reviewed
Ian Horrocks: we want review before F2F so the F2F would be a vote on the documents as reviewed ←
13:27:16 <pfps> sandro: last call means that we have closed all relevant issues
Sandro Hawke: last call means that we have closed all relevant issues ←
13:27:47 <pfps> sandro: we could have multiple possibilities ready beforehand
Sandro Hawke: we could have multiple possibilities ready beforehand ←
13:28:14 <pfps> ianh: why not beforehand?
Ian Horrocks: why not beforehand? ←
13:28:26 <pfps> sandro: some issues may need a final F2F discussion
Sandro Hawke: some issues may need a final F2F discussion ←
13:28:41 <pfps> m_schneider: sounds realistic
Michael Schneider: sounds realistic ←
13:28:56 <bparsia> xml syntax too, would be nice
Bijan Parsia: xml syntax too, would be nice ←
13:29:11 <pfps> alanr: core documents = syntax, semantics, full semantics, RDF mapping, profiles
Alan Ruttenberg: core documents = syntax, semantics, full semantics, RDF mapping, profiles ←
13:29:36 <pfps> alanr: goal try to close issues on these by F2F4
Alan Ruttenberg: goal try to close issues on these by F2F4 ←
13:29:49 <pfps> alanr: full semantics - try for WD in 3 weeks
Alan Ruttenberg: full semantics - try for WD in 3 weeks ←
13:30:50 <bparsia> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
13:30:50 <pfps> alanr: requirements - try for first WD in 4 weeks
Alan Ruttenberg: requirements - try for first WD in 4 weeks ←
13:31:09 <pfps> alanr: quick guide - try for first WD in ? weeks
Alan Ruttenberg: quick guide - try for first WD in ? weeks ←
13:31:28 <bparsia> q-
Bijan Parsia: q- ←
13:31:37 <pfps> alanr: WD for other documents if there is significant change
Alan Ruttenberg: WD for other documents if there is significant change ←
13:31:51 <pfps> alanr: this means syntax (at least)
Alan Ruttenberg: this means syntax (at least) ←
13:32:10 <pfps> msmith: what about test document
Michael Smith: what about test document ←
13:32:38 <pfps> alanr: need to come up with estimate - need time in F2F (45min?)
Alan Ruttenberg: need to come up with estimate - need time in F2F (45min?) ←
13:32:44 <pfps> msmith: 45 min seems OK
Michael Smith: 45 min seems OK ←
13:33:20 <pfps> alanr: any comments?
Alan Ruttenberg: any comments? ←
13:33:30 <pfps> sandro: this requires rapid progress
Sandro Hawke: this requires rapid progress ←
13:33:48 <pfps> alanr: we may be "over the hump" on many thorny issues
Alan Ruttenberg: we may be "over the hump" on many thorny issues ←
13:34:13 <pfps> ianh: there are a few sticky issues that have been hanging around
Ian Horrocks: there are a few sticky issues that have been hanging around ←
13:34:32 <pfps> ianh: if we succeed on progressing in these then we should be OK
Ian Horrocks: if we succeed on progressing in these then we should be OK ←
13:34:50 <pfps> alanr: there is writing involved (e.g., in profile)
Alan Ruttenberg: there is writing involved (e.g., in profile) ←
13:35:19 <pfps> ianh: we need to have WG members who can do review step up and do it
Ian Horrocks: we need to have WG members who can do review step up and do it ←
13:35:52 <pfps> m_schneider: what does LC mean?
Michael Schneider: what does LC mean? ←
13:36:09 <pfps> ianh: LC documents mean that we think the document is done
Ian Horrocks: LC documents mean that we think the document is done ←
13:36:29 <bparsia> LC documents mean we think the *technical design* is done
Bijan Parsia: LC documents mean we think the *technical design* is done ←
13:36:34 <bparsia> Editorial changes post LC are fine
Bijan Parsia: Editorial changes post LC are fine ←
13:37:01 <pfps> sandro: polishing can be done after LC, particularly in response to comments
Sandro Hawke: polishing can be done after LC, particularly in response to comments ←
13:37:13 <bparsia> Example of kosher LC change: We change all the examples in the syntax document. Or we reorganize it
Bijan Parsia: Example of kosher LC change: We change all the examples in the syntax document. Or we reorganize it ←
13:37:36 <pfps> m_schneider: LC for profiles can be without polish
Michael Schneider: LC for profiles can be without polish ←
13:37:46 <bparsia> Example of nonkoser LC change: We change floats from being non-disjoint to disjoint with owl:number
Bijan Parsia: Example of nonkoser LC change: We change floats from being non-disjoint to disjoint with owl:number ←
13:38:01 <bparsia> (Where kosher means doesn't require another LC round.)
Bijan Parsia: (Where kosher means doesn't require another LC round.) ←
13:38:03 <pfps> alanr: this is possible, but not desirable, we should try for readable documents
Alan Ruttenberg: this is possible, but not desirable, we should try for readable documents ←
13:38:28 <pfps> msmith: some polish can be contentious
Michael Smith: some polish can be contentious ←
13:38:35 <bparsia> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
13:39:02 <pfps> ianh: polishing after LC should be in response to comments - other polish is not desirable
Ian Horrocks: polishing after LC should be in response to comments - other polish is not desirable ←
13:39:35 <pfps> m_schneider: this means that feature freeze is end of September
Michael Schneider: this means that feature freeze is end of September ←
13:39:45 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
13:39:45 <pfps> ianh: yes, but we may be close
Ian Horrocks: yes, but we may be close ←
13:39:56 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
13:39:56 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should no longer be muted ←
13:40:39 <pfps> bparsia: what triggers a return to LC - editorial change is generally not a problem
Bijan Parsia: what triggers a return to LC - editorial change is generally not a problem ←
13:41:02 <pfps> alanr: what is grounds for objection - let's try not to push the envelope
Alan Ruttenberg: what is grounds for objection - let's try not to push the envelope ←
13:41:26 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
13:41:26 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
13:41:27 <pfps> bparsia: let's do our best, but significant delay into LC for editorial work is not desirable
Bijan Parsia: let's do our best, but significant delay into LC for editorial work is not desirable ←
13:41:41 <pfps> m_schneider: what are the stages of recommendation
Michael Schneider: what are the stages of recommendation ←
13:41:55 <pfps> alanr: closer to the end, more people look at us
Alan Ruttenberg: closer to the end, more people look at us ←
13:42:05 <pfps> sandro: LC = we are done, everyone look at it
Sandro Hawke: LC = we are done, everyone look at it ←
13:42:10 <bparsia> Getting to CR will update the implementations. We want that sooner rather than later
Bijan Parsia: Getting to CR will update the implementations. We want that sooner rather than later ←
13:42:19 <pfps> sandro: CR = people should do implementations
Sandro Hawke: CR = people should do implementations ←
13:42:34 <pfps> sandro: PR = waiting for stamp of approval
Sandro Hawke: PR = waiting for stamp of approval ←
13:42:53 <pfps> sandro: R = stamped, signed, sealed, and DONE
Sandro Hawke: R = stamped, signed, sealed, and DONE ←
13:42:57 <bparsia> We can waste enormous amounts of time painting the bikeshed, i.e., debating but not interestingly improving things. I'd rather not burn people out, more :)
Bijan Parsia: We can waste enormous amounts of time painting the bikeshed, i.e., debating but not interestingly improving things. I'd rather not burn people out, more :) ←
13:43:41 <pfps> alanr: now switch to datatypes (early)
Alan Ruttenberg: now switch to datatypes (early) ←
13:44:02 <pfps> Topic: Datatypes
13:44:17 <pfps> alanr: what is the current status?
Alan Ruttenberg: what is the current status? ←
13:44:40 <pfps> alanr: last teleconference had quite a bit of consensus
Alan Ruttenberg: last teleconference had quite a bit of consensus ←
13:44:59 <bparsia> Is there still talking?
Bijan Parsia: Is there still talking? ←
13:45:04 <pfps> alanr: see http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-07-16#Normative_datatypes
Alan Ruttenberg: see http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-07-16#Normative_datatypes ←
13:45:08 <bparsia> Ok, there we are
Bijan Parsia: Ok, there we are ←
13:45:52 <pfps> see also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0306.html
see also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0306.html ←
13:46:01 <bparsia> This is number+ right?
Bijan Parsia: This is number+ right? ←
13:46:10 <bparsia> Floats not integer
Bijan Parsia: Floats not integer ←
13:46:38 <pfps> alanr: number+ is reals plus NaN, +inf, -inf, +0, -0
Alan Ruttenberg: number+ is reals plus NaN, +inf, -inf, +0, -0 ←
13:47:19 <pfps> evan: the mapping from lexical to value appears to be missing
Evan Wallace: the mapping from lexical to value appears to be missing ←
13:47:55 <pfps> boris: value space is the thing, lexical space is how they are written
Boris Motik: value space is the thing, lexical space is how they are written ←
13:48:10 <pfps> evan: but what is the mapping?
Evan Wallace: but what is the mapping? ←
13:48:45 <pfps> alanr: see functions and relation documents - there are coercion functions there - just use these as appropriate
Alan Ruttenberg: see functions and relation documents - there are coercion functions there - just use these as appropriate ←
13:49:01 <pfps> alanr: thus we have a value space of the number line
Alan Ruttenberg: thus we have a value space of the number line ←
13:49:29 <pfps> evan: but how is the mapping defined
Evan Wallace: but how is the mapping defined ←
13:50:09 <pfps> alanr: we are mixing a bit, xsd:integer is both on the lexical and value sides
Alan Ruttenberg: we are mixing a bit, xsd:integer is both on the lexical and value sides ←
13:50:43 <pfps> boris: RDF literals are string (e.g., 123) and URI (e.g., xsd:integer)
Boris Motik: RDF literals are string (e.g., 123) and URI (e.g., xsd:integer) ←
13:51:02 <pfps> boris: but this URI is *not* the datatype!
Boris Motik: but this URI is *not* the datatype! ←
13:51:29 <pfps> alanr: can we have a better presentation?
Alan Ruttenberg: can we have a better presentation? ←
13:51:35 <Zakim> +??P3
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3 ←
13:51:37 <pfps> boris: be explicit
Boris Motik: be explicit ←
13:51:47 <pfps> ianh: we have to go this way because of RDF
Ian Horrocks: we have to go this way because of RDF ←
13:52:15 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
13:52:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.617.253.aaaa, bparsia (muted), ??P3
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see +1.617.253.aaaa, bparsia (muted), ??P3 ←
13:52:16 <Zakim> On IRC I see rob, Rinke, Achille, alanr, Zhe, msmith, pha, bmotik, ekw, m_schnei, bparsia, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, ewallace, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see rob, Rinke, Achille, alanr, Zhe, msmith, pha, bmotik, ekw, m_schnei, bparsia, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, ewallace, sandro, trackbot ←
13:52:36 <pfps> alanr: can we have all value spaces in owl: and lexical spaces in xsd:
Alan Ruttenberg: can we have all value spaces in owl: and lexical spaces in xsd: ←
13:52:50 <IanH> Is it the case that ??P3 is you Rob?
Ian Horrocks: Is it the case that ??P3 is you Rob? ←
13:53:08 <IanH> yes
Ian Horrocks: yes ←
13:53:27 <IanH> Uli -- are you on the phone?
Ian Horrocks: Uli -- are you on the phone? ←
13:53:34 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
13:53:42 <bparsia> q-
Bijan Parsia: q- ←
13:54:02 <pfps> jonathan: worry about losing information from RDF to OWL
Jonathan Rees: worry about losing information from RDF to OWL ←
13:54:05 <Zakim> +??P4
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4 ←
13:54:17 <rob> zakim, =??P4 is me
Rob Shearer: zakim, =??P4 is me ←
13:54:17 <Zakim> sorry, rob, I do not recognize a party named '=??P4'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, rob, I do not recognize a party named '=??P4' ←
13:54:29 <rob> zakim, +??P4 is me
Rob Shearer: zakim, +??P4 is me ←
13:54:29 <Zakim> sorry, rob, I do not recognize a party named '+??P4'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, rob, I do not recognize a party named '+??P4' ←
13:54:35 <IanH> zakim, ??P4 is rob
Ian Horrocks: zakim, ??P4 is rob ←
13:54:35 <Zakim> +rob; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +rob; got it ←
13:54:38 <pfps> boris: just need to say how to interpret URI as a constant URI and URI as a value space
Boris Motik: just need to say how to interpret URI as a constant URI and URI as a value space ←
13:54:45 <rob> zakim, mute me
Rob Shearer: zakim, mute me ←
13:54:45 <Zakim> rob should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: rob should now be muted ←
13:54:48 <bparsia> What's the worry about losing information please?
Bijan Parsia: What's the worry about losing information please? ←
13:54:48 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
13:54:48 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.617.253.aaaa, bparsia (muted), ??P3, rob (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see +1.617.253.aaaa, bparsia (muted), ??P3, rob (muted) ←
13:54:49 <Zakim> On IRC I see uli, rob, Rinke, Achille, alanr, Zhe, msmith, pha, bmotik, ekw, m_schnei, bparsia, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, ewallace, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see uli, rob, Rinke, Achille, alanr, Zhe, msmith, pha, bmotik, ekw, m_schnei, bparsia, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, ewallace, sandro, trackbot ←
13:55:06 <pfps> sandro: datatype is a triple - we need to point to the explicit bit of this
Sandro Hawke: datatype is a triple - we need to point to the explicit bit of this ←
13:55:11 <uli> zakim, ??P3 is me
Uli Sattler: zakim, ??P3 is me ←
13:55:11 <Zakim> +uli; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +uli; got it ←
13:55:14 <uli> q-
Uli Sattler: q- ←
13:55:26 <IanH> ack ??P3
Ian Horrocks: ack ??P3 ←
13:55:36 <pfps> boris: yes, the document can be structured in this way
Boris Motik: yes, the document can be structured in this way ←
13:55:39 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
13:56:09 <pfps> achille: what is relationship between owl: value spaces and xsd: value spaces
Achille Fokoue: what is relationship between owl: value spaces and xsd: value spaces ←
13:56:39 <pfps> achille: should we be clearer in comparison with xsd
Achille Fokoue: should we be clearer in comparison with xsd ←
13:56:54 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
13:57:00 <pfps> achille: if we diverge from xsd we need to be very clear where and how
Achille Fokoue: if we diverge from xsd we need to be very clear where and how ←
13:57:16 <bparsia> So this isn't too hard, right? xsd:decimal value space is a subset of OWL number's value space, so is xsd:float, etc.
Bijan Parsia: So this isn't too hard, right? xsd:decimal value space is a subset of OWL number's value space, so is xsd:float, etc. ←
13:57:17 <bparsia> ?
Bijan Parsia: ? ←
13:57:57 <sandro> pfps: We use the TERM "value space" the same as XSD does, but we have a DIFFERENT value space than XML Schema does, for some datatypes.
Peter Patel-Schneider: We use the TERM "value space" the same as XSD does, but we have a DIFFERENT value space than XML Schema does, for some datatypes. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
13:58:04 <pfps> alanr: we have a different set of value spaces
Alan Ruttenberg: we have a different set of value spaces ←
13:58:23 <sandro> s/Peter/pfps/
Sandro Hawke: s/Peter/pfps/ ←
13:58:35 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
13:58:37 <pfps> boris: we are very close to how they do it
Boris Motik: we are very close to how they do it ←
13:58:41 <rob> I'm having trouble hearing, but I don't see why OWL should use XSD at *all* for its "value spaces".
Rob Shearer: I'm having trouble hearing, but I don't see why OWL should use XSD at *all* for its "value spaces". ←
13:59:17 <IanH> Uli -- we can hear you
Ian Horrocks: Uli -- we can hear you ←
13:59:29 <IanH> Or we could until someone muted you
Ian Horrocks: Or we could until someone muted you ←
13:59:41 <pfps> boris: we work differently from xsd - xsd is about transmission we are about use
Boris Motik: we work differently from xsd - xsd is about transmission we are about use ←
14:00:38 <rob> q+
Rob Shearer: q+ ←
14:00:54 <pfps> achille: we need to be careful - we are changing value spaces
Achille Fokoue: we need to be careful - we are changing value spaces ←
14:01:18 <pfps> achille: we want to be able to use DB and XSD stuff
Achille Fokoue: we want to be able to use DB and XSD stuff ←
14:01:36 <pfps> ianh: we need to separate discussion of technical design and discussion of terminology
Ian Horrocks: we need to separate discussion of technical design and discussion of terminology ←
14:02:02 <rob> q-
Rob Shearer: q- ←
14:02:25 <pfps> ianh: any problems with underlying technical design
Ian Horrocks: any problems with underlying technical design ←
14:02:50 <rob> q+
Rob Shearer: q+ ←
14:03:03 <pfps> msmith: not sure whether technical or terminology - we have value spaces that encompass xsd, right
Michael Smith: not sure whether technical or terminology - we have value spaces that encompass xsd, right ←
14:03:24 <rob> q-
Rob Shearer: q- ←
14:03:27 <pfps> ianh: this is a communication issue
Ian Horrocks: this is a communication issue ←
14:03:37 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
14:04:04 <pfps> m_schneider: what are the differences between xsd and owl?
Michael Schneider: what are the differences between xsd and owl? ←
14:04:18 <rob> zakim, unmute me
Rob Shearer: zakim, unmute me ←
14:04:18 <Zakim> rob should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: rob should no longer be muted ←
14:04:19 <pfps> sandro: is there an incompatibility?
Sandro Hawke: is there an incompatibility? ←
14:04:29 <rob> q+
Rob Shearer: q+ ←
14:05:01 <sandro> sandro: I want to know what incompatibilities there are before deciding whether the design is okay.
Sandro Hawke: I want to know what incompatibilities there are before deciding whether the design is okay. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:05:25 <pfps> rob: xsd is just a serialization, we need something more conceptual
Rob Shearer: xsd is just a serialization, we need something more conceptual ←
14:06:07 <sandro> Alan: in xsd, "2"^^int and "2"^^float are distinct. But in OWL we want them to be the same.
Alan Ruttenberg: in xsd, "2"^^int and "2"^^float are distinct. But in OWL we want them to be the same. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:06:10 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
14:06:18 <pfps> alanr: xsd has disjoint value spaces (e.g., "2"^^xsd:integer and "2.0"^xsd:float) we don't
Alan Ruttenberg: xsd has disjoint value spaces (e.g., "2"^^xsd:integer and "2.0"^xsd:float) we don't ←
14:06:36 <pfps> boris: differences - owl:number+ is a new value space
Boris Motik: differences - owl:number+ is a new value space ←
14:06:50 <sandro> boris: (1) We have owl:number as a super value space. (2) XML schema has float disjoint from double disjount from number.
Boris Motik: (1) We have owl:number as a super value space. (2) XML schema has float disjoint from double disjount from number. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:07:11 <pfps> boris: differences - disjointness of integer, float, double (xsd yes, owl no)
Boris Motik: differences - disjointness of integer, float, double (xsd yes, owl no) ←
14:07:32 <pfps> boris: query in xml schema may diverge from us
Boris Motik: query in xml schema may diverge from us ←
14:07:38 <sandro> boris: So the same query in XML schema will give fewer answers -- since it wont know "5"^^float and "5"^^double are the same number.
Boris Motik: So the same query in XML schema will give fewer answers -- since it wont know "5"^^float and "5"^^double are the same number. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:07:39 <pfps> boris: that's it
Boris Motik: that's it ←
14:08:18 <pfps> rob: rationale for xsd is serialization thus disjointness
Rob Shearer: rationale for xsd is serialization thus disjointness ←
14:08:27 <bparsia> I believe that double and float is disjoint in order to type functions in xpath and xquery
Bijan Parsia: I believe that double and float is disjoint in order to type functions in xpath and xquery ←
14:08:41 <sandro> rob: XS needs this distinction. If it has a 5, it has to know whether to serialize our "5"^^float or "5"^^double. But this isn't to constrain other specs/apps.
Rob Shearer: XS needs this distinction. If it has a 5, it has to know whether to serialize our "5"^^float or "5"^^double. But this isn't to constrain other specs/apps. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:08:55 <pfps> rob: new spec says that use of xsd can do what is needed
Rob Shearer: new spec says that use of xsd can do what is needed ←
14:08:56 <rob> zakim, mute me
Rob Shearer: zakim, mute me ←
14:08:56 <Zakim> rob should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: rob should now be muted ←
14:09:10 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
14:09:12 <bparsia> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
14:09:14 <sandro> ack rob
Sandro Hawke: ack rob ←
14:09:16 <rob> q-
Rob Shearer: q- ←
14:09:27 <rob> zakim, mute me
Rob Shearer: zakim, mute me ←
14:09:28 <Zakim> rob should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: rob should now be muted ←
14:09:47 <rob> zakim, who is on the phone
Rob Shearer: zakim, who is on the phone ←
14:09:47 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', rob
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'who is on the phone', rob ←
14:10:05 <IanH> zakim, who is on the phone?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
14:10:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.617.253.aaaa, bparsia (muted), uli (muted), rob (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see +1.617.253.aaaa, bparsia (muted), uli (muted), rob (muted) ←
14:10:05 <sandro> Achille: At IBM we'll need to be very clear about the story on these datatypes between OWL and XS
Achille Fokoue: At IBM we'll need to be very clear about the story on these datatypes between OWL and XS [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:10:06 <pfps> achille: my concern is how to sell this (within IBM) - divergences in querying, migration paths
Achille Fokoue: my concern is how to sell this (within IBM) - divergences in querying, migration paths ←
14:10:32 <m_schnei> Achille: IBM has big investments in XML
Achille Fokoue: IBM has big investments in XML [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
14:10:49 <bparsia> queue?
