00:00:00 <Rinke> PRESENT: calvanese, Rinke, Alan Ruttenberg, bcuencagrau, MarkusK, Achille, Zhe, IanH, uli, Ivan, Peter_Patel-Schneider, baojie, evrensirin, m_schnei
00:00:00 <Rinke> REGRETS: Bijan Parsia, Mike Smith, Jeff Pan
00:00:00 <Rinke> CHAIR: Alan Ruttenberg
16:36:51 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/08/13-owl-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/08/13-owl-irc ←
16:36:55 <Rinke> zakim, this will be owl
Rinke Hoekstra: zakim, this will be owl ←
16:36:55 <Zakim> ok, Rinke; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 24 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Rinke; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 24 minutes ←
16:37:15 <Rinke> RRSAgent, make records public
Rinke Hoekstra: RRSAgent, make records public ←
16:38:41 <Rinke> ScribeNick: Rinke
(Scribe set to Rinke Hoekstra)
16:47:04 <Rinke> Zakim, this will be owlwg
(No events recorded for 8 minutes)
Zakim, this will be owlwg ←
16:47:04 <Zakim> ok, Rinke; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 13 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Rinke; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 13 minutes ←
16:57:34 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
(No events recorded for 10 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started ←
16:57:41 <Zakim> +[IBM_Watson]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM_Watson] ←
16:58:45 <Zakim> +??P11
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P11 ←
16:58:50 <Rinke> zakim, ??P11 is me
zakim, ??P11 is me ←
16:58:50 <Zakim> +Rinke; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Rinke; got it ←
16:58:55 <Rinke> zakim, mute me
zakim, mute me ←
16:58:55 <Zakim> Rinke should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Rinke should now be muted ←
16:59:25 <calvanese> zakim, mute me
Diego Calvanese: zakim, mute me ←
16:59:25 <Zakim> sorry, calvanese, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, calvanese, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you ←
16:59:34 <Zakim> +Jonathan_Rees
Zakim IRC Bot: +Jonathan_Rees ←
16:59:38 <calvanese> zakim, IBM_Watson is me
Diego Calvanese: zakim, IBM_Watson is me ←
16:59:38 <Zakim> +calvanese; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +calvanese; got it ←
16:59:45 <Zakim> +??P14
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14 ←
16:59:48 <calvanese> zakim, mute me
Diego Calvanese: zakim, mute me ←
16:59:48 <Zakim> calvanese should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: calvanese should now be muted ←
16:59:52 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, ??P14 is me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, ??P14 is me ←
16:59:52 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bcuencagrau; got it ←
16:59:52 <alanr> zakim, Jonathan_Rees is alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, Jonathan_Rees is alanr ←
16:59:53 <Zakim> +alanr; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +alanr; got it ←
17:00:04 <alanr> zakim, mute me
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, mute me ←
17:00:04 <Zakim> alanr should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: alanr should now be muted ←
17:00:52 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
17:01:31 <Zakim> +[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
17:01:43 <Achille> zakim, IBM is me
Achille Fokoue: zakim, IBM is me ←
17:01:43 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Achille; got it ←
17:01:46 <Zakim> +Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: +Zhe ←
17:01:52 <Zhe> zakim, mute me
17:01:52 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Zhe should now be muted ←
17:01:59 <Zakim> +Ian_Horrocks
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ian_Horrocks ←
17:02:04 <Zakim> +??P6
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P6 ←
17:02:06 <alanr> Jonathan Rees is also listening in
Alan Ruttenberg: Jonathan Rees is also listening in ←
17:02:07 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
17:02:07 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
17:02:09 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
17:02:15 <uli> zakim, ??P6 is me
Uli Sattler: zakim, ??P6 is me ←
17:02:15 <Zakim> +uli; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +uli; got it ←
17:02:25 <IanH> zakim, Ian_Horrocks is IanH
Ian Horrocks: zakim, Ian_Horrocks is IanH ←
17:02:25 <Zakim> +IanH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +IanH; got it ←
17:02:26 <ivan> zakim, mute me
Ivan Herman: zakim, mute me ←
17:02:26 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should now be muted ←
17:02:38 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: +Peter_Patel-Schneider ←
17:02:47 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
17:02:47 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
17:02:56 <IanH> zakim, mute me
Ian Horrocks: zakim, mute me ←
17:02:56 <Zakim> IanH should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: IanH should now be muted ←
17:03:08 <Zakim> + +1.202.408.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.202.408.aaaa ←
17:03:09 <Zakim> +baojie
Zakim IRC Bot: +baojie ←
17:03:11 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
17:03:11 <Zakim> On the phone I see calvanese (muted), Rinke (muted), alanr (muted), bcuencagrau, MarkusK, Achille, Zhe (muted), IanH (muted), uli (muted), Ivan (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider,
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see calvanese (muted), Rinke (muted), alanr (muted), bcuencagrau, MarkusK, Achille, Zhe (muted), IanH (muted), uli (muted), Ivan (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, ←
17:03:15 <Zakim> ... +1.202.408.aaaa, baojie
Zakim IRC Bot: ... +1.202.408.aaaa, baojie ←
17:03:16 <Zakim> On IRC I see ivan, IanH, Zhe, uli, Achille, MarkusK, bcuencagrau, calvanese, alanr, baojie, RRSAgent, Zakim, Rinke, pfps, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see ivan, IanH, Zhe, uli, Achille, MarkusK, bcuencagrau, calvanese, alanr, baojie, RRSAgent, Zakim, Rinke, pfps, sandro, trackbot ←
17:03:35 <Zakim> - +1.202.408.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.202.408.aaaa ←
17:03:39 <alanr> zakim, unmute me
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, unmute me ←
17:03:39 <Zakim> alanr should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: alanr should no longer be muted ←
17:04:08 <Zakim> + +1.202.408.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.202.408.aabb ←
17:04:23 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
17:04:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see calvanese (muted), Rinke (muted), alanr, bcuencagrau, MarkusK, Achille, Zhe (muted), IanH (muted), uli (muted), Ivan (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, baojie,
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see calvanese (muted), Rinke (muted), alanr, bcuencagrau, MarkusK, Achille, Zhe (muted), IanH (muted), uli (muted), Ivan (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, baojie, ←
17:04:26 <Zakim> ... +1.202.408.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: ... +1.202.408.aabb ←
17:04:27 <Zakim> On IRC I see jar, ivan, IanH, Zhe, uli, Achille, MarkusK, bcuencagrau, calvanese, alanr, baojie, RRSAgent, Zakim, Rinke, pfps, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see jar, ivan, IanH, Zhe, uli, Achille, MarkusK, bcuencagrau, calvanese, alanr, baojie, RRSAgent, Zakim, Rinke, pfps, sandro, trackbot ←
17:04:37 <Rinke> omit: who's aabb?
17:04:41 <Rinke> topic: admin
17:04:46 <Rinke> omit: subtopic: roll call
17:04:47 <Zakim> - +1.202.408.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.202.408.aabb ←
17:04:48 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me ←
17:04:48 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should now be muted ←
17:04:55 <Rinke> zakim, who is here?
zakim, who is here? ←
17:04:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see calvanese (muted), Rinke (muted), alanr, bcuencagrau (muted), MarkusK, Achille, Zhe (muted), IanH (muted), uli (muted), Ivan (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider,
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see calvanese (muted), Rinke (muted), alanr, bcuencagrau (muted), MarkusK, Achille, Zhe (muted), IanH (muted), uli (muted), Ivan (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, ←
17:04:58 <Zakim> ... baojie
Zakim IRC Bot: ... baojie ←
17:04:59 <Zakim> On IRC I see jar, ivan, IanH, Zhe, uli, Achille, MarkusK, bcuencagrau, calvanese, alanr, baojie, RRSAgent, Zakim, Rinke, pfps, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see jar, ivan, IanH, Zhe, uli, Achille, MarkusK, bcuencagrau, calvanese, alanr, baojie, RRSAgent, Zakim, Rinke, pfps, sandro, trackbot ←
17:05:07 <alanr> zakim, who is here?
