00:00:00 <scribenick> PRESENT: Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, MartinD (muted), uli (muted), IanH, Sandro, bcuencagrau, JeffP, bmotik (muted), ivan, ewallace, baojie, Zhe, m_schnei, bparsia
16:45:50 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/03-owl-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/03-owl-irc ←
16:46:26 <IanH> IanH has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.09.03/Agenda
Ian Horrocks: IanH has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.09.03/Agenda ←
16:46:50 <IanH> Zakim, this will be owlwg
Ian Horrocks: Zakim, this will be owlwg ←
16:46:50 <Zakim> ok, IanH; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 14 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, IanH; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 14 minutes ←
16:47:03 <IanH> RRSAgent, make records public
Ian Horrocks: RRSAgent, make records public ←
16:58:07 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
(No events recorded for 11 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started ←
16:58:12 <Zakim> +msmith
Zakim IRC Bot: +msmith ←
16:58:15 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: +Peter_Patel-Schneider ←
16:59:24 <Zakim> + +0190827aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +0190827aaaa ←
16:59:28 <MartinD> zakim, aaaa is me
Martin Dzbor: zakim, aaaa is me ←
16:59:28 <Zakim> +MartinD; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MartinD; got it ←
16:59:32 <Zakim> +??P4
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4 ←
16:59:35 <MartinD> zakim, mute me
Martin Dzbor: zakim, mute me ←
16:59:35 <Zakim> MartinD should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MartinD should now be muted ←
16:59:40 <uli> zakim, ??P4 is me
Uli Sattler: zakim, ??P4 is me ←
16:59:40 <Zakim> +uli; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +uli; got it ←
16:59:44 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
16:59:44 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
16:59:55 <uli> scribenick uli
Uli Sattler: scribenick uli ←
17:00:39 <uli> scribenick: uli
(Scribe set to Uli Sattler)
17:00:44 <Zakim> +IanH
Zakim IRC Bot: +IanH ←
17:00:57 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
17:00:57 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, MartinD (muted), uli (muted), IanH
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, MartinD (muted), uli (muted), IanH ←
17:01:00 <Zakim> On IRC I see JeffP, bcuencagrau, sandro, pfps, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, bmotik, MartinD, ewallace, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see JeffP, bcuencagrau, sandro, pfps, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, bmotik, MartinD, ewallace, trackbot ←
17:01:06 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
17:01:10 <uli> ScribeNick: uli
17:01:40 <Zakim> +??P13
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P13 ←
17:01:44 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, ??P13 is me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, ??P13 is me ←
17:01:44 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bcuencagrau; got it ←
17:02:01 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
17:02:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, MartinD (muted), uli (muted), IanH, Sandro, bcuencagrau
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, MartinD (muted), uli (muted), IanH, Sandro, bcuencagrau ←
17:02:03 <Zakim> On IRC I see ivan, JeffP, bcuencagrau, sandro, pfps, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, bmotik, MartinD, ewallace, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see ivan, JeffP, bcuencagrau, sandro, pfps, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, bmotik, MartinD, ewallace, trackbot ←
17:02:05 <Zakim> +StuartTaylor
Zakim IRC Bot: +StuartTaylor ←
17:02:16 <Zakim> +??P15
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P15 ←
17:02:16 <JeffP> zakim, StuartTaylor is me
Jeff Pan: zakim, StuartTaylor is me ←
17:02:17 <Zakim> +JeffP; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +JeffP; got it ←
17:02:22 <bmotik> Zakim. ??P15 is me
Boris Motik: Zakim. ??P15 is me ←
17:02:26 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P15 is me
Boris Motik: Zakim, ??P15 is me ←
17:02:26 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bmotik; got it ←
17:02:32 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
17:02:32 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
17:02:34 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
17:02:34 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, MartinD (muted), uli (muted), IanH, Sandro, bcuencagrau, JeffP, bmotik (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, MartinD (muted), uli (muted), IanH, Sandro, bcuencagrau, JeffP, bmotik (muted) ←
17:02:36 <Zakim> On IRC I see ivan, JeffP, bcuencagrau, sandro, pfps, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, bmotik, MartinD, ewallace, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see ivan, JeffP, bcuencagrau, sandro, pfps, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, bmotik, MartinD, ewallace, trackbot ←
17:02:59 <ivan> zakim, code?
Ivan Herman: zakim, code? ←
17:02:59 <Zakim> the conference code is 69594 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 69594 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), ivan ←
17:02:59 <uli> sure
sure ←
17:03:29 <uli> Topic: Admin
17:03:29 <uli> subtopic: Agenda Amendments
17:03:34 <uli> none
none ←
17:03:44 <Zakim> +Danny
Zakim IRC Bot: +Danny ←
17:03:48 <uli> subtopic: Previous minutes
17:03:50 <ivan> zakim, Danny is ivan
Ivan Herman: zakim, Danny is ivan ←
17:03:50 <Zakim> +ivan; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ivan; got it ←
17:03:51 <Zakim> +baojie
Zakim IRC Bot: +baojie ←
17:03:54 <pfps> minutes look fine to me
Peter Patel-Schneider: minutes look fine to me ←
17:04:18 <uli> IanH: minutes accepted
Ian Horrocks: minutes accepted ←
17:04:22 <Zakim> +Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: +Zhe ←
17:04:27 <Zhe> zakim, mute me
17:04:27 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Zhe should now be muted ←
17:04:33 <uli> subtopic: Pending actions
17:04:43 <pfps> q+
17:04:55 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:04:59 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
17:05:35 <uli> pfps: action 182 and 183 have emty bodies
Peter Patel-Schneider: ACTION-182 and 183 have emty bodies ←
17:05:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:05:44 <uli> s/emty/empty
s/emty/empty ←
17:05:58 <uli> IanH: something should be done
Ian Horrocks: something should be done ←
17:05:59 <baojie> +q
17:06:11 <uli> pfps: or we say now that they are done
Peter Patel-Schneider: or we say now that they are done ←
17:06:37 <uli> IanH: we agree that action 182 and 183 are done, even though their bodies are empty
Ian Horrocks: we agree that ACTION-182 and 183 are done, even though their bodies are empty ←
17:06:48 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:06:58 <IanH> ack baojie
Ian Horrocks: ack baojie ←
17:07:09 <uli> baojie: there is an incomplete version on the wiki
Jie Bao: there is an incomplete version on the wiki ←
17:07:35 <uli> IanH: asks for a pointer to this version
Ian Horrocks: asks for a pointer to this version ←
17:07:42 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:07:42 <pfps> q+
17:08:03 <uli> I will run down the corridor and remind bijan
I will run down the corridor and remind bijan ←
17:08:32 <baojie> A incomplete pdf of Quick Reference Guide: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Image:Owl2-refcard_2008-08-19.pdf
Jie Bao: A incomplete pdf of Quick Reference Guide: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Image:Owl2-refcard_2008-08-19.pdf ←
17:08:40 <baojie> s/A/An
17:08:47 <uli> back!
back! ←
17:08:57 <uli> i think so
i think so ←
17:09:13 <uli> IanH: action 150
17:09:22 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:09:28 <pfps> q-
17:09:34 <uli> baojie: we have come to a conclusion, so it should be done
Jie Bao: we have come to a conclusion, so it should be done ←
17:09:52 <baojie> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0019.html
Jie Bao: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0019.html ←
17:10:02 <uli> ...we changed the ?? specification
...we changed the ?? specification ←
17:10:42 <uli> IanH: can you come forward with a proposal re. internationalized string?
