00:00:00 <scribenick> PRESENT: Martin Dzbor, Sandro Hawke, Ian Horrocks, Boris Motik, Zhe Wu, Michael Schneider, Achille Fokoue, Uli Sattler, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Jie Bao, Alan Ruttenberg, Mike Smith, Bijan Parsia, Peter Patel-Schneider
00:00:00 <scribenick> REGRETS: Markus Krötzsch
00:00:00 <scribenick> CHAIR: Ian Horrocks
00:00:00 <scribenick> SCRIBE: Martin Dzbor
(Scribe set to Martin Dzbor)
16:52:21 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/10-owl-irc
(No events recorded for 1012 minutes)
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/10-owl-irc ←
16:52:34 <MartinD> RRSAgent, make records public
RRSAgent, make records public ←
16:56:42 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started ←
16:56:49 <Zakim> + +0190827aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +0190827aaaa ←
16:57:01 <MartinD> zakim, aaaa is me
zakim, aaaa is me ←
16:57:01 <Zakim> +MartinD; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MartinD; got it ←
16:58:00 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
16:58:02 <MartinD> MartinD has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.09.10/Agenda
MartinD has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.09.10/Agenda ←
16:58:36 <Zakim> +Ian_Horrocks
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ian_Horrocks ←
16:58:51 <IanH> zakim, Ian_Horrocks is IanH
Ian Horrocks: zakim, Ian_Horrocks is IanH ←
16:58:51 <Zakim> +IanH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +IanH; got it ←
16:58:52 <bmotik> Zakim, this will be OWL
Boris Motik: Zakim, this will be OWL ←
16:58:53 <Zakim> ok, bmotik, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM already started
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, bmotik, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM already started ←
16:59:24 <IanH> RRSAgent, make records public
Ian Horrocks: RRSAgent, make records public ←
16:59:28 <Zakim> +??P6
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P6 ←
16:59:31 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P6 is me
Boris Motik: Zakim, ??P6 is me ←
16:59:31 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bmotik; got it ←
16:59:34 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
16:59:34 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
16:59:34 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
16:59:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see MartinD, Sandro, IanH, bmotik (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MartinD, Sandro, IanH, bmotik (muted) ←
16:59:36 <Zakim> On IRC I see bmotik, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, baojie, sandro, alanr, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see bmotik, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, baojie, sandro, alanr, trackbot ←
16:59:59 <IanH> Martin, are you all set for scribing?
Ian Horrocks: Martin, are you all set for scribing? ←
17:00:06 <MartinD> hope so... :-)
hope so... :-) ←
17:00:16 <MartinD> zakim, mute me
zakim, mute me ←
17:00:16 <Zakim> MartinD should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MartinD should now be muted ←
17:00:40 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
17:00:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Sandro, IanH, bmotik (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Sandro, IanH, bmotik (muted) ←
17:00:41 <Zakim> On IRC I see Zhe, bcuencagrau, m_schnei, bmotik, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, baojie, sandro, alanr, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Zhe, bcuencagrau, m_schnei, bmotik, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, baojie, sandro, alanr, trackbot ←
17:01:00 <Zakim> + +1.603.897.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.603.897.aabb ←
17:01:12 <Zhe> zakim, +1.603.897.aabb is me
Zhe Wu: zakim, +1.603.897.aabb is me ←
17:01:15 <Zakim> +??P13
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P13 ←
17:01:19 <Zakim> +Zhe; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Zhe; got it ←
17:01:22 <m_schnei> zakim, ??P13 is me
Michael Schneider: zakim, ??P13 is me ←
17:01:23 <Zhe> zakim, mute me
17:01:27 <Zakim> +m_schnei; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +m_schnei; got it ←
17:01:29 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Zhe should now be muted ←
17:01:32 <Zakim> +[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
17:01:37 <Achille> Zakim, IBM is me
Achille Fokoue: Zakim, IBM is me ←
17:01:37 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Achille; got it ←
17:01:41 <Zakim> +??P14
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14 ←
17:01:48 <uli> zakim, ??P14 is me
Uli Sattler: zakim, ??P14 is me ←
17:01:48 <Zakim> +uli; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +uli; got it ←