Bijan Parsia: queue? ←
14:11:30 <pfps> boris: xquery is a huge spec - type casting might be built in
Boris Motik: xquery is a huge spec - type casting might be built in ←
14:11:44 <bparsia> http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/#id-type-promotion-and-operator-mapping
Bijan Parsia: http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/#id-type-promotion-and-operator-mapping ←
14:11:49 <pfps> boris: xquery is syntactic - so it needs type coercion
Boris Motik: xquery is syntactic - so it needs type coercion ←
14:11:59 <pfps> boris: owl is semantic - things are either the same or different
Boris Motik: owl is semantic - things are either the same or different ←
14:12:06 <sandro> boris: there is no such thing as type coercion in OWL. The model theory says the values are the same or are different.
Boris Motik: there is no such thing as type coercion in OWL. The model theory says the values are the same or are different. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:12:09 <bparsia> zakim, ack me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, ack me ←
14:12:09 <Zakim> unmuting bparsia
Zakim IRC Bot: unmuting bparsia ←
14:12:10 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
Zakim IRC Bot: I see no one on the speaker queue ←
14:12:15 <sandro> ack bparsia
Sandro Hawke: ack bparsia ←
14:12:20 <pfps> achille: OK, communication is important, though
Achille Fokoue: OK, communication is important, though ←
14:12:50 <sandro> bparsia: look at MathML here. It might be better to borrow from them -- more about Math than about Data.
Bijan Parsia: look at MathML here. It might be better to borrow from them -- more about Math than about Data. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:12:59 <pfps> bparsia: could we use a different terminology (e.g., MathML)?
Bijan Parsia: could we use a different terminology (e.g., MathML)? ←
14:13:27 <msmith> I think that I found the relevant bit from xquery http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/#id-value-comparisons
Michael Smith: I think that I found the relevant bit from xquery http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/#id-value-comparisons ←
14:13:30 <pfps> bparsia: maybe we could use mathml:real, for example
Bijan Parsia: maybe we could use mathml:real, for example ←
14:14:23 <pfps> achille: I can check the relationship between xquery and owl
Achille Fokoue: I can check the relationship between xquery and owl ←
14:14:30 <bparsia> I didn't understand the comment about "lack of type coercion" in owl
Bijan Parsia: I didn't understand the comment about "lack of type coercion" in owl ←
14:14:53 <bparsia> We can easily have operators that "coerce" (i.e., predicates with union types as arguments)
Bijan Parsia: We can easily have operators that "coerce" (i.e., predicates with union types as arguments) ←
14:15:10 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
14:15:22 <pfps> m_schneider: two differences - owl:number+ is a new value space, non-disjointness of integer, float, double
Michael Schneider: two differences - owl:number+ is a new value space, non-disjointness of integer, float, double ←
14:16:23 <rob> That sounds like a procedural description of our proposed semantics.
Rob Shearer: That sounds like a procedural description of our proposed semantics. ←
14:16:24 <pfps> boris: section 3.5.1 of xquery - type coercion - seems to be wrong for our purposes
Boris Motik: section 3.5.1 of xquery - type coercion - seems to be wrong for our purposes ←
14:16:25 <msmith> type promotion in xquery http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/#dt-type-promotion
Michael Smith: type promotion in xquery http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/#dt-type-promotion ←
14:16:44 <sandro> ACTION: Achille to develop list of possible conflicts between XML Schema datatypes and OWL datatypes with valuespace reasoning
ACTION: Achille to develop list of possible conflicts between XML Schema datatypes and OWL datatypes with valuespace reasoning ←
14:16:45 <trackbot> Created ACTION-172 - Develop list of possible conflicts between XML Schema datatypes and OWL datatypes with valuespace reasoning [on Achille Fokoue - due 2008-08-04].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-172 - Develop list of possible conflicts between XML Schema datatypes and OWL datatypes with valuespace reasoning [on Achille Fokoue - due 2008-08-04]. ←
14:17:28 <pfps> boris: if owl has disjoint integer and float, then you can't have a float value for a property whose range is integer
Boris Motik: if owl has disjoint integer and float, then you can't have a float value for a property whose range is integer ←
14:17:32 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
14:17:32 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
14:17:42 <pfps> jonathan: what about union types?
Jonathan Rees: what about union types? ←
14:18:16 <sandro> jrees: I think you can make it work by having valuespace as pair, and semantics are in operator, like in many programming languages. I'm not saying this would be a good way to do things.
Jonathan Rees: I think you can make it work by having valuespace as pair, and semantics are in operator, like in many programming languages. I'm not saying this would be a good way to do things. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:18:37 <pfps> boris: example - range of P is xsd:float - foo has a value for P that belongs to xsd:integer - this is a contradiction
Boris Motik: example - range of P is xsd:float - foo has a value for P that belongs to xsd:integer - this is a contradiction ←
14:19:03 <pfps> boris: if float and integer are disjoint
Boris Motik: if float and integer are disjoint ←
14:19:32 <sandro> jrees: Is it a requirement that this is consistent: "range xsd:float" and a value which is "5"^^int ?
Jonathan Rees: Is it a requirement that this is consistent: "range xsd:float" and a value which is "5"^^int ? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:19:41 <sandro> (general sense of yes.)
Sandro Hawke: (general sense of yes.) ←
14:19:44 <pfps> alanr: thus the integer 5 should be the same as "5.0"^^xsd:float
Alan Ruttenberg: thus the integer 5 should be the same as "5.0"^^xsd:float ←
14:20:05 <rob> I'd still very much prefer if users couldn't say "range xsd:float"
Rob Shearer: I'd still very much prefer if users couldn't say "range xsd:float" ←
14:20:31 <sandro> +1 rob
Sandro Hawke: +1 rob ←
14:20:31 <pfps> [considerable discussion]
[considerable discussion] ←
14:20:54 <pfps> alanr: xquery promotion is to float - this may not be the same as the owl proposal
Alan Ruttenberg: xquery promotion is to float - this may not be the same as the owl proposal ←
14:20:54 <jar> I heard: It is a requirement that "5"^^xsd:integer has type [not sure what the "has type" predicate is] xsd:float
Jonathan Rees: I heard: It is a requirement that "5"^^xsd:integer has type [not sure what the "has type" predicate is] xsd:float ←
14:20:59 <rob> I don't understand the notion "equal as floats"
Rob Shearer: I don't understand the notion "equal as floats" ←
14:22:05 <pfps> boris: IEEE comparison of floats and doubles is done as if they were exact real numbers
Boris Motik: IEEE comparison of floats and doubles is done as if they were exact real numbers ←
14:22:16 <msmith> sandro, http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/TestCase:Datatype-Primitive-Disjointness-001
Michael Smith: sandro, http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/TestCase:Datatype-Primitive-Disjointness-001 ←
14:22:28 <rob> from IEEE 7.5.4 section 5.7 : It shall be possible to compare floating-point numbers in all supported formats, even if the operands’ formats differ.
Rob Shearer: from IEEE 7.5.4 section 5.7 : It shall be possible to compare floating-point numbers in all supported formats, even if the operands’ formats differ. ←
14:22:28 <rob> Comparisons are exact and never overflow nor underflow.
Rob Shearer: Comparisons are exact and never overflow nor underflow. ←
14:22:45 <rob> </quote>
Rob Shearer: </quote> ←
14:22:56 <pfps> achille: run this through some code
Achille Fokoue: run this through some code ←
14:23:35 <pfps> achille: galax is a reference implementation
Achille Fokoue: galax is a reference implementation ←
14:23:39 <sandro> ACTION: Alan to investigate Boris' IEEE reference, re linking floating point to real numbers
ACTION: Alan to investigate Boris' IEEE reference, re linking floating point to real numbers ←
14:23:39 <trackbot> Created ACTION-173 - Investigate Boris' IEEE reference, re linking floating point to real numbers [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-08-04].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-173 - Investigate Boris' IEEE reference, re linking floating point to real numbers [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-08-04]. ←
14:23:49 <pfps> alanr: things to check - owl:number+ - we seem to be OK
Alan Ruttenberg: things to check - owl:number+ - we seem to be OK ←
14:24:12 <pfps> alanr: minimum conformance - 64 bit integer - decimal - something that looks OK
Alan Ruttenberg: minimum conformance - 64 bit integer - decimal - something that looks OK ←
14:24:19 <rob> q+
Rob Shearer: q+ ←
14:24:37 <pfps> alanr: float and double are currently real ranges
Alan Ruttenberg: float and double are currently real ranges ←
14:24:46 <rob> zakim, unmute me
Rob Shearer: zakim, unmute me ←
14:24:46 <Zakim> rob should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: rob should no longer be muted ←
14:24:47 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:24:50 <pfps> alanr: internationalized strings
Alan Ruttenberg: internationalized strings ←
14:25:07 <rob> zakim, mute me
Rob Shearer: zakim, mute me ←
14:25:07 <Zakim> rob should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: rob should now be muted ←
14:25:09 <rob> q-
Rob Shearer: q- ←
14:25:18 <pfps> rob: the issue is whether xsd:float is a value space
Rob Shearer: the issue is whether xsd:float is a value space ←
14:25:25 <jar> My point was: There are two coherent designs, and maybe a choice has been made between then (I am coming into the middle of the conversation). In one design, the float/integer distinction is lost via the interpretation function - models don't distinguish them. The other coherent design would be to preserve the float/integer distinction in the interpretation function somehow, and then lose...
Jonathan Rees: My point was: There are two coherent designs, and maybe a choice has been made between then (I am coming into the middle of the conversation). In one design, the float/integer distinction is lost via the interpretation function - models don't distinguish them. The other coherent design would be to preserve the float/integer distinction in the interpretation function somehow, and then lose... ←
14:25:26 <jar> ...the distinction in the comparison predicates (etc.). I just want to make sure everyone understands the consequences of this choice.
Jonathan Rees: ...the distinction in the comparison predicates (etc.). I just want to make sure everyone understands the consequences of this choice. ←
14:25:45 <pfps> alanr: boolean and hexdecimal
Alan Ruttenberg: boolean and hexdecimal ←
14:25:50 <pfps> alanr: date/time
Alan Ruttenberg: date/time ←
14:26:38 <pfps> alanr: issues - Issue87, Issue71, Issue127, Issue132, floats
Alan Ruttenberg: issues - ISSUE-87, ISSUE-71, ISSUE-127, ISSUE-132, floats ←
14:26:52 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
14:27:14 <pfps> m_schneider: why the change from owl:real to owl:number?
Michael Schneider: why the change from owl:real to owl:number? ←
14:27:21 <pfps> boris: people liked it
Boris Motik: people liked it ←
14:27:29 <pfps> m_schneider: but what about complex numbers, then?
Michael Schneider: but what about complex numbers, then? ←
14:27:37 <sandro> m_schnei: The term "owl:number" misled me into thinking I could use it as a base for Complex Numbers
Michael Schneider: The term "owl:number" misled me into thinking I could use it as a base for Complex Numbers [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:28:03 <pfps> alanr: MEETING ISSUE - owl:number vs owl:real
Alan Ruttenberg: MEETING ISSUE - owl:number vs owl:real ←
14:28:21 <Zhe> maybe owl:realNumber?
Zhe Wu: maybe owl:realNumber? ←
14:28:47 <bparsia> what's going on?
Bijan Parsia: what's going on? ←
14:28:52 <pfps> alanr: use of xsd:float - as datatype name, as separate from other numbers
Alan Ruttenberg: use of xsd:float - as datatype name, as separate from other numbers ←
14:28:59 <sandro> Ian: Can we use xs:float is a class in restrictions, and if we use it what does it mean?
Ian Horrocks: Can we use xs:float is a class in restrictions, and if we use it what does it mean? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:29:04 <m_schnei> my point was, that implementors might want to decide to support reasoning with different kinds of numbers, such as complex numbers or quaternions, and owl:number(+) would make a good abstract base for all possible number classes
Michael Schneider: my point was, that implementors might want to decide to support reasoning with different kinds of numbers, such as complex numbers or quaternions, and owl:number(+) would make a good abstract base for all possible number classes ←
14:29:24 <pfps> msmith: if we use it, then it should mean the same as in xsd - i.e., discrete
Michael Smith: if we use it, then it should mean the same as in xsd - i.e., discrete ←
14:29:53 <rob> "using as a base" works the opposite the way in OWL it does in other languages: in other languages you build up, but in OWL you only trim down.
Rob Shearer: "using as a base" works the opposite the way in OWL it does in other languages: in other languages you build up, but in OWL you only trim down. ←
14:29:58 <pfps> alanr: thus not make xsd:float required
Alan Ruttenberg: thus not make xsd:float required ←
14:29:59 <sandro> msmith: If we use xs:float it should have the same semantics as in XS -- discrete reals, plus the extras. But that's hard to implement, so don't require it.
Michael Smith: If we use xs:float it should have the same semantics as in XS -- discrete reals, plus the extras. But that's hard to implement, so don't require it. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:30:15 <pfps> boris: the documents have to be careful then
Boris Motik: the documents have to be careful then ←
14:30:20 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:30:42 <rob> +1 to not allowing "range xsd:float", for example.
Rob Shearer: +1 to not allowing "range xsd:float", for example. ←
14:30:45 <sandro> boris: That's fine. We're supporing xs:float types for constants, but not for ranges.
Boris Motik: That's fine. We're supporing xs:float types for constants, but not for ranges. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:31:36 <sandro> msmith: I have an issue with wanting to be able to implement xs:float ranges -- is my implementation allowed to do that?
Michael Smith: I have an issue with wanting to be able to implement xs:float ranges -- is my implementation allowed to do that? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:31:37 <pfps> alanr: straw poll - is xsd:float an OWL datatype
Alan Ruttenberg: straw poll - is xsd:float an OWL datatype ←
14:31:39 <bparsia> +0 waiting to investigate how often it appears in practice
Bijan Parsia: +0 waiting to investigate how often it appears in practice ←
14:31:41 <sandro> Alan: let's come back to that.
Alan Ruttenberg: let's come back to that. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:31:44 <pfps> msmith: no
Michael Smith: no ←
14:31:52 <rob> horribly confusing, and non-conformant with XSchema...
Rob Shearer: horribly confusing, and non-conformant with XSchema... ←
14:31:54 <pfps> boris: but would anyone see a difference?
Boris Motik: but would anyone see a difference? ←
14:32:19 <bparsia> http://swoogle.umbc.edu/index.php?option=com_frontpage&service=search&queryType=search_swd_ontology&searchStart=1&searchString=float
Bijan Parsia: http://swoogle.umbc.edu/index.php?option=com_frontpage&service=search&queryType=search_swd_ontology&searchStart=1&searchString=float ←
14:32:24 <pfps> msmith: choosing xsd:float is a choice - why did someone do it
Michael Smith: choosing xsd:float is a choice - why did someone do it ←
14:32:35 <pfps> ianh: is there an example
Ian Horrocks: is there an example ←
14:33:08 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
14:33:16 <pfps> m_schneider: perhaps xsd:float was used to allow more values (due to implementation limitations)
Michael Schneider: perhaps xsd:float was used to allow more values (due to implementation limitations) ←
14:33:27 <pfps> boris: value space of xsd:integer is all integers
Boris Motik: value space of xsd:integer is all integers ←
14:33:46 <pfps> boris: some implementations might not support arbitrarily large constants
Boris Motik: some implementations might not support arbitrarily large constants ←
14:34:10 <bparsia> Another example: http://www.biopax.org/release/biopax-level2.owl
Bijan Parsia: Another example: http://www.biopax.org/release/biopax-level2.owl ←
14:34:12 <pfps> boris: xsd says that minimal conformance requires support for integers that fit into 64 bits
Boris Motik: xsd says that minimal conformance requires support for integers that fit into 64 bits ←
14:34:18 <bparsia> But floatiness doesn't seem interesting
Bijan Parsia: But floatiness doesn't seem interesting ←
14:34:20 <sandro> boris: yes, the value space for integer and decimal are infinite, but we only want to require folks to implement certain size constants.
Boris Motik: yes, the value space for integer and decimal are infinite, but we only want to require folks to implement certain size constants. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:34:52 <sandro> alan: XMLS and OWL may have different conformance clauses.
Alan Ruttenberg: XMLS and OWL may have different conformance clauses. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:35:04 <pfps> jonathan: in scientific computing float means "can be represented (exactly) as a float"
Jonathan Rees: in scientific computing float means "can be represented (exactly) as a float" ←
14:35:27 <sandro> jrees: No one in scientific computing would say sqrt(2) is float.
Jonathan Rees: No one in scientific computing would say sqrt(2) is float. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:35:44 <pfps> ianh: we need to be careful to keep constants (and minimal conformance) and value spaces separate
Ian Horrocks: we need to be careful to keep constants (and minimal conformance) and value spaces separate ←
14:35:45 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
14:36:00 <rob> q+
Rob Shearer: q+ ←
14:36:22 <pfps> boris: sqrt(2) is not a float - we can approximate it, though
Boris Motik: sqrt(2) is not a float - we can approximate it, though ←
14:37:06 <pfps> msmith: suppose I use small numbers and I store them as floats - I may want to know whether there is a float between two others (that are close)
Michael Smith: suppose I use small numbers and I store them as floats - I may want to know whether there is a float between two others (that are close) ←
14:37:20 <m_schnei> scribe assist - I talked about xsd:decimal, not xsd:float
Michael Schneider: scribe assist - I talked about xsd:decimal, not xsd:float ←
14:37:24 <rob> zakim, unmute me
Rob Shearer: zakim, unmute me ←
14:37:24 <Zakim> rob should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: rob should no longer be muted ←
14:37:29 <pfps> alanr: in the proposal sqrt(2) is in float
Alan Ruttenberg: in the proposal sqrt(2) is in float ←
14:38:07 <bparsia> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
14:38:10 <pfps> rob: "can't tell the difference now" is a suspect argument - extensions may expose the differences
Rob Shearer: "can't tell the difference now" is a suspect argument - extensions may expose the differences ←
14:38:13 <bparsia> (to reply to owl)
Bijan Parsia: (to reply to owl) ←
14:38:15 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
14:38:15 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/07/28-owl-irc#T14-38-15
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/07/28-owl-irc#T14-38-15 ←
14:38:23 <rob> zakim, mute me
Rob Shearer: zakim, mute me ←
14:38:23 <Zakim> rob should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: rob should now be muted ←
14:38:30 <rob> q-
Rob Shearer: q- ←
14:39:02 <pfps> ianh: everyone seems to be OK with xsd:float as a datatype, so what is the point of this discussion
Ian Horrocks: everyone seems to be OK with xsd:float as a datatype, so what is the point of this discussion ←
14:39:51 <pfps> ianh: people who are interested in the edge conditions of float already understand the issues and that it is a bad idea to depend on them
Ian Horrocks: people who are interested in the edge conditions of float already understand the issues and that it is a bad idea to depend on them ←
14:40:16 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
14:40:16 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should no longer be muted ←
14:40:18 <bparsia> <owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="Price">
Bijan Parsia: <owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="Price"> ←
14:40:18 <bparsia> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#PurchasedItem"/>
Bijan Parsia: <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#PurchasedItem"/> ←
14:40:18 <bparsia> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#float"/>
Bijan Parsia: <rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#float"/> ←
14:40:18 <bparsia> </owl:DatatypeProperty>
Bijan Parsia: </owl:DatatypeProperty> ←
14:40:23 <bparsia> http://www.dayf.de/2004/owl/order.owl
Bijan Parsia: http://www.dayf.de/2004/owl/order.owl ←
14:40:25 <pfps> jonathan: floats are reliably used in scientific computing
Jonathan Rees: floats are reliably used in scientific computing ←
14:40:38 <bparsia> can we use the queue, in general?
Bijan Parsia: can we use the queue, in general? ←
14:40:48 <bparsia> It's hard to know where I am on the queue
Bijan Parsia: It's hard to know where I am on the queue ←
14:40:53 <rob> yes, bijan---everybody uses floats in those things now because it's allowed.
Rob Shearer: yes, bijan---everybody uses floats in those things now because it's allowed. ←
14:41:13 <uli> \me guesses that Peter and Rob are close to the microphone and Alan is far away?
Uli Sattler: \me guesses that Peter and Rob are close to the microphone and Alan is far away? ←
14:41:13 <pfps> ianh: can we handle this under RDF repairs?
Ian Horrocks: can we handle this under RDF repairs? ←
14:41:15 <bparsia> rob, I'm just gathering examples. That's pretty clearly a silly one
Bijan Parsia: rob, I'm just gathering examples. That's pretty clearly a silly one ←
14:41:29 <bparsia> From the point of view of "OOO, IEEE float"
Bijan Parsia: From the point of view of "OOO, IEEE float" ←
14:41:41 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
14:41:43 <sandro> ack bparsia
Sandro Hawke: ack bparsia ←
14:41:48 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:42:45 <pfps> bparsia: examples of xsd:float in Swoogle in Tboxes - there is a fair bit, but no used for floatiness
Bijan Parsia: examples of xsd:float in Swoogle in Tboxes - there is a fair bit, but no used for floatiness ←
14:43:30 <pfps> bparsia: we could have owl:IEEEfloat for those who need floatiness
Bijan Parsia: we could have owl:IEEEfloat for those who need floatiness ←
14:43:32 <rob> But why include xsd:float as a value space which doesn't mean what its name implies?