Ian Horrocks: can you come forward with a proposal re. internationalized string? ←
17:10:44 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
17:10:50 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me ←
17:10:50 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted ←
17:10:58 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:11:07 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
17:11:18 <uli> bmotik: I think there is a draft with the basics
Boris Motik: I think there is a draft with the basics ←
17:11:24 <baojie> preliminary spec: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec
Jie Bao: preliminary spec: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec ←
17:11:56 <pfps> what is the status of the wiki page, and what should happen to it?
Peter Patel-Schneider: what is the status of the wiki page, and what should happen to it? ←
17:12:01 <uli> IanH: who take care of looking at this spec and see how we modify ours?
Ian Horrocks: who take care of looking at this spec and see how we modify ours? ←
17:12:06 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:12:15 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
17:12:17 <uli> ACTION: bmotik to modify OWL spec accordingly
ACTION: bmotik to modify OWL spec accordingly ←
17:12:17 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - bmotik
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - bmotik ←
17:12:25 <Zakim> +??P21
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P21 ←
17:12:28 <bmotik> ACTION: bmotik2 to modify OWL spec accordingly
ACTION: bmotik2 to modify OWL spec accordingly ←
17:12:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-206 - Modify OWL spec accordingly [on Boris Motik - due 2008-09-10].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-206 - Modify OWL spec accordingly [on Boris Motik - due 2008-09-10]. ←
17:12:36 <m_schnei> zakim, ??P21 is me
Michael Schneider: zakim, ??P21 is me ←
17:12:36 <Zakim> +m_schnei; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +m_schnei; got it ←
17:12:40 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:12:40 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should now be muted ←
17:12:41 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
17:12:43 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:12:45 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me ←
17:12:45 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should now be muted ←
17:12:53 <uli> pfps: it would be odd if, in our spec, we would point to a wiki page
Peter Patel-Schneider: it would be odd if, in our spec, we would point to a wiki page ←
17:13:16 <uli> sandro: we could publsih the (content of) wiki as a working draft
Sandro Hawke: we could publsih the (content of) wiki as a working draft ←
17:13:32 <uli> IanH: as a RIF or as an OWL publication?
Ian Horrocks: as a RIF or as an OWL publication? ←
17:13:34 <ivan> can be a joined
Ivan Herman: can be a joined ←
17:13:35 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:13:41 <sandro> sandro: I think it's OKAY as long we're only making the reference from a WD (pre-LC). Maybe we should make it a WD?
Sandro Hawke: I think it's OKAY as long we're only making the reference from a WD (pre-LC). Maybe we should make it a WD? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:13:42 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
17:13:43 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
17:14:17 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:14:19 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
17:14:28 <uli> bmotik: we make the draft a WD and then reference it
Boris Motik: we make the draft a WD and then reference it ←
17:14:54 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:15:04 <uli> ivan: I had a look at this and it looks as if its publication shouldn't cause any problems.
Ivan Herman: I had a look at this and it looks as if its publication shouldn't cause any problems. ←
17:15:18 <uli> ivan: we can even have a joint RIF/OWL publication
Ivan Herman: we can even have a joint RIF/OWL publication ←
17:16:04 <uli> ACTION: sandro to take this publication plan forward
ACTION: sandro to take this publication plan forward ←
17:16:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-207 - Take this publication plan forward [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-09-10].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-207 - Take this publication plan forward [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-09-10]. ←
17:16:21 <uli> (I chose sandro already - he said 'yes' first)
(I chose sandro already - he said 'yes' first) ←
17:16:26 <uli> wellcome, ivan
wellcome, ivan ←
17:16:35 <Zakim> +??P22
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P22 ←
17:16:46 <bparsia> zakim, ??p22 is me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, ??p22 is me ←
17:16:46 <Zakim> +bparsia; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bparsia; got it ←
17:16:50 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
17:16:50 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
17:16:57 <msmith> q+
Mike Smith: q+ ←
17:17:02 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:17:03 <uli> IanH: action 192 re. UNA and OWL QL has been done as seen in an email
Ian Horrocks: ACTION-192 re. UNA and OWL QL has been done as seen in an email ←
17:17:07 <IanH> ack msmith
Ian Horrocks: ack msmith ←
17:17:14 <uli> msmith: yes, we can close that one
Mike Smith: yes, we can close that one ←
17:17:29 <pfps> The consensus should result in a discussion / resolution agenda item for next week.
Peter Patel-Schneider: The consensus should result in a discussion / resolution agenda item for next week. ←
17:17:44 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:17:54 <uli> IanH: action 202 must wait for next week, as must 172
Ian Horrocks: ACTION-202 must wait for next week, as must 172 ←
17:18:09 <uli> IanH: I will chase Achille re. 172
Ian Horrocks: I will chase Achille re. 172 ←
17:18:13 <bparsia> I've had no action joy this week
Bijan Parsia: I've had no action joy this week ←
17:18:32 <uli> IanH: action 168 has been on for some time
Ian Horrocks: ACTION-168 has been on for some time ←
17:18:37 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:18:41 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
17:18:41 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should no longer be muted ←
17:18:59 <uli> q+
q+ ←
17:19:05 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:19:20 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
17:19:20 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
17:19:24 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:19:25 <uli> zakim, unmute me
zakim, unmute me ←
17:19:25 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should no longer be muted ←
17:19:29 <IanH> ack uli
Ian Horrocks: ack uli ←
17:20:07 <bparsia> works for me!