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, who is here? ←
17:05:07 <Zakim> On the phone I see calvanese (muted), Rinke (muted), alanr, bcuencagrau (muted), MarkusK, Achille, Zhe (muted), IanH (muted), uli (muted), Ivan (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider,
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see calvanese (muted), Rinke (muted), alanr, bcuencagrau (muted), MarkusK, Achille, Zhe (muted), IanH (muted), uli (muted), Ivan (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, ←
17:05:10 <Zakim> ... baojie
Zakim IRC Bot: ... baojie ←
17:05:11 <Zakim> On IRC I see m_schnei, jar, ivan, IanH, Zhe, uli, Achille, MarkusK, bcuencagrau, calvanese, alanr, baojie, RRSAgent, Zakim, Rinke, pfps, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see m_schnei, jar, ivan, IanH, Zhe, uli, Achille, MarkusK, bcuencagrau, calvanese, alanr, baojie, RRSAgent, Zakim, Rinke, pfps, sandro, trackbot ←
17:05:21 <Rinke> subtopic: agenda amendments
17:05:45 <Rinke> PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (6 August)
PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (6 August) ←
17:05:53 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
17:05:54 <pfps> they seem acceptable tome
Peter Patel-Schneider: they seem acceptable tome ←
17:05:58 <baojie> +1
17:06:06 <Rinke> Rinke: +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
17:06:09 <Rinke> RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes (6 August)
RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes (6 August) ←
17:06:19 <Zakim> +??P10
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P10 ←
17:06:19 <Rinke> subtopic: pending review actions
17:06:27 <m_schnei> zakim, ??P10 is me
Michael Schneider: zakim, ??P10 is me ←
17:06:27 <Zakim> +m_schnei; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +m_schnei; got it ←
17:06:31 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:06:31 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should now be muted ←
17:06:50 <Rinke> ACTION-171, discussion later in the meeting
ACTION-171, discussion later in the meeting ←
17:07:03 <Rinke> ACTION-176, looks done, close the action
ACTION-176, looks done, close the action ←
17:07:30 <Rinke> ACTION-157, moot, close, robert stevens as intermediary (?)
ACTION-157, moot, close, robert stevens as intermediary (?) ←
17:07:37 <Rinke> ACTION-178, closed
ACTION-178, closed ←
17:07:49 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
17:07:54 <Rinke> ACTION-162 and ACTION-165 done per emails
ACTION-162 and ACTION-165 done per emails ←
17:08:00 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
17:08:03 <Rinke> ACTION-173
17:08:15 <Rinke> alanr: can't remember what this was
Alan Ruttenberg: can't remember what this was ←
17:08:29 <Rinke> alanr: we're ok as far as datatypes go
Alan Ruttenberg: we're ok as far as datatypes go ←
17:08:36 <Rinke> alanr: close?
Alan Ruttenberg: close? ←
17:08:40 <Rinke> ACTION-174
17:08:57 <Rinke> alanr: peter, do you want to comment on this?
Alan Ruttenberg: peter, do you want to comment on this? ←
17:09:11 <Rinke> pfps: email on annotations has 90% of what's needed for Bijan's stuff
Peter Patel-Schneider: email on annotations has 90% of what's needed for Bijan's stuff ←
17:09:22 <Rinke> alanr: this is the annotations on annotations stuff, right?
Alan Ruttenberg: this is the annotations on annotations stuff, right? ←
17:09:27 <Rinke> pfps: yup
Peter Patel-Schneider: yup ←
17:09:42 <Rinke> alanr: you were working with bijan on rich annotations
Alan Ruttenberg: you were working with bijan on rich annotations ←
17:09:48 <Rinke> alanr: what's the outcome of that?
Alan Ruttenberg: what's the outcome of that? ←
17:10:16 <Rinke> pfps: we consider ACTION-174 at least doesn't need to be done immediately as it is likely to be taken over by events
Peter Patel-Schneider: we consider ACTION-174 at least doesn't need to be done immediately as it is likely to be taken over by events ←
17:10:27 <Rinke> alanr: not done, anyone any comments?
Alan Ruttenberg: not done, anyone any comments? ←
17:10:32 <Rinke> topic: Issues
17:10:32 <Rinke> subtopic: ISSUE-129
17:11:05 <Rinke> alanr: proposed was to close ISSUE-129 without action
Alan Ruttenberg: proposed was to close ISSUE-129 without action ←
17:11:16 <Rinke> alanr: we're not closing off the possibility
Alan Ruttenberg: we're not closing off the possibility ←
17:11:41 <IanH> works for me
Ian Horrocks: works for me ←
17:11:50 <Rinke> alanr: suggestions for wording?
Alan Ruttenberg: suggestions for wording? ←
17:12:05 <Rinke> alanr: difference between postponing vs. 'no action'?
Alan Ruttenberg: difference between postponing vs. 'no action'? ←
17:12:18 <pfps> isn't this a chair kind of decision?
Peter Patel-Schneider: isn't this a chair kind of decision? ←
17:12:46 <Rinke> alanr: I'll go for postpone
Alan Ruttenberg: I'll go for postpone ←
17:12:47 <Zakim> + +1.202.408.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.202.408.aacc ←
17:12:47 <alanr> PROPOSED: close Issue 129 as postponed
PROPOSED: close ISSUE-129 as postponed ←
17:13:07 <pfps> +1
17:13:09 <Rinke> Rinke: +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
17:13:11 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
17:13:12 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:13:16 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
17:13:16 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
17:13:21 <evrensirin> +1
Evren Sirin: +1 ←
17:13:32 <Achille> +1
Achille Fokoue: +1 ←
17:14:05 <m_schnei> +1 (129 as postponed)
Michael Schneider: +1 (129 as postponed) ←
17:13:36 <alanr> RESOLVED: close Issue 129 as postponed
RESOLVED: close ISSUE-129 as postponed ←
17:13:39 <IanH> omit: 202.408 is back!
17:13:41 <evrensirin> omit: +1.202.408.aacc is evrensirin
17:13:43 <Rinke> subtopic: ISSUE-135
17:13:57 <Rinke> alanr: importing rdf without ontology headers
Alan Ruttenberg: importing rdf without ontology headers ←
17:13:59 <IanH> zakim, aacc is evrensirin
Ian Horrocks: zakim, aacc is evrensirin ←
17:13:59 <Zakim> +evrensirin; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +evrensirin; got it ←
17:14:06 <Rinke> alanr: boris had a proposed solution in email
Alan Ruttenberg: boris had a proposed solution in email ←
17:14:11 <Rinke> alanr: any comments? look good to me
Alan Ruttenberg: any comments? look good to me ←
17:14:18 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
17:14:26 <Rinke> Rinke: look good to me as well
Rinke Hoekstra: look good to me as well ←
17:14:28 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:14:30 <alanr> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0454.html
Alan Ruttenberg: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0454.html ←
17:14:33 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
17:14:52 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
17:14:59 <evrensirin> +1
Evren Sirin: +1 ←
17:15:00 <Zhe> +1
17:15:09 <alanr> PROPOSED: close 135 with Boris' note saying it's effectively there already
PROPOSED: close 135 with Boris' note saying it's effectively there already ←
17:15:13 <Rinke> Rinke: +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
17:15:17 <pfps> +1
17:15:19 <ivan> +1 (again:-)
Ivan Herman: +1 (again:-) ←
17:15:20 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:15:21 <evrensirin> +1
Evren Sirin: +1 ←
17:15:21 <MarkusK> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
17:15:22 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
17:15:27 <alanr> note= http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0454.html
Alan Ruttenberg: note= http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0454.html ←
17:15:29 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
17:15:39 <Zhe> +1 (again)
17:15:47 <alanr> RESOLVED: close 135 with Boris' note http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0454.html
RESOLVED: close 135 with Boris' note http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0454.html ←
17:15:58 <Rinke> subtopic: ISSUE-104
17:16:04 <Rinke> alanr: disallowed vocabulary
Alan Ruttenberg: disallowed vocabulary ←
17:16:22 <Rinke> alanr: I discussed this with Ian, the email ref wasn't clear enough
Alan Ruttenberg: I discussed this with Ian, the email ref wasn't clear enough ←
17:16:51 <Rinke> alanr: shouldn't we for clarity explicitly list those terms that are 'in'
Alan Ruttenberg: shouldn't we for clarity explicitly list those terms that are 'in' ←
17:17:07 <Rinke> alanr: use reserved instead of disallowed vocabulary
Alan Ruttenberg: use reserved instead of disallowed vocabulary ←
17:17:09 <pfps> q+
17:17:14 <alanr> ack pfps
Alan Ruttenberg: ack pfps ←
17:17:20 <Rinke> pfps: I'm going to channel Boris
Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm going to channel Boris ←
17:17:40 <Rinke> pfps: should not list the disallowed vocabulary because we could get it wrong
Peter Patel-Schneider: should not list the disallowed vocabulary because we could get it wrong ←
17:18:05 <Rinke> alanr: I meant we should say the disallowed vocabulary is any term in these 4 namespaces instead of the list ...
Alan Ruttenberg: I meant we should say the disallowed vocabulary is any term in these 4 namespaces instead of the list ... ←
17:18:13 <pfps> that's OK by me
Peter Patel-Schneider: that's OK by me ←
17:18:14 <Rinke> alanr: we should be as explicit as we can
Alan Ruttenberg: we should be as explicit as we can ←
17:18:31 <Rinke> alanr: any comments on this?
Alan Ruttenberg: any comments on this? ←
17:18:53 <Rinke> alanr: action someone to write the list
Alan Ruttenberg: action someone to write the list ←
17:19:35 <alanr> PROPOSED: Close 104 saying: Use "disallowed vocabulary" in place of "reserved vocabulary". Then list namespaces from which terms are disallowed and an explicit list of allowed terms as exceptions.