17:01:52 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
17:01:52 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
17:01:58 <Zakim> +??P16
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P16 ←
17:02:00 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:02:00 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should now be muted ←
17:02:05 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, ??P16 is me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, ??P16 is me ←
17:02:05 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bcuencagrau; got it ←
17:02:11 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me ←
17:02:11 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should now be muted ←
17:02:14 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
17:02:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Sandro, IanH, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), m_schnei (muted), Achille, uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Sandro, IanH, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), m_schnei (muted), Achille, uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted) ←
17:02:16 <Zakim> On IRC I see Achille, uli, Zhe, bcuencagrau, m_schnei, bmotik, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, baojie, sandro, alanr, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Achille, uli, Zhe, bcuencagrau, m_schnei, bmotik, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, baojie, sandro, alanr, trackbot ←
17:02:35 <MartinD> IanH: let us start with today's agenda
Ian Horrocks: let us start with today's agenda ←
17:02:45 <MartinD> Topic: Admin
17:02:58 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.518.276.aacc ←
17:03:00 <MartinD> IanH: any agenda amendments
Ian Horrocks: any agenda amendments ←
17:03:15 <baojie> Zakim, aacc is baojie
Jie Bao: Zakim, aacc is baojie ←
17:03:15 <Zakim> +baojie; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +baojie; got it ←
17:03:29 <MartinD> IanH: Previous minutes (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-09-03)
Ian Horrocks: Previous minutes (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-09-03) ←
17:04:04 <MartinD> PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (3 September)
PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (3 September) ←
17:04:07 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
17:04:12 <MartinD> +1
+1 ←
17:04:15 <Zhe> +1
17:04:22 <uli> +1 ;)
Uli Sattler: +1 ;) ←
17:04:34 <MartinD> RESOLVED: Accepted Previous Minutes (3 September)
RESOLVED: Accepted Previous Minutes (3 September) ←
17:04:47 <MartinD> Subtopic: Pending actions
17:05:01 <Zakim> +Alan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alan ←
17:05:09 <MartinD> IanH: usual procedure, let's see how actions were completed, people may say why not completed
Ian Horrocks: usual procedure, let's see how actions were completed, people may say why not completed ←
17:05:21 <MartinD> IanH: if no objections, we assume actions are done...
Ian Horrocks: if no objections, we assume actions are done... ←
17:05:26 <alanr> 189 not done
Alan Ruttenberg: 189 not done ←
17:05:31 <m_schnei> he did
Michael Schneider: he did ←
17:05:42 <MartinD> IanH: Action 179 seems to be complete
Ian Horrocks: ACTION-179 seems to be complete ←
17:05:55 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:06:15 <MartinD> Ianh: Action 172 - achille suggests next Tuesday as a day to complete the action
Ian Horrocks: ACTION-172 - achille suggests next Tuesday as a day to complete the action ←
17:06:24 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:06:33 <MartinD> IanH: Action 189 - Alan says this is not done
Ian Horrocks: ACTION-189 - Alan says this is not done ←
17:06:46 <MartinD> Alanr: action 189 should be next week
Alan Ruttenberg: ACTION-189 should be next week ←
17:07:01 <MartinD> IanH: Action 185 - should be done, if I remember correctly
Ian Horrocks: ACTION-185 - should be done, if I remember correctly ←
17:07:17 <MartinD> ...yes, it is done
...yes, it is done ←
17:07:28 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:07:29 <MartinD> ... Action 202 - was on Alan
... ACTION-202 - was on Alan ←
17:07:53 <MartinD> AlanR: still pending, will provide update in the near future
Alan Ruttenberg: still pending, will provide update in the near future ←
17:07:53 <m_schnei> zhe also finished
Michael Schneider: zhe also finished ←
17:07:58 <Zhe> yes
17:08:07 <MartinD> ianH: Action 181 done by Zhe
Ian Horrocks: ACTION-181 done by Zhe ←
17:08:09 <MartinD> ...
... ←
17:08:16 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:08:51 <Zakim> + +1.202.408.aadd
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.202.408.aadd ←
17:08:56 <MartinD> Sandro: Action 207, publication plan (as created last week) - join pub by RIF and OWL groups?