Bijan Parsia: works for me! ←
17:20:23 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
17:20:23 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should no longer be muted ←
17:20:27 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:20:38 <uli> bparsia: have done some testing, am waiting for Robert
Bijan Parsia: have done some testing, am waiting for Robert ←
17:21:01 <uli> uli: perhaps we should see whether there is some w3c official route and not bother Robert
Uli Sattler: perhaps we should see whether there is some w3c official route and not bother Robert ←
17:21:23 <uli> bparsia: there are some easy problems, e.g., diagrams not alt-ed correctly
Bijan Parsia: there are some easy problems, e.g., diagrams not alt-ed correctly ←
17:21:33 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:21:49 <uli> sandro: doesn't know of official w3c 'route'
Sandro Hawke: doesn't know of official w3c 'route' ←
17:22:15 <uli> bparsia: we could do a proper accessibility audit
Bijan Parsia: we could do a proper accessibility audit ←
17:22:32 <uli> IanH: so action 168 remains on you?
Ian Horrocks: so ACTION-168 remains on you? ←
17:22:46 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
17:22:46 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
17:22:52 <uli> bparsia: couldn't we move it to a general "to-do" list?
Bijan Parsia: couldn't we move it to a general "to-do" list? ←
17:22:56 <uli> IanH: ok, will do
Ian Horrocks: ok, will do ←
17:22:58 <bparsia> agreed
Bijan Parsia: agreed ←
17:23:01 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:23:14 <bparsia> works for me
Bijan Parsia: works for me ←
17:23:15 <uli> IanH: action 170 is mooted by events
Ian Horrocks: ACTION-170 is mooted by events ←
17:23:33 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:23:34 <uli> IanH: action 174?
17:23:37 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
17:23:37 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should no longer be muted ←
17:23:52 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
17:23:52 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
17:23:53 <uli> bparsia: actually yes, bit also might be mooted shortly
Bijan Parsia: actually yes, bit also might be mooted shortly ←
17:23:58 <bparsia> yep
Bijan Parsia: yep ←
17:24:08 <uli> IanH: ok, so we move it by 1 week
Ian Horrocks: ok, so we move it by 1 week ←
17:24:17 <uli> subtopic: Reviewing
17:24:26 <uli> IanH: I saw already some reviews
Ian Horrocks: I saw already some reviews ←
17:24:32 <m_schnei> yes, thanks for the reviews so far!
Michael Schneider: yes, thanks for the reviews so far! ←
17:24:37 <uli> ...anybody else?
...anybody else? ←
17:24:40 <pfps> perhaps the review page could be updated as reviews come in?
Peter Patel-Schneider: perhaps the review page could be updated as reviews come in? ←
17:24:47 <uli> ...reviews are due on september 8, in 5 days
...reviews are due on september 8, in 5 days ←
17:24:52 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
17:24:52 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
17:24:57 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:25:00 <bmotik> I just muted me
Boris Motik: I just muted me ←
17:25:04 <uli> zakim, mute me
zakim, mute me ←
17:25:04 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
17:25:08 <bmotik> myself
Boris Motik: myself ←
17:25:45 <uli> IanH: a slight problem with the profiles document, other docs should be able to be reviewed by september 8
Ian Horrocks: a slight problem with the profiles document, other docs should be able to be reviewed by september 8 ←
17:25:58 <pfps> q+
17:26:11 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:26:16 <uli> IanH: the SKOS people have their SKOS reference out for last call
Ian Horrocks: the SKOS people have their SKOS reference out for last call ←
17:26:34 <uli> pfps: I have already produced a review for the SKOS semantics document
Peter Patel-Schneider: I have already produced a review for the SKOS semantics document ←
17:26:48 <uli> IanH: and this is different from the reference?
Ian Horrocks: and this is different from the reference? ←
17:26:49 <m_schnei> only the SKOS ref is in LC
Michael Schneider: only the SKOS ref is in LC ←
17:26:58 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference
Ivan Herman: http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference ←
17:27:02 <ivan> SKOS Reference
Ivan Herman: SKOS Reference ←
17:27:14 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:27:15 <uli> pfps: forget - I meant powder!
Peter Patel-Schneider: forget - I meant powder! ←
17:27:19 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
17:27:38 <m_schnei> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
17:27:42 <uli> IanH: so, volunteers to review LC draft for SKOS reference?
Ian Horrocks: so, volunteers to review LC draft for SKOS reference? ←
17:27:42 <pfps> -1
17:27:43 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
17:27:43 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should no longer be muted ←
17:28:15 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:28:15 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should now be muted ←
17:28:18 <uli> m_schnei: I started to do a personal look-through, but only with OWL full glasses on, and would prefer to keep it that way
Michael Schneider: I started to do a personal look-through, but only with OWL full glasses on, and would prefer to keep it that way ←
17:28:23 <JeffP> I could try
17:28:23 <ivan> +q
Ivan Herman: +q ←
17:28:25 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
17:28:26 <uli> IanH: anybody else?
Ian Horrocks: anybody else? ←
17:28:40 <IanH> ack m_schnei
Ian Horrocks: ack m_schnei ←
17:28:43 <m_schnei> q-
Michael Schneider: q- ←
17:28:51 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
17:28:56 <uli> ivan: the major issue is related to the annotation discussion -- where are we with ours?
Ivan Herman: the major issue is related to the annotation discussion -- where are we with ours? ←
17:29:08 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:29:14 <m_schnei> but does skos refer to owl 2 at all?
Michael Schneider: but does skos refer to owl 2 at all? ←
17:29:43 <uli> Ivan: all the rest isn't really complicated, but we should check on issues around annotations
Ivan Herman: all the rest isn't really complicated, but we should check on issues around annotations ←
17:30:07 <uli> IanH: ok, I will send emails around to likely suspects
Ian Horrocks: ok, I will send emails around to likely suspects ←
17:30:15 <uli> IanH: F2F4
Ian Horrocks: F2F4 ←
17:30:18 <m_schnei> true, skos:related and skos:broaderTransitive are intended to be disjoint properties
Michael Schneider: true, skos:related and skos:broaderTransitive are intended to be disjoint properties ←
17:30:30 <uli> subtopic: F2F4
17:30:49 <uli> IanH: you need to book early if you want to profit from special rate
Ian Horrocks: you need to book early if you want to profit from special rate ←
17:31:17 <m_schnei> i found a hotel for about 70EUR in the neighbourhood :)
Michael Schneider: i found a hotel for about 70EUR in the neighbourhood :) ←
17:31:29 <uli> sandro: 'special rate' is insane, I suggest to look around in the neighbourhood
Sandro Hawke: 'special rate' is insane, I suggest to look around in the neighbourhood ←
17:31:47 <uli> IanH: or you can look around on the internet?