PROPOSED: Close 104 saying: Use "disallowed vocabulary" in place of "reserved vocabulary". Then list namespaces from which terms are disallowed and an explicit list of allowed terms as exceptions. ←
17:19:52 <pfps> q+
17:19:57 <alanr> ack pfps
Alan Ruttenberg: ack pfps ←
17:20:19 <Rinke> pfps: in some sense, reserved sounds a bit better, but I understand being consistent with owl 1 is good
Peter Patel-Schneider: in some sense, reserved sounds a bit better, but I understand being consistent with owl 1 is good ←
17:20:37 <Rinke> alanr: no strong objections... let's vote
Alan Ruttenberg: no strong objections... let's vote ←
17:20:40 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
17:20:41 <Rinke> Rinke: +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
17:20:41 <pfps> +0.5 because I prefer 'reserved', but I can live with this
Peter Patel-Schneider: +0.5 because I prefer 'reserved', but I can live with this ←
17:20:44 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
17:20:45 <MarkusK> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
17:20:45 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
17:20:46 <evrensirin> +1
Evren Sirin: +1 ←
17:20:46 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:20:46 <Zhe> 0
17:20:47 <calvanese> +1
Diego Calvanese: +1 ←
17:20:48 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
17:21:00 <alanr> fwiw, I think reserved is better word too...
Alan Ruttenberg: fwiw, I think reserved is better word too... ←
17:21:23 <alanr> RESOLVED: Close 104 saying: Use "disallowed vocabulary" in place of "reserved vocabulary". Then list namespaces from which terms are disallowed and an explicit list of allowed terms as exceptions
RESOLVED: Close 104 saying: Use "disallowed vocabulary" in place of "reserved vocabulary". Then list namespaces from which terms are disallowed and an explicit list of allowed terms as exceptions ←
17:21:41 <Rinke> topic: issue discussions
17:21:47 <evrensirin> q+
Evren Sirin: q+ ←
17:21:56 <Rinke> subtopic: ISSUE-133
17:21:56 <Rinke> alanr: start off with unique name assumption (ISSUE-133)
Alan Ruttenberg: start off with unique name assumption (ISSUE-133) ←
17:21:56 <alanr> ack evrensirin
Alan Ruttenberg: ack evrensirin ←
17:22:29 <Rinke> evrensirin: issue is that there are two maximum subsets. In one you can use key, but then you need UNA. Or you exclude functionality and key, and you can use sameAs
Evren Sirin: issue is that there are two maximum subsets. In one you can use key, but then you need UNA. Or you exclude functionality and key, and you can use sameAs ←
17:22:35 <calvanese> q+
Diego Calvanese: q+ ←
17:22:39 <Rinke> evrensirin: these two cannot be included in the profile at the same time
Evren Sirin: these two cannot be included in the profile at the same time ←
17:23:19 <Rinke> evrensirin: right now UNA is necessary for dl-lite profile (according to diego\'proposal)
Evren Sirin: right now UNA is necessary for dl-lite profile (according to diego\'proposal) ←
17:23:38 <Rinke> evrensirin: though this is fine in DB, but in linked data use cases you don't want to make UNA
Evren Sirin: though this is fine in DB, but in linked data use cases you don't want to make UNA ←
17:23:54 <Rinke> evrensirin: include neither in the profile, but allow the extension
Evren Sirin: include neither in the profile, but allow the extension ←
17:24:08 <alanr> ack calvanese
Alan Ruttenberg: ack calvanese ←
17:24:10 <Rinke> evrensirin: flexible enough for both use cases, but the selection of the extension is left to the tools
Evren Sirin: flexible enough for both use cases, but the selection of the extension is left to the tools ←
17:24:43 <Rinke> calvanese: dl-lite is born in two different versions, one side having functionality and the other roles and inclusion
Diego Calvanese: dl-lite is born in two different versions, one side having functionality and the other roles and inclusion ←
17:25:04 <Rinke> calvanese: we now have a language that combines both features, but relies on UNA
Diego Calvanese: we now have a language that combines both features, but relies on UNA ←
17:25:29 <Rinke> calvanese: having or not having UNA does not make any difference wrt inference. If you drop functionality and leave UNA in there, you still get the same answers as w/o UNA
Diego Calvanese: having or not having UNA does not make any difference wrt inference. If you drop functionality and leave UNA in there, you still get the same answers as w/o UNA ←
17:25:53 <evrensirin> q+
Evren Sirin: q+ ←
17:25:58 <uli> q+
Uli Sattler: q+ ←
17:26:02 <Rinke> calvanese: having the UNA actually gives you more than not having it. It captures an intended use case. But if you want to use it in a way that includes functionality, you can use it as if it doesn't make the UNA
Diego Calvanese: having the UNA actually gives you more than not having it. It captures an intended use case. But if you want to use it in a way that includes functionality, you can use it as if it doesn't make the UNA ←
17:26:02 <alanr> ack evrensirin
Alan Ruttenberg: ack evrensirin ←
17:26:25 <Rinke> evrensirin: but having UNA is not compatible with my use cases. Having UNA forces everybody to use the UNA even if they don't want it
Evren Sirin: but having UNA is not compatible with my use cases. Having UNA forces everybody to use the UNA even if they don't want it ←
17:26:28 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
17:26:36 <Rinke> evrensirin: It may not have any observable inferences, then why have it?
Evren Sirin: It may not have any observable inferences, then why have it? ←
17:26:47 <Rinke> calvanese: it allows us to add functionality as well
Diego Calvanese: it allows us to add functionality as well ←
17:27:14 <Rinke> calvanese: other point, dl-lite was born to deal with data in databases. For that use case we believe UNA and functionality are both important
Diego Calvanese: other point, dl-lite was born to deal with data in databases. For that use case we believe UNA and functionality are both important ←
17:27:29 <Rinke> calvanese: it's important to have this feature
Diego Calvanese: it's important to have this feature ←
17:28:05 <Rinke> calvanese: rdf/triple store language users could adopt DL lite in their setting. DL -lite is within owl DL, so it doesn't have any meta-features. So it reduces its use in RDF
Diego Calvanese: rdf/triple store language users could adopt DL lite in their setting. DL -lite is within owl DL, so it doesn't have any meta-features. So it reduces its use in RDF ←
17:28:24 <alanr> ack uli
Alan Ruttenberg: ack uli ←
17:28:26 <uli> zakim, unmute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, unmute me ←
17:28:26 <Zakim> uli was not muted, uli
Zakim IRC Bot: uli was not muted, uli ←
17:28:29 <Rinke> calvanese: that's one reason why I would claim that the important use cases come from DB's and not in coming form RDF
Diego Calvanese: that's one reason why I would claim that the important use cases come from DB's and not in coming form RDF ←
17:28:46 <Rinke> uli: I was trying to see clear. I have two choices: 1) functionality + keys, needs UNA
Uli Sattler: I was trying to see clear. I have two choices: 1) functionality + keys, needs UNA ←
17:29:28 <Rinke> uli: other allows us to have role hierarchies and use sameAs, is a bit more RDF-ish
Uli Sattler: other allows us to have role hierarchies and use sameAs, is a bit more RDF-ish ←
17:29:41 <evrensirin> q+
Evren Sirin: q+ ←
17:29:48 <Rinke> uli: so it's not about whether we can drop UNA, you need to have it
Uli Sattler: so it's not about whether we can drop UNA, you need to have it ←
17:29:48 <alanr> ack alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: ack alanr ←
17:29:59 <Rinke> calvanese: yes, you need the UNA for functionality
Diego Calvanese: yes, you need the UNA for functionality ←
17:30:06 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
17:30:06 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
17:30:16 <calvanese> q+
Diego Calvanese: q+ ←
17:30:17 <Rinke> alanr: what about general compatibility. We have this principle to have the same syntax mean the same thing
Alan Ruttenberg: what about general compatibility. We have this principle to have the same syntax mean the same thing ←
17:30:37 <uli> zakim, unmute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, unmute me ←
17:30:37 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should no longer be muted ←
17:30:50 <Rinke> alanr: should we have some kind of global restriction that says e.g. that you need to make the una explicit by enforcing sameAs
Alan Ruttenberg: should we have some kind of global restriction that says e.g. that you need to make the una explicit by enforcing sameAs ←
17:30:56 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
17:30:58 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
17:30:58 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
17:30:59 <Rinke> alanr: you allow all three, but disallow their combination
Alan Ruttenberg: you allow all three, but disallow their combination ←
17:31:06 <alanr> ack calvanese
Alan Ruttenberg: ack calvanese ←
17:31:16 <Rinke> calvanese: you could make it, if you have a sameas then that may work
Diego Calvanese: you could make it, if you have a sameas then that may work ←
17:31:47 <alanr> o(n)
Alan Ruttenberg: o(n) ←
17:31:59 <Rinke> calvanese: what we need to have this fragment work in the same way than the other profiles, you need to make the uNA explicit. THis is inefficient for databases
Diego Calvanese: what we need to have this fragment work in the same way than the other profiles, you need to make the uNA explicit. THis is inefficient for databases ←
17:32:17 <bcuencagrau> omit: +q
17:32:18 <alanr> omit: q+ alanr
17:32:27 <alanr> ack evrensirin
Alan Ruttenberg: ack evrensirin ←
17:32:33 <Rinke> calvanese: have an implicitly represented una, this is given once you have functionality.