Sandro Hawke: ACTION-207, publication plan (as created last week) - join pub by RIF and OWL groups? ←
17:08:56 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:09:15 <MartinD> ... this action should be made a bit clearer
... this action should be made a bit clearer ←
17:09:57 <MartinD> IanH: last week we agreed rough plan how this publication can happen and there is an action on how this should be implemented
Ian Horrocks: last week we agreed rough plan how this publication can happen and there is an action on how this should be implemented ←
17:10:04 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:10:07 <msmith> sandro, the context is at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-09-03#Pending_actions
Mike Smith: sandro, the context is at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-09-03#Pending_actions ←
17:10:11 <MartinD> ... probably this week's deadline was a bit optimistic
... probably this week's deadline was a bit optimistic ←
17:10:46 <MartinD> Sandro: apparently, a joint recommendation is a good thing, if it can be achieved
Sandro Hawke: apparently, a joint recommendation is a good thing, if it can be achieved ←
17:10:49 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:11:03 <MartinD> ... there need to be two resolutions to publish (from two groups)
... there need to be two resolutions to publish (from two groups) ←
17:11:36 <MartinD> IanH: if Sandro is the contact on both, it might be good to watch that the process is moving ahead, a kind of monitoring
Ian Horrocks: if Sandro is the contact on both, it might be good to watch that the process is moving ahead, a kind of monitoring ←
17:11:51 <MartinD> ... we will fix the action text later
... we will fix the action text later ←
17:12:01 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:12:04 <MartinD> ... Action 174 is on Bijan
... ACTION-174 is on Bijan ←
17:12:06 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
17:12:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Sandro, IanH, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), m_schnei (muted), Achille, uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), baojie, Alan, msmith
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Sandro, IanH, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), m_schnei (muted), Achille, uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), baojie, Alan, msmith ←
17:12:09 <Zakim> On IRC I see msmith, Achille, uli, Zhe, bcuencagrau, m_schnei, bmotik, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, baojie, sandro, alanr, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see msmith, Achille, uli, Zhe, bcuencagrau, m_schnei, bmotik, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, baojie, sandro, alanr, trackbot ←
17:12:21 <uli> ...i will go down the corridor and knock...
Uli Sattler: ...i will go down the corridor and knock... ←
17:12:34 <MartinD> ... no Bijan yet, so we need to check later what is the status of this action
... no Bijan yet, so we need to check later what is the status of this action ←
17:12:51 <MartinD> Subtopic: Reviewing
17:13:08 <MartinD> IanH: thank you to all who reviewed documents and gave feedback, good job!
Ian Horrocks: thank you to all who reviewed documents and gave feedback, good job! ←
17:13:24 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:13:32 <MartinD> ... one exception is the Profile - not a fault of reviewers, but there is still some discussion ongoing
... one exception is the Profile - not a fault of reviewers, but there is still some discussion ongoing ←
17:13:40 <MartinD> ... hope to conclude this within few days
... hope to conclude this within few days ←
17:14:03 <MartinD> ... according to the schedule from F2F meeting, we should publish the drafts by September 15...
... according to the schedule from F2F meeting, we should publish the drafts by September 15... ←
17:14:04 <m_schnei> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
17:14:06 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: +Peter_Patel-Schneider ←
17:14:09 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:14:13 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
17:14:13 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should no longer be muted ←
17:14:20 <MartinD> ... perhaps people working on the docs may say if this is still realistic
... perhaps people working on the docs may say if this is still realistic ←
17:14:21 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:14:55 <bijan> I'm nowhere near done my review, but I'm comfortable publishing without it (Syntax is a big document!)
Bijan Parsia: I'm nowhere near done my review, but I'm comfortable publishing without it (Syntax is a big document!) ←
17:14:55 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:15:04 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:15:04 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should now be muted ←
17:15:05 <MartinD> m_schnei: let's wait for the next stage, in my case we will finish the review by Friday... but there will be some potential points that may need further discussion
Michael Schneider: let's wait for the next stage, in my case we will finish the review by Friday... but there will be some potential points that may need further discussion ←
17:15:08 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:15:17 <m_schnei> q-
Michael Schneider: q- ←
17:15:21 <MartinD> IanH: we can wait a few days to give people time to review things properly
Ian Horrocks: we can wait a few days to give people time to review things properly ←
17:15:36 <MartinD> ... any objections to delaying the publication by a few days?
... any objections to delaying the publication by a few days? ←
17:15:44 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:15:46 <bmotik> I'll try to handle the reviews of Syntax this weekend
Boris Motik: I'll try to handle the reviews of Syntax this weekend ←
17:15:58 <MartinD> ... what about syntax? do we have a doc that reflects reviews by next week
... what about syntax? do we have a doc that reflects reviews by next week ←
17:16:00 <pfps> it's done.