Ian Horrocks: or you can look around on the internet? ←
17:32:11 <uli> sandro: but then you don't contribute to the meeting room rates
Sandro Hawke: but then you don't contribute to the meeting room rates ←
17:32:38 <IanH> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F4_People
Ian Horrocks: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F4_People ←
17:32:40 <uli> IanH: and don't forget to register to TPAC
Ian Horrocks: and don't forget to register to TPAC ←
17:32:49 <sandro> s/insane/shockling high, esp in US$/
Sandro Hawke: s/insane/shockling high, esp in US$/ ←
17:33:06 <uli> sandro, we can remove all the above
sandro, we can remove all the above ←
17:33:32 <uli> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2008/
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2008/ ←
17:33:33 <bparsia> Perhaps a link to tpac from the f2f4 page?
Bijan Parsia: Perhaps a link to tpac from the f2f4 page? ←
17:33:35 <sandro> REGISTER HERE: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2008/
Sandro Hawke: REGISTER HERE: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2008/ ←
17:33:39 <ivan> there is a link on the wiki page, too
Ivan Herman: there is a link on the wiki page, too ←
17:34:07 <uli> topic: Issues
17:34:07 <uli> subtopic: Issues 131 and 116
17:34:54 <uli> Ian: Issue 131, 141 and 130 seem to be related, a bit more to discuss on 130.
Ian Horrocks: ISSUE-131, 141 and 130 seem to be related, a bit more to discuss on 130. ←
17:34:56 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:35:10 <m_schnei> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
17:35:14 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
17:35:14 <Zakim> m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei ←
17:35:16 <uli> ...but with the drafts we have in the wiki, perhaps we can resolve 131 and 141
...but with the drafts we have in the wiki, perhaps we can resolve 131 and 141 ←
17:35:54 <uli> m_schnei: I am perfectly happy with proposal for 116
Michael Schneider: I am perfectly happy with proposal for 116 ←
17:36:11 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:36:11 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should now be muted ←
17:36:24 <uli> IanH: any other opinions?
Ian Horrocks: any other opinions? ←
17:36:38 <Zhe> q+
17:36:42 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:36:44 <m_schnei> q-
Michael Schneider: q- ←
17:36:45 <Zhe> zakim, unmute me
17:36:45 <Zakim> Zhe should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Zhe should no longer be muted ←
17:36:52 <uli> IanH: I have discussed this earlier with Alan, and he seems ok
Ian Horrocks: I have discussed this earlier with Alan, and he seems ok ←
17:37:02 <uli> i can't hear you, Zhe
i can't hear you, Zhe ←
17:37:29 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:37:36 <IanH> ack zhe
Ian Horrocks: ack zhe ←
17:37:37 <Zhe> I thought we are waiting for RPI's response on unification idea
Zhe Wu: I thought we are waiting for RPI's response on unification idea ←
17:37:48 <uli> Zhe: I didn't follow this discussion closely
Zhe Wu: I didn't follow this discussion closely ←
17:38:00 <Zhe> s/Zhe/Jie/g
17:38:37 <bparsia> +1 to move forward and let people react
Bijan Parsia: +1 to move forward and let people react ←
17:38:38 <uli> IanH: I have discussed these with Jim, and seems to be fine and he will review the document anyway.
Ian Horrocks: I have discussed these with Jim, and seems to be fine and he will review the document anyway. ←
17:38:39 <JeffP> reasonable
17:38:53 <uli> sorry, Zhe, baojie, I couldn't tell who was talking
sorry, Zhe, baojie, I couldn't tell who was talking ←
17:39:04 <Zhe> np
17:39:14 <baojie> Uli: was me
Uli Sattler: was me [ Scribe Assist by Jie Bao ] ←
17:39:59 <sandro> from my notes "Alan: Close issue-131 by saying we're happy with the current structure of Profiles. There's one semantics for OWL RL, which the OWL Full semantics...."
Sandro Hawke: from my notes "Alan: Close ISSUE-131 by saying we're happy with the current structure of Profiles. There's one semantics for OWL RL, which the OWL Full semantics...." ←
17:40:22 <uli> PROPOSED: resolve issue 131 and 116 as per Ian's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0288.html
PROPOSED: resolve ISSUE-131 and 116 as per Ian's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0288.html ←
17:40:35 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
17:40:40 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:40:41 <bparsia> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
17:40:46 <sandro> Sandro: we're still haggling about conformance, which is no longer connected here.
Sandro Hawke: we're still haggling about conformance, which is no longer connected here. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:40:56 <uli> thanks, sandro
thanks, sandro ←
17:41:13 <m_schnei> +1 (FZI)
Michael Schneider: +1 (FZI) ←
17:41:33 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
17:41:35 <msmith> +1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
17:41:49 <uli> we could be more precise saying "under 1 in Ian's email"
we could be more precise saying "under 1 in Ian's email" ←
17:41:57 <sandro> +1 (with us being clear that CONFORMANCE is not addressed here)
Sandro Hawke: +1 (with us being clear that CONFORMANCE is not addressed here) ←
17:42:01 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
17:42:04 <Zhe> +1
17:42:06 <uli> +1
+1 ←
17:42:16 <baojie> +1
17:42:16 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
17:42:22 <MartinD> +1
Martin Dzbor: +1 ←
17:42:28 <uli> RESOLVED: resolve issue 131 and 116 as per Ian's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0288.html
RESOLVED: resolve ISSUE-131 and 116 as per Ian's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0288.html ←
17:42:28 <JeffP> +1
17:43:09 <uli> s/and 116/
s/and 116/ ←
17:43:21 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:43:24 <uli> IanH: can we have a similar resolution wrt 116?
Ian Horrocks: can we have a similar resolution wrt 116? ←
17:43:53 <uli> PROPOSED: resolve issue 116 as per Ian's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0288.html
PROPOSED: resolve ISSUE-116 as per Ian's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0288.html ←
17:44:01 <pfps> +1
17:44:02 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
17:44:09 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
17:44:11 <sandro> :-)
Sandro Hawke: :-) ←
17:44:29 <JeffP> :-)
17:44:35 <ivan> this just makes the point that we really really resolved it
Ivan Herman: this just makes the point that we really really resolved it ←
17:44:53 <uli> IanH: rules generating literals in subject position
Ian Horrocks: rules generating literals in subject position ←
17:45:06 <IanH> Q?
Ian Horrocks: Q? ←
17:45:10 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:45:12 <uli> IanH: issue 141
17:45:13 <Zhe> q+
17:45:24 <IanH> ack zhe
Ian Horrocks: ack zhe ←
17:45:28 <uli> IanH: this is already made clear in the document
Ian Horrocks: this is already made clear in the document ←
17:45:57 <ivan> not predicate but subject position
Ivan Herman: not predicate but subject position ←
17:46:08 <uli> Zhe: just to make sure: if this "literal in subject position" happens, what do we do?