Diego Calvanese: have an implicitly represented una, this is given once you have functionality. ←
17:32:34 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, unmute me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, unmute me ←
17:32:34 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should no longer be muted ←
17:32:43 <alanr> ack bcuencagrau
Alan Ruttenberg: ack bcuencagrau ←
17:32:52 <alanr> you folks have nicks that are too long :)
Alan Ruttenberg: you folks have nicks that are too long :) ←
17:33:13 <alanr> ack alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: ack alanr ←
17:33:19 <Rinke> bcuencagrau: if you make the UNA, it's a semantic condition. How would UNA work as semantic condition. Not sure how this is supposed to work
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: if you make the UNA, it's a semantic condition. How would UNA work as semantic condition. Not sure how this is supposed to work ←
17:33:48 <Rinke> calvanese: imposing that every pair of individuals is different by enforcing assertions
Diego Calvanese: imposing that every pair of individuals is different by enforcing assertions ←
17:34:04 <Rinke> alanr: we can already have a shorthand to make this
Alan Ruttenberg: we can already have a shorthand to make this ←
17:34:08 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
17:34:10 <Rinke> alanr: for sets of individuals
Alan Ruttenberg: for sets of individuals ←
17:34:28 <Rinke> bcuencagrau: this is a clear set of syntax that you could interpret differently. Switch is a good idea
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: this is a clear set of syntax that you could interpret differently. Switch is a good idea ←
17:34:38 <Rinke> alanr: have a global switch
Alan Ruttenberg: have a global switch ←
17:34:52 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
17:34:56 <calvanese> q+
Diego Calvanese: q+ ←
17:34:57 <Rinke> bcuencagrau: otherwise we need to rig reasoners to recognise the profile and work under the UNA
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: otherwise we need to rig reasoners to recognise the profile and work under the UNA ←
17:35:04 <alanr> ack calvanese
Alan Ruttenberg: ack calvanese ←
17:35:04 <Rinke> alanr: could you make a suggestion?
Alan Ruttenberg: could you make a suggestion? ←
17:35:16 <uli> q?
Uli Sattler: q? ←
17:35:28 <Rinke> calvanese: I agree with bernardo, you have a valid ontology for this profile if you have that bit of syntax in there.
Diego Calvanese: I agree with bernardo, you have a valid ontology for this profile if you have that bit of syntax in there. ←
17:35:41 <IanH> I am worried that we are now doing language design on the fly.
Ian Horrocks: I am worried that we are now doing language design on the fly. ←
17:35:55 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me ←
17:35:55 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should now be muted ←
17:35:56 <evrensirin> q+
Evren Sirin: q+ ←
17:36:03 <Rinke> alanr: do we have a way forward, that we can stop the conversation and that the proposal comes up to generalise this
Alan Ruttenberg: do we have a way forward, that we can stop the conversation and that the proposal comes up to generalise this ←
17:36:27 <Rinke> alanr: have a global restriction for functional/keys you need una
Alan Ruttenberg: have a global restriction for functional/keys you need una ←
17:36:30 <alanr> ack evrensirin
Alan Ruttenberg: ack evrensirin ←
17:36:50 <Rinke> evrensirin: we also want the sameas added to the profile, with the restriction that sameas cannot be used together with functional and una
Evren Sirin: we also want the sameas added to the profile, with the restriction that sameas cannot be used together with functional and una ←
17:37:02 <Rinke> alanr: we already have that from the global restriction.
Alan Ruttenberg: we already have that from the global restriction. ←
17:37:13 <Rinke> evrensirin: I would like to assert that I don't get an inconsitency
Evren Sirin: I would like to assert that I don't get an inconsitency ←
17:37:23 <calvanese> q+
Diego Calvanese: q+ ←
17:37:26 <Rinke> alanr: evrensirin do you wnat to draft a proposal with calvanese
Alan Ruttenberg: evrensirin do you wnat to draft a proposal with calvanese ←
17:37:34 <alanr> ack calvanese
Alan Ruttenberg: ack calvanese ←
17:37:56 <Rinke> calvanese: if you add same as explicitly, you lose the computational properties (introduces recursive propagation)
Diego Calvanese: if you add same as explicitly, you lose the computational properties (introduces recursive propagation) ←
17:38:03 <uli> ..but not if you don't have functionality?
Uli Sattler: ..but not if you don't have functionality? ←
17:38:04 <alanr> Action: Diego to come up with proposal for UNA + function in language by global restriction, with Mike or Evren
ACTION: Diego to come up with proposal for UNA + function in language by global restriction, with Mike or Evren ←
17:38:05 <trackbot> Created ACTION-192 - Come up with proposal for UNA + function in language by global restriction, with Mike or Evren [on Diego Calvanese - due 2008-08-20].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-192 - Come up with proposal for UNA + function in language by global restriction, with Mike or Evren [on Diego Calvanese - due 2008-08-20]. ←
17:38:11 <Rinke> evrensirin: don't agree, you can preprocess the sameas assertion at the beginning
Evren Sirin: don't agree, you can preprocess the sameas assertion at the beginning ←
17:38:18 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
17:38:48 <alanr> gentlemen?
Alan Ruttenberg: gentlemen? ←
17:39:00 <Rinke> calvanese: you lose computational property nonetheless
Diego Calvanese: you lose computational property nonetheless ←
17:39:12 <Rinke> evrensirin: but you only do it once
Evren Sirin: but you only do it once ←
17:39:21 <Rinke> alanr: work this out in your conversation
Alan Ruttenberg: work this out in your conversation ←
17:39:29 <Rinke> subtopic: ISSUE-136
17:39:32 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
17:39:32 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should no longer be muted ←
17:39:39 <Rinke> alanr: m_schnei could you remind us please
Alan Ruttenberg: m_schnei could you remind us please ←
17:40:04 <Rinke> m_schnei: we had in owl 1 only these different individuals, now we also have disjoint classes and properties
Michael Schneider: we had in owl 1 only these different individuals, now we also have disjoint classes and properties ←
17:40:04 <calvanese> zakim, mute me
Diego Calvanese: zakim, mute me ←
17:40:04 <Zakim> calvanese should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: calvanese should now be muted ←
17:40:11 <uli> you sound muffled
Uli Sattler: you sound muffled ←
17:40:20 <IanH> More muffled than quiet
Ian Horrocks: More muffled than quiet ←
17:40:32 <Rinke> m_schnei: we have three different n-ary axioms.
Michael Schneider: we have three different n-ary axioms. ←
17:40:46 <Rinke> m_schnei: in owl 1 we had only one, distinctmembers
Michael Schneider: in owl 1 we had only one, distinctmembers ←
17:41:03 <alanr> is anyone else having trouble with access to the wiki?
Alan Ruttenberg: is anyone else having trouble with access to the wiki? ←
17:41:06 <Rinke> m_schnei: now we have owl:member for everything else, I suggest owl:member to be used for owl:allDifferent and the
Michael Schneider: now we have owl:member for everything else, I suggest owl:member to be used for owl:allDifferent and the ←
17:41:16 <evrensirin> q+
Evren Sirin: q+ ←
17:41:18 <Rinke> m_schnei: rest ... (?)
Michael Schneider: rest ... (?) ←
17:41:22 <alanr> ack evrensirin
Alan Ruttenberg: ack evrensirin ←
17:41:49 <Rinke> evrensirin: I think that it would be good to have one term and combine the different things. Wouldn't it be a backwards-compatibility issue?
Evren Sirin: I think that it would be good to have one term and combine the different things. Wouldn't it be a backwards-compatibility issue? ←
17:42:07 <Rinke> evrensirin: owl 1.0 would no longer be able to use rewritten axioms
Evren Sirin: owl 1.0 would no longer be able to use rewritten axioms ←
17:42:12 <alanr> is that backwards or forwards compat?
Alan Ruttenberg: is that backwards or forwards compat? ←
17:42:16 <Rinke> evrensirin: not sure whether simplification outweighs this
Evren Sirin: not sure whether simplification outweighs this ←
17:42:29 <m_schnei> that's forward compatibility, if at all
Michael Schneider: that's forward compatibility, if at all ←
17:42:47 <Rinke> alanr: we need to get a compatibility person, ivan?