Peter Patel-Schneider: it's done. ←
17:16:03 <bmotik> Dnoe
Boris Motik: Dnoe ←
17:16:10 <MartinD> ... model theoretic semantics is done
... model theoretic semantics is done ←
17:16:13 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:16:17 <MartinD> ... what about RDF?
... what about RDF? ←
17:16:24 <pfps> essentially done, needs a little bit more work
Peter Patel-Schneider: essentially done, needs a little bit more work ←
17:16:38 <pfps> yes, I expect to be done later today
Peter Patel-Schneider: yes, I expect to be done later today ←
17:16:42 <MartinD> ... is it realistic to publish it next week?
... is it realistic to publish it next week? ←
17:16:42 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:17:00 <pfps> q+
17:17:05 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:17:09 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
17:17:09 <MartinD> Sandro: is there some proposal in there on importing?
Sandro Hawke: is there some proposal in there on importing? ←
17:17:34 <sandro> that wasn't me, MartinD
Sandro Hawke: that wasn't me, MartinD ←
17:17:42 <Zakim> -Alan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Alan ←
17:17:47 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:18:02 <MartinD> IanH: we still have some open issues, there will be editorial comments that would clarify parts that can change
Ian Horrocks: we still have some open issues, there will be editorial comments that would clarify parts that can change ←
17:18:06 <bmotik> I think it's done
Boris Motik: I think it's done ←
17:18:09 <MartinD> ... xml serialization?
... xml serialization? ←
17:18:09 <pfps> done
Peter Patel-Schneider: done ←
17:18:18 <MartinD> ... review of this doc is done
... review of this doc is done ←
17:18:32 <pfps> q+
17:18:36 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:18:38 <MartinD> ... we're in good shape, so we should be in position to vote on publication of these docs next week
... we're in good shape, so we should be in position to vote on publication of these docs next week ←
17:18:41 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
17:19:02 <MartinD> pfps: those people who did reviews should perhaps check that their comments are adequately reslved/addressed
Peter Patel-Schneider: those people who did reviews should perhaps check that their comments are adequately reslved/addressed ←
17:19:18 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:19:35 <Zakim> +Alan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alan ←
17:19:39 <MartinD> IanH: typically, these reaction are happening, but reviewers should perhaps check that this is really happening
Ian Horrocks: typically, these reaction are happening, but reviewers should perhaps check that this is really happening ←
17:19:40 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:19:51 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:20:37 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:20:49 <MartinD> ... when editors finish updates according to the reviews, we should send a msg to WG mailing list to alert people who want to re-check...
... when editors finish updates according to the reviews, we should send a msg to WG mailing list to alert people who want to re-check... ←
17:20:59 <MartinD> ... so that we can hold the vote next week
... so that we can hold the vote next week ←
17:21:07 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:21:19 <MartinD> ... editors should let Ian know about the status
... editors should let Ian know about the status ←
17:21:22 <uli> yes
Uli Sattler: yes ←
17:21:29 <MartinD> ... all happy with doc publication
... all happy with doc publication ←
17:21:41 <MartinD> Subtopic: SKOS last call draft
17:21:43 <pfps> q+
17:21:48 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:21:53 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
17:21:55 <MartinD> IanH: no volunteers last week to review it, so still on agenda
Ian Horrocks: no volunteers last week to review it, so still on agenda ←
17:22:02 <MartinD> pfps: there is a review by me...
Peter Patel-Schneider: there is a review by me... ←
17:22:22 <MartinD> ... not quite sure what to do with my review, but it might act as a basis for WG review
... not quite sure what to do with my review, but it might act as a basis for WG review ←
17:22:25 <sandro> q+ RIF Review for OWL 2
Sandro Hawke: q+ RIF Review for OWL 2 ←
17:22:25 <alanr> goal would be to see what can/can't be represented in owl2
Alan Ruttenberg: goal would be to see what can/can't be represented in owl2 ←
17:22:28 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:22:31 <sandro> q+ to ask about RIF Review for OWL 2
Sandro Hawke: q+ to ask about RIF Review for OWL 2 ←
17:22:32 <MartinD> ... there are more than one document
... there are more than one document ←
17:22:38 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:22:38 <m_schnei> AFAIK, only the SKOS reference is in Last Call
Michael Schneider: AFAIK, only the SKOS reference is in Last Call ←
17:22:38 <MartinD> IanH: any volunteers?