Zhe Wu: just to make sure: if this "literal in subject position" happens, what do we do? ←
17:46:42 <uli> IanH: the rule sets works on a generalization of triples
Ian Horrocks: the rule sets works on a generalization of triples ←
17:46:46 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:47:09 <uli> Zhe: what is the best approach to avoid generation of "illegal rfd triples"?
Zhe Wu: what is the best approach to avoid generation of "illegal rfd triples"? ←
17:47:32 <JeffP> They are triples but not RDF triples
Jeff Pan: They are triples but not RDF triples ←
17:47:39 <uli> IanH: we already say in the spec that these are "generalized" triples, so this is ok
Ian Horrocks: we already say in the spec that these are "generalized" triples, so this is ok ←
17:47:53 <uli> ...and you won't see these since you can't ask for them
...and you won't see these since you can't ask for them ←
17:48:03 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
17:48:05 <uli> Zhe: I see - so I guess it's fine
Zhe Wu: I see - so I guess it's fine ←
17:48:11 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:48:13 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/#End_Notes
Ivan Herman: http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/#End_Notes ←
17:48:14 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
17:48:19 <uli> ivan: editorial
Ivan Herman: editorial ←
17:48:28 <pfps> As far as the basic conformance is concerned, there is no way to tell if the system is generating these generalized triples.
Peter Patel-Schneider: As far as the basic conformance is concerned, there is no way to tell if the system is generating these generalized triples. ←
17:48:50 <uli> ...the above is a note regarding the same problem which could be added to the document
...the above is a note regarding the same problem which could be added to the document ←
17:49:08 <m_schnei> one implication is that you get with generalized triples every entailment which you got before (without)
Michael Schneider: one implication is that you get with generalized triples every entailment which you got before (without) ←
17:49:12 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:49:44 <uli> PROPOSED: resolve issue 141 as per Peter's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0203.html
PROPOSED: resolve ISSUE-141 as per Peter's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0203.html ←
17:49:46 <pfps> +1, surprise :-)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1, surprise :-) ←
17:49:46 <JeffP> +1
17:49:48 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
17:49:48 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
17:49:49 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:49:50 <uli> +1
+1 ←
17:49:52 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
17:49:54 <MartinD> +1
Martin Dzbor: +1 ←
17:49:54 <m_schnei> +1 (FZI)
Michael Schneider: +1 (FZI) ←
17:49:58 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
17:50:03 <Zhe> +1
17:50:06 <msmith> +1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
17:50:34 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
17:50:38 <baojie> +1
17:51:03 <uli> RESOLVED: resolve issue 141 as per Peter's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0203.html
RESOLVED: resolve ISSUE-141 as per Peter's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0203.html ←
17:51:22 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:51:33 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:51:33 <uli> subtopic: Issue 130
17:51:35 <uli> IanH: for issue 130, we have a proposal http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Conformance
Ian Horrocks: for ISSUE-130, we have a proposal http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Conformance ←
17:51:39 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:51:49 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
17:51:53 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:52:05 <uli> IanH: so, can we resolve it like this next week?
Ian Horrocks: so, can we resolve it like this next week? ←
17:52:06 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
17:52:06 <Zakim> bmotik was already muted, bmotik
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik was already muted, bmotik ←
17:52:52 <uli> sandro: I still see the issue that Michael raised, and I would like a simple solution to this
Sandro Hawke: I still see the issue that Michael raised, and I would like a simple solution to this ←
17:52:56 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:52:59 <uli> sandro, which problem is this?
sandro, which problem is this? ←
17:53:04 <m_schnei> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
17:53:08 <sandro> ack sandro
Sandro Hawke: ack sandro ←
17:53:45 <IanH> ack sandro
Ian Horrocks: ack sandro ←
17:54:04 <uli> IanH: perhaps sandro has overlooked the precise meaning of this, i.e., that reasoners cannot flip flop between answers
Ian Horrocks: perhaps sandro has overlooked the precise meaning of this, i.e., that reasoners cannot flip flop between answers ←
17:54:28 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
17:54:28 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should no longer be muted ←
17:54:29 <uli> sandro: perhaps the problem isn't so bad
Sandro Hawke: perhaps the problem isn't so bad ←
17:54:32 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:54:38 <IanH> ack m_schnei
Ian Horrocks: ack m_schnei ←
17:54:47 <uli> m_schnei: all I wanted with my remark was to explicate this
Michael Schneider: all I wanted with my remark was to explicate this ←
17:54:51 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
17:54:54 <uli> m_schnei, what?
m_schnei, what? ←
17:55:12 <sandro> m_schnei: I just wanted it documented
Michael Schneider: I just wanted it documented [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:55:32 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:55:37 <m_schnei> m_schnei: I want to clarify that I just want to have this conformance behaviour made explicit, I do *not* deny this
Michael Schneider: I want to clarify that I just want to have this conformance behaviour made explicit, I do *not* deny this [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
17:55:59 <uli> IanH: we should say that, all conformant systems should always agree on their answer
Ian Horrocks: we should say that, all conformant systems should always agree on their answer ←
17:56:17 <uli> sandro: what about negative entailments?
Sandro Hawke: what about negative entailments? ←
17:56:32 <uli> ...do we need another reasoner for this?
...do we need another reasoner for this? ←
17:56:37 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:56:53 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:57:15 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:57:26 <m_schnei> you cannot always say from "false" that the converse is true, in particular not under OWA
Michael Schneider: you cannot always say from "false" that the converse is true, in particular not under OWA ←
17:57:36 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:57:39 <uli> sandro: oracle wasn't interested in negative/theorem 1 checks
Sandro Hawke: oracle wasn't interested in negative/theorem 1 checks ←
17:57:50 <sandro> Sandro: Are people going to implement the theorem-1 check?
Sandro Hawke: Are people going to implement the theorem-1 check? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:57:53 <uli> Zhe: flexibility for user is a good thing
Zhe Wu: flexibility for user is a good thing ←
17:58:30 <uli> Zhe: it will be difficult to tell which rules are bottleneck, so theorem 1 check could be useful
Zhe Wu: it will be difficult to tell which rules are bottleneck, so theorem 1 check could be useful ←
17:58:51 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:58:57 <uli> Zhe: I don't know yet what exactly we will implement, but we may implement it
Zhe Wu: I don't know yet what exactly we will implement, but we may implement it ←
17:59:28 <bijan> SHOULD!
Bijan Parsia: SHOULD! ←
17:59:28 <uli> IanH: for the test, should we strengthen 'may' to 'should'?