Rob Shearer: But why include xsd:float as a value space which doesn't mean what its name implies? ←
14:44:00 <bparsia> I don't know what you mean "include as a value space". I mean it to be a sub thing of owl number
Bijan Parsia: I don't know what you mean "include as a value space". I mean it to be a sub thing of owl number ←
14:44:07 <pfps> boris: it is easier to say that float is on both sides
Boris Motik: it is easier to say that float is on both sides ←
14:44:09 <bparsia> I.e., as sugar for a bounded real
Bijan Parsia: I.e., as sugar for a bounded real ←
14:44:12 <bparsia> er. number
Bijan Parsia: er. number ←
14:44:17 <rob> zakim, unmute me
Rob Shearer: zakim, unmute me ←
14:44:17 <Zakim> rob should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: rob should no longer be muted ←
14:44:17 <pfps> msmith: why not use xsd:decimal
Michael Smith: why not use xsd:decimal ←
14:44:24 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:44:25 <pfps> boris: because people use xsd:float
Boris Motik: because people use xsd:float ←
14:44:33 <rob> zakim, mute me
Rob Shearer: zakim, mute me ←
14:44:33 <Zakim> rob should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: rob should now be muted ←
14:44:47 <uli> before the break: is there an updated agenda?
Uli Sattler: before the break: is there an updated agenda? ←
14:44:49 <pfps> msmith: but they might want the floatiness
Michael Smith: but they might want the floatiness ←
14:45:09 <bparsia> The people who "are using floatiness" are likely in a better position to be "screwed" than others :)
Bijan Parsia: The people who "are using floatiness" are likely in a better position to be "screwed" than others :) ←
14:45:46 <rob> But there's no evidence that anybody is using the floatiness...
Rob Shearer: But there's no evidence that anybody is using the floatiness... ←
14:46:05 <bparsia> rob, I agree, I'm just saying that it probably wouldn't matter
Bijan Parsia: rob, I agree, I'm just saying that it probably wouldn't matter ←
14:46:14 <pfps> ScribeNick: m_schneider
(Scribe set to Michael Schneider)
14:46:32 <uli> ...does anybody have an updated agenda?
Uli Sattler: ...does anybody have an updated agenda? ←
14:46:35 <uli> Alan, Ian?
Uli Sattler: Alan, Ian? ←
14:46:35 <bparsia> They hypothetical floaters would presumably be so sophisticated that they could handle a break ok
Bijan Parsia: They hypothetical floaters would presumably be so sophisticated that they could handle a break ok ←
14:46:43 <rob> Allowing some "owl value spaces" which are xsd names and mean the xsd value space, and some which are xsd names but don't mean the xsd value space, is terribl terrible design.
Rob Shearer: Allowing some "owl value spaces" which are xsd names and mean the xsd value space, and some which are xsd names but don't mean the xsd value space, is terribl terrible design. ←
14:47:15 <uli> zakim, unmute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, unmute me ←
14:47:15 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should no longer be muted ←
14:47:18 <rob> And it's the easiest thing to patch in legacy ontologies---it's entirely clear what needs to be fixed.
Rob Shearer: And it's the easiest thing to patch in legacy ontologies---it's entirely clear what needs to be fixed. ←
14:48:22 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
14:48:22 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
14:48:29 <rob> should we have a phone pow-wow without the boston crowd?
Rob Shearer: should we have a phone pow-wow without the boston crowd? ←
14:48:30 <ekw> Agenda is http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F3_Agenda
Evan Wallace: Agenda is http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F3_Agenda ←
14:49:02 <uli> thanks, evan. I was just wondering whether it was up to date
Uli Sattler: thanks, evan. I was just wondering whether it was up to date ←
14:49:15 <uli> since the datatype discussion started much earlier than planned
Uli Sattler: since the datatype discussion started much earlier than planned ←
14:49:45 <uli> s/evan/?? who is ekw?
Uli Sattler: s/evan/?? who is ekw? ←
14:51:03 <Zakim> -rob
Zakim IRC Bot: -rob ←
14:51:20 <Zakim> -uli
Zakim IRC Bot: -uli ←
14:53:07 <sandro> rob, bparsia, uli are participating remotely
Sandro Hawke: rob, bparsia, uli are participating remotely ←
14:58:28 <pfps> rrsagent, pointer?
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Peter Patel-Schneider: rrsagent, pointer? ←
14:58:28 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/07/28-owl-irc#T14-58-28
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/07/28-owl-irc#T14-58-28 ←
14:58:44 <rob> are we re-starting?
Rob Shearer: are we re-starting? ←
14:58:59 <sandro> no, rob
Sandro Hawke: no, rob ←
15:14:22 <sandro> scribe: m_schnei
15:15:08 <Zakim> +??P18
(No events recorded for 16 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P18 ←
15:15:16 <uli> zakim, ??P18 is me
Uli Sattler: zakim, ??P18 is me ←
15:15:16 <Zakim> +uli; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +uli; got it ←
15:15:20 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
15:15:20 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
15:15:25 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#casting-to-numerics
Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#casting-to-numerics ←
15:16:05 <m_schnei> alanr: 10 more minutes on floats, and afterwards other types
Alan Ruttenberg: 10 more minutes on floats, and afterwards other types ←
15:16:44 <m_schnei> alanr: option legacy: lots of people using floats
Alan Ruttenberg: option legacy: lots of people using floats ←
15:17:22 <m_schnei> boris: mike trys to convince me that discrete xsd:float is not too difficult
Boris Motik: mike trys to convince me that discrete xsd:float is not too difficult ←
15:17:42 <m_schnei> ... if it works well and efficient, I'll be happy with it
... if it works well and efficient, I'll be happy with it ←
15:17:55 <m_schnei> alanr: asks what implementors think
Alan Ruttenberg: asks what implementors think ←
15:18:06 <m_schnei> zhe: would like that
15:18:12 <sandro> rob, you there?
Sandro Hawke: rob, you there? ←
15:18:21 <m_schnei> achille: would like it too
Achille Fokoue: would like it too ←
15:18:46 <m_schnei> msmith: big problem is determining how many floats are between two given floats
Michael Smith: big problem is determining how many floats are between two given floats ←
15:19:03 <Zakim> +rob
Zakim IRC Bot: +rob ←
15:19:08 <m_schnei> s/mikes/msmith
s/mikes/msmith ←
15:19:10 <rob> zakim, mute me
Rob Shearer: zakim, mute me ←
15:19:10 <Zakim> rob should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: rob should now be muted ←
15:19:38 <m_schnei> alanr: other option for floats is the "high road"
Alan Ruttenberg: other option for floats is the "high road" ←
15:19:39 <sandro> ack rob
Sandro Hawke: ack rob ←
15:19:43 <rob> zakim, unmute me
Rob Shearer: zakim, unmute me ←
15:19:43 <Zakim> rob was not muted, rob
Zakim IRC Bot: rob was not muted, rob ←
15:20:10 <m_schnei> alanr: (to rob) there are three implementors who are happy with floats as discrete set
Alan Ruttenberg: (to rob) there are three implementors who are happy with floats as discrete set ←
15:20:42 <m_schnei> ian: we are reinterpreting floats as a set of discrete points
Ian Horrocks: we are reinterpreting floats as a set of discrete points ←
15:21:00 <m_schnei> rob: that's still a crazy idea
Rob Shearer: that's still a crazy idea ←
15:21:11 <uli> +1 to Rob
Uli Sattler: +1 to Rob ←
15:21:24 <m_schnei> achille: because it is the same interpretation as in xsd
Achille Fokoue: because it is the same interpretation as in xsd ←
15:21:32 <sandro> alan: Rob, what do you think of the proposal: Floats are a value space which is discrete points in the owl:number value space (just like integers are), plus +/- inf, zero
Alan Ruttenberg: Rob, what do you think of the proposal: Floats are a value space which is discrete points in the owl:number value space (just like integers are), plus +/- inf, zero [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:21:44 <m_schnei> achille: possible to count number of floats between
Achille Fokoue: possible to count number of floats between ←
15:21:59 <m_schnei> ... would be no big issue anymore from his pov
... would be no big issue anymore from his pov ←
15:22:17 <msmith> E.g., see http://www.cygnus-software.com/papers/comparingfloats/comparingfloats.htm and integer comparison section
Michael Smith: E.g., see http://www.cygnus-software.com/papers/comparingfloats/comparingfloats.htm and integer comparison section ←
15:22:33 <m_schnei> ... still concern that owl:number is non-discrete
... still concern that owl:number is non-discrete ←
15:23:02 <m_schnei> rob: its trivial for implementations to use it in discrete way
Rob Shearer: its trivial for implementations to use it in discrete way ←
15:23:23 <m_schnei> zhe: has seen ontologies used float, should not be disallowed
Zhe Wu: has seen ontologies used float, should not be disallowed ←
15:23:40 <m_schnei> boris: big benefit: would close issue
Boris Motik: big benefit: would close issue ←
15:23:42 <bparsia> +1 boris
Bijan Parsia: +1 boris ←
15:23:53 <Zakim> +Carsten
Zakim IRC Bot: +Carsten ←
15:24:01 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
15:24:03 <Carsten> hi all
Carsten Lutz: hi all ←
15:24:06 <sandro> q+rob
Sandro Hawke: q+rob ←
15:24:11 <Carsten> zakim, mute me
Carsten Lutz: zakim, mute me ←
15:24:11 <Zakim> Carsten should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Carsten should now be muted ←
15:24:24 <bparsia> +1 again to boris
Bijan Parsia: +1 again to boris ←
15:24:29 <m_schnei> boris: want's to simply explicitly list the allowed datatypes
Boris Motik: want's to simply explicitly list the allowed datatypes ←
15:24:58 <sandro> boris: People might want to say range is float, so it's known it can be stored in 32 bits.
Boris Motik: People might want to say range is float, so it's known it can be stored in 32 bits. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:25:03 <m_schnei> ... xsd:float would simply refer to ieee definition of float
... xsd:float would simply refer to ieee definition of float ←
15:25:04 <sandro> ack rob
Sandro Hawke: ack rob ←
15:26:02 <m_schnei> alanr: you are the last one against
Alan Ruttenberg: you are the last one against ←
15:26:08 <m_schnei> ... to rob
... to rob ←
15:26:14 <uli> q+
Uli Sattler: q+ ←
15:27:15 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:27:54 <pfps> if we make the value space of xsd:float discrete, then we should make it disoint from owl:number
Peter Patel-Schneider: if we make the value space of xsd:float discrete, then we should make it disoint from owl:number ←
15:27:58 <uli> zakim, unmute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, unmute me ←
15:27:58 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should no longer be muted ←
15:28:08 <Carsten> same here
Carsten Lutz: same here ←
15:28:46 <m_schnei> uli: asks about performance problems with discrete floats
Uli Sattler: asks about performance problems with discrete floats ←
15:28:49 <bparsia> It's no worse than integers.
Bijan Parsia: It's no worse than integers. ←
15:29:05 <m_schnei> uli: additional problem, having all these numbers available
Uli Sattler: additional problem, having all these numbers available ←
15:29:32 <m_schnei> boris: if you know that your datarange is large, you don't have a problem [FIXME]
Boris Motik: if you know that your datarange is large, you don't have a problem [FIXME] ←
15:29:36 <bparsia> 1+
Bijan Parsia: 1+ ←
15:29:37 <bparsia> er
Bijan Parsia: er ←
15:29:39 <bparsia> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
15:29:48 <m_schnei> uli: concerns about unimplementable
Uli Sattler: concerns about unimplementable ←
15:30:03 <rob> q+ to repeat his very first arguments...
Rob Shearer: q+ to repeat his very first arguments... ←
15:30:11 <Carsten> though this may "typically" be true, you still need to check for it in a reasoner
Carsten Lutz: though this may "typically" be true, you still need to check for it in a reasoner ←
15:30:35 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
15:30:36 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
15:31:05 <msmith> uli, the primary change, I believe is that Boris has been convinced the counting the number of floats between endpoints is easy
Michael Smith: uli, the primary change, I believe is that Boris has been convinced the counting the number of floats between endpoints is easy ←
15:31:08 <bparsia> (My point was that we can express discrete floats with our given integer facets)
Bijan Parsia: (My point was that we can express discrete floats with our given integer facets) ←
15:31:10 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
15:31:13 <alanr> ack uli
Alan Ruttenberg: ack uli ←
15:31:17 <Carsten> to me, that was never really the point
Carsten Lutz: to me, that was never really the point ←
15:31:21 <m_schnei> ian: uli, piece you are missing is that computing that number of numbers between two numbers is actually easy to compute
Ian Horrocks: uli, piece you are missing is that computing that number of numbers between two numbers is actually easy to compute ←
15:31:22 <uli> zakim, unmute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, unmute me ←
15:31:22 <Zakim> uli was not muted, uli
Zakim IRC Bot: uli was not muted, uli ←
15:31:26 <rob> never really the point to me, ether
Rob Shearer: never really the point to me, ether ←
15:31:32 <alanr> ack bparsia
Alan Ruttenberg: ack bparsia ←
15:31:34 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
15:31:34 <Zakim> bparsia was not muted, bparsia
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia was not muted, bparsia ←
15:31:36 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
15:31:36 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
15:31:39 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:32:01 <alanr> ack rob
Alan Ruttenberg: ack rob ←
15:32:01 <Zakim> rob, you wanted to repeat his very first arguments...
Zakim IRC Bot: rob, you wanted to repeat his very first arguments... ←
15:32:07 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
15:32:07 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
15:32:08 <uli> but we had unbounded integers!
Uli Sattler: but we had unbounded integers! ←
15:32:09 <sandro> Ian: We thought it was hard to handle discrete floats, but now we think it's the same as handling ints.
Ian Horrocks: We thought it was hard to handle discrete floats, but now we think it's the same as handling ints. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:32:17 <Carsten> +10!
Carsten Lutz: +10! ←
15:32:26 <rob> zakim, mute me
Rob Shearer: zakim, mute me ←
15:32:26 <Zakim> rob should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: rob should now be muted ←
15:32:26 <sandro> Rob: using xs:float as a value space is not what any user wants.
Rob Shearer: using xs:float as a value space is not what any user wants. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:32:26 <m_schnei> rob: xsd:float as a value space is not what people want
Rob Shearer: xsd:float as a value space is not what people want ←
15:32:38 <msmith> bijan: you can mirror the discreteness of floating point numbers using a datarange on xsd:integer
Bijan Parsia: you can mirror the discreteness of floating point numbers using a datarange on xsd:integer [ Scribe Assist by Michael Smith ] ←
15:32:39 <m_schnei> alanr: going to vote now
Alan Ruttenberg: going to vote now ←
15:32:48 <uli> Ian, I don't think this is true: integers are unbounded?!
Uli Sattler: Ian, I don't think this is true: integers are unbounded?! ←
15:33:03 <bparsia> uli, you can create a derived type which is bounded
Bijan Parsia: uli, you can create a derived type which is bounded ←
15:33:14 <Carsten> uli, but there are facets
Carsten Lutz: uli, but there are facets ←
15:33:16 <uli> sure - but then I have done it
Uli Sattler: sure - but then I have done it ←
15:33:26 <bparsia> I.e., 5 < & >1
Bijan Parsia: I.e., 5 < & >1 ←
15:33:29 <rob> discrete floats completely breaks linear inequations...
Rob Shearer: discrete floats completely breaks linear inequations... ←
15:33:32 <uli> I understand
Uli Sattler: I understand ←
15:33:36 <msmith> but, also, you had to choose xsd:float
Michael Smith: but, also, you had to choose xsd:float ←
15:33:40 <uli> but then it's up to the user
Uli Sattler: but then it's up to the user ←
15:33:41 <m_schnei> jar: can we compare each pair of numbers from two types? [FIXME]
Jonathan Rees: can we compare each pair of numbers from two types? [FIXME] ←
15:33:45 <rob> (because many many ontologies will use xsd:float when they just mean number)
Rob Shearer: (because many many ontologies will use xsd:float when they just mean number) ←
15:33:50 <bparsia> Right, so in terms of the underlying impelmentation it's no harder..
Bijan Parsia: Right, so in terms of the underlying impelmentation it's no harder.. ←
15:33:51 <sandro> PROPOSED: The value space of xs:float will be a subset of the value space of owl:numberplus (real numbers plus +/- inf, +/- zero, NaN). It would be discrete points in that space, like xs:integer.
PROPOSED: The value space of xs:float will be a subset of the value space of owl:numberplus (real numbers plus +/- inf, +/- zero, NaN). It would be discrete points in that space, like xs:integer. ←
15:33:52 <msmith> you wouldn't use floats for inequations, you'd use the reals
Michael Smith: you wouldn't use floats for inequations, you'd use the reals ←
15:33:53 <uli> whereas float comes with this *unexpectedly*
Uli Sattler: whereas float comes with this *unexpectedly* ←
15:33:57 <bmotik> +1 Oxford
Boris Motik: +1 Oxford ←
15:34:01 <baojie> +1 RPI
15:34:13 <msmith> +1 C&P
Michael Smith: +1 C&P ←
15:34:16 <m_schnei> +1 FZI
+1 FZI ←
15:34:20 <ekw> +1 NIST
Evan Wallace: +1 NIST ←
15:34:22 <Achille> +1 IBM
Achille Fokoue: +1 IBM ←
15:34:23 <pfps> -0 Bell Labs
Peter Patel-Schneider: -0 Bell Labs ←
15:34:25 <Zhe> +1 ORACLE
15:34:26 <sandro> +1 W3C
Sandro Hawke: +1 W3C ←
15:34:43 <Carsten> -1 (illegal vote)
Carsten Lutz: -1 (illegal vote) ←
15:34:52 <jar> +1 Science Commons
Jonathan Rees: +1 Science Commons ←
15:35:03 <sandro> (Carsten isn't currently a WG member)
Sandro Hawke: (Carsten isn't currently a WG member) ←
15:35:12 <bparsia> One sec
Bijan Parsia: One sec ←
15:35:17 <Carsten> but (still) working on it
Carsten Lutz: but (still) working on it ←
15:35:29 <uli> 0 manchester
Uli Sattler: 0 manchester ←
15:35:40 <sandro> RESOLVED: The value space of xs:float will be a subset of the value space of owl:numberplus (real numbers plus +/- inf, +/- zero, NaN). It would be discrete points in that space, like xs:integer.
RESOLVED: The value space of xs:float will be a subset of the value space of owl:numberplus (real numbers plus +/- inf, +/- zero, NaN). It would be discrete points in that space, like xs:integer. ←
15:36:00 <m_schnei> Topic: Rationals
15:36:38 <m_schnei> alanr: the proposal, as i understand, the proposal is about rational *constants*
Alan Ruttenberg: the proposal, as i understand, the proposal is about rational *constants* ←
15:37:37 <m_schnei> boris: from a presentability pov, better to look at a type from its value space
Boris Motik: from a presentability pov, better to look at a type from its value space ←
15:37:45 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
15:38:21 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:38:29 <m_schnei> ian: more relaxed point of view, may exist types with overlapping value spaces
Ian Horrocks: more relaxed point of view, may exist types with overlapping value spaces ←
15:38:45 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
15:39:08 <rob> it's far easier than having a float value space
Rob Shearer: it's far easier than having a float value space ←
15:39:12 <msmith> msmith: rational constants are useful, I don't believe value space is
Michael Smith: rational constants are useful, I don't believe value space is [ Scribe Assist by Michael Smith ] ←
15:39:22 <m_schnei> alanr: adding rational numbers would bring problems in comparing with other types
Alan Ruttenberg: adding rational numbers would bring problems in comparing with other types ←
15:39:35 <m_schnei> ... that's an implementors problem
... that's an implementors problem ←
15:39:52 <m_schnei> ... in particular if the other type is float
... in particular if the other type is float ←
15:40:20 <m_schnei> ... how do you say that the rational and the float is exactly the same number
... how do you say that the rational and the float is exactly the same number ←
15:41:12 <m_schnei> msmith: ready to do this
Michael Smith: ready to do this ←
15:42:03 <m_schnei> boris: rational seems to have a natural place in the hierarchy starting with owl:number
Boris Motik: rational seems to have a natural place in the hierarchy starting with owl:number ←
15:42:18 <m_schnei> ... bigger issue is supporting rational constants
... bigger issue is supporting rational constants ←
15:42:42 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:43:17 <uli> Boris, is this "I know it's difficult" or "I don't know yet how to do it fast"?
Uli Sattler: Boris, is this "I know it's difficult" or "I don't know yet how to do it fast"? ←
15:43:21 <bparsia> To express all the rationals using decimal notation requires infinite expansion
Bijan Parsia: To express all the rationals using decimal notation requires infinite expansion ←
15:43:34 <m_schnei> m_schnei: rational coresponds to decimals
Michael Schneider: rational coresponds to decimals ←
15:43:40 <m_schnei> boris: wrong
Boris Motik: wrong ←
15:43:45 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:44:00 <m_schnei> ... not every rational can be represented as decimal, eg. 1/3
... not every rational can be represented as decimal, eg. 1/3 ←
15:45:19 <m_schnei> boris: thought that rational were easily implementable, but after yesterday's (?) discussion he is not sure anymore
Boris Motik: thought that rational were easily implementable, but after yesterday's (?) discussion he is not sure anymore ←
15:46:11 <rob> how is implementability the issue?