Alan Ruttenberg: we need to get a compatibility person, ivan? ←
17:42:48 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:42:48 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should now be muted ←
17:42:49 <ivan> zakim, unmute me
Ivan Herman: zakim, unmute me ←
17:42:50 <Zakim> Ivan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should no longer be muted ←
17:42:51 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
17:42:51 <Zakim> uli was already muted, uli
Zakim IRC Bot: uli was already muted, uli ←
17:43:16 <Rinke> ivan: I was looking at the old document, and owl:member is only in 1.1. I'm not sure I understand evren's problem
Ivan Herman: I was looking at the old document, and owl:member is only in 1.1. I'm not sure I understand evren's problem ←
17:43:28 <IanH> No! only one choice - new.
Ian Horrocks: No! only one choice - new. ←
17:43:42 <Rinke> alanr: you have two choices in OWL2, if it chooses the new, then ... oh
Alan Ruttenberg: you have two choices in OWL2, if it chooses the new, then ... oh ←
17:43:43 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
17:43:43 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should no longer be muted ←
17:43:51 <Rinke> alanr: m_schnei were you adding something?
Alan Ruttenberg: m_schnei were you adding something? ←
17:43:52 <IanH> q+
Ian Horrocks: q+ ←
17:43:57 <alanr> ack ian
Alan Ruttenberg: ack ian ←
17:43:58 <IanH> zakim, unmute me
Ian Horrocks: zakim, unmute me ←
17:43:59 <Zakim> IanH was not muted, IanH
Zakim IRC Bot: IanH was not muted, IanH ←
17:44:00 <Rinke> m_schnei: adding!
Michael Schneider: adding! ←
17:44:12 <evrensirin> the problem is OWL 1 tool would not be able to process an OWL 1 ontology generated by an OWL2 tool
Evren Sirin: the problem is OWL 1 tool would not be able to process an OWL 1 ontology generated by an OWL2 tool ←
17:44:13 <ivan> that is how I understood
Ivan Herman: that is how I understood ←
17:44:13 <Rinke> m_schnei: you can also use the members property ....
Michael Schneider: you can also use the members property .... ←
17:44:14 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:44:14 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should now be muted ←
17:44:52 <Rinke> IanH: what you said, alan, was that when serialising OWL 2 there would be a choice between the two options. don't think that would be the intention, and if so I strongly disagree
Ian Horrocks: what you said, alan, was that when serialising OWL 2 there would be a choice between the two options. don't think that would be the intention, and if so I strongly disagree ←
17:45:02 <m_schnei> +1 to deterministic. so serializing would bring *new* term, right. That's forward compatibility issue
Michael Schneider: +1 to deterministic. so serializing would bring *new* term, right. That's forward compatibility issue ←
17:45:19 <IanH> zakim, mute me
Ian Horrocks: zakim, mute me ←
17:45:19 <Zakim> IanH should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: IanH should now be muted ←
17:45:20 <Rinke> IanH: it would be definately the case loading an ontologiy in OWL1 tool won't work
Ian Horrocks: it would be definately the case loading an ontologiy in OWL1 tool won't work ←
17:45:42 <Rinke> alanr: there are other examples of this, aren't there?
Alan Ruttenberg: there are other examples of this, aren't there? ←
17:46:06 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
17:46:12 <alanr> ack ivan
Alan Ruttenberg: ack ivan ←
17:46:15 <Rinke> alanr: is the analogy correct, or is this a stronger issue?
Alan Ruttenberg: is the analogy correct, or is this a stronger issue? ←
17:47:07 <Rinke> ivan: IanH is right if the serialisation keeps to the new terminology only, however, if it uses the old vocab to stay compatible. We can use separate terms in RDF serialisation to remain compatible, and translate it back correctly to the FS
Ivan Herman: IanH is right if the serialisation keeps to the new terminology only, however, if it uses the old vocab to stay compatible. We can use separate terms in RDF serialisation to remain compatible, and translate it back correctly to the FS ←
17:47:17 <m_schnei> ah yes, i did not say enything about what *must* be serialized
Michael Schneider: ah yes, i did not say enything about what *must* be serialized ←
17:47:22 <Rinke> alanr: the old serialisation be used for the old cases, and the new be used for the new cases
Alan Ruttenberg: the old serialisation be used for the old cases, and the new be used for the new cases ←
17:47:35 <Rinke> ivan: if you write in rdf you have the choice of using both
Ivan Herman: if you write in rdf you have the choice of using both ←
17:48:00 <Rinke> ivan: indeed, if you write an OWL2 ontology in rdf, you might write something that won't work with an OWL1 environment
Ivan Herman: indeed, if you write an OWL2 ontology in rdf, you might write something that won't work with an OWL1 environment ←
17:48:14 <Rinke> alanr: the action on this would be a minor change to the reverse mapping, do I have that right peter?
Alan Ruttenberg: the action on this would be a minor change to the reverse mapping, do I have that right peter? ←
17:48:18 <Rinke> pfps: maybe
Peter Patel-Schneider: maybe ←
17:48:34 <m_schnei> right, this would only have a meaning for the reverse mapping
Michael Schneider: right, this would only have a meaning for the reverse mapping ←
17:48:37 <Rinke> alanr: if it is just a change to the reverse mapping to get this done, could we get a strawpoll?
Alan Ruttenberg: if it is just a change to the reverse mapping to get this done, could we get a strawpoll? ←
17:48:53 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
17:48:54 <m_schnei> 1
17:48:54 <pfps> -0.5
Peter Patel-Schneider: -0.5 ←
17:48:54 <Rinke> alanr: STRAWPOLL
Alan Ruttenberg: STRAWPOLL ←
17:48:56 <baojie> 0
17:48:59 <evrensirin> -0
Evren Sirin: -0 ←
17:48:59 <Zhe> 1
17:49:01 <Rinke> Rinke: +0.5
Rinke Hoekstra: +0.5 ←
17:49:04 <alanr> +.5
Alan Ruttenberg: +.5 ←
17:49:05 <uli> 0
Uli Sattler: 0 ←
17:49:06 <MarkusK> 0
Markus Krötzsch: 0 ←
17:49:07 <IanH> 0
Ian Horrocks: 0 ←
17:49:09 <bcuencagrau> 0
17:49:17 <Achille> 0
Achille Fokoue: 0 ←
17:49:41 <ivan> -1
Ivan Herman: -1 ←
17:49:42 <pfps> -1
17:49:42 <uli> -1
Uli Sattler: -1 ←
17:49:43 <evrensirin> -1
Evren Sirin: -1 ←
17:49:44 <Rinke> STRAWPOLL: if it's a more work, is it worth pursuing
STRAWPOLL: if it's a more work, is it worth pursuing ←
17:49:44 <IanH> -1
Ian Horrocks: -1 ←
17:49:46 <pfps> -1
17:49:48 <m_schnei> -1
Michael Schneider: -1 ←
17:49:49 <MarkusK> -1
Markus Krötzsch: -1 ←
17:49:50 <Rinke> Rinke: -1
Rinke Hoekstra: -1 ←
17:49:51 <alanr> -1
Alan Ruttenberg: -1 ←
17:49:56 <Zhe> -01
17:49:58 <Zhe> -1
17:50:26 <Rinke> alanr: would somebody be willing to have a look at the mapping to see what the change would have to be? So that we can at least make a decision based on the facts
Alan Ruttenberg: would somebody be willing to have a look at the mapping to see what the change would have to be? So that we can at least make a decision based on the facts ←
17:50:22 <IanH> Yes, Peter is willing to do that.
Ian Horrocks: Yes, Peter is willing to do that. ←
17:50:29 <Rinke> omit: s
17:50:36 <pfps> what, me override??
Peter Patel-Schneider: what, me override?? ←
17:50:45 <pfps> no
17:50:47 <Rinke> alanr: or, peter is your objection strong?
Alan Ruttenberg: or, peter is your objection strong? ←
17:50:51 <m_schnei> yes
Michael Schneider: yes ←
17:51:00 <m_schnei> I raised it. so I have to do it
Michael Schneider: I raised it. so I have to do it ←
17:51:05 <Rinke> alanr: would you be willing? m_schnei ?