Ian Horrocks: for the test, should we strengthen 'may' to 'should'? ←
17:59:34 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:59:37 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
17:59:58 <sandro> ack ivan
Sandro Hawke: ack ivan ←
18:00:18 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:00:27 <bijan> I'll call at MUST
Bijan Parsia: I'll call at MUST ←
18:00:33 <uli> ivan: I would prefer 'may' since otherwise the implementor load is too high
Ivan Herman: I would prefer 'may' since otherwise the implementor load is too high ←
18:01:04 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
18:01:04 <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 ←
18:01:14 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
18:01:16 <bparsia> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:01:17 <uli> sandro: we shouldn't allow reasoners to say 'false' unless it's really false
Sandro Hawke: we shouldn't allow reasoners to say 'false' unless it's really false ←
18:01:19 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:01:36 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
18:01:36 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should no longer be muted ←
18:01:39 <m_schnei> zhe, even if you only implement a /partial/ /forward/ chainer, then you have an implicit entailment checker: just look in the resulting inference graph and only say "yes", if some entailment is in, and say "no" otherwise
Michael Schneider: zhe, even if you only implement a /partial/ /forward/ chainer, then you have an implicit entailment checker: just look in the resulting inference graph and only say "yes", if some entailment is in, and say "no" otherwise ←
18:01:39 <uli> ...call that part 'must' and otherwise, use 'unknown'
...call that part 'must' and otherwise, use 'unknown' ←
18:01:42 <bparsia> +1 to sandro's must proposal
Bijan Parsia: +1 to sandro's must proposal ←
18:02:03 <sandro> sandro: How about you MUST do theorem-1 checking before returning FALSE, BUT you can return UNKNOWN if you don't want to do that checking.
Sandro Hawke: How about you MUST do theorem-1 checking before returning FALSE, BUT you can return UNKNOWN if you don't want to do that checking. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:02:27 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:02:27 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
18:02:38 <uli> bparsia: I like sandro's suggestion - having this check available will enhance interoperability, and the 'unknown' option is a good compromise
Bijan Parsia: I like sandro's suggestion - having this check available will enhance interoperability, and the 'unknown' option is a good compromise ←
18:02:57 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:03:03 <ivan> ack bparsia
Ivan Herman: ack bparsia ←
18:03:12 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
18:03:16 <uli> IanH: but if we change to "must", then we must explain what implementors could do who wouldn't want to implement the test
Ian Horrocks: but if we change to "must", then we must explain what implementors could do who wouldn't want to implement the test ←
18:03:42 <sandro> sandro: absolutely -- we need text here which makes sense to people without thinking it all through at this level.
Sandro Hawke: absolutely -- we need text here which makes sense to people without thinking it all through at this level. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:03:54 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:03:57 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:04:03 <uli> ivan: from Zhe's presentation in Manchester, how would the 'must' work with this?
Ivan Herman: from Zhe's presentation in Manchester, how would the 'must' work with this? ←
18:04:04 <Zhe> q+
18:04:35 <uli> IanH: tricky since we talk about entailments, but we are also interested in queries
Ian Horrocks: tricky since we talk about entailments, but we are also interested in queries ←
18:04:36 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:04:44 <IanH> ack zhe
Ian Horrocks: ack zhe ←
18:04:52 <uli> ...so a false is then a 'no, it's really not in the query'
...so a false is then a 'no, it's really not in the query' ←
18:04:55 <sandro> Ian: in real life, people do query answering. so the "false" is kind of like not answering the query.
Ian Horrocks: in real life, people do query answering. so the "false" is kind of like not answering the query. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:05:22 <uli> Zhe: I would prefer 'may' since 'should' or 'must' would be a burden
Zhe Wu: I would prefer 'may' since 'should' or 'must' would be a burden ←
18:05:41 <uli> IanH: but sandro's proposal also allow you to return 'unknown'
Ian Horrocks: but sandro's proposal also allow you to return 'unknown' ←
18:06:08 <uli> ...and this gives us more honesty: 'false' really means false!
...and this gives us more honesty: 'false' really means false! ←
18:06:14 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:06:15 <bparsia> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:06:28 <bparsia> (to answer this)
Bijan Parsia: (to answer this) ←
18:06:32 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
18:06:32 <Zakim> bparsia was not muted, bparsia
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia was not muted, bparsia ←
18:06:36 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:06:36 <uli> Zhe: but in a forward chaining system, where could be return such an 'unknown'?
Zhe Wu: but in a forward chaining system, where could be return such an 'unknown'? ←
18:06:39 <IanH> ack bparsia
Ian Horrocks: ack bparsia ←
18:06:48 <sandro> ack bparsia
Sandro Hawke: ack bparsia ←
18:07:14 <uli> bparsia: on load time, or in the query
Bijan Parsia: on load time, or in the query ←
18:07:15 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:07:39 <uli> sandro: so, user asks query 'q', and didn't get a certain result
Sandro Hawke: so, user asks query 'q', and didn't get a certain result ←
18:08:07 <uli> ...does this mean that rules couldn't find this result or that it shouldn't be in answer?
...does this mean that rules couldn't find this result or that it shouldn't be in answer? ←
18:08:10 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:08:14 <m_schnei> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
18:08:26 <uli> Zhe: but how would 'unknown' be helpful there?
Zhe Wu: but how would 'unknown' be helpful there? ←
18:08:27 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:09:07 <sandro> sandro: on query results, systems should include a flag saying whether complete reasoning was done or not. that's the equivalent of this false/unknown thing in the conformance definition.
Sandro Hawke: on query results, systems should include a flag saying whether complete reasoning was done or not. that's the equivalent of this false/unknown thing in the conformance definition. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:09:09 <uli> bparsia: with SPARQL owl, i looked at racerPro and Sher, and there it is important as well to have a mechanism to indicate to the user how complete you are
Bijan Parsia: with SPARQL owl, i looked at racerPro and Sher, and there it is important as well to have a mechanism to indicate to the user how complete you are ←
18:09:24 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
18:09:24 <Zakim> m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei ←
18:09:24 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:09:29 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:09:29 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
18:09:34 <IanH> ack m_schnei
Ian Horrocks: ack m_schnei ←
18:09:38 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:10:05 <uli> m_schnei, I can't understand you
m_schnei, I can't understand you ←
18:10:52 <sandro> m_schnei: you have to at least implement the full ruleset, and have it not FOL entailed, before you can return FALSE
Michael Schneider: you have to at least implement the full ruleset, and have it not FOL entailed, before you can return FALSE [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:10:55 <uli> heavy breathing
heavy breathing ←
18:11:14 <sandro> (I have a response to m_schnei, but .... maybe I'll save it.)