Rob Shearer: how is implementability the issue? ←
15:46:14 <IanH> Achille: need restriction; even then not sure if we would implement
Achille Fokoue: need restriction; even then not sure if we would implement [ Scribe Assist by Ian Horrocks ] ←
15:46:18 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
15:46:22 <bparsia> We like rationals
Bijan Parsia: We like rationals ←
15:46:28 <m_schnei> zhe: not sure if implementable by oracle, which uses a number type, perhaps not compatible with owl:rational
Zhe Wu: not sure if implementable by oracle, which uses a number type, perhaps not compatible with owl:rational ←
15:46:28 <uli> yes, we really do
Uli Sattler: yes, we really do ←
15:46:31 <bparsia> Uli has a burning desire to write 1/3 in ontologies
Bijan Parsia: Uli has a burning desire to write 1/3 in ontologies ←
15:46:42 <bparsia> constants,I think
Bijan Parsia: constants,I think ←
15:46:56 <bparsia> But we wouldn't mind datatypes
Bijan Parsia: But we wouldn't mind datatypes ←
15:47:04 <Zhe> it is a bit hard for relational DB to implement rational
Zhe Wu: it is a bit hard for relational DB to implement rational ←
15:47:13 <Zhe> may not worth the effort
Zhe Wu: may not worth the effort ←
15:47:28 <uli> Zhe, your DB wouldn't need to implement it?
Uli Sattler: Zhe, your DB wouldn't need to implement it? ←
15:47:42 <Zhe> uli. we might skip this one
Zhe Wu: uli. we might skip this one ←
15:47:58 <m_schnei> alanr: couple of implementors say rational may be problematic, but there is also desire
Alan Ruttenberg: couple of implementors say rational may be problematic, but there is also desire ←
15:48:03 <m_schnei> ian: straw poll
Ian Horrocks: straw poll ←
15:48:11 <rob> q+
Rob Shearer: q+ ←
15:48:18 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:48:56 <rob> zakim, unmute me
Rob Shearer: zakim, unmute me ←
15:48:56 <Zakim> rob should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: rob should no longer be muted ←
15:49:02 <m_schnei> jar: (?) no use cases found for rational in wiki
Jonathan Rees: (?) no use cases found for rational in wiki ←
15:49:25 <rob> zakim, mute me
Rob Shearer: zakim, mute me ←
15:49:25 <Zakim> rob should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: rob should now be muted ←
15:49:28 <rob> q-
Rob Shearer: q- ←
15:49:33 <Carsten> not strange at all: they had a completely different application in mind
Carsten Lutz: not strange at all: they had a completely different application in mind ←
15:49:36 <m_schnei> rob: strange that owl group sais that xsd group did bad job [FIXME]
Rob Shearer: strange that owl group sais that xsd group did bad job [FIXME] ←
15:49:53 <bparsia> That's a weird thing for rob to say given all his pangyrics about how xml schema numbers/value spaces are not what owl wants ;)
Bijan Parsia: That's a weird thing for rob to say given all his pangyrics about how xml schema numbers/value spaces are not what owl wants ;) ←
15:50:14 <rob> XSD isn't a spec about value spaces---it's about writing down numbers.
Rob Shearer: XSD isn't a spec about value spaces---it's about writing down numbers. ←
15:50:32 <sandro> alan: let's postpone Rationals to be part of n-ary.
Alan Ruttenberg: let's postpone Rationals to be part of n-ary. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:50:34 <m_schnei> msmith: owl being an ontology langugage, it makes sense to have exact, not approx definitions
Michael Smith: owl being an ontology langugage, it makes sense to have exact, not approx definitions ←
15:51:01 <m_schnei> alanr: what is most important topic?
Alan Ruttenberg: what is most important topic? ←
15:51:08 <m_schnei> nary? noone
nary? noone ←
15:51:17 <m_schnei> ... datetime? few
... datetime? few ←
15:51:24 <m_schnei> ... communication: several
... communication: several ←
15:51:28 <sandro> topic: Communication
15:51:31 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
15:51:45 <bparsia> XSD is not about writing down numbers in a mathematical sense; that's seems mathml. OWL, as you argued, is much more about value space, ergo, it's not *weird* to argue that the xsd way of writing numbers down may be insufficient. You may disagree, but its' not weird
Bijan Parsia: XSD is not about writing down numbers in a mathematical sense; that's seems mathml. OWL, as you argued, is much more about value space, ergo, it's not *weird* to argue that the xsd way of writing numbers down may be insufficient. You may disagree, but its' not weird ←
15:51:54 <IanH> Boris on presentation. Interesting.
Ian Horrocks: Boris on presentation. Interesting. ←
15:52:13 <m_schnei> boris: in datatype section 4.2 we say for each datatype what its lexical space, its value space is
Boris Motik: in datatype section 4.2 we say for each datatype what its lexical space, its value space is ←
15:53:02 <m_schnei> ... when two constants are structurally the same
... when two constants are structurally the same ←
15:53:30 <m_schnei> ... whether implementations are allowed to simplify lexical reps
... whether implementations are allowed to simplify lexical reps ←
15:53:50 <IanH> Achille: constant = lexical representation
Achille Fokoue: constant = lexical representation [ Scribe Assist by Ian Horrocks ] ←
15:53:55 <sandro> Achille: Boris, when you say "contant" you mean "lexical representation" right? Boris: Yes,.
Achille Fokoue: Boris, when you say "contant" you mean "lexical representation" right? Boris: Yes,. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:54:35 <sandro> s/contant/constant/
Sandro Hawke: s/contant/constant/ ←
15:54:39 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:54:52 <m_schnei> msmith: main question about structural sameness
Michael Smith: main question about structural sameness ←
15:55:12 <m_schnei> boris: we have structural equivalence on virtually everything
Boris Motik: we have structural equivalence on virtually everything ←
15:56:02 <m_schnei> ... always saying something like these two expressions are structurally different, but they are equivalent
... always saying something like these two expressions are structurally different, but they are equivalent ←
15:56:12 <m_schnei> ... e.g. 2.0 to 2
... e.g. 2.0 to 2 ←
15:56:32 <m_schnei> ... we should at least say something about this
... we should at least say something about this ←
15:57:06 <m_schnei> alanr: what about rounded floats?
Alan Ruttenberg: what about rounded floats? ←
15:57:22 <m_schnei> ... one can have the same float after it gets rounded
... one can have the same float after it gets rounded ←
15:58:03 <m_schnei> boris: should be clear that if you do this than you change the ontology
Boris Motik: should be clear that if you do this than you change the ontology ←
15:58:30 <m_schnei> ... if this is really critical to an implementation, this should not be done
... if this is really critical to an implementation, this should not be done ←
15:59:12 <m_schnei> alanr: we should always distinguish between "xsd value space" and "owl value space"
Alan Ruttenberg: we should always distinguish between "xsd value space" and "owl value space" ←
16:00:23 <m_schnei> ian: we should better talk about "interpretations of types"
Ian Horrocks: we should better talk about "interpretations of types" ←
16:00:31 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
16:00:52 <m_schnei> boris: first, let's rename "constant" to "literal"
Boris Motik: first, let's rename "constant" to "literal" ←
16:01:03 <sandro> boris: Let's go ahead and rename "constant" to "literal".
Boris Motik: Let's go ahead and rename "constant" to "literal". [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:01:09 <m_schnei> ... constant always refers to the lexical part
... constant always refers to the lexical part ←
16:01:42 <m_schnei> ... distinguish between "constant and its interpretation" and "data type and its interpretatoin"
... distinguish between "constant and its interpretation" and "data type and its interpretatoin" ←
16:02:04 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-132 by replacing "constant" with "literal".
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-132 by replacing "constant" with "literal". ←
16:02:09 <bmotik> +1 Oxford
Boris Motik: +1 Oxford ←
16:02:12 <Achille> +1 IBM
Achille Fokoue: +1 IBM ←
16:02:14 <sandro> +1 W3C
Sandro Hawke: +1 W3C ←
16:02:17 <pfps> +1 Bell Labs
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 Bell Labs ←
16:02:19 <Zhe> +1 ORACLE
16:02:20 <m_schnei> +1 FZI
+1 FZI ←
16:02:26 <jar> +1 Science Commons
Jonathan Rees: +1 Science Commons ←
16:02:29 <uli> +1 Manchester
Uli Sattler: +1 Manchester ←
16:02:46 <ekw> +1 NIST
Evan Wallace: +1 NIST ←
16:03:04 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-132 by replacing "constant" with "literal".
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-132 by replacing "constant" with "literal". ←
16:03:57 <m_schnei> Boris: let's say instead of "data value" better "interpretation of a literal"
Boris Motik: let's say instead of "data value" better "interpretation of a literal" ←
16:04:18 <bmotik> PROPOSED: Rename data value -> constant intermretation and value space -> Datatype interpretation
PROPOSED: Rename data value -> constant intermretation and value space -> Datatype interpretation ←
16:04:44 <bmotik> PROPOSED: Rename data value -> literal interpretation and value space -> Datatype interpretation
PROPOSED: Rename data value -> literal interpretation and value space -> Datatype interpretation ←
16:05:00 <uli> q+
Uli Sattler: q+ ←
16:05:48 <uli> zakim, unmute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, unmute me ←
16:05:48 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should no longer be muted ←
16:05:54 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
16:06:06 <alanr> ack uli
Alan Ruttenberg: ack uli ←
16:06:18 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
16:06:18 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
16:06:26 <bmotik> something like: Rename data value -> literal interpretation and value space -> Datatype interpretation
Boris Motik: something like: Rename data value -> literal interpretation and value space -> Datatype interpretation ←
16:07:40 <sandro> But the basic idea is "data value" -> "interpretation of literal"
Sandro Hawke: But the basic idea is "data value" -> "interpretation of literal" ←
16:08:05 <sandro> And instead of "value space" -> "interpretation of a datatype"
Sandro Hawke: And instead of "value space" -> "interpretation of a datatype" ←
16:08:23 <m_schnei> Topic: datetime
16:08:26 <sandro> (silent agreement by meeting)
Sandro Hawke: (silent agreement by meeting) ←
16:09:17 <m_schnei> alanr: problem with different time types is that they are not always comparable
Alan Ruttenberg: problem with different time types is that they are not always comparable ←
16:09:34 <m_schnei> ... for example when different timezones are involved
... for example when different timezones are involved ←
16:09:56 <m_schnei> ... other problem is the ordering
... other problem is the ordering ←
16:10:32 <m_schnei> jar: in many cases, users do not completely specify all components of a time
Jonathan Rees: in many cases, users do not completely specify all components of a time ←
16:11:23 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
16:11:26 <m_schnei> ... we should allow users to specify less information
... we should allow users to specify less information ←
16:11:43 <m_schnei> ... not a good idea to have utc as a default timezone
... not a good idea to have utc as a default timezone ←
16:11:55 <m_schnei> ... we should allow time periods
... we should allow time periods ←
16:12:42 <m_schnei> alanr: what does "monday" denote?
Alan Ruttenberg: what does "monday" denote? ←
16:13:17 <m_schnei> boris: the way xsd deals this is horrible, all mondays
Boris Motik: the way xsd deals this is horrible, all mondays ←
16:14:06 <bmotik> bmotik: If we go away from XML Schema, we can have a simpler way of referring to Monday
Boris Motik: If we go away from XML Schema, we can have a simpler way of referring to Monday [ Scribe Assist by Boris Motik ] ←
16:14:33 <bmotik> bmotik: We could have daysOfTheWeek datatype whose interpretation contains exactly seven values
Boris Motik: We could have daysOfTheWeek datatype whose interpretation contains exactly seven values [ Scribe Assist by Boris Motik ] ←
16:14:46 <baojie> msmith: jar -> Jie, thanks
Michael Smith: jar -> Jie, thanks [ Scribe Assist by Jie Bao ] ←
16:14:52 <bmotik> bmotik: Then, Monday really refers just to one value in the interpretation
Boris Motik: Then, Monday really refers just to one value in the interpretation [ Scribe Assist by Boris Motik ] ←
16:15:01 <m_schnei> ian: don't let's invent our own datatype
Ian Horrocks: don't let's invent our own datatype ←
16:15:14 <bparsia> http://www.hydracen.com/dx/iso8601.htm
Bijan Parsia: http://www.hydracen.com/dx/iso8601.htm ←
16:15:15 <m_schnei> pfps: what's with the 15th of a month
Peter Patel-Schneider: what's with the 15th of a month ←
16:15:27 <bparsia> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601
Bijan Parsia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601 ←
16:15:51 <m_schnei> alanr: proposes to regard time as a timeline
Alan Ruttenberg: proposes to regard time as a timeline ←
16:16:46 <m_schnei> ... problem with non-timezoned: any default timezone might be wrong
... problem with non-timezoned: any default timezone might be wrong ←
16:17:23 <m_schnei> ... 6 o'clock might be right in your timezone, but is different elsewhere
... 6 o'clock might be right in your timezone, but is different elsewhere ←
16:18:30 <m_schnei> boris: supporting recurring finite types is not a problem
Boris Motik: supporting recurring finite types is not a problem ←
16:18:46 <bparsia> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
16:18:52 <m_schnei> ... what operations do we want on time dates
... what operations do we want on time dates ←
16:19:48 <sandro> Boris: Is midnight Jan 1 in the UK the same thing as 1am Jan 1 in Berlin ?
Boris Motik: Is midnight Jan 1 in the UK the same thing as 1am Jan 1 in Berlin ? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:19:56 <sandro> Alan: surveys room, 9 people say yes....
Alan Ruttenberg: surveys room, 9 people say yes.... [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:20:08 <uli> Alan, what was the question?
Uli Sattler: Alan, what was the question? ←
16:20:18 <uli> ...I couldn't understand it
Uli Sattler: ...I couldn't understand it ←
16:20:27 <sandro> uli, Boris' question.
Sandro Hawke: uli, Boris' question. ←
16:20:34 <uli> thanks, Sandro
Uli Sattler: thanks, Sandro ←
16:20:45 <m_schnei> boris: identity problem is key
Boris Motik: identity problem is key ←
16:21:51 <m_schnei> ... assumption is that one can map every time to a point on the same time line
... assumption is that one can map every time to a point on the same time line ←
16:22:23 <m_schnei> pfps: xsd timeline is not compact
Peter Patel-Schneider: xsd timeline is not compact ←
16:22:38 <sandro> boris: Even if those two things are different, there could still be operators which operate on them.
Boris Motik: Even if those two things are different, there could still be operators which operate on them. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:22:45 <m_schnei> ... if you tick one sec on the xsd timeline, it may be two secs
... if you tick one sec on the xsd timeline, it may be two secs ←
16:22:57 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
16:23:00 <sandro> (leap seconds representation mess.)
Sandro Hawke: (leap seconds representation mess.) ←
16:23:14 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
16:23:14 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should no longer be muted ←
16:23:31 <m_schnei> bijan: are we on the triple model?
Bijan Parsia: are we on the triple model? ←
16:23:35 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
16:23:35 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
16:23:38 <sandro> s/triple/7-tuple/
Sandro Hawke: s/triple/7-tuple/ ←
16:23:39 <bparsia> s/triple/tuple/
Bijan Parsia: s/triple/tuple/ ←
16:24:08 <sandro> septuplets?
Sandro Hawke: septuplets? ←
16:24:10 <m_schnei> alanr: what about the leap seconds?
Alan Ruttenberg: what about the leap seconds? ←
16:24:43 <m_schnei> ... if we handle leaps, than the time ordering might change, problem for reasoning
... if we handle leaps, than the time ordering might change, problem for reasoning ←
16:24:43 <sandro> alan: If we handle leap-seconds, then some of our inferences will have to change when more leap-seconds are defined.
Alan Ruttenberg: If we handle leap-seconds, then some of our inferences will have to change when more leap-seconds are defined. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:26:07 <alanr> ack alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: ack alanr ←
16:26:10 <m_schnei> evan: talks "this monday" as a time, not about "every monday"
Evan Wallace: talks "this monday" as a time, not about "every monday" ←
16:26:13 <bparsia> q-
Bijan Parsia: q- ←
16:26:37 <m_schnei> boris: what would be the interpretation of xsd:datetime?
Boris Motik: what would be the interpretation of xsd:datetime? ←
16:27:02 <sandro> boris: timeline needs to be seconds since some famous point in time.
Boris Motik: timeline needs to be seconds since some famous point in time. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:27:18 <m_schnei> jar: what about non-christian time (russia, etc)
Jonathan Rees: what about non-christian time (russia, etc) ←
16:28:36 <m_schnei> pfps: what about daylight savings?
Peter Patel-Schneider: what about daylight savings? ←
16:29:34 <m_schnei> ian: was under the impression that there was already a semi-aggreement
Ian Horrocks: was under the impression that there was already a semi-aggreement ←
16:29:48 <sandro> ian: Time on timeline as our interpretation space, and then simple time constants.
Ian Horrocks: Time on timeline as our interpretation space, and then simple time constants. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:29:53 <m_schnei> ... that we here only have to talk about what constants, etc
... that we here only have to talk about what constants, etc ←
16:30:10 <uli> +1 to Ian
Uli Sattler: +1 to Ian ←
16:30:22 <m_schnei> ... things seem now just to complicated
... things seem now just to complicated ←
16:30:45 <bparsia> Origin -- "As a point of interest, ISO 8601 fixes a reference calendar date to the Gregorian calendar of 1875-05-20 as the date the Convention du Mètre was signed in Paris."
Bijan Parsia: Origin -- "As a point of interest, ISO 8601 fixes a reference calendar date to the Gregorian calendar of 1875-05-20 as the date the Convention du Mètre was signed in Paris." ←
16:30:50 <m_schnei> ... let's just talk about constants, and what point on the timeline they denote [FIXME]
... let's just talk about constants, and what point on the timeline they denote [FIXME] ←
16:30:50 <bparsia> +10 to ian
Bijan Parsia: +10 to ian ←
16:31:00 <pfps> +1 to ian
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to ian ←
16:31:24 <sandro> Cute, Bijan
Sandro Hawke: Cute, Bijan ←
16:31:48 <m_schnei> alan: first thing is question, do we have time points or intervals
Alan Ruttenberg: first thing is question, do we have time points or intervals ←
16:32:20 <m_schnei> ian: time is still point, represented by eg decimal
Ian Horrocks: time is still point, represented by eg decimal ←
16:32:44 <m_schnei> pfps: we have continuous timeline, and specify time points on it
Peter Patel-Schneider: we have continuous timeline, and specify time points on it ←
16:33:30 <sandro> pfps: the timezone and year have to be present, and then the succeeding parts in the tuple ....
Peter Patel-Schneider: the timezone and year have to be present, and then the succeeding parts in the tuple .... [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:33:46 <m_schnei> pfps: xsd says "1999" is *end* of "1999", which seems wrong to him
Peter Patel-Schneider: xsd says "1999" is *end* of "1999", which seems wrong to him ←
16:33:51 <bparsia> Didn't hear all of level 0
Bijan Parsia: Didn't hear all of level 0 ←
16:34:21 <m_schnei> pfps: pointer is XSD LC document
Peter Patel-Schneider: pointer is XSD LC document ←
16:34:30 <sandro> PROPOSED: We're have a time-on-timeline interpretation of times, with XS date times as literals uses for naming points on that timeline.
PROPOSED: We're have a time-on-timeline interpretation of times, with XS date times as literals uses for naming points on that timeline. ←
16:34:54 <sandro> PROPOSED: We'll have a time-on-timeline interpretation of times, with XS date times as literals uses for naming points on that timeline.
PROPOSED: We'll have a time-on-timeline interpretation of times, with XS date times as literals uses for naming points on that timeline. ←
16:35:03 <pfps> XML Schema datatypes current WD http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/
Peter Patel-Schneider: XML Schema datatypes current WD http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/ ←
16:35:04 <m_schnei> ewallace: the way peter cited interpretation of a year would be a bad idea
Evan Wallace: the way peter cited interpretation of a year would be a bad idea ←
16:35:31 <sandro> PROPOSED: We'll have a time-on-timeline interpretation of times, with XS date times as literals uses for naming points on that timeline (where the XS time is unambiguous -- it must have a timezone).
PROPOSED: We'll have a time-on-timeline interpretation of times, with XS date times as literals uses for naming points on that timeline (where the XS time is unambiguous -- it must have a timezone). ←
16:35:31 <ekw> +1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
16:35:33 <msmith> +1
Michael Smith: +1 ←
16:35:46 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
16:35:46 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should no longer be muted ←
16:35:46 <baojie> +1
16:36:06 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
16:36:07 <msmith> not all parts, just top down
Michael Smith: not all parts, just top down ←
16:36:08 <Zhe> +1
16:36:21 <sandro> PROPOSED: We'll have a time-on-timeline interpretation of times, with XS date times as literals uses for naming points on that timeline (where the XS time is unambiguous -- it must have a timezone). This is a minimum -- we may do more.
PROPOSED: We'll have a time-on-timeline interpretation of times, with XS date times as literals uses for naming points on that timeline (where the XS time is unambiguous -- it must have a timezone). This is a minimum -- we may do more. ←
16:36:24 <baojie> redraw my vote
16:36:26 <baojie> 0
16:36:46 <Deborah> dlm has joined #owl
Deborah McGuinness: dlm has joined #owl ←
16:36:47 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
16:36:52 <bparsia> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
16:37:13 <sandro> Alan: next we can discuss what to do if there isn't a timezone, etc.
Alan Ruttenberg: next we can discuss what to do if there isn't a timezone, etc. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:37:29 <sandro> Ian: This is sugar for a clone of reals.