Ian Horrocks: any volunteers? ←
17:22:53 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:23:01 <IanH> ack sandro
Ian Horrocks: ack sandro ←
17:23:01 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask about RIF Review for OWL 2
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to ask about RIF Review for OWL 2 ←
17:23:05 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:23:11 <m_schnei> I'm working on my own review (work in progress)
Michael Schneider: I'm working on my own review (work in progress) ←
17:23:30 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
17:23:30 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should no longer be muted ←
17:23:30 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:23:37 <MartinD> ... can Jie perhaps check if someone from there wouldn't do it
... can Jie perhaps check if someone from there wouldn't do it ←
17:23:38 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:23:58 <MartinD> m_schnei: working on a review, but not sure if there should be an "OWL WG" official
Michael Schneider: working on a review, but not sure if there should be an "OWL WG" official ←
17:24:14 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
17:24:17 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:24:21 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
17:24:23 <MartinD> IanH: if Peter and Michael finish their reviews, we may consider them both and discuss (if needed)
Ian Horrocks: if Peter and Michael finish their reviews, we may consider them both and discuss (if needed) ←
17:24:48 <MartinD> Alan: what aspects are you focusing on? e.g. to what extent SKOS relates to OWL profile(s)
Alan Ruttenberg: what aspects are you focusing on? e.g. to what extent SKOS relates to OWL profile(s) ←
17:25:00 <MartinD> pfps: this has been partly done, details to follow later
Peter Patel-Schneider: this has been partly done, details to follow later ←
17:25:18 <MartinD> m_schnei: i'm interrested in RDF semantics and those factors
Michael Schneider: i'm interrested in RDF semantics and those factors ←
17:25:30 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:25:47 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:25:47 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should now be muted ←
17:25:49 <MartinD> Alan: if you are willing to contribute your reviews, we can see if we agree on a common statement/review
Alan Ruttenberg: if you are willing to contribute your reviews, we can see if we agree on a common statement/review ←
17:26:03 <MartinD> IanH: let's see what comes from Peter and Michael
Ian Horrocks: let's see what comes from Peter and Michael ←
17:26:10 <MartinD> Subtopic: F2F meeting
17:26:23 <MartinD> IanH: indicate your status on the page on the wiki
Ian Horrocks: indicate your status on the page on the wiki ←
17:26:37 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:26:40 <MartinD> ... http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F4
... http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F4 ←
17:26:54 <MartinD> Sandro: suggestion for agenda amendment
Sandro Hawke: suggestion for agenda amendment ←
17:27:16 <pfps> actually, I helped write it, so I"m not sure that I *reviewed* it
Peter Patel-Schneider: actually, I helped write it, so I"m not sure that I *reviewed* it ←
17:27:38 <MartinD> ... RIF doc review was done mostly with OWL 1 focus, maybe there can be a check on whether OWL WG is still happy with it
... RIF doc review was done mostly with OWL 1 focus, maybe there can be a check on whether OWL WG is still happy with it ←
17:27:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:27:49 <pfps> at first blush, I can't think of any changes required (but don't let me bias the review) :-)
Peter Patel-Schneider: at first blush, I can't think of any changes required (but don't let me bias the review) :-) ←
17:27:50 <MartinD> ... someone other than Peter who helped writing it
... someone other than Peter who helped writing it ←
17:28:09 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/ ←
17:28:14 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:28:29 <MartinD> are there timelines?
are there timelines? ←
17:28:46 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:29:02 <MartinD> Sandro: it's about next few days, so it may be a bit tough to do it within deadlines
Sandro Hawke: it's about next few days, so it may be a bit tough to do it within deadlines ←
17:29:24 <MartinD> IanH: not many people volunteering, perhaps we need an email to reach to other people
Ian Horrocks: not many people volunteering, perhaps we need an email to reach to other people ←
17:29:45 <MartinD> ... admin concluded
... admin concluded ←
17:29:49 <MartinD> Topic: Issues
17:29:58 <MartinD> IanH: two resolution proposals
Ian Horrocks: two resolution proposals ←
17:30:01 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:30:09 <msmith> q+
Mike Smith: q+ ←
17:30:12 <MartinD> ... issue 133 on DL-Lite profile
... ISSUE-133 on DL-Lite profile ←
17:30:25 <IanH> zakim, who is on the call?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is on the call? ←
17:30:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Sandro, IanH, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), m_schnei (muted), Achille, uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), baojie, msmith, Peter_Patel-Schneider,
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Sandro, IanH, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), m_schnei (muted), Achille, uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), baojie, msmith, Peter_Patel-Schneider, ←
17:30:28 <Zakim> ... Alan
Zakim IRC Bot: ... Alan ←
17:30:39 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:30:43 <IanH> ack msmith
Ian Horrocks: ack msmith ←
17:30:46 <MartinD> msmith: the proposal is to move functional property and ... axioms from the profile...