Sandro Hawke: (I have a response to m_schnei, but .... maybe I'll save it.) ←
18:11:45 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:11:51 <uli> IanH: using 'unknown' would be a mechanism to indicate to the user that the results to a query may be partial
Ian Horrocks: using 'unknown' would be a mechanism to indicate to the user that the results to a query may be partial ←
18:12:06 <uli> Zhe: i don't see the additional valie
Zhe Wu: i don't see the additional valie ←
18:12:10 <uli> s/valie/value
s/valie/value ←
18:12:26 <bparsia> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:12:31 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:12:33 <uli> IanH: it prevents implementors from having unsound systems and calling them conformant
Ian Horrocks: it prevents implementors from having unsound systems and calling them conformant ←
18:12:34 <m_schnei> m_schnei: you are only allowed to say "False", if the entailment does not exist w.r.t. the /complete/ ruleset. so the NULL reasoner is not allowed. An implementer MAY go beyond the whole ruleset, up to the complete full semantics
Michael Schneider: you are only allowed to say "False", if the entailment does not exist w.r.t. the /complete/ ruleset. so the NULL reasoner is not allowed. An implementer MAY go beyond the whole ruleset, up to the complete full semantics [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
18:13:03 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
18:13:03 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should no longer be muted ←
18:13:17 <uli> sandro: I would like to have a flag that distinguishes complete from incomplete reasoners
Sandro Hawke: I would like to have a flag that distinguishes complete from incomplete reasoners ←
18:13:40 <uli> sandro: but can any OWL RL rule implementation ever be conformant?
Sandro Hawke: but can any OWL RL rule implementation ever be conformant? ←
18:13:53 <m_schnei> the /ruleset/ is the lower bound of RL conformance
Michael Schneider: the /ruleset/ is the lower bound of RL conformance ←
18:13:58 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:14:08 <uli> IanH: sure - they are *sound*, we only talk about non-entailments, cases where things are *not* returned
Ian Horrocks: sure - they are *sound*, we only talk about non-entailments, cases where things are *not* returned ←
18:14:16 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:14:19 <IanH> ack bparsia
Ian Horrocks: ack bparsia ←
18:14:25 <uli> sandro: and then you could use theorem 1 to find complete cases
Sandro Hawke: and then you could use theorem 1 to find complete cases ←
18:14:31 <m_schnei> btw, if the ruleset entails something, then you can savely say "True", because then OWL Full would produce the same entailment
Michael Schneider: btw, if the ruleset entails something, then you can savely say "True", because then OWL Full would produce the same entailment ←
18:14:49 <sandro> ian: Theorem 1 gives you the completeness guarantee -- it says that if the ontology looks like this, complete-rule-reasoning is complete-ontology-reasoning.
Ian Horrocks: Theorem 1 gives you the completeness guarantee -- it says that if the ontology looks like this, complete-rule-reasoning is complete-ontology-reasoning. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:15:08 <uli> bparsia: users from bioontology really value complete reasoning, and so we should be able to signal this
Bijan Parsia: users from bioontology really value complete reasoning, and so we should be able to signal this ←
18:15:35 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
18:15:37 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:15:37 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
18:15:39 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:15:41 <uli> IanH: let's take the discussion on-line, implement the suggested modifications and discuss next week
Ian Horrocks: let's take the discussion on-line, implement the suggested modifications and discuss next week ←
18:15:57 <sandro> q+ to ask if query answering should be covered in Conformance
Sandro Hawke: q+ to ask if query answering should be covered in Conformance ←
18:16:07 <sandro> q- ivan
Sandro Hawke: q- ivan ←
18:16:12 <uli> ivan: i would still like to see the consequences for an implementation being written down
Ivan Herman: i would still like to see the consequences for an implementation being written down ←
18:16:27 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:16:32 <IanH> ack sandro
Ian Horrocks: ack sandro ←
18:16:32 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask if query answering should be covered in Conformance
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to ask if query answering should be covered in Conformance ←
18:16:47 <Zhe> q+
18:17:01 <uli> sandro: let's write it down - but where do we write about query answering? In the conformance document?
Sandro Hawke: let's write it down - but where do we write about query answering? In the conformance document? ←
18:17:04 <IanH> ack zhe
Ian Horrocks: ack zhe ←
18:17:21 <bparsia> I'd be open to flagging it as "depeding on implementor feedback"
Bijan Parsia: I'd be open to flagging it as "depeding on implementor feedback" ←
18:17:33 <bparsia> I'd rather have the stronger and weaken, then do the weaker and then strengthen
Bijan Parsia: I'd rather have the stronger and weaken, then do the weaker and then strengthen ←
18:18:02 <uli> IanH: the tricky bit is the dependency between profiles and conformance
Ian Horrocks: the tricky bit is the dependency between profiles and conformance ←
18:18:04 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
18:18:04 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should no longer be muted ←
18:18:10 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:18:28 <uli> ...we can't review profiles before we fixed conformance
...we can't review profiles before we fixed conformance ←
18:18:53 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:18:53 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
18:19:03 <uli> bparsia: why don't we make conformance really strict (so that poking holes in it is easier) and then review them together
Bijan Parsia: why don't we make conformance really strict (so that poking holes in it is easier) and then review them together ←
18:19:07 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:19:16 <uli> sandro: who updates the draft?
Sandro Hawke: who updates the draft? ←
18:19:38 <uli> ACTION: IanH to update the conformance document with 'unkown'
ACTION: IanH to update the conformance document with 'unkown' ←
18:19:38 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - IanH
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - IanH ←
18:20:12 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:20:29 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
18:20:29 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should no longer be muted ←
18:20:31 <m_schnei> I already saw the distinct "ox" namespace in the POWDER semantics ;-)
Michael Schneider: I already saw the distinct "ox" namespace in the POWDER semantics ;-) ←
18:21:07 <uli> subtopic: Issue 109
18:21:22 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:21:36 <uli> bparsia: it would be good to not have to change namespaces
Bijan Parsia: it would be good to not have to change namespaces ←
18:22:11 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:22:22 <uli> sandro: can we have a pointer to this
Sandro Hawke: can we have a pointer to this ←
18:22:26 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:22:26 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
18:22:59 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
18:23:01 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me ←
18:23:01 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted ←
18:23:03 <uli> subtopic: issue 138
18:23:06 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
18:23:28 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
18:23:29 <msmith> q+
Mike Smith: q+ ←
18:23:29 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
18:23:30 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:23:30 <uli> bmotik: let's use owl:datetime since the datatype is different from the xsd one
Boris Motik: let's use owl:datetime since the datatype is different from the xsd one ←
18:23:31 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
18:23:32 <bparsia> +1 to boris
Bijan Parsia: +1 to boris ←
18:23:58 <uli> ivan: [procedural] didn't we want to ask xsd people about that?
Ivan Herman: [procedural] didn't we want to ask xsd people about that? ←
18:24:23 <uli> IanH: didn't sandro want to edit this message from peter?