Ian Horrocks: This is sugar for a clone of reals. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:37:30 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
16:37:30 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
16:38:14 <sandro> pfps: so tz=ET,year=2008 ===> the time that 2008 starts in Eastern Time.
Peter Patel-Schneider: so tz=ET,year=2008 ===> the time that 2008 starts in Eastern Time. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:39:25 <sandro> msmith: It's gotta be from the top down -- that's been worked out. gyear stuff. We just need to say timezone.
Michael Smith: It's gotta be from the top down -- that's been worked out. gyear stuff. We just need to say timezone. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:40:15 <sandro> PROPOSED: We'll have a time-on-timeline interpretation of times, with XS date times as literals uses for naming points on that timeline (where the XS time is unambiguous -- it must have a timezone). This is a minimum -- we may do more.
PROPOSED: We'll have a time-on-timeline interpretation of times, with XS date times as literals uses for naming points on that timeline (where the XS time is unambiguous -- it must have a timezone). This is a minimum -- we may do more. ←
16:40:29 <pfps> +1 Bell Labs
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 Bell Labs ←
16:40:31 <bmotik> +1 Oxford
Boris Motik: +1 Oxford ←
16:40:33 <sandro> +1 W3C
Sandro Hawke: +1 W3C ←
16:40:38 <baojie> +1 RPI
16:40:40 <Zhe> +1 ORACLE
16:40:41 <Achille> +1 IBM
Achille Fokoue: +1 IBM ←
16:40:42 <m_schnei> +1 FZI
+1 FZI ←
16:40:43 <ekw> +1 NIST
Evan Wallace: +1 NIST ←
16:40:46 <jar> +1 Science Commons
Jonathan Rees: +1 Science Commons ←
16:40:51 <bparsia> one sec
Bijan Parsia: one sec ←
16:40:56 <msmith> +1 C&P
Michael Smith: +1 C&P ←
16:41:10 <uli> +1 Manchester
Uli Sattler: +1 Manchester ←
16:41:28 <sandro> RESOLVED: We'll have a time-on-timeline interpretation of times, with XS date times as literals uses for naming points on that timeline (where the XS time is unambiguous -- it must have a timezone). This is a minimum -- we may do more.
RESOLVED: We'll have a time-on-timeline interpretation of times, with XS date times as literals uses for naming points on that timeline (where the XS time is unambiguous -- it must have a timezone). This is a minimum -- we may do more. ←
16:41:46 <m_schnei> alanr: next question is what todo with timezones
Alan Ruttenberg: next question is what todo with timezones ←
16:42:53 <m_schnei> msmith: would like to interprete a year as an interval, not a point
Michael Smith: would like to interprete a year as an interval, not a point ←
16:44:00 <bparsia> What's the proposal under discussion?
Bijan Parsia: What's the proposal under discussion? ←
16:44:17 <m_schnei> boris: xsd interprets a year as a set of timepoints
Boris Motik: xsd interprets a year as a set of timepoints ←
16:44:42 <sandro> Alan: The proposal is to use a lexical gYear as a way to specific a faceted value of owl:time
Alan Ruttenberg: The proposal is to use a lexical gYear as a way to specific a faceted value of owl:time [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:44:45 <m_schnei> pha: gyear is a set of years
Peter Haase: gyear is a set of years ←
16:44:50 <m_schnei> boris: and what is a year
Boris Motik: and what is a year ←
16:45:14 <m_schnei> ian: getting too complicated, we should think to not support it
Ian Horrocks: getting too complicated, we should think to not support it ←
16:45:15 <uli> +1 to Ian
Uli Sattler: +1 to Ian ←
16:45:46 <msmith> I am basing this view on http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#gYear
Michael Smith: I am basing this view on http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#gYear ←
16:45:47 <m_schnei> alanr: let's take this out of the discussion
Alan Ruttenberg: let's take this out of the discussion ←
16:45:56 <sandro> subtopic: how to handle times without timezones
16:46:05 <m_schnei> alanr: next not-timezoned types
Alan Ruttenberg: next not-timezoned types ←
16:46:12 <bparsia> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
16:46:24 <m_schnei> ... what does a not-timezoned value mean
... what does a not-timezoned value mean ←
16:46:46 <m_schnei> jar: you can not compare to values without timezone
Jonathan Rees: you can not compare to values without timezone ←
16:47:04 <jar> (that was not jar)
Jonathan Rees: (that was not jar) ←
16:47:14 <sandro> I think non-zoned-times should be erroneous.....
Sandro Hawke: I think non-zoned-times should be erroneous..... ←
16:47:27 <uli> +1 to sandro
Uli Sattler: +1 to sandro ←
16:47:34 <bparsia> +1 to sandro
Bijan Parsia: +1 to sandro ←
16:47:35 <bparsia> zakim, ack me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, ack me ←
16:47:35 <Zakim> unmuting bparsia
Zakim IRC Bot: unmuting bparsia ←
16:47:36 <sandro> ack bparsia
Sandro Hawke: ack bparsia ←
16:47:37 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
Zakim IRC Bot: I see no one on the speaker queue ←
16:47:54 <sandro> m_schnei, "jar" is Jonathan Rees (all the way on your right)
Sandro Hawke: m_schnei, "jar" is Jonathan Rees (all the way on your right) ←
16:48:19 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
16:48:19 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
16:48:21 <jar> jar = Jonathan Rees of Science Commons
Jonathan Rees: jar = Jonathan Rees of Science Commons ←
16:48:22 <m_schnei> bijan: whatever we decide is wrong for some people, so let's ever have a time zone
Bijan Parsia: whatever we decide is wrong for some people, so let's ever have a time zone ←
16:48:28 <Deborah> for my applications, if i can say this time point is within a time range (and i am willing to put a time zone on it), i can make things work
Deborah McGuinness: for my applications, if i can say this time point is within a time range (and i am willing to put a time zone on it), i can make things work ←
16:49:08 <bparsia> There are some uses of gyear on swoogle:
Bijan Parsia: There are some uses of gyear on swoogle: ←
16:49:08 <bparsia> http://swoogle.umbc.edu/index.php?option=com_swoogle_service&service=cache&view=raw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fspire.umbc.edu%2Fontologies%2FSpireEcoConcepts.owl
Bijan Parsia: http://swoogle.umbc.edu/index.php?option=com_swoogle_service&service=cache&view=raw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fspire.umbc.edu%2Fontologies%2FSpireEcoConcepts.owl ←
16:49:13 <bparsia> <owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="publicationYear">
Bijan Parsia: <owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="publicationYear"> ←
16:49:13 <bparsia> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Study"/>
Bijan Parsia: <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Study"/> ←
16:49:13 <bparsia> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#gYear"/>
Bijan Parsia: <rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#gYear"/> ←
16:49:14 <bparsia> <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#FunctionalProperty"/>
Bijan Parsia: <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#FunctionalProperty"/> ←
16:49:14 <bparsia> </owl:DatatypeProperty>
Bijan Parsia: </owl:DatatypeProperty> ←
16:49:42 <baojie> my proposal: treat not-timezoned time as an interval of 24 hours
Jie Bao: my proposal: treat not-timezoned time as an interval of 24 hours ←
16:50:03 <sandro> jar: think about what you're going to tell people to do with publication dates like "2003". Is that 2003-01-01 00:00:01 UTC ... or what?
Jonathan Rees: think about what you're going to tell people to do with publication dates like "2003". Is that 2003-01-01 00:00:01 UTC ... or what? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:50:12 <Deborah> uli - that is what my applications do - but i think that is up to the application layer
Deborah McGuinness: uli - that is what my applications do - but i think that is up to the application layer ←
16:50:46 <uli> dlm, this is ok as well: either defaulting or adding upon load...
Uli Sattler: dlm, this is ok as well: either defaulting or adding upon load... ←
16:50:51 <m_schnei> boris: problem, if something is a FunctionalProperty, and one of the values does not have a timezone, then we have a problem
Boris Motik: problem, if something is a FunctionalProperty, and one of the values does not have a timezone, then we have a problem ←
16:51:48 <m_schnei> pha: question, is it already decided if owl 2 will have to be compatible with xsd
Peter Haase: question, is it already decided if owl 2 will have to be compatible with xsd ←
16:52:17 <IanH> pha: compatible with xsd 1 or 1.1?
Peter Haase: compatible with xsd 1 or 1.1? [ Scribe Assist by Ian Horrocks ] ←
16:52:32 <sandro> alan: proposals -- (1) "put them on UTC", (2) "put them on a different time line", (3) "reject as error"
Alan Ruttenberg: proposals -- (1) "put them on UTC", (2) "put them on a different time line", (3) "reject as error" [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:53:07 <Deborah> vote no for (3)
Deborah McGuinness: vote no for (3) ←
16:53:14 <m_schnei> sandro: we cannot say "compatible with 1.1", since it's not a rec yet
Sandro Hawke: we cannot say "compatible with 1.1", since it's not a rec yet ←
16:53:28 <jar> you could cite a particular draft of 1.1
Jonathan Rees: you could cite a particular draft of 1.1 ←
16:53:39 <sandro> sandro: we shouldn't decide to rely on 1.1 yet, since they might stall and we don't want to wait for them.
Sandro Hawke: we shouldn't decide to rely on 1.1 yet, since they might stall and we don't want to wait for them. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:53:55 <sandro> no, jar, you can't cite a working draft in a normative reference.
Sandro Hawke: no, jar, you can't cite a working draft in a normative reference. ←
16:54:29 <jar> oh well.
Jonathan Rees: oh well. ←
16:54:31 <m_schnei> boris: discussion about UTC [scribe didn't get it]
Boris Motik: discussion about UTC [scribe didn't get it] ←
16:54:33 <Carsten> goodbye from this timezone. Have to leave.
Carsten Lutz: goodbye from this timezone. Have to leave. ←
16:54:35 <sandro> dlm, what's your problem with reject-as-error?
Sandro Hawke: dlm, what's your problem with reject-as-error? ←
16:54:46 <Zakim> -Carsten
Zakim IRC Bot: -Carsten ←
16:55:16 <sandro> msmith: leave it to tools to convert to UTC or local time zone.
Michael Smith: leave it to tools to convert to UTC or local time zone. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:55:23 <m_schnei> msmith: not reject-as-error, but implementations may clean it up
Michael Smith: not reject-as-error, but implementations may clean it up ←
16:55:31 <Deborah> was just thinking of bijan's point - i retract my objection. what i do not want is for people not to be able to use owl if they are working with relative readings and they do not know the time zone.
Deborah McGuinness: was just thinking of bijan's point - i retract my objection. what i do not want is for people not to be able to use owl if they are working with relative readings and they do not know the time zone. ←
16:55:48 <m_schnei> msmith: automatic-UTC would be against XSD
Michael Smith: automatic-UTC would be against XSD ←
16:55:50 <sandro> sandro: I'd object to "no-time-zone" == "UTC".
Sandro Hawke: I'd object to "no-time-zone" == "UTC". [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:55:54 <Deborah> i suppose they could work with an application layer putting in a place holder utc for this and then updat later if required.
Deborah McGuinness: i suppose they could work with an application layer putting in a place holder utc for this and then updat later if required. ←
16:56:02 <uli> 1 or 3 are equally fine with me
Uli Sattler: 1 or 3 are equally fine with me ←
16:56:10 <uli> Sandro, why?
Uli Sattler: Sandro, why? ←
16:56:17 <sandro> pfps: "Tools MAY do sometihng reasonable, adding a time zone, with a warning"
Peter Patel-Schneider: "Tools MAY do sometihng reasonable, adding a time zone, with a warning" [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:56:29 <bparsia> I like 3
Bijan Parsia: I like 3 ←
16:56:39 <uli> I like 1 and 3
Uli Sattler: I like 1 and 3 ←
16:56:51 <uli> ...and I like Peter's suggestion
Uli Sattler: ...and I like Peter's suggestion ←
16:57:14 <pfps> PROPOSAL: datetime literals with missing timezones are not in the syntax; tools MAY insert a timezone, but SHOULD produce a warning if they do so
PROPOSED: datetime literals with missing timezones are not in the syntax; tools MAY insert a timezone, but SHOULD produce a warning if they do so ←
16:57:18 <bmotik> +1 Oxford
Boris Motik: +1 Oxford ←
16:57:20 <Achille> +1 IBM
Achille Fokoue: +1 IBM ←
16:57:26 <pfps> +1 Bell Labs
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 Bell Labs ←
16:57:28 <baojie> -1
16:57:33 <ekw> +1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
16:57:37 <sandro> +1 W3C
Sandro Hawke: +1 W3C ←
16:57:41 <msmith> +1 C&P
Michael Smith: +1 C&P ←
16:57:42 <uli> +1 Manchester
Uli Sattler: +1 Manchester ←
16:57:58 <m_schnei> 0 FZI
0 FZI ←
16:58:15 <Zhe> +0.5 ORACLE
16:58:40 <jar> +0.5 Science Commons to make the total integral
Jonathan Rees: +0.5 Science Commons to make the total integral ←
16:59:23 <Zakim> -uli
Zakim IRC Bot: -uli ←
16:59:30 <Zakim> -bparsia
Zakim IRC Bot: -bparsia ←
16:59:38 <bparsia> zakim, bijan
Bijan Parsia: zakim, bijan ←
16:59:38 <Zakim> I don't understand 'bijan', bparsia
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'bijan', bparsia ←
16:59:40 <bparsia> er
Bijan Parsia: er ←
16:59:41 <Zakim> -rob
Zakim IRC Bot: -rob ←
16:59:54 <Deborah> note sure what a half vote exactly means but that seems to capture it for me
Deborah McGuinness: note sure what a half vote exactly means but that seems to capture it for me ←
17:04:10 <uli> anybody still there?
Uli Sattler: anybody still there? ←
17:04:26 <uli> will we do n-ary after lunch or annotations?
Uli Sattler: will we do n-ary after lunch or annotations? ←
17:04:56 <uli> alan, are you still there?
Uli Sattler: alan, are you still there? ←
17:31:57 <uli> thanks, Peter ;)
(No events recorded for 27 minutes)
Uli Sattler: thanks, Peter ;) ←
18:00:08 <uli> selber test
(No events recorded for 28 minutes)
Uli Sattler: selber test ←
18:01:48 <uli> ach so
Uli Sattler: ach so ←
18:02:53 <m_schnei> ian: we have to decide whether to proceed on datatypes
Ian Horrocks: we have to decide whether to proceed on datatypes ←
18:03:04 <uli> na na na nanana
Uli Sattler: na na na nanana ←
18:03:08 <m_schnei> alanr: n-aries
Alan Ruttenberg: n-aries ←
18:04:10 <Zakim> +??P3
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3 ←
18:04:12 <Zakim> -??P3
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P3 ←
18:04:12 <Zakim> +??P3
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3 ←
18:04:15 <m_schnei> ian: jie, what is the reason why you said "no" in the straw poll
Ian Horrocks: jie, what is the reason why you said "no" in the straw poll ←
18:04:17 <bijan> zakim, ??p3 is me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, ??p3 is me ←
18:04:17 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bijan; got it ←
18:04:22 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:04:22 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
18:04:36 <Zakim> +??P9
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P9 ←
18:04:40 <m_schnei> jie: my proposal is to support partial time types
Jie Bao: my proposal is to support partial time types ←
18:04:42 <pfps> ScribeNick: bmotik
(Scribe set to Boris Motik)
18:05:01 <bmotik> Topic: Handling of time zones in xsd:dateTime
18:05:02 <bmotik> jie: A constant wihtout a time zone is a range, not a value
Jie Bao: A constant wihtout a time zone is a range, not a value ←
18:05:16 <m_schnei> ... missing time zone is syntactic sugar for continuous interval
Michael Schneider: ... missing time zone is syntactic sugar for continuous interval ←
18:05:34 <bijan> What continuous interval?
Bijan Parsia: What continuous interval? ←
18:05:48 <baojie> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0421.html
Jie Bao: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0421.html ←
18:06:04 <uli> ? same question as bijan
Uli Sattler: ? same question as bijan ←
18:06:42 <bijan> I'm against this
Bijan Parsia: I'm against this ←
18:06:52 <bijan> I think
Bijan Parsia: I think ←
18:06:57 <uli> me to - we have an intervall being a default for a time point?
Uli Sattler: me to - we have an intervall being a default for a time point? ←
18:07:07 <bijan> We have to *introduce* intervals?
Bijan Parsia: We have to *introduce* intervals? ←
18:07:38 <bmotik> Achille: This seems confusing
Achille Fokoue: This seems confusing ←
18:07:49 <bmotik> Achille: This makes the value space of xsd:dateTime confusing
Achille Fokoue: This makes the value space of xsd:dateTime confusing ←
18:07:55 <bijan> This, again, can be handled by preprocessors
Bijan Parsia: This, again, can be handled by preprocessors ←
18:08:08 <bmotik> Achille: The value space of xsd:dateTime would contain both points and sets of points
Achille Fokoue: The value space of xsd:dateTime would contain both points and sets of points ←
18:08:15 <pfps> so two values from the same file like <today,1pm> <today,2pm> are non-comparable?
Peter Patel-Schneider: so two values from the same file like <today,1pm> <today,2pm> are non-comparable? ←
18:08:37 <uli> sure, if they come from different files?
Uli Sattler: sure, if they come from different files? ←
18:08:52 <bmotik> msmith: Saying hasValue("some time without a time zone") would give you a range of values rather than a single value
Michael Smith: Saying hasValue("some time without a time zone") would give you a range of values rather than a single value ←
18:09:39 <bmotik> bijan: This is not an imporvement over the existing proposal
Bijan Parsia: This is not an imporvement over the existing proposal ←
18:09:43 <bmotik> The analogy to integer intervals is broken because for integer intervals, you are using them for data ranges, not data values
The analogy to integer intervals is broken because for integer intervals, you are using them for data ranges, not data values ←
18:10:01 <bmotik> bijan: The existing proposal already allows you to do some reasonable stuff with missing time zones
Bijan Parsia: The existing proposal already allows you to do some reasonable stuff with missing time zones ←
18:10:24 <bmotik> baojie: Fully specified values should be specified as values
Jie Bao: Fully specified values should be specified as values ←
18:10:41 <bmotik> baojie: Partially specified values should be interpreted as a range
Jie Bao: Partially specified values should be interpreted as a range ←
18:10:51 <bijan> For example, on throwing a syntax error, a tool can say, "You've not given a time zone. Either supply on or insert the following expression which covays that you don't know."
Bijan Parsia: For example, on throwing a syntax error, a tool can say, "You've not given a time zone. Either supply on or insert the following expression which covays that you don't know." ←
18:11:02 <bmotik> IanH: But then you get into the "every Monday" case
Ian Horrocks: But then you get into the "every Monday" case ←
18:11:11 <bmotik> baojie: Interval is the most important
Jie Bao: Interval is the most important ←
18:11:34 <bmotik> m_schnei: Test case: we have the time 20:11; what does it mean?
Michael Schneider: Test case: we have the time 20:11; what does it mean? ←
18:12:25 <bmotik> baojie: I am not clear about this either
Jie Bao: I am not clear about this either ←
18:13:17 <bmotik> baojie: My proposal doesn't address this case
Jie Bao: My proposal doesn't address this case ←
18:13:42 <bmotik> baojie: It addresses only top-down partially specified time dates and the interpretation is the interval
Jie Bao: It addresses only top-down partially specified time dates and the interpretation is the interval ←
18:14:07 <bmotik> baojie: So just "July" is not allowed; you could say something like "July 2007"
Jie Bao: So just "July" is not allowed; you could say something like "July 2007" ←
18:14:48 <bmotik> Achille: For that kind of duration we already have in XML Schema gYearMonth.
Achille Fokoue: For that kind of duration we already have in XML Schema gYearMonth. ←
18:14:59 <bmotik> Achille: These are completely different datatypes
Achille Fokoue: These are completely different datatypes ←
18:15:21 <bmotik> Achille: These specify durations, not time points (which is the main thing that we describe using xsd:dateTime)
Achille Fokoue: These specify durations, not time points (which is the main thing that we describe using xsd:dateTime) ←
18:16:28 <bmotik> Achille: We would be thus inventing a new datatype
Achille Fokoue: We would be thus inventing a new datatype ←
18:16:50 <bmotik> IanH: This is not a legal xsd:dateTime value in XML Schema
Ian Horrocks: This is not a legal xsd:dateTime value in XML Schema ←
18:17:09 <bmotik> IanH: If we want to do that, we should use the appropriate datatypes from XML Schema
Ian Horrocks: If we want to do that, we should use the appropriate datatypes from XML Schema ←
18:18:10 <bmotik> alanr: It seems that we are confusing the problem of partially specified date-times from the problem of interpreting missing time zones
Alan Ruttenberg: It seems that we are confusing the problem of partially specified date-times from the problem of interpreting missing time zones ←
18:18:58 <bmotik> alanr: We might interpret missing time zones as being existentially quantified
Alan Ruttenberg: We might interpret missing time zones as being existentially quantified ←
18:19:12 <bmotik> IanH: My feeling is that all this sounds pretty horrible and messy
Ian Horrocks: My feeling is that all this sounds pretty horrible and messy ←
18:19:20 <bmotik> IanH: Implementors feedback?