Alan Ruttenberg: would you be willing? m_schnei ? ←
17:51:13 <alanr> action: m_schnei to look into reverse mapping change for issue 136
ACTION: m_schnei to look into reverse mapping change for ISSUE-136 ←
17:51:13 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - m_schnei
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - m_schnei ←
17:51:24 <m_schnei> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
17:51:29 <Rinke> action: michael to look into reverse mapping change for issue 136
ACTION: michael to look into reverse mapping change for ISSUE-136 ←
17:51:29 <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - michael
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - michael ←
17:51:29 <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. msmith9, mschneid, msintek)
Trackbot IRC Bot: Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. msmith9, mschneid, msintek) ←
17:51:31 <m_schnei> q-
Michael Schneider: q- ←
17:51:43 <Rinke> topic: General Discussion
17:52:01 <Rinke> alanr: two subjects, we can also spend some time on OWL RL
Alan Ruttenberg: two subjects, we can also spend some time on OWL RL ←
17:52:09 <Rinke> alanr: there's some mail traffic about annotations
Alan Ruttenberg: there's some mail traffic about annotations ←
17:52:09 <Rinke> subtopic: Annotations
17:52:32 <Rinke> alanr: we have quite a reasonable amount of annotations. We have a couple of priority features, on the list as being desirable
Alan Ruttenberg: we have quite a reasonable amount of annotations. We have a couple of priority features, on the list as being desirable ←
17:52:51 <Rinke> alanr: the subproperty relations between annotation properties and domains and ranges are not supported
Alan Ruttenberg: the subproperty relations between annotation properties and domains and ranges are not supported ←
17:53:05 <Rinke> alanr: also important to make SKOS compatible with OWL DL (as SKOS uses these)
Alan Ruttenberg: also important to make SKOS compatible with OWL DL (as SKOS uses these) ←
17:53:33 <Rinke> alanr: we have been postponing annotations until we got to the point that the generalised rich annotations aren't going to be there
Alan Ruttenberg: we have been postponing annotations until we got to the point that the generalised rich annotations aren't going to be there ←
17:54:08 <Rinke> alanr: one more thing, we had a discussion about this at F2F2 where it was thought that having RA's is good even if it affects the schedule
Alan Ruttenberg: one more thing, we had a discussion about this at F2F2 where it was thought that having RA's is good even if it affects the schedule ←
17:54:18 <Rinke> alanr: what ideas do we have for accommodating these features
Alan Ruttenberg: what ideas do we have for accommodating these features ←
17:54:18 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
17:54:31 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
17:54:45 <Rinke> alanr: put myself on the queue, offer some choices
Alan Ruttenberg: put myself on the queue, offer some choices ←
17:55:24 <Rinke> alanr: 1) use the mapping proposal that pfps and bijan were going to do. Fairly well specified, close to being able to do this... two ontologies coming out of the same ontology document (annotaiton ontology, and main ontology)
Alan Ruttenberg: 1) use the mapping proposal that pfps and bijan were going to do. Fairly well specified, close to being able to do this... two ontologies coming out of the same ontology document (annotaiton ontology, and main ontology) ←
17:55:44 <Rinke> alanr: we need new blood on this, will volunteer myself
Alan Ruttenberg: we need new blood on this, will volunteer myself ←
17:56:21 <Rinke> alanr: 2) how to support just these features without the generalised annotations which I think would require .... (?) ... from people more into DL.
Alan Ruttenberg: 2) how to support just these features without the generalised annotations which I think would require .... (?) ... from people more into DL. ←
17:56:52 <Rinke> alanr: global domain and range restrictions, having ... work with that
Alan Ruttenberg: global domain and range restrictions, having ... work with that ←
17:56:59 <Rinke> omit: i can hear now
17:57:04 <Zhe> q+
17:57:10 <Zhe> zakim, unmute me
17:57:10 <Zakim> Zhe should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Zhe should no longer be muted ←
17:57:15 <alanr> not use annotations in restrictions
Alan Ruttenberg: not use annotations in restrictions ←
17:57:16 <pfps> q+
17:57:28 <Rinke> Zhe: isn't there another option not to spec it at all
Zhe Wu: isn't there another option not to spec it at all ←
17:57:54 <Rinke> alanr: that is a proposal that has been ... it's a very longstanding request
Alan Ruttenberg: that is a proposal that has been ... it's a very longstanding request ←
17:57:55 <alanr> ack alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: ack alanr ←
17:57:58 <alanr> ack Zhe
Alan Ruttenberg: ack Zhe ←
17:58:26 <Rinke> Zhe: to us this is very complex and hard to implement this in a scalable fashion. Unlikely that we will be able to support this
Zhe Wu: to us this is very complex and hard to implement this in a scalable fashion. Unlikely that we will be able to support this ←
17:58:28 <alanr> ack pfps
Alan Ruttenberg: ack pfps ←
17:58:37 <pfps> +1 to Zhe
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to Zhe ←
17:58:56 <Rinke> pfps: I put myself on to agree with Zhe
Peter Patel-Schneider: I put myself on to agree with Zhe ←
17:59:18 <IanH> q+
Ian Horrocks: q+ ←
17:59:27 <IanH> zakim, unmute me
Ian Horrocks: zakim, unmute me ←
17:59:27 <Zakim> IanH should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: IanH should no longer be muted ←
17:59:28 <alanr> ack Ian
Alan Ruttenberg: ack Ian ←
17:59:34 <Rinke> alanr: mixed properties, if you didn't allow annotations in restrictions whether subproperties became possible (question to uli)
Alan Ruttenberg: mixed properties, if you didn't allow annotations in restrictions whether subproperties became possible (question to uli) ←
18:00:29 <alanr> q+ alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ alanr ←
18:00:33 <alanr> ack alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: ack alanr ←
18:00:39 <uli> q+
Uli Sattler: q+ ←
18:00:39 <Rinke> IanH: thinking of what Zhe said... what he said was not spec it, basically you could achieve most of what you want to achieve already with the current features. One options is not to spec it, in the sense that you do not include it in a MUST be supported part of the spec. To not force people like Zhe to implement it
Ian Horrocks: thinking of what Zhe said... what he said was not spec it, basically you could achieve most of what you want to achieve already with the current features. One options is not to spec it, in the sense that you do not include it in a MUST be supported part of the spec. To not force people like Zhe to implement it ←
18:00:59 <Rinke> alanr: that's the same strategy as with n-ary. If you're going to do it, then this is the way to do it
Alan Ruttenberg: that's the same strategy as with n-ary. If you're going to do it, then this is the way to do it ←
18:01:03 <pfps> q+
18:01:05 <uli> zakum, unmute me
Uli Sattler: zakum, unmute me ←
18:01:06 <alanr> ack uli
Alan Ruttenberg: ack uli ←
18:01:11 <Rinke> alanr: not fond of this, in my experience they don't come to be
Alan Ruttenberg: not fond of this, in my experience they don't come to be ←
18:01:38 <alanr> Missing: Subproperties on annotations, domains and ranges of them.
Alan Ruttenberg: Missing: Subproperties on annotations, domains and ranges of them. ←
18:02:27 <evrensirin> +1 for Uli
Evren Sirin: +1 for Uli ←
18:02:28 <Rinke> uli: we now have a large proposal that allows almost anything users have asked for. Like zhe said, we wouldn't explain what has to be done about them. This is where bijan's proposal slightly fell over. Now I'm guessing, but we could even put in there that some property could be a subproperty of an annotation property.... you'd be fine
Uli Sattler: we now have a large proposal that allows almost anything users have asked for. Like zhe said, we wouldn't explain what has to be done about them. This is where bijan's proposal slightly fell over. Now I'm guessing, but we could even put in there that some property could be a subproperty of an annotation property.... you'd be fine ←
18:02:39 <IanH> The other trouble with rich annotations is that there are *many* ways that it could be done; it's not at all clear which is the right one; there is *zero* implementation experience.
Ian Horrocks: The other trouble with rich annotations is that there are *many* ways that it could be done; it's not at all clear which is the right one; there is *zero* implementation experience. ←
18:02:46 <Rinke> alanr: you could have an *optional* specification, but a full specification?
Alan Ruttenberg: you could have an *optional* specification, but a full specification? ←
18:02:57 <Rinke> uli: we don't even need to spec this, it's already almost in there
Uli Sattler: we don't even need to spec this, it's already almost in there ←
18:03:09 <Zhe> q+
18:03:18 <alanr> ack pfps
Alan Ruttenberg: ack pfps ←
18:03:19 <Rinke> alanr: if we don't spec things, they're not really there. Experience with optional... not a raging succes
Alan Ruttenberg: if we don't spec things, they're not really there. Experience with optional... not a raging succes ←
18:03:24 <Rinke> uli: peter will clarify
Uli Sattler: peter will clarify ←
18:03:25 <uli> zakum, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakum, mute me ←
18:03:51 <IanH> +1 -- as I said above
Ian Horrocks: +1 -- as I said above ←
18:03:52 <alanr> We're behind
Alan Ruttenberg: We're behind ←
18:04:13 <uli> +1 to Peter
Uli Sattler: +1 to Peter ←
18:04:14 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
18:04:15 <Rinke> pfps: I agree with uli, it is premature to state how these things should be use. I don't see any significant usage and processing model. Why are we running so far ahead on something that is primarily a tool issue. Let's put it in the spec, and see what the tools do
Peter Patel-Schneider: I agree with uli, it is premature to state how these things should be use. I don't see any significant usage and processing model. Why are we running so far ahead on something that is primarily a tool issue. Let's put it in the spec, and see what the tools do ←
18:04:18 <Rinke> Rinke: +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
18:04:35 <alanr> no body *can* do it
Alan Ruttenberg: no body *can* do it ←
18:04:39 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
18:04:40 <Rinke> pfps: nobody's doing it yet, why force it on them?
Peter Patel-Schneider: nobody's doing it yet, why force it on them? ←
18:04:43 <alanr> Ack Zhe
Alan Ruttenberg: Ack Zhe ←
18:05:03 <Rinke> Zhe: i truly agree with peter. Annotatiosn on annotations are just too complex for ordinary users.