Ian Horrocks: didn't sandro want to edit this message from peter? ←
18:24:36 <pfps> Sandro sent a message, but didn't ask for any action.
Peter Patel-Schneider: Sandro sent a message, but didn't ask for any action. ←
18:24:53 <pfps> I'm willing to edit the document, I guess.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm willing to edit the document, I guess. ←
18:25:07 <pfps> ??
18:25:16 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:25:19 <uli> IanH: I observe confusion -- pfps, can you edit the mail and send it?
Ian Horrocks: I observe confusion -- pfps, can you edit the mail and send it? ←
18:25:25 <uli> ...to make it more punchy?
...to make it more punchy? ←
18:25:27 <ivan> ack ivan
Ivan Herman: ack ivan ←
18:25:39 <uli> sandro: it should say more clearly what they should do.
Sandro Hawke: it should say more clearly what they should do. ←
18:25:42 <msmith> q?
Mike Smith: q? ←
18:25:52 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:26:08 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:26:09 <uli> IanH: would their answer have any influence of what we do about datetime namespace
Ian Horrocks: would their answer have any influence of what we do about datetime namespace ←
18:26:13 <IanH> ack msmith
Ian Horrocks: ack msmith ←
18:26:49 <uli> msmith: bmotik convinced me that xsd and owl datetime are really different, so perhaps we don't need to waste time by asking them?
Mike Smith: bmotik convinced me that xsd and owl datetime are really different, so perhaps we don't need to waste time by asking them? ←
18:26:52 <bparsia> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
18:26:52 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:27:01 <bmotik> It already is owl:dateTime.
Boris Motik: It already is owl:dateTime. ←
18:27:02 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:27:05 <pfps> +epsilon
Peter Patel-Schneider: +epsilon ←
18:27:07 <uli> IanH: so msmith suggest to just go ahead with owl:datetime?
Ian Horrocks: so msmith suggest to just go ahead with owl:datetime? ←
18:27:17 <bmotik> I used owl:dateTime in anticipation of this discussion. There is an editorial comment about it.
Boris Motik: I used owl:dateTime in anticipation of this discussion. There is an editorial comment about it. ←
18:27:24 <pfps> OK by me
Peter Patel-Schneider: OK by me ←
18:27:30 <uli> ivan: we should keep the issue open, but use owl:datetime
Ivan Herman: we should keep the issue open, but use owl:datetime ←
18:27:40 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
18:27:43 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me ←
18:27:43 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted ←
18:27:44 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:27:49 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
18:27:49 <sandro> ack bmotik
Sandro Hawke: ack bmotik ←
18:28:04 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
18:28:04 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
18:28:21 <pfps> +1
18:28:23 <uli> bmotik: we already use owl:datetime, so we can't do anything else on this now
Boris Motik: we already use owl:datetime, so we can't do anything else on this now ←
18:28:33 <uli> IanH; AOB?
IanH; AOB? ←
18:28:33 <Zhe> q+
18:28:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:28:47 <IanH> ack Zhe
Ian Horrocks: ack Zhe ←
18:28:54 <uli> Zhe: i want to open an issue about base triples?
Zhe Wu: i want to open an issue about base triples? ←
18:29:16 <uli> IanH: you raised it, and it is now open, and we can discuss this next week
Ian Horrocks: you raised it, and it is now open, and we can discuss this next week ←
18:29:24 <uli> IanH: AOB?
Ian Horrocks: AOB? ←
18:29:28 <JeffP> thanks, bye
18:29:32 <Zakim> -bmotik
Zakim IRC Bot: -bmotik ←
18:29:33 <Zhe> bye
18:29:33 <uli> meeting is closed, thanks
meeting is closed, thanks ←
18:29:33 <Zakim> -msmith
Zakim IRC Bot: -msmith ←
18:29:35 <IanH> bye
Ian Horrocks: bye ←
18:29:36 <Zakim> -JeffP
Zakim IRC Bot: -JeffP ←
18:29:37 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: -Peter_Patel-Schneider ←
18:29:37 <Zakim> -Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: -Zhe ←
18:29:38 <Zakim> -bparsia
Zakim IRC Bot: -bparsia ←
18:29:39 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
Zakim IRC Bot: -bcuencagrau ←
18:29:40 <Zakim> -IanH
Zakim IRC Bot: -IanH ←
18:29:41 <Zakim> -uli
Zakim IRC Bot: -uli ←
18:29:41 <Zakim> -baojie
Zakim IRC Bot: -baojie ←
18:29:41 <sandro> thanks, Ian. :-)
Sandro Hawke: thanks, Ian. :-) ←
18:29:43 <Zakim> -ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -ivan ←
18:29:49 <Zakim> -m_schnei
Zakim IRC Bot: -m_schnei ←
18:29:51 <Zakim> -MartinD
Zakim IRC Bot: -MartinD ←
18:29:57 <MartinD> MartinD has left #OWL
Martin Dzbor: MartinD has left #OWL ←
18:30:04 <uli> sandro, ivan, can you please invoke the magic command?
sandro, ivan, can you please invoke the magic command? ←
18:30:18 <sandro> Ian is good at it these days.
Sandro Hawke: Ian is good at it these days. ←
18:30:32 <uli> Ian, could you please invoke the magic command?
Ian, could you please invoke the magic command? ←
18:31:06 <IanH> I did it already
Ian Horrocks: I did it already ←
18:31:10 <IanH> at the beginning
Ian Horrocks: at the beginning ←
18:31:16 <uli> ah, thanks!
ah, thanks! ←
18:31:35 <IanH> If you look at the scribe conventions page you will see what you have to do next :-)
Ian Horrocks: If you look at the scribe conventions page you will see what you have to do next :-) ←
18:31:59 <IanH> Let me know if you need help.
Ian Horrocks: Let me know if you need help. ←
18:32:03 <uli> oups - didn't know it moved there
oups - didn't know it moved there ←
18:32:31 <IanH> It tells you how to convert the chat log into minutes using Sandro's new software tool
Ian Horrocks: It tells you how to convert the chat log into minutes using Sandro's new software tool ←
18:33:20 <IanH> The magic command that I issues was to make the chat log public
Ian Horrocks: The magic command that I issues was to make the chat log public ←
18:34:21 <uli> Wrong Credential
Wrong Credential ←
18:34:21 <uli> ...the irc log says: "Sorry, a password is required"
...the irc log says: "Sorry, a password is required" ←
18:34:37 <uli> and "Sorry, Insufficient Access Privileges"
and "Sorry, Insufficient Access Privileges" ←
This revision (#2) generated 2008-09-03 19:15:29 UTC by 'ihorrock2', comments: None