Ian Horrocks: Implementors feedback? ←
18:19:59 <bmotik> sandro: From a user's perspective, if I don't put time zone in, I'm being lazy and I shouldn't be surprised if I am getting a wrong answer
Sandro Hawke: From a user's perspective, if I don't put time zone in, I'm being lazy and I shouldn't be surprised if I am getting a wrong answer ←
18:20:17 <bmotik> baojie: What if the time zone information is lost?
Jie Bao: What if the time zone information is lost? ←
18:20:31 <bmotik> sandro: Then the computer has to ask me and fill in the missing time zone
Sandro Hawke: Then the computer has to ask me and fill in the missing time zone ←
18:20:42 <bijan> If time zone inforamtion is lost, someone has to make a choice and that's application dependent
Bijan Parsia: If time zone inforamtion is lost, someone has to make a choice and that's application dependent ←
18:20:46 <bijan> Perahps I'm happy defaulting to UTC
Bijan Parsia: Perahps I'm happy defaulting to UTC ←
18:20:52 <bmotik> baojie: The tool should be responsible for checking for a missing time zone
Jie Bao: The tool should be responsible for checking for a missing time zone ←
18:20:52 <bijan> perhaps I'm happy defaulting to my time zone
Bijan Parsia: perhaps I'm happy defaulting to my time zone ←
18:21:01 <bijan> Perhaps I'm happy adding an interval
Bijan Parsia: Perhaps I'm happy adding an interval ←
18:21:35 <bmotik> baojie: I need to rethink this
Jie Bao: I need to rethink this ←
18:21:51 <bmotik> IanH: We can try to have a new vote by the end of the F2F
Ian Horrocks: We can try to have a new vote by the end of the F2F ←
18:22:42 <bmotik> Zhe: Oracle will always attach the session time zone to date-time literals that miss the time zone
Zhe Wu: Oracle will always attach the session time zone to date-time literals that miss the time zone ←
18:23:01 <bmotik> Zhe: You can always set the session time zone programmatically
Zhe Wu: You can always set the session time zone programmatically ←
18:23:28 <bmotik> m_schnei: Oracle never compares date-times with time zone with date-times without time zones, right?
Michael Schneider: Oracle never compares date-times with time zone with date-times without time zones, right? ←
18:23:33 <bmotik> Zhe: Right
18:24:00 <bmotik> Topic: Annotations
18:24:01 <bmotik> IanH: We will come back to nary later (as time permits)
Ian Horrocks: We will come back to nary later (as time permits) ←
18:24:35 <bmotik> IanH: There is a basic proposal for annotations on the table plus an extension
Ian Horrocks: There is a basic proposal for annotations on the table plus an extension ←
18:25:00 <bmotik> alanr: The idea of the added proposal was to allow for separate reasoning with annotations
Alan Ruttenberg: The idea of the added proposal was to allow for separate reasoning with annotations ←
18:25:36 <bmotik> IanH: So this is an extension of Bijan's proposal allowing for serialization of Bijan's proposal plus annotations on annotations
Ian Horrocks: So this is an extension of Bijan's proposal allowing for serialization of Bijan's proposal plus annotations on annotations ←
18:25:47 <bmotik> pfps: But this is missing BLOBs
Peter Patel-Schneider: But this is missing BLOBs ←
18:27:37 <bijan> Blobs exists to avoid having to name axioms
Bijan Parsia: Blobs exists to avoid having to name axioms ←
18:30:47 <bmotik> alanr: The essential idea is that there is two separate reasoning spaces for reasoning
Alan Ruttenberg: The essential idea is that there is two separate reasoning spaces for reasoning ←
18:30:57 <bmotik> alanr: The domain space and the annotation space
Alan Ruttenberg: The domain space and the annotation space ←
18:31:04 <bmotik> alanr: No interaction without it
Alan Ruttenberg: No interaction without it ←
18:31:18 <bmotik> alanr: Bijan supported an abstract syntax for it
Alan Ruttenberg: Bijan supported an abstract syntax for it ←
18:32:01 <bmotik> IanH: Before we go through the proposal, I'd like to see what we think of annotations in general
Ian Horrocks: Before we go through the proposal, I'd like to see what we think of annotations in general ←
18:32:22 <bmotik> IanH: Do we think that the basic idea of rich annotation spaces is a good idea and do we want to have it in OWL?
Ian Horrocks: Do we think that the basic idea of rich annotation spaces is a good idea and do we want to have it in OWL? ←
18:32:46 <bmotik> m_schnei: The idea that we want to have some processing on annotations is a good idea, but seems out of scope of this WG
Michael Schneider: The idea that we want to have some processing on annotations is a good idea, but seems out of scope of this WG ←
18:32:51 <uli> I have heard Alan Rector and others require richer annotations a lot (annotation axioms, annotating annotations)
Uli Sattler: I have heard Alan Rector and others require richer annotations a lot (annotation axioms, annotating annotations) ←
18:33:08 <bijan> Why and how is it out of the scope of OWL? What was the reasoning for that?
Bijan Parsia: Why and how is it out of the scope of OWL? What was the reasoning for that? ←
18:33:25 <bmotik> msmith: I disagree. There are lots of ontologies that contain annotation property hierarchies and this proposal would allow us to accept more of those.
Michael Smith: I disagree. There are lots of ontologies that contain annotation property hierarchies and this proposal would allow us to accept more of those. ←
18:33:36 <Zhe> Mike, could you give an example or a pointer?
Zhe Wu: Mike, could you give an example or a pointer? ←
18:33:37 <bijan> Dublin Core is the most common, zhe
Bijan Parsia: Dublin Core is the most common, zhe ←
18:33:38 <bijan> And just recently: http://www.w3.org/mid/D98C2F92-76A0-441F-BF8B-D901DF12A73B@cyganiak.de
Bijan Parsia: And just recently: http://www.w3.org/mid/D98C2F92-76A0-441F-BF8B-D901DF12A73B@cyganiak.de ←
18:33:39 <bmotik> bijan: I didn't understand the scope argument
Bijan Parsia: I didn't understand the scope argument ←
18:33:58 <bmotik> bijan: People building large ontologies often want to have complex annotations
Bijan Parsia: People building large ontologies often want to have complex annotations ←
18:34:37 <bmotik> Zhe: Can you give an example of annotation property hierarchies?
Zhe Wu: Can you give an example of annotation property hierarchies? ←
18:34:41 <bmotik> alanr: SKOS, FOAF
Alan Ruttenberg: SKOS, FOAF ←
18:36:13 <msmith> skos at http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/vocabs creates subproperties of rdfs:label
Michael Smith: skos at http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/vocabs creates subproperties of rdfs:label ←
18:36:55 <bijan> subproperties of rdfs:label are common for reasons given: http://www.w3.org/mid/3394C7CF-B080-45AD-AE7C-B498FC6C8B3E@cs.man.ac.uk
Bijan Parsia: subproperties of rdfs:label are common for reasons given: http://www.w3.org/mid/3394C7CF-B080-45AD-AE7C-B498FC6C8B3E@cs.man.ac.uk ←
18:34:50 <bmotik> alanr: In OWL we can't handle such things
Alan Ruttenberg: In OWL we can't handle such things ←
18:35:48 <bmotik> bmotik: If this turns out to be something simple, than OK; if this turns to be complex, than this may be out of scope
Boris Motik: If this turns out to be something simple, than OK; if this turns to be complex, than this may be out of scope ←
18:36:08 <bmotik> alanr: I tried to define what is the bare minimum of the functionality
Alan Ruttenberg: I tried to define what is the bare minimum of the functionality ←
18:36:26 <bmotik> alanr: My proposal is somewhat simpler than Bijan's
Alan Ruttenberg: My proposal is somewhat simpler than Bijan's ←
18:36:58 <bmotik> alanr: I tried to reduce the complexity of the proposal
Alan Ruttenberg: I tried to reduce the complexity of the proposal ←
18:37:30 <bmotik> bijan: The complexity is all in the RDF serialization.
Bijan Parsia: The complexity is all in the RDF serialization. ←
18:37:53 <bmotik> bijan: All of these things are rather easy in all other linear syntaxes
Bijan Parsia: All of these things are rather easy in all other linear syntaxes ←
18:38:06 <bmotik> bijan: The multiple file proposal adds a complication
Bijan Parsia: The multiple file proposal adds a complication ←
18:38:58 <bmotik> IanH: Alan's proposal is based on your proposal, but simplified.
Ian Horrocks: Alan's proposal is based on your proposal, but simplified. ←
18:39:13 <bmotik> IanH: Is that a simplification too far from your point of view?
Ian Horrocks: Is that a simplification too far from your point of view? ←
18:39:23 <bmotik> IanH: Do you think that Alan's simplification might be enough?
Ian Horrocks: Do you think that Alan's simplification might be enough? ←
18:39:36 <bmotik> bijan: I didn't solve the nesting of annotations in my proposal
Bijan Parsia: I didn't solve the nesting of annotations in my proposal ←
18:40:44 <bmotik> alanr: It might be possible to take the second blob from the other file and put it into the first file
Alan Ruttenberg: It might be possible to take the second blob from the other file and put it into the first file ←
18:40:51 <bmotik> alanr: as a literal.
Alan Ruttenberg: as a literal. ←
18:41:16 <Deborah> i would use the ability to be able to annotate annotations - I need that in my explanation / inference web work
Deborah McGuinness: i would use the ability to be able to annotate annotations - I need that in my explanation / inference web work ←
18:41:25 <bmotik> alanr: If we don't go to rich annotations, I'd like to go back and put certain things into the spec so that we have some of that functionality
Alan Ruttenberg: If we don't go to rich annotations, I'd like to go back and put certain things into the spec so that we have some of that functionality ←
18:41:58 <bmotik> bijan: Putting things into one big literal is much worse than having lots of small literals
Bijan Parsia: Putting things into one big literal is much worse than having lots of small literals ←
18:42:22 <bijan> It's on the proposal page
Bijan Parsia: It's on the proposal page ←
18:42:39 <bmotik> bmotik: Could someone specify the use cases and present an overview of the two proposals?
Boris Motik: Could someone specify the use cases and present an overview of the two proposals? ←
18:43:47 <bmotik> alanr: I'm taking inspiration from Boris's et al. paper and from Bijan's proposal
Alan Ruttenberg: I'm taking inspiration from Boris's et al. paper and from Bijan's proposal ←
18:44:16 <bmotik> alanr: I didn't include from Boris's proposal the reified versions of axioms
Alan Ruttenberg: I didn't include from Boris's proposal the reified versions of axioms ←
18:44:32 <bmotik> alanr: From Bijan's, I used the idea of multiple annotation spaces
Alan Ruttenberg: From Bijan's, I used the idea of multiple annotation spaces ←
18:45:38 <bmotik> alanr: presents http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Annotation_system_2
Alan Ruttenberg: presents http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Annotation_system_2 ←
18:45:49 <bmotik> boris: alan, can you give an example
Boris Motik: alan, can you give an example ←
18:46:25 <bmotik> alanr: we have a single document
Alan Ruttenberg: we have a single document ←
18:47:22 <bmotik> alanr: we have all the axioms, and a few more things
Alan Ruttenberg: we have all the axioms, and a few more things ←
18:48:11 <bmotik> alanr: ... the annotation stuff goes then in the second document
Alan Ruttenberg: ... the annotation stuff goes then in the second document ←
18:48:37 <bmotik> boris: what should be put in the structural spec
Boris Motik: what should be put in the structural spec ←
18:49:34 <bmotik> alanr: reasoning about the second document's content doesn't affect / isn't affected by the content of the first
Alan Ruttenberg: reasoning about the second document's content doesn't affect / isn't affected by the content of the first ←
18:50:46 <bmotik> alanr: also, we can have types/parts of e.g. properties, which do not have any affect on the first document
Alan Ruttenberg: also, we can have types/parts of e.g. properties, which do not have any affect on the first document ←
18:51:12 <bmotik> alanr: ... e.g. we want data properties
Alan Ruttenberg: ... e.g. we want data properties ←
18:52:06 <bmotik> alanr: we also need to make clear which ontology is annotated by the annotation space, so we need refer the name of the first document [FIXME]
Alan Ruttenberg: we also need to make clear which ontology is annotated by the annotation space, so we need refer the name of the first document [FIXME] ←
18:52:13 <bmotik> IanH: This is starting to sound scary
Ian Horrocks: This is starting to sound scary ←
18:52:16 <bijan> I get scared at the naming bit; this makes hand authoring nearly impossible
Bijan Parsia: I get scared at the naming bit; this makes hand authoring nearly impossible ←
18:53:08 <bmotik> m_schnei: In the second document, you actually have assertions such as "This proporty is a data property"
Michael Schneider: In the second document, you actually have assertions such as "This proporty is a data property" ←
18:53:29 <bmotik> m_schnei: So there actually is some OWL semantics in the second document; however, this doesn't affect the first document
Michael Schneider: So there actually is some OWL semantics in the second document; however, this doesn't affect the first document ←
18:56:54 <bmotik> m_schnei: This might have problems in OWL Full
Michael Schneider: This might have problems in OWL Full ←
19:01:52 <bmotik> alanr: (completes his description of the proposal)
Alan Ruttenberg: (completes his description of the proposal) ←
19:02:25 <bmotik> bijan: If we simplify the proposal to the degree that Alan talked about, we then can use multiple literas inside one XML file
Bijan Parsia: If we simplify the proposal to the degree that Alan talked about, we then can use multiple literas inside one XML file ←
19:02:33 <bmotik> bijan: This significantly simplifies serialization
Bijan Parsia: This significantly simplifies serialization ←
19:03:01 <bmotik> bijan: If we're going to simplify, we can simplify it like that
Bijan Parsia: If we're going to simplify, we can simplify it like that ←
19:03:33 <bmotik> bijan: We don't have the right kind of stuff in RDF
Bijan Parsia: We don't have the right kind of stuff in RDF ←
19:03:53 <bmotik> bijan: We might specify things for other syntaxes and wait for RDF until they extend the language
Bijan Parsia: We might specify things for other syntaxes and wait for RDF until they extend the language ←
19:04:20 <bmotik> bijan: such as named graphs
Bijan Parsia: such as named graphs ←
19:04:52 <bmotik> bijan: We might provide a decent target for RDF people as to what they might want to taget
Bijan Parsia: We might provide a decent target for RDF people as to what they might want to taget ←
19:06:26 <bmotik> bmotik: What is the use case?
Boris Motik: What is the use case? ←
19:06:52 <bmotik> bmotik: If we want to say sub-annotation-property-of, why don't we do just that?
Boris Motik: If we want to say sub-annotation-property-of, why don't we do just that? ←
19:07:06 <bmotik> pfps: Bijan's proposal is concrete but there is no serialization yet
Peter Patel-Schneider: Bijan's proposal is concrete but there is no serialization yet ←
19:07:45 <bmotik> alanr: My proposal says how things get fed into reasoners
Alan Ruttenberg: My proposal says how things get fed into reasoners ←
19:08:04 <bmotik> pfps: Bijan's proposal says that you can use any reasoner to interpret the ontology
Peter Patel-Schneider: Bijan's proposal says that you can use any reasoner to interpret the ontology ←
19:08:24 <bmotik> pfps: Bijan's proposal conceptually creates a new document and reasons only over that
Peter Patel-Schneider: Bijan's proposal conceptually creates a new document and reasons only over that ←
19:08:55 <bmotik> IanH: Bijan seems to agree that his proposal is difficult to serialize
Ian Horrocks: Bijan seems to agree that his proposal is difficult to serialize ←
19:09:03 <bmotik> pfps: Multiple annotation spaces make this tricky
Peter Patel-Schneider: Multiple annotation spaces make this tricky ←
19:09:18 <bmotik> Bijan: In some sense you can do it.
Bijan Parsia: In some sense you can do it. ←
19:09:27 <bmotik> Bijan: I don't think it is uglier than this proposal.
Bijan Parsia: I don't think it is uglier than this proposal. ←
19:10:05 <bmotik> Bijan: I don't understand the advantage of Alan's proposal other than it says that he has two files which makes it clear that they are interpreted separately
Bijan Parsia: I don't understand the advantage of Alan's proposal other than it says that he has two files which makes it clear that they are interpreted separately ←
19:10:25 <bmotik> Bijan: Whatever we do with RDF, it'll be unpleasant.
Bijan Parsia: Whatever we do with RDF, it'll be unpleasant. ←
19:11:10 <bmotik> m_schnei: We might allow for some syntax (subannotation property) without saying what the semantics is
Michael Schneider: We might allow for some syntax (subannotation property) without saying what the semantics is ←
19:11:12 <bijan> And would we have trouble with punning?
Bijan Parsia: And would we have trouble with punning? ←
19:11:16 <bmotik> alanr: We care about semantics
Alan Ruttenberg: We care about semantics ←
19:11:50 <bmotik> IanH: If we factor in the time line, all of this sounds completely infeasible to me
Ian Horrocks: If we factor in the time line, all of this sounds completely infeasible to me ←
19:11:54 <bijan> I'm happy to propose an rdf serialization
Bijan Parsia: I'm happy to propose an rdf serialization ←
19:12:08 <bmotik> IanH: It sounds compleicated, we don't understand it precisely, the serialization is complex...
Ian Horrocks: It sounds compleicated, we don't understand it precisely, the serialization is complex... ←
19:12:35 <bmotik> sandro: Bijan suggested that we might go with the proposal and forget about the serialization for the moment
Sandro Hawke: Bijan suggested that we might go with the proposal and forget about the serialization for the moment ←
19:13:18 <bmotik> sandro: How much of this would be simpler if we didn't try to fit things into the same document?
Sandro Hawke: How much of this would be simpler if we didn't try to fit things into the same document? ←
19:13:24 <bmotik> alanr: It seems much simpler to it
Alan Ruttenberg: It seems much simpler to it ←
19:13:57 <bmotik> IanH: I heard during the presentation that people were really confused
Ian Horrocks: I heard during the presentation that people were really confused ←
19:14:24 <bmotik> sandro: Maybe we should try for you to explain this to one or two people first...
Sandro Hawke: Maybe we should try for you to explain this to one or two people first... ←
19:14:41 <uli> perhaps we could see whether people want rich annotations with semantics at all?
Uli Sattler: perhaps we could see whether people want rich annotations with semantics at all? ←
19:15:07 <bmotik> pfps: I pointed out some things that I didn't understand
Peter Patel-Schneider: I pointed out some things that I didn't understand ←
19:15:08 <uli> and how much not having a pretty rdf serialization would matter
Uli Sattler: and how much not having a pretty rdf serialization would matter ←
19:15:42 <uli> Boris, we pointed to skos and foaf. More concrete than this?
Uli Sattler: Boris, we pointed to skos and foaf. More concrete than this? ←
19:16:00 <uli> plus annotation on annotations?
Uli Sattler: plus annotation on annotations? ←
19:16:08 <uli> simple would be beautiful, Boris!
Uli Sattler: simple would be beautiful, Boris! ←
19:16:28 <bmotik> alanr: I came up with a mixed proposal
Alan Ruttenberg: I came up with a mixed proposal ←
19:16:39 <bmotik> alanr: There are use cases, that's clear
Alan Ruttenberg: There are use cases, that's clear ←
19:16:46 <bmotik> bijan: I have a proposal
Bijan Parsia: I have a proposal ←
19:17:06 <bmotik> bijan: I would try to capture as much as possible of Alan's proposal in one file
Bijan Parsia: I would try to capture as much as possible of Alan's proposal in one file ←
19:17:46 <uli> plus some transitivity
Uli Sattler: plus some transitivity ←
19:18:03 <bmotik> bmotik: I'd like to understand what reasoning we need to do
Boris Motik: I'd like to understand what reasoning we need to do ←
19:18:28 <bmotik> alanr: I want not to aggravate users by leaving out the annotations
Alan Ruttenberg: I want not to aggravate users by leaving out the annotations ←
19:18:31 <uli> +1 to alanr that richer annotations are really important
Uli Sattler: +1 to alanr that richer annotations are really important ←
19:18:58 <IanH> getting finished is also important!
Ian Horrocks: getting finished is also important! ←
19:19:17 <uli> yes, Ian
Uli Sattler: yes, Ian ←
19:19:11 <bmotik> m_schnei: In SKOS, it has been said 50 times that it is an OWL Full language
Michael Schneider: In SKOS, it has been said 50 times that it is an OWL Full language ←
19:19:30 <bmotik> m_schnei: If we can change OWL such that SKOS falls into OWL-DL, that'd be a success
Michael Schneider: If we can change OWL such that SKOS falls into OWL-DL, that'd be a success ←
19:20:35 <bmotik> IanH: I see that annotations are importat, but this is supposed to be a part of the core spec
Ian Horrocks: I see that annotations are importat, but this is supposed to be a part of the core spec ←
19:20:47 <bmotik> IanH: We didn't get very far with this in 9 months
Ian Horrocks: We didn't get very far with this in 9 months ←
19:21:09 <bmotik> alanr: We didn't make sure that there is a concrete proposal for this in due time
Alan Ruttenberg: We didn't make sure that there is a concrete proposal for this in due time ←
19:21:22 <pha> from http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-reference-20080609/ : "skos:prefLabel, skos:altLabel and skos:hiddenLabel are each instances of owl:DatatypeProperty."
Peter Haase: from http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-reference-20080609/ : "skos:prefLabel, skos:altLabel and skos:hiddenLabel are each instances of owl:DatatypeProperty." ←
19:21:49 <uli> Boris, does this give us annotations of annotations?