Zhe Wu: i truly agree with peter. Annotatiosn on annotations are just too complex for ordinary users. ←
18:05:14 <alanr> ack zhe
Alan Ruttenberg: ack zhe ←
18:05:38 <Rinke> alanr: we're not actually talking about annotations on annotations. We're talking about features already possible in OWL RL
Alan Ruttenberg: we're not actually talking about annotations on annotations. We're talking about features already possible in OWL RL ←
18:06:14 <Rinke> alanr: subproperties of annotations etc. That's more crucial: we really only need one level of annotations on annotations, but we've also got clear cases for subproperties and domain/ranges
Alan Ruttenberg: subproperties of annotations etc. That's more crucial: we really only need one level of annotations on annotations, but we've also got clear cases for subproperties and domain/ranges ←
18:06:23 <Rinke> alanr: both historically and now with SKOS
Alan Ruttenberg: both historically and now with SKOS ←
18:06:36 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
18:06:43 <Rinke> Zhe: for that kind of simple things, developers can do it in their applications instead of putting it in the spec.
Zhe Wu: for that kind of simple things, developers can do it in their applications instead of putting it in the spec. ←
18:07:09 <Rinke> alanr: well, I guess, don't know why this is true on this and not on other parts of the spec
Alan Ruttenberg: well, I guess, don't know why this is true on this and not on other parts of the spec ←
18:07:15 <pfps> q+
18:07:17 <m_schnei> I just created ACTION-193: "m_schnei to look into reverse mapping change for issue 136"
Michael Schneider: I just created ACTION-193: "m_schnei to look into reverse mapping change for ISSUE-136" ←
18:07:19 <alanr> ack alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: ack alanr ←
18:07:30 <Rinke> alanr: the things I'm suggesting are already going to be in OWL RL. I am proposing to have them in OWL DL
Alan Ruttenberg: the things I'm suggesting are already going to be in OWL RL. I am proposing to have them in OWL DL ←
18:07:51 <Rinke> pfps: skos:prefLabel subproperty of rdfs:label going to be in OWL RL?
Peter Patel-Schneider: skos:prefLabel subproperty of rdfs:label going to be in OWL RL? ←
18:08:16 <Rinke> Zhe: isnt RL in DL?
18:08:24 <Rinke> alanr: no, because we're talking annotation properties here
Alan Ruttenberg: no, because we're talking annotation properties here ←
18:08:46 <Rinke> pfps: omit: skos:prefLabel subproperty of rdfs:label going to be in OWL RL?
Peter Patel-Schneider: omit: skos:prefLabel subproperty of rdfs:label going to be in OWL RL? ←
18:08:55 <Rinke> alanr: next subject
Alan Ruttenberg: next subject ←
18:09:10 <Rinke> subtopic: Conformance, Warnings, Errors
18:09:22 <Rinke> alanr: I guess there was some discussion on this last week
Alan Ruttenberg: I guess there was some discussion on this last week ←
18:09:38 <Rinke> alanr: two aspects, 1) what it means to be conformant/compliant OWL RL implementation
Alan Ruttenberg: two aspects, 1) what it means to be conformant/compliant OWL RL implementation ←
18:09:51 <Rinke> alanr: ian responded... we haven't discussed this
Alan Ruttenberg: ian responded... we haven't discussed this ←
18:10:04 <Rinke> alanr: 2) what to do, should there be an error, or 'it should not be the case that'
Alan Ruttenberg: 2) what to do, should there be an error, or 'it should not be the case that' ←
18:10:19 <Rinke> alanr: we don't have mike and bijan here who have been thinking the most about this
Alan Ruttenberg: we don't have mike and bijan here who have been thinking the most about this ←
18:10:22 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
18:10:25 <Rinke> alanr: start the discussion nonetheless
Alan Ruttenberg: start the discussion nonetheless ←
18:10:32 <pfps> q-
18:10:49 <IanH> q+
Ian Horrocks: q+ ←
18:10:54 <alanr> ack Ian
Alan Ruttenberg: ack Ian ←
18:11:03 <Rinke> alanr: what wording would we use to say what a compliant RL implementation
Alan Ruttenberg: what wording would we use to say what a compliant RL implementation ←
18:11:15 <Rinke> IanH: you picked the hardest case now on discussion
Ian Horrocks: you picked the hardest case now on discussion ←
18:11:24 <alanr> pointer?
Alan Ruttenberg: pointer? ←
18:11:27 <Rinke> IanH: look at existing owl test document. there's a section on conformance
Ian Horrocks: look at existing owl test document. there's a section on conformance ←
18:11:38 <Rinke> IanH: on parser, fragment, profile, reasoner and so on
Ian Horrocks: on parser, fragment, profile, reasoner and so on ←
18:11:55 <Rinke> IanH: we need something relatively similar to that. for most of the fragments/profiles that's relatively straightforward
Ian Horrocks: we need something relatively similar to that. for most of the fragments/profiles that's relatively straightforward ←
18:12:05 <Rinke> IanH: we can copy and paste what it says there
Ian Horrocks: we can copy and paste what it says there ←
18:12:22 <Rinke> IanH: where should it go? And OWL RL is slightly more complicated
Ian Horrocks: where should it go? And OWL RL is slightly more complicated ←
18:13:08 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#scope
Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#scope ←
18:13:22 <Rinke> IanH: I'm happy to discuss...in a way if people haven't looked at the old test document, I don't know whether having a discussion is very useful
Ian Horrocks: I'm happy to discuss...in a way if people haven't looked at the old test document, I don't know whether having a discussion is very useful ←
18:13:24 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#conformance
Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#conformance ←
18:13:35 <Rinke> omit: s/usefull/useful
18:13:47 <ivan> I think that the one, Alan
Ivan Herman: I think that the one, Alan ←
18:14:13 <Rinke> alanr: these are phrased in terms of consistency with respect to a datatype map, where the map is a variable. Is that still relevant?
Alan Ruttenberg: these are phrased in terms of consistency with respect to a datatype map, where the map is a variable. Is that still relevant? ←
18:14:31 <Rinke> IanH: we can tighten this up, because we're going into a lot more detail wrt. the datatype map
Ian Horrocks: we can tighten this up, because we're going into a lot more detail wrt. the datatype map ←
18:14:42 <Rinke> IanH: that makes things a lot easier. The flavour would still be the same
Ian Horrocks: that makes things a lot easier. The flavour would still be the same ←
18:14:52 <Rinke> alanr: thinking of actions on getting things going
Alan Ruttenberg: thinking of actions on getting things going ←
18:15:06 <Rinke> alanr: for the owl RL completeness is a different question than for owl DL
Alan Ruttenberg: for the owl RL completeness is a different question than for owl DL ←
18:15:32 <Rinke> IanH: owl RL completeness, there's a discussion going on there now, not keen on saying whats 'proposed'
Ian Horrocks: owl RL completeness, there's a discussion going on there now, not keen on saying whats 'proposed' ←
18:15:54 <Zhe> q+
18:16:05 <Rinke> IanH: for OWL RL there would be a conformance statement, and the OWL RL one might be a slightly different form than the others if one of the current proposals will be accepted
Ian Horrocks: for OWL RL there would be a conformance statement, and the OWL RL one might be a slightly different form than the others if one of the current proposals will be accepted ←
18:16:08 <alanr> ack Zhe
Alan Ruttenberg: ack Zhe ←
18:16:56 <Rinke> Zhe: vendor perspective. The bare minimum that we can accept, if we implement the set of rules as in the spec, we must be able to claim that we are OWL RL compliant. Independent of how we define completeness
Zhe Wu: vendor perspective. The bare minimum that we can accept, if we implement the set of rules as in the spec, we must be able to claim that we are OWL RL compliant. Independent of how we define completeness ←
18:17:07 <IanH> Understood -- this is the intention.
Ian Horrocks: Understood -- this is the intention. ←
18:17:14 <uli> ...there is an ongoing discussion
Uli Sattler: ...there is an ongoing discussion ←
18:17:15 <Rinke> alanr: anybody working on this right now? do we have any actions?
Alan Ruttenberg: anybody working on this right now? do we have any actions? ←
18:17:45 <Rinke> alanr: sufficient to put together a proposal to get a section started on this
Alan Ruttenberg: sufficient to put together a proposal to get a section started on this ←
18:17:50 <Rinke> IanH: I'm willing to draft a proposal
Ian Horrocks: I'm willing to draft a proposal ←
18:17:55 <Rinke> alanr: I'll action you
Alan Ruttenberg: I'll action you ←
18:17:59 <alanr> Action: Ian to come up with a proposal for conformance
ACTION: Ian to come up with a proposal for conformance ←
18:17:59 <trackbot> Created ACTION-194 - Come up with a proposal for conformance [on Ian Horrocks - due 2008-08-20].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-194 - Come up with a proposal for conformance [on Ian Horrocks - due 2008-08-20]. ←
18:18:18 <Rinke> IanH: don't think its' all that difficult/controversion (except perhaps the RL debate)
Ian Horrocks: don't think its' all that difficult/controversion (except perhaps the RL debate) ←
18:18:33 <Rinke> subtopic: ISSUE-137
18:18:42 <Rinke> alanr: any questions about it?