Uli Sattler: Boris, does this give us annotations of annotations? ←
19:22:08 <bmotik> bmotik: I have a simple proposal
Boris Motik: I have a simple proposal ←
19:22:35 <bmotik> bmotik: Just extend OWL DL with simple types of axioms about annotation properties
Boris Motik: Just extend OWL DL with simple types of axioms about annotation properties ←
19:22:46 <bmotik> msmith: Bijan's proposal is much more elaborate
Michael Smith: Bijan's proposal is much more elaborate ←
19:23:12 <bmotik> pfps: I have a proposal for serializing annotations on annotations
Peter Patel-Schneider: I have a proposal for serializing annotations on annotations ←
19:23:33 <bmotik> alanr: Do we have a semantics for annotations?
Alan Ruttenberg: Do we have a semantics for annotations? ←
19:23:41 <bmotik> pfps: No semantics
Peter Patel-Schneider: No semantics ←
19:24:22 <bmotik> pfps: Two things are missing in Bijan's proposal
Peter Patel-Schneider: Two things are missing in Bijan's proposal ←
19:24:43 <bmotik> pfps: 1) Multiple annotation spaces --> Use reification
Peter Patel-Schneider: 1) Multiple annotation spaces --> Use reification ←
19:26:03 <bmotik> pfps: 2) cut down rich annotations: single annotation space, syntax for annotations is OWL, semantics of annotations is OWL, pragmatics of annotations is mayIgnore
Peter Patel-Schneider: 2) cut down rich annotations: single annotation space, syntax for annotations is OWL, semantics of annotations is OWL, pragmatics of annotations is mayIgnore ←
19:26:04 <bmotik> jar: It seems to me that it is not clear what the requirements are
Jonathan Rees: It seems to me that it is not clear what the requirements are ←
19:26:18 <bmotik> IanH: There is some document that describes use cases
Ian Horrocks: There is some document that describes use cases ←
19:26:53 <bmotik> alanr: Many use cases were floating around
Alan Ruttenberg: Many use cases were floating around ←
19:27:10 <bmotik> alanr: Manchester people then came up with a proposal
Alan Ruttenberg: Manchester people then came up with a proposal ←
19:27:25 <bmotik> alanr: This gives you all of OWL
Alan Ruttenberg: This gives you all of OWL ←
19:28:38 <bmotik> bmotik: We always meant this to be something that tools would do
Boris Motik: We always meant this to be something that tools would do ←
19:28:58 <bmotik> IanH: There are four people who have proposals
Ian Horrocks: There are four people who have proposals ←
19:29:09 <bmotik> IanH: Bijan is offering an XML serializaion
Ian Horrocks: Bijan is offering an XML serializaion ←
19:29:16 <bmotik> Bijan: No
Bijan Parsia: No ←
19:29:26 <bmotik> Bijan: I would offer an RDF serialization as well
Bijan Parsia: I would offer an RDF serialization as well ←
19:29:43 <bmotik> IanH: When?
Ian Horrocks: When? ←
19:29:47 <bmotik> Bijan: Next week
Bijan Parsia: Next week ←
19:29:51 <bmotik> IanH: If not?
Ian Horrocks: If not? ←
19:30:00 <bmotik> Bijan: I'll burn in the 4th circle of hell
Bijan Parsia: I'll burn in the 4th circle of hell ←
19:30:24 <bmotik> alanr: If Bijan and Peter have a way of fixing my proposal, I'm fine with it
Alan Ruttenberg: If Bijan and Peter have a way of fixing my proposal, I'm fine with it ←
19:30:41 <bmotik> IanH: Is Peter's proposal the same as Bijan's?
Ian Horrocks: Is Peter's proposal the same as Bijan's? ←
19:30:48 <msmith> action bijan to provide an rdf serialization for his rich annotation proposal
Michael Smith: action bijan to provide an rdf serialization for his rich annotation proposal ←
19:30:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-174 - Provide an rdf serialization for his rich annotation proposal [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-08-04].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-174 - Provide an rdf serialization for his rich annotation proposal [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-08-04]. ←
19:30:50 <bmotik> pfps: I believe that it is
Peter Patel-Schneider: I believe that it is ←
19:31:21 <jar> Alanr, you want something that meet "the" goals, but what if they meet someone else's goals, and then don't meet yours? That's why I ask where the goals are written down.
Jonathan Rees: Alanr, you want something that meet "the" goals, but what if they meet someone else's goals, and then don't meet yours? That's why I ask where the goals are written down. ←
19:31:50 <bmotik> pfps: The UUIDs in Alan's proposal have nonstandard semantics
Peter Patel-Schneider: The UUIDs in Alan's proposal have nonstandard semantics ←
19:32:12 <bmotik> alanr: This is meant to be just an abbreviation
Alan Ruttenberg: This is meant to be just an abbreviation ←
19:32:25 <bmotik> pfps: We haven't seen a hint of how this interacts with the rest of the world
Peter Patel-Schneider: We haven't seen a hint of how this interacts with the rest of the world ←
19:32:57 <bmotik> alanr: In m(O) they are interpreted as ... (missed the end, sorry!)
Alan Ruttenberg: In m(O) they are interpreted as ... (missed the end, sorry!) ←
19:34:37 <bmotik> Bijan: I am not sure what is the nonstandardness Peter is referring to
Bijan Parsia: I am not sure what is the nonstandardness Peter is referring to ←
19:34:53 <bmotik> Bijan: Are we constructing and deconstructing a URI?
Bijan Parsia: Are we constructing and deconstructing a URI? ←
19:35:07 <bmotik> alanr: We are just giving a name to blank nodes
Alan Ruttenberg: We are just giving a name to blank nodes ←
19:35:18 <bmotik> alanr: THere is no deconstruction
Alan Ruttenberg: THere is no deconstruction ←
19:35:47 <bmotik> Bijan: How do I round-trip an ontology? What happens to these URIs?
Bijan Parsia: How do I round-trip an ontology? What happens to these URIs? ←
19:35:57 <bmotik> alanr: I haven't looked at how this gets serialized to XML
Alan Ruttenberg: I haven't looked at how this gets serialized to XML ←
19:36:26 <bmotik> Bijan: If I load an ontology into a triple store and I delet the axiom from a domain, what happens to an annotation?
Bijan Parsia: If I load an ontology into a triple store and I delet the axiom from a domain, what happens to an annotation? ←
19:36:46 <bmotik> alanr: Without extra tooling, you can destroy things
Alan Ruttenberg: Without extra tooling, you can destroy things ←
19:37:41 <bmotik> bmotik: I don't understand Bijan's proposal
Boris Motik: I don't understand Bijan's proposal ←
19:38:59 <bmotik> bijan: Each annotation space is a separate domain
Bijan Parsia: Each annotation space is a separate domain ←
19:39:31 <uli> 'projection' is the magic word?
Uli Sattler: 'projection' is the magic word? ←
19:39:58 <uli> query different projections separately
Uli Sattler: query different projections separately ←
19:41:15 <bmotik> msmith: You might want to name the annotation spaces for extensions
Michael Smith: You might want to name the annotation spaces for extensions ←
19:41:47 <bmotik> IanH: How do we go forward?
Ian Horrocks: How do we go forward? ←
19:42:11 <bmotik> alanr: Bijan and Peter might work towards a proposal, and I might document my proposal more clearly
Alan Ruttenberg: Bijan and Peter might work towards a proposal, and I might document my proposal more clearly ←
19:43:09 <bmotik> alanr: If there is no proposal for rich annotations, then I'd like to start working on alternatives immediately
Alan Ruttenberg: If there is no proposal for rich annotations, then I'd like to start working on alternatives immediately ←
19:43:40 <bijan> Sure
Bijan Parsia: Sure ←
19:43:54 <bijan> Me too
Bijan Parsia: Me too ←
19:44:03 <bijan> Peter speaks words of wisdom
Bijan Parsia: Peter speaks words of wisdom ←
19:44:17 <bmotik> IanH: If Bijan and Peter don't produce something in two week, we ditch the proposal?
Ian Horrocks: If Bijan and Peter don't produce something in two week, we ditch the proposal? ←
19:45:01 <bmotik> pfps: OK
19:45:11 <bmotik> IanH: Alan's going to work on a simplified proposal?
Ian Horrocks: Alan's going to work on a simplified proposal? ←
19:45:35 <bmotik> IanH: Who thinks that rich annotations are really needed and doable and that we should decide now to do something?
Ian Horrocks: Who thinks that rich annotations are really needed and doable and that we should decide now to do something? ←
19:46:15 <bmotik> alanr: Mike, what do you think?
Alan Ruttenberg: Mike, what do you think? ←
19:46:17 <sandro> Ian: Should we direct Alan to rich annotation, or push him to do some less-general but not "rich annotations" direction?
Ian Horrocks: Should we direct Alan to rich annotation, or push him to do some less-general but not "rich annotations" direction? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:46:33 <bmotik> msmith: I'm confident in Bijan and Peter
Michael Smith: I'm confident in Bijan and Peter ←
19:46:47 <bmotik> IanH: It seems futile to be working on two propsals
Ian Horrocks: It seems futile to be working on two propsals ←
19:47:19 <bmotik> IanH: It seems more useful for Alan to scope out what would be an alternative
Ian Horrocks: It seems more useful for Alan to scope out what would be an alternative ←
19:48:00 <bmotik> IanH: Action on us to scope out a proposal in two and a half weeks? Two wednesdays from next wednesday?
Ian Horrocks: Action on us to scope out a proposal in two and a half weeks? Two wednesdays from next wednesday? ←
19:48:16 <bmotik> IanH: In a fortnight we'll have a discussion at a teleconf.
Ian Horrocks: In a fortnight we'll have a discussion at a teleconf. ←
19:50:24 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Chatlog_2008-07-28
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Chatlog_2008-07-28 ←
19:50:43 <Zakim> -dlm
Zakim IRC Bot: -dlm ←
19:51:06 <bijan> Is there a break?
Bijan Parsia: Is there a break? ←
19:51:11 <bijan> OR just garbledness
Bijan Parsia: OR just garbledness ←
19:51:56 <sandro> Topic: Afternoon Break
19:52:25 <Zakim> -bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: -bijan ←
20:10:50 <ekw> scribenick:ekw
(No events recorded for 18 minutes)
(Scribe set to Evan Wallace)
20:12:19 <ekw> topic: Profiles
20:20:16 <IanH> We are *really* about to restart
(No events recorded for 7 minutes)
Ian Horrocks: We are *really* about to restart ←
20:21:17 <ekw> subtopic: Karen Myers
20:21:45 <ekw> subtopic: marketing viewpoint on profile names
20:21:50 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call ←
20:21:50 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the call', sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'who is on the call', sandro ←
20:21:53 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call? ←
20:21:53 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.617.253.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see +1.617.253.aaaa ←
20:22:06 <sandro> zakim, aaaa is Meeting_Room
Sandro Hawke: zakim, aaaa is Meeting_Room ←
20:22:06 <Zakim> +Meeting_Room; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Meeting_Room; got it ←
20:22:51 <Zakim> +Karen
Zakim IRC Bot: +Karen ←
20:22:53 <Zakim> -Karen
Zakim IRC Bot: -Karen ←
20:22:53 <Zakim> +Karen
Zakim IRC Bot: +Karen ←
20:23:38 <ekw> alan: we have several profiles of OWL but we haven't reached agreement on names
Alan Ruttenberg: we have several profiles of OWL but we haven't reached agreement on names ←
20:23:55 <ekw> alan: thought we bounce them off you and get your take
Alan Ruttenberg: thought we bounce them off you and get your take ←
20:24:13 <ekw> karen: there are many different types of names and many arch's for names
Karen Myers: there are many different types of names and many arch's for names ←
20:24:52 <ekw> ... descriptive names, monagram, alphanumeric, acronym, geographic
... descriptive names, monagram, alphanumeric, acronym, geographic ←
20:25:06 <sandro> concept names, "apply"
Sandro Hawke: concept names, "apply" ←
20:25:06 <sandro> monograms "bwm"
Sandro Hawke: monograms "bwm" ←
20:25:06 <sandro> descriptive "autozone"
Sandro Hawke: descriptive "autozone" ←
20:25:06 <sandro> made-up-words, xerox
Sandro Hawke: made-up-words, xerox ←
20:25:06 <sandro> alphanumeric, "c4"
Sandro Hawke: alphanumeric, "c4" ←
20:25:13 <sandro> s/apply/apple/
Sandro Hawke: s/apply/apple/ ←
20:25:27 <ekw> ... to think in terms of an architecture: do you always want a primary reference like OWL2
... to think in terms of an architecture: do you always want a primary reference like OWL2 ←
20:25:54 <ekw> karen: you are adding other terms like fragments
Karen Myers: you are adding other terms like fragments ←
20:26:11 <ekw> alan: we settled on profile
Alan Ruttenberg: we settled on profile ←
20:26:20 <ekw> alan: so this is resolved
Alan Ruttenberg: so this is resolved ←
20:26:47 <sandro> (speaker is Ian Horrocks, co-chair)
Sandro Hawke: (speaker is Ian Horrocks, co-chair) ←
20:26:56 <ekw> ian: we have a language called owl DL
Ian Horrocks: we have a language called owl DL ←
20:27:17 <ekw> ... the name OWL DL comes from DL standing for description logic
... the name OWL DL comes from DL standing for description logic ←
20:27:32 <ekw> ... and several of these profiles are subsets of OWL DL
... and several of these profiles are subsets of OWL DL ←
20:27:57 <ekw> ... but the language as a whole can be used in different ways
... but the language as a whole can be used in different ways ←
20:28:30 <ekw> ... we wanted some subsets that are easier to reason with
... we wanted some subsets that are easier to reason with ←
20:29:11 <ekw> ian: another fragment is meant to address data in databases
Ian Horrocks: another fragment is meant to address data in databases ←
20:29:28 <ekw> ... and another called OWL R for rules
... and another called OWL R for rules ←
20:29:59 <ekw> alan: we tried some single letter names
Alan Ruttenberg: we tried some single letter names ←
20:30:22 <ekw> ... but there was a desire to keep more of the names we had before
... but there was a desire to keep more of the names we had before ←
20:30:45 <ekw> alan: partially we are doing with legacy names and the desire to keep them
Alan Ruttenberg: partially we are doing with legacy names and the desire to keep them ←
20:31:27 <ekw> karen: before we go to a solution, acronyms aren't the best route when putting multiple such names together
Karen Myers: before we go to a solution, acronyms aren't the best route when putting multiple such names together ←
20:31:51 <ekw> ... if you think about your descriptive structure, why not use a short descriptive name
... if you think about your descriptive structure, why not use a short descriptive name ←
20:32:26 <ekw> msmith: when we try to do it we run into problems with DL Lite
Michael Smith: when we try to do it we run into problems with DL Lite ←
20:32:59 <ekw> ian: there is a contention between OWL rules people and OWL Lite as to which is the database profile
Ian Horrocks: there is a contention between OWL rules people and OWL Lite as to which is the database profile ←
20:33:15 <ekw> ian: so talking about DBs is kind of ruled out
Ian Horrocks: so talking about DBs is kind of ruled out ←
20:33:52 <ekw> msmith: it may not have been clear that we expect users to choose among profiles
Michael Smith: it may not have been clear that we expect users to choose among profiles ←
20:34:39 <ekw> karen: we can't use the more generic categories, are there other dimensions we could follow
Karen Myers: we can't use the more generic categories, are there other dimensions we could follow ←
20:35:02 <ekw> alan: EL++ lets you say less but lets you reason with lots of classes
Alan Ruttenberg: EL++ lets you say less but lets you reason with lots of classes ←
20:35:12 <ekw> ... and has polynomial complexity
... and has polynomial complexity ←
20:35:27 <ekw> ... OWL R is not particularly controversial
... OWL R is not particularly controversial ←
20:35:58 <ekw> sandro: looking at the competitive advantages they are all defensive about what they can't do
Sandro Hawke: looking at the competitive advantages they are all defensive about what they can't do ←
20:36:18 <ekw> ... there must be somethings that you really wouldn't want to use each profile for
... there must be somethings that you really wouldn't want to use each profile for ←
20:36:46 <ekw> karen: you want to get the memorability, people want to get it and remember it
Karen Myers: you want to get the memorability, people want to get it and remember it ←
20:37:13 <ekw> alan: the closest contenders are the single letter names
Alan Ruttenberg: the closest contenders are the single letter names ←
20:37:21 <ekw> karen: are you open to being creative
Karen Myers: are you open to being creative ←
20:37:40 <ekw> karen: are you open to doing barn owl, snowy owl, etc
Karen Myers: are you open to doing barn owl, snowy owl, etc ←
20:37:52 <ekw> sandro: to whimsicle
Sandro Hawke: to whimsicle ←
20:38:07 <ekw> ian: what about OWL SQL?
Ian Horrocks: what about OWL SQL? ←
20:38:47 <ekw> karen: could you add another qualifier
Karen Myers: could you add another qualifier ←
20:39:49 <ekw> sandro: how about talking about guaranteed response time
Sandro Hawke: how about talking about guaranteed response time ←
20:40:11 <ekw> sandro: the problem is the differences are so subtle
Sandro Hawke: the problem is the differences are so subtle ←
20:40:33 <ekw> ian: each group doesn't want to lose a competitive advantage
Ian Horrocks: each group doesn't want to lose a competitive advantage ←
20:41:09 <ekw> msmith: we could make up a word, like a car maker
Michael Smith: we could make up a word, like a car maker ←
20:41:37 <ekw> karen: going back over the notes seeing things like polynomial complexity
Karen Myers: going back over the notes seeing things like polynomial complexity ←
20:42:11 <ekw> mschnei: OWL T, OWL D and OWL R
Michael Schneider: OWL T, OWL D and OWL R ←
20:42:32 <ekw> alan: could we just give them numbers?
Alan Ruttenberg: could we just give them numbers? ←
20:43:07 <ekw> ian: if we really went with single letter names would it be so bad
Ian Horrocks: if we really went with single letter names would it be so bad ←
20:43:27 <m_schnei> However, OWL-D is similar to OWL-DL :(
Michael Schneider: However, OWL-D is similar to OWL-DL :( ←
20:43:39 <ekw> karen: the challenge is that it would be hard for people to remember the differences among single letter names
Karen Myers: the challenge is that it would be hard for people to remember the differences among single letter names ←
20:43:58 <ekw> sandro: we are leaving out OWL Full and OWL DL names from this discussion
Sandro Hawke: we are leaving out OWL Full and OWL DL names from this discussion ←
20:44:26 <ekw> ian: OWL RDF would have been a better name for OWL Full
Ian Horrocks: OWL RDF would have been a better name for OWL Full ←
20:44:55 <m_schnei> "OWL RDF" instead of "OWL Full" would get my vote
Michael Schneider: "OWL RDF" instead of "OWL Full" would get my vote ←
20:45:00 <Karen> KM: likes looking for words like "reference"
Karen Myers: likes looking for words like "reference" [ Scribe Assist by Karen Myers ] ←
20:45:06 <ekw> alan: we've been discussing this a long time, not sensing a lot of energy on this
Alan Ruttenberg: we've been discussing this a long time, not sensing a lot of energy on this ←
20:45:26 <ekw> alan: another name for DL Lite would be OWL Table
Alan Ruttenberg: another name for DL Lite would be OWL Table ←
20:46:11 <ekw> ian: I always end up going for the single letter designations at the end of these discussions
Ian Horrocks: I always end up going for the single letter designations at the end of these discussions ←
20:46:36 <m_schnei> "DB", "RL", "EL"
Michael Schneider: "DB", "RL", "EL" ←
20:46:38 <ekw> alan: there was some push back to a previous suggestion to have some names 2 letters
Alan Ruttenberg: there was some push back to a previous suggestion to have some names 2 letters ←
20:47:05 <ekw> alan: who would fine 1 letter names objectionable
Alan Ruttenberg: who would fine 1 letter names objectionable ←
20:47:18 <Karen> +1 establish the guidelines you want
Karen Myers: +1 establish the guidelines you want ←
20:47:30 <ekw> sandro: I don't like that, I would like it to work well with OWL DL
Sandro Hawke: I don't like that, I would like it to work well with OWL DL ←
20:48:18 <ekw> sandro: where the profiles are subsets we could exploit that for ordering
Sandro Hawke: where the profiles are subsets we could exploit that for ordering ←
20:48:39 <ekw> karen: one of the things about naming is that it comes to you in the middle of the night
Karen Myers: one of the things about naming is that it comes to you in the middle of the night ←
20:48:56 <ekw> karen: let people think about it
Karen Myers: let people think about it ←
20:48:57 <Zakim> -Karen
Zakim IRC Bot: -Karen ←
20:50:16 <sandro> ACTION: Sandro report back on names frameworks, naming options
ACTION: Sandro report back on names frameworks, naming options ←
20:50:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-175 - Report back on names frameworks, naming options [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-08-04].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-175 - Report back on names frameworks, naming options [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-08-04]. ←
20:50:41 <sandro> Ian: EL and DL sounds very similar
Ian Horrocks: EL and DL sounds very similar [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
20:50:46 <ekw> subtopic: OWL-R proposals
20:50:59 <sandro> Zhe: DL-E, DL-R, ...?