Alan Ruttenberg: any questions about it? ←
18:19:18 <Rinke> alanr: in owl 1 you could use rdfs:Class as long as the entity is an owl:Class somewhere in the imports closure
Alan Ruttenberg: in owl 1 you could use rdfs:Class as long as the entity is an owl:Class somewhere in the imports closure ←
18:19:29 <Rinke> alanr: in owl 2 these should be in the *same* document.
Alan Ruttenberg: in owl 2 these should be in the *same* document. ←
18:19:34 <Rinke> omit: s/shoul/should
18:20:02 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
18:20:05 <Rinke> alanr: the simplest repair would be to not have it be that you not have rdfs:Class triples on their own
Alan Ruttenberg: the simplest repair would be to not have it be that you not have rdfs:Class triples on their own ←
18:20:15 <Rinke> alanr: peter is working on that
Alan Ruttenberg: peter is working on that ←
18:20:23 <Rinke> alanr: do you agree this is the simplest repair?
Alan Ruttenberg: do you agree this is the simplest repair? ←
18:20:35 <Rinke> pfps: it's indeed a backwards compatibility issue, but not simple
Peter Patel-Schneider: it's indeed a backwards compatibility issue, but not simple ←
18:20:56 <Rinke> alanr: what are the issues?
Alan Ruttenberg: what are the issues? ←
18:21:15 <Rinke> pfps: the whole structure of the reverse mapping works on documents, as far as I remember
Peter Patel-Schneider: the whole structure of the reverse mapping works on documents, as far as I remember ←
18:21:21 <Rinke> pfps: let me see
Peter Patel-Schneider: let me see ←
18:21:30 <Rinke> pfps: dedadedadeda
Peter Patel-Schneider: dedadedadeda ←
18:21:34 <Rinke> pfps: diededie
Peter Patel-Schneider: diededie ←
18:21:36 <alanr> My proposal: Reverse mapping removes any occurrance of :foo rdf:type rdfs:Class
Alan Ruttenberg: My proposal: Reverse mapping removes any occurrance of :foo rdf:type rdfs:Class ←
18:22:11 <Rinke> pfps: either the reverse mapping works on graphs (then a lot of changes) in a single document, or it works on multiple graphs in multiple documents
Peter Patel-Schneider: either the reverse mapping works on graphs (then a lot of changes) in a single document, or it works on multiple graphs in multiple documents ←
18:22:28 <Rinke> pfps: if it works on single documents, then major changes need to be made
Peter Patel-Schneider: if it works on single documents, then major changes need to be made ←
18:22:34 <IanH> zakim, mute me
Ian Horrocks: zakim, mute me ←
18:22:34 <Zakim> IanH should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: IanH should now be muted ←
18:22:35 <m_schnei> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
18:22:39 <Rinke> alanr: what about simply removing all rdfs:Class
Alan Ruttenberg: what about simply removing all rdfs:Class ←
18:22:40 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
18:22:40 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should no longer be muted ←
18:22:40 <alanr> ack m_schei
Alan Ruttenberg: ack m_schei ←
18:23:19 <Rinke> m_schnei: i didn't look at your problem. I checked the mapping some weeks ago. there's a table with reverse mapping where these rdfs:Classes exist in an old ontology.
Michael Schneider: i didn't look at your problem. I checked the mapping some weeks ago. there's a table with reverse mapping where these rdfs:Classes exist in an old ontology. ←
18:23:45 <pfps> q+
18:23:53 <alanr> ack m_schnei
Alan Ruttenberg: ack m_schnei ←
18:23:56 <alanr> ack pfps
Alan Ruttenberg: ack pfps ←
18:24:06 <Rinke> alanr: when you see (table 4) rdfs:Class and type owlClass both, then you remove the rdfsClass. I propose to change the mapping to also remove the rdfsClass if it's on its own
Alan Ruttenberg: when you see (table 4) rdfs:Class and type owlClass both, then you remove the rdfsClass. I propose to change the mapping to also remove the rdfsClass if it's on its own ←
18:24:15 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
18:24:15 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should now be muted ←
18:24:21 <Rinke> pfps: indeed technically easy, but whether it's the right thing to do is an entirely different manner
Peter Patel-Schneider: indeed technically easy, but whether it's the right thing to do is an entirely different manner ←
18:24:27 <Rinke> pfps: it's the wrong thing to do
Peter Patel-Schneider: it's the wrong thing to do ←
18:24:40 <Rinke> pfps: because you might take documents .... eh... that's a good question
Peter Patel-Schneider: because you might take documents .... eh... that's a good question ←
18:24:46 <Rinke> pfps: dudeduh
Peter Patel-Schneider: dudeduh ←
18:25:10 <Rinke> pfps: I fear that you may do fairly drastic surgery to the status of certain documents
Peter Patel-Schneider: I fear that you may do fairly drastic surgery to the status of certain documents ←
18:25:40 <Rinke> alanr: action, to see what/how.. anytime before going to last call
Alan Ruttenberg: action, to see what/how.. anytime before going to last call ←
18:25:56 <Rinke> alanr: we need to close it, look into it
Alan Ruttenberg: we need to close it, look into it ←
18:26:34 <Rinke> pfps: we have looked into it, don't believe it ever occurred in existing ontologies. It's a minor backward compatibility issue that the chairs will have to mention somewhere
Peter Patel-Schneider: we have looked into it, don't believe it ever occurred in existing ontologies. It's a minor backward compatibility issue that the chairs will have to mention somewhere ←
18:27:05 <Rinke> alanr: let's think on this, and if you feel like looking more closely ... if not, perhaps someone else?
Alan Ruttenberg: let's think on this, and if you feel like looking more closely ... if not, perhaps someone else? ←
18:27:13 <Rinke> topic: AAB?
18:27:25 <Rinke> ADJOURNED
ADJOURNED ←
18:27:25 <Zhe> omit: thanks.
18:27:28 <m_schnei> omit: bye
18:27:29 <Zakim> -uli
Zakim IRC Bot: -uli ←
18:27:29 <calvanese> omit: bye, thank you
18:27:30 <Zakim> -alanr
Zakim IRC Bot: -alanr ←
18:27:30 <Zakim> -Achille
Zakim IRC Bot: -Achille ←
18:27:31 <Zakim> -MarkusK
Zakim IRC Bot: -MarkusK ←
18:27:32 <Zakim> -IanH
Zakim IRC Bot: -IanH ←
18:27:32 <Rinke> omit: bye, thanks
18:27:33 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
18:27:34 <Zakim> -Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: -Zhe ←
18:27:36 <Zakim> -evrensirin
Zakim IRC Bot: -evrensirin ←
18:27:38 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: -Peter_Patel-Schneider ←
18:27:40 <Zakim> -calvanese
Zakim IRC Bot: -calvanese ←
18:27:41 <Zakim> -Rinke
Zakim IRC Bot: -Rinke ←
18:27:51 <calvanese> omit: quit
18:27:53 <Zakim> -baojie
Zakim IRC Bot: -baojie ←
18:27:54 <alanr> omit: Action: Alan to look in to what happens with OWL-RL ruleset applied to annotation properties with subproperty axioms
18:27:54 <trackbot> omit: Created ACTION-195 - Look in to what happens with OWL-RL ruleset applied to annotation properties with subproperty axioms [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-08-20].
18:28:00 <alanr> omit: s/OWL-R/OWL-RL/
18:28:17 <Rinke> RRSAgent, pointer?
RRSAgent, pointer? ←
18:28:17 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/08/13-owl-irc#T18-28-17
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/08/13-owl-irc#T18-28-17 ←
18:28:45 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
Zakim IRC Bot: -bcuencagrau ←
18:28:47 <Zakim> -m_schnei
Zakim IRC Bot: -m_schnei ←
18:28:47 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended ←
18:28:48 <Zakim> Attendees were Rinke, calvanese, bcuencagrau, alanr, MarkusK, Achille, Zhe, Ivan, uli, IanH, Peter_Patel-Schneider, +1.202.408.aaaa, baojie, +1.202.408.aabb, m_schnei,
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Rinke, calvanese, bcuencagrau, alanr, MarkusK, Achille, Zhe, Ivan, uli, IanH, Peter_Patel-Schneider, +1.202.408.aaaa, baojie, +1.202.408.aabb, m_schnei, ←
18:28:51 <Zakim> ... +1.202.408.aacc, evrensirin
Zakim IRC Bot: ... +1.202.408.aacc, evrensirin ←
This revision (#2) generated 2008-08-14 13:39:08 UTC by 'rhoekstr', comments: "Added scribe's name to votes, removed action issued after adjournment "