Zhe Wu: DL-E, DL-R, ...? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
20:51:14 <ekw> alan: issue 131 about unifying OWL R DL and OWL R Full profiless
Alan Ruttenberg: ISSUE-131 about unifying OWL R DL and OWL R Full profiless ←
20:51:31 <baojie> q+
20:53:30 <ekw> zhe: Ivan want the set of rules to be part of RDF
Zhe Wu: Ivan want the set of rules to be part of RDF ←
20:53:52 <ekw> ian: I thought we came to some reasonable agreement in email about htis
Ian Horrocks: I thought we came to some reasonable agreement in email about htis ←
20:54:43 <ekw> achille: ian said that the only compliants is acheived if you can handle owl full
Achille Fokoue: ian said that the only compliants is acheived if you can handle owl full ←
20:55:02 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
20:56:12 <sandro> q+ to double check that this means I can't use my OWL-R reasoner to find out what your OWL-R reasoner will produce. It producing or not-producing a trouble says nothing about if yours will.
Sandro Hawke: q+ to double check that this means I can't use my OWL-R reasoner to find out what your OWL-R reasoner will produce. It producing or not-producing a trouble says nothing about if yours will. ←
20:56:54 <ekw> jie: my concern is OWL R or OWL R DL will be compatible with RDF
Jie Bao: my concern is OWL R or OWL R DL will be compatible with RDF ←
20:57:01 <ekw> ian: it will be
Ian Horrocks: it will be ←
20:58:17 <sandro> Ian: I am not sure if OWL-R is a superset of RDFS.
Ian Horrocks: I am not sure if OWL-R is a superset of RDFS. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
20:58:23 <sandro> Boris: I think it is.
Boris Motik: I think it is. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
20:58:34 <ekw> ian: the rule set came from the OWL PRime impl
Ian Horrocks: the rule set came from the OWL PRime impl ←
20:58:53 <sandro> Zhe: some of the trivial stuff like S P O |= P type Property is not in there, on purpose.
Zhe Wu: some of the trivial stuff like S P O |= P type Property is not in there, on purpose. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
20:58:57 <ekw> bmotik: for what we really care about we are compliant
Boris Motik: for what we really care about we are compliant ←
20:59:55 <ekw> sandro: this is about us not having an upper limit on the entailments from the semantics
Sandro Hawke: this is about us not having an upper limit on the entailments from the semantics ←
21:00:27 <ekw> sandro: the fact that a particular triple comes back on my query gives me no idea if it should come back on your query
Sandro Hawke: the fact that a particular triple comes back on my query gives me no idea if it should come back on your query ←
21:01:01 <ekw> ian: the idea is not to create to big a burden on impls
Ian Horrocks: the idea is not to create to big a burden on impls ←
21:01:16 <ekw> ian: to be honest unification doesn't affect this
Ian Horrocks: to be honest unification doesn't affect this ←
21:01:33 <sandro> Ian: it's a tradeoff -- we could do it either way, but to detect (and prohibit) the extra stuff could be very expensive.
Ian Horrocks: it's a tradeoff -- we could do it either way, but to detect (and prohibit) the extra stuff could be very expensive. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:02:33 <sandro> sandro: I want cross-platform portability between different OWL-R systems.
Sandro Hawke: I want cross-platform portability between different OWL-R systems. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:02:36 <ekw> mschnei: there is an upper bound on possible entailments
Michael Schneider: there is an upper bound on possible entailments ←
21:02:52 <ekw> ... I can't just produce everything, there was this restriction
... I can't just produce everything, there was this restriction ←
21:03:01 <ekw> ... for me this doesn't help much
... for me this doesn't help much ←
21:03:13 <ekw> ... I ask for an RDFS conformant reasoner
... I ask for an RDFS conformant reasoner ←
21:03:22 <ekw> ... I get more than just the base,
... I get more than just the base, ←
21:03:57 <ekw> ... if I ask if this is really RDFS conformant, then I get what is really a PD* reasoner
... if I ask if this is really RDFS conformant, then I get what is really a PD* reasoner ←
21:04:31 <ekw> mschnei: I might get more than what I ask for
Michael Schneider: I might get more than what I ask for ←
21:04:59 <ekw> msmith: in terms of interop the best we can expect is the same response for the same inputs
Michael Smith: in terms of interop the best we can expect is the same response for the same inputs ←
21:05:07 <ekw> ... not arbitrary inputs
... not arbitrary inputs ←
21:07:50 <ekw> mschnei: I am completely indifferent in how my reasoner behaves wrt to syntactic spec
Michael Schneider: I am completely indifferent in how my reasoner behaves wrt to syntactic spec ←
21:08:06 <ekw> mschnei: I just care about the rules,
Michael Schneider: I just care about the rules, ←
21:08:34 <ekw> bmotik: you are approaching this from a testing point of view
Boris Motik: you are approaching this from a testing point of view ←
21:09:45 <ekw> bmotik: from a POV of users i think it is good if we can get syntactic guarantees
Boris Motik: from a POV of users i think it is good if we can get syntactic guarantees ←
21:10:11 <ekw> bmotik: in OWL Full you can't completely do this, but we should get as close to that as possible
Boris Motik: in OWL Full you can't completely do this, but we should get as close to that as possible ←
21:10:28 <ekw> ... you can handle more of OWL full by extending your set of rules
... you can handle more of OWL full by extending your set of rules ←
21:10:38 <ekw> ian: it is not a restriction
Ian Horrocks: it is not a restriction ←
21:10:58 <ekw> alan: I am trying to get what criteria michael is looking for
Alan Ruttenberg: I am trying to get what criteria michael is looking for ←
21:11:36 <ekw> alan: are you uncomfortable because this does something that an OWL Full reasoner does
Alan Ruttenberg: are you uncomfortable because this does something that an OWL Full reasoner does ←
21:12:05 <ekw> mschnei: I want OWL R to be a monotonic extension to RDFS
Michael Schneider: I want OWL R to be a monotonic extension to RDFS ←
21:12:32 <ekw> ... I don't want not only a part of it, why are the axiomatic triples left out
... I don't want not only a part of it, why are the axiomatic triples left out ←
21:12:51 <ekw> ... the second thing is ... what is compliant or not
... the second thing is ... what is compliant or not ←
21:13:04 <ekw> ... for me this is in terms of this rule set
... for me this is in terms of this rule set ←
21:13:30 <ekw> ... when you have a black box and implement these rules, the inferences should always be the same
... when you have a black box and implement these rules, the inferences should always be the same ←
21:14:02 <ekw> alan: there should be a compliance rule that says exactly the RDF triples that should be produced
Alan Ruttenberg: there should be a compliance rule that says exactly the RDF triples that should be produced ←
21:14:20 <ekw> alan: sandro - was this your discomfort too
Alan Ruttenberg: sandro - was this your discomfort too ←
21:14:46 <ekw> zhe: we always going to provide an API for users
Zhe Wu: we always going to provide an API for users ←
21:15:08 <ekw> ... presumably this API will just run this ruleset, we can always do more
... presumably this API will just run this ruleset, we can always do more ←
21:15:40 <ekw> ... an option can reject RDF graphs that don't match the fragment
... an option can reject RDF graphs that don't match the fragment ←
21:16:00 <ekw> alan: wrt the axiomatic triple issue is there a problem
Alan Ruttenberg: wrt the axiomatic triple issue is there a problem ←
21:16:25 <ekw> ian: the infinite triple issue is a problem with this, the Alt and the Bag
Ian Horrocks: the infinite triple issue is a problem with this, the Alt and the Bag ←
21:16:39 <ekw> mschnei: this is just an annoyance
Michael Schneider: this is just an annoyance ←
21:16:54 <ekw> boris: axiomatic triples no problem
Boris Motik: axiomatic triples no problem ←
21:17:24 <ekw> boris: we are ready have an infinite set of rules and we will have an infinite set of triples
Boris Motik: we are ready have an infinite set of rules and we will have an infinite set of triples ←
21:17:48 <ekw> boris: so the implementation has already to look into the ontology and handle it
Boris Motik: so the implementation has already to look into the ontology and handle it ←
21:18:13 <ekw> alan: now the second issue
Alan Ruttenberg: now the second issue ←
21:19:02 <ekw> boris: this is not what the users want
Boris Motik: this is not what the users want ←
21:19:20 <ekw> boris: you find an ontology on the web, the question is how to interpret this
Boris Motik: you find an ontology on the web, the question is how to interpret this ←
21:19:38 <ekw> alan: multiple conformance levels
Alan Ruttenberg: multiple conformance levels ←
21:19:48 <ekw> alan: strict mode means this for testing
Alan Ruttenberg: strict mode means this for testing ←
21:20:08 <ekw> boris: I think the difference is what happens in the case you have an RDF graph
Boris Motik: I think the difference is what happens in the case you have an RDF graph ←
21:20:23 <ekw> ... that falls outside of this syntactic fragment
... that falls outside of this syntactic fragment ←
21:20:41 <ekw> ... you are trying to explain what these ontologies on the web mean
... you are trying to explain what these ontologies on the web mean ←
21:21:11 <ekw> sandro: owl intended profile is a bad thing, if we can avoid it great
Sandro Hawke: owl intended profile is a bad thing, if we can avoid it great ←
21:22:04 <ekw> boris: suppose you have an ont that claim it is intended OWL R but it has components outside of its fragment
Boris Motik: suppose you have an ont that claim it is intended OWL R but it has components outside of its fragment ←
21:22:24 <ekw> ian: this will cause the OWL R Full reason to produce unsound results
Ian Horrocks: this will cause the OWL R Full reason to produce unsound results ←
21:23:15 <ekw> msmith: why isn't this a burden on the tool vendor, if he is going to extend its behavior outside the fragment
Michael Smith: why isn't this a burden on the tool vendor, if he is going to extend its behavior outside the fragment ←
21:23:31 <sandro> s/bad thing/band aid/
Sandro Hawke: s/bad thing/band aid/ ←
21:23:54 <ekw> ian: apart from these wrinkles owl DL and OWL full are aligned with respect to these entailments
Ian Horrocks: apart from these wrinkles owl DL and OWL full are aligned with respect to these entailments ←
21:24:25 <ekw> sandro: I am hearing the tools are going to do best effort
Sandro Hawke: I am hearing the tools are going to do best effort ←
21:25:28 <ekw> achille: to try to understand
Achille Fokoue: to try to understand ←
21:25:58 <ekw> ... my confusion comes from two normative features: syntactic restriction and owl rules
... my confusion comes from two normative features: syntactic restriction and owl rules ←
21:26:35 <ekw> ... in owl full if you go beyond it that is the end of the story
... in owl full if you go beyond it that is the end of the story ←
21:26:52 <ekw> alan: there are some who are very focused on the rules
Alan Ruttenberg: there are some who are very focused on the rules ←
21:27:10 <ekw> ... and other who think of the rules as that's just how you do it
... and other who think of the rules as that's just how you do it ←
21:27:38 <ekw> ian: what boris said before, this rules thing, isn't it coming from the perspective of the implementers
Ian Horrocks: what boris said before, this rules thing, isn't it coming from the perspective of the implementers ←
21:28:14 <ekw> ian: do they really expect the users to look at this complicated rule set and understand the language
Ian Horrocks: do they really expect the users to look at this complicated rule set and understand the language ←
21:28:52 <ekw> zhe: the user wants you to produce something they expect, they don't care if you produce more
Zhe Wu: the user wants you to produce something they expect, they don't care if you produce more ←
21:29:28 <ekw> zhe: they only care about the completeness of the results that they are interested in
Zhe Wu: they only care about the completeness of the results that they are interested in ←
21:29:52 <ekw> zhe: for instances in info integration, they only care that an individual is sameAs
Zhe Wu: for instances in info integration, they only care that an individual is sameAs ←
21:32:14 <ekw> boris: there is a certain set of graphs for which you can get entailments from the OWL R rules
Boris Motik: there is a certain set of graphs for which you can get entailments from the OWL R rules ←
21:32:42 <ekw> alan: but really users want to use graphs outside of your fragment
Alan Ruttenberg: but really users want to use graphs outside of your fragment ←
21:33:08 <ekw> ian: they are outside the fragement where you can say its guaranteed that everything will work OK
Ian Horrocks: they are outside the fragement where you can say its guaranteed that everything will work OK ←
21:33:29 <ekw> achille: why impose this constraint only on this fragment
Achille Fokoue: why impose this constraint only on this fragment ←
21:34:00 <ekw> boris: because the other fragments are simply syntactic fragments
Boris Motik: because the other fragments are simply syntactic fragments ←
21:35:22 <ekw> boris: what we wanted to do was to say if you get more than OWL R, go with OWL Full semantics
Boris Motik: what we wanted to do was to say if you get more than OWL R, go with OWL Full semantics ←
21:38:08 <ekw> mschnei: what I think I have heard several times is the rules are an implmentation
Michael Schneider: what I think I have heard several times is the rules are an implmentation ←
21:38:42 <ekw> ... for me rules are the perfect specification,
... for me rules are the perfect specification, ←
21:39:10 <ekw> ... I think its true that people on care about things they expect,
... I think its true that people on care about things they expect, ←
21:39:27 <ekw> ... but you don't want to get everything.
... but you don't want to get everything. ←
21:40:00 <ekw> mschnei: for me what OWL R was from the beginning was to be an extension to RDFS that does more
Michael Schneider: for me what OWL R was from the beginning was to be an extension to RDFS that does more ←
21:40:17 <ekw> alan: is there such a thing as strict mode
Alan Ruttenberg: is there such a thing as strict mode ←
21:40:45 <ekw> alan: in OWL DL itself is outside OWL R
Alan Ruttenberg: in OWL DL itself is outside OWL R ←
21:41:16 <ekw> ... if you give this to an OWL R reasoner built on the rule set it will do one thing
... if you give this to an OWL R reasoner built on the rule set it will do one thing ←
21:41:35 <ekw> ... if you give it to an OWL DL reasoner it would do something else
... if you give it to an OWL DL reasoner it would do something else ←
21:41:55 <ekw> mschnei: what's the problem?
Michael Schneider: what's the problem? ←
21:42:23 <ekw> boris: to the point about ruleset being a good spec, I agree
Boris Motik: to the point about ruleset being a good spec, I agree ←
21:43:34 <ekw> boris: if you now use this form of semantics after we have created the others, it just defines a 3rd different semantics
Boris Motik: if you now use this form of semantics after we have created the others, it just defines a 3rd different semantics ←
21:43:42 <ekw> ... and this is not good
... and this is not good ←
21:43:50 <sandro> Alan: Is it a good idea to say that there is an OWL-R strict mode? I want to survey the room
Alan Ruttenberg: Is it a good idea to say that there is an OWL-R strict mode? I want to survey the room [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:44:14 <sandro> Ian: Is it a good idea to introduce a third semantics? That's how I'd phrase it! You're really saying we'd have a third semantics.
Ian Horrocks: Is it a good idea to introduce a third semantics? That's how I'd phrase it! You're really saying we'd have a third semantics. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:44:30 <ekw> ian: w/strict mode you are really saying we are creating a 3rd semantics
Ian Horrocks: w/strict mode you are really saying we are creating a 3rd semantics ←
21:45:32 <sandro> sandro: from the user community perspective, it's a seventh semantics (because there is also RDFS, etc, RDF semantics)
Sandro Hawke: from the user community perspective, it's a seventh semantics (because there is also RDFS, etc, RDF semantics) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:45:41 <sandro> Ian: Same syntax, different semantics.
Ian Horrocks: Same syntax, different semantics. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:46:04 <ekw> achille: I want to go back to whether we are or not going with a strict mode
Achille Fokoue: I want to go back to whether we are or not going with a strict mode ←
21:46:32 <ekw> ... if we go back to two sublanguages, the strict mode for OWL R DL would work pretty well
... if we go back to two sublanguages, the strict mode for OWL R DL would work pretty well ←
21:46:59 <ekw> ... now it seems to me that merging OWL Rs creates more confusion
... now it seems to me that merging OWL Rs creates more confusion ←
21:47:19 <m_schnei> I first thought, when hearing "third semantics" that a third *system* of semantics is meant, but it's only a, well third semantics, ok
Michael Schneider: I first thought, when hearing "third semantics" that a third *system* of semantics is meant, but it's only a, well third semantics, ok ←
21:47:35 <bijan> If OWL-R isn't a syntactic subset, then some RDF graphs will have 3 semantics!
Bijan Parsia: If OWL-R isn't a syntactic subset, then some RDF graphs will have 3 semantics! ←
21:47:41 <ekw> alan: I think that we understand the question in both forms
Alan Ruttenberg: I think that we understand the question in both forms ←
21:47:58 <bijan> (Or 4!)
Bijan Parsia: (Or 4!) ←
21:48:06 <ekw> ... can we get a sense from people what the room thinks
... can we get a sense from people what the room thinks ←
21:48:29 <m_schnei> bijan, we can have a complete stack of RDFS extensions :)
Michael Schneider: bijan, we can have a complete stack of RDFS extensions :) ←
21:48:43 <bmotik> STRAWPOLL: Do we think it is a good idea to introduce a new semantics for OWL defined by a rule set / have an OWL-R strict mode?
PROPOSED: Do we think it is a good idea to introduce a new semantics for OWL defined by a rule set / have an OWL-R strict mode? ←
21:48:46 <bmotik> -1000
Boris Motik: -1000 ←
21:48:50 <pfps> -1000
Peter Patel-Schneider: -1000 ←
21:48:51 <Achille> -1
Achille Fokoue: -1 ←
21:48:53 <m_schnei> +1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
21:48:57 <IanH> -1
Ian Horrocks: -1 ←
21:48:57 <msmith> -1
Michael Smith: -1 ←
21:48:58 <pha> -1
Peter Haase: -1 ←
21:48:58 <baojie> -1
21:49:00 <bijan> -bmotik*pfps
Bijan Parsia: -bmotik*pfps ←
21:49:06 <sandro> +0.2
Sandro Hawke: +0.2 ←
21:49:12 <Zhe> +0
21:49:15 <ekw> +0
+0 ←
21:49:27 <alanr> 0
Alan Ruttenberg: 0 ←
21:50:51 <ekw> mschnei: I need to check with
Michael Schneider: I need to check with ←
21:51:05 <ekw> ... FZI what they think
... FZI what they think ←
21:51:48 <ekw> alan: Michael - can you go back to your organization and find out where you stand?
Alan Ruttenberg: Michael - can you go back to your organization and find out where you stand? ←
21:53:11 <ekw> subtopic: signalling semantics
21:53:46 <sandro> Ian: Tell Users: If you intend OWL Full semantics, then include some specific bit (which we'll provide) of vacuous OWL full.
Ian Horrocks: Tell Users: If you intend OWL Full semantics, then include some specific bit (which we'll provide) of vacuous OWL full. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:53:49 <ekw> ian: instead of specifying intended semantics, we advise people in the spec
Ian Horrocks: instead of specifying intended semantics, we advise people in the spec ←
21:54:10 <sandro> alan: eg: owl:Thing owl:sameAs owl:Thing
Alan Ruttenberg: eg: owl:Thing owl:sameAs owl:Thing [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:54:11 <ekw> ... if they intend the OWL Full semantics always include these triples
... if they intend the OWL Full semantics always include these triples ←
21:54:52 <sandro> sandro: owl:sameAs owl:sameAs owl:sameAs
Sandro Hawke: owl:sameAs owl:sameAs owl:sameAs [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:56:49 <pfps> STRAWPOLL: The way to signal that an OWL ontology should be interpreted as OWL Full is to include a triple that takes the ontology out of OWL DL, namely owl:sameAs owl:sameAs owl:sameAs
PROPOSED: The way to signal that an OWL ontology should be interpreted as OWL Full is to include a triple that takes the ontology out of OWL DL, namely owl:sameAs owl:sameAs owl:sameAs ←
21:56:51 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
21:56:57 <pfps> +1.1
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1.1 ←
21:56:58 <Achille> +1
Achille Fokoue: +1 ←
21:57:01 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
21:57:03 <Zhe> +1 (sounds hacky though)
Zhe Wu: +1 (sounds hacky though) ←
21:57:04 <pha> +1
Peter Haase: +1 ←
21:57:05 <m_schnei> +1 (why not?)
Michael Schneider: +1 (why not?) ←
21:57:07 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
21:57:08 <ekw> +1
+1 ←
21:57:15 <msmith> +1
Michael Smith: +1 ←
21:57:58 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
21:58:17 <baojie> +1
21:58:29 <ekw> we are done!
we are done! ←
22:01:16 <sandro> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=&saddr=32+vassar+st,+cambridge,+ma&daddr=900+Beacon+Street,+Boston,+MA+02215&sll=42.35368,-71.101215&sspn=0.019441,0.042315&doflg=ptm&ie=UTF8&ll=42.354136,-71.097636&spn=0.019441,0.042315&z=15
Sandro Hawke: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=&saddr=32+vassar+st,+cambridge,+ma&daddr=900+Beacon+Street,+Boston,+MA+02215&sll=42.35368,-71.101215&sspn=0.019441,0.042315&doflg=ptm&ie=UTF8&ll=42.354136,-71.097636&spn=0.019441,0.042315&z=15 ←
22:01:32 <sandro> 900 Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02215
Sandro Hawke: 900 Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02215 ←
22:05:01 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, Meeting_Room, in SW_OWL()8:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: disconnecting the lone participant, Meeting_Room, in SW_OWL()8:00AM ←
22:05:03 <Zakim> SW_OWL()8:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL()8:00AM has ended ←
22:05:04 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.617.253.aaaa, bparsia, rob, uli, Carsten, bijan, dlm, Meeting_Room, Karen
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were +1.617.253.aaaa, bparsia, rob, uli, Carsten, bijan, dlm, Meeting_Room, Karen ←
This revision (#2) generated 2008-07-29 03:15:22 UTC by 'unknown', comments: 'no scribe errors!'