Mike Smith: the proposal is to move functional property and ... axioms from the profile... ←
17:31:09 <MartinD> ... there should be a core DL-Lite that does not have all those extensions
... there should be a core DL-Lite that does not have all those extensions ←
17:31:15 <bcuencagrau> +q
17:31:31 <MartinD> IanH: there might be some text in the profile doc mentioning about these exceptions?
Ian Horrocks: there might be some text in the profile doc mentioning about these exceptions? ←
17:31:34 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:31:44 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, unmute me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, unmute me ←
17:31:44 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should no longer be muted ←
17:31:47 <MartinD> msmith: yes, this should happen and diego was also happy
Mike Smith: yes, this should happen and diego was also happy ←
17:31:51 <IanH> ack bcuencagrau
Ian Horrocks: ack bcuencagrau ←
17:32:00 <MartinD> bcuencagrau: unclear what was proposed...
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: unclear what was proposed... ←
17:32:23 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:32:27 <MartinD> ... do we have DL-Lite and then concerning assertions will we still have sameAs and differentFrom?
... do we have DL-Lite and then concerning assertions will we still have sameAs and differentFrom? ←
17:32:51 <MartinD> msmith: differentFrom is acceptable, sameAs probably not
Mike Smith: differentFrom is acceptable, sameAs probably not ←
17:33:02 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:33:21 <MartinD> bcuencagrau: we have basic features in the profile
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: we have basic features in the profile ←
17:33:29 <uli> "the intersection" of the choices is how i see it
Uli Sattler: "the intersection" of the choices is how i see it ←
17:33:34 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:33:52 <MartinD> ... there are only axioms, no unique axioms?
... there are only axioms, no unique axioms? ←
17:34:14 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me ←
17:34:14 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should now be muted ←
17:34:17 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:34:18 <MartinD> ... what we have in the doc has been proposed a fe months ago
... what we have in the doc has been proposed a fe months ago ←
17:34:28 <uli> looks good to me
Uli Sattler: looks good to me ←
17:34:42 <bcuencagrau> I am fine with it too
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: I am fine with it too ←
17:34:48 <MartinD> IanH: given there were no objetions in email, we propose to resolve it
Ian Horrocks: given there were no objetions in email, we propose to resolve it ←
17:35:01 <MartinD> PROPOSED: Resolve Issue 133 (DL-Lite Profile modified to include UNA) per Mike's email
PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-133 (DL-Lite Profile modified to include UNA) per Mike's email ←
17:35:04 <pfps> +1
17:35:07 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:35:07 <msmith> +1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
17:35:08 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
17:35:10 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
17:35:13 <MartinD> +1
+1 ←
17:35:14 <Zhe> +1
17:35:17 <m_schnei> +1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
17:35:22 <IanH> Mike's email = http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0017.html
Ian Horrocks: Mike's email = http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0017.html ←
17:35:35 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
17:35:46 <MartinD> RESOLVED: Issue 133 (DL-Lite Profile modified to include UNA) per Mike's email (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0017.html)
RESOLVED: ISSUE-133 (DL-Lite Profile modified to include UNA) per Mike's email (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0017.html) ←
17:36:03 <MartinD> Subtopic: Issue 119 (OWL 2 Full may become inconsistent due to self restrictions)
17:36:04 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me ←
17:36:04 <Zakim> bcuencagrau was already muted, bcuencagrau
Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau was already muted, bcuencagrau ←
17:36:11 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:36:17 <MartinD> IanH: this seems to be resolved by RDF semantics
Ian Horrocks: this seems to be resolved by RDF semantics ←
17:36:34 <MartinD> ... due to self-restriction this could have been a problem, but it was resolved by Mike
... due to self-restriction this could have been a problem, but it was resolved by Mike ←
17:36:39 <MartinD> ... not really controversial
... not really controversial ←
17:36:42 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:36:58 <MartinD> PROPOSED: Resolve Issue 119 (OWL 2 Full may become inconsistent due to self restrictions) per Ian's email
PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-119 (OWL 2 Full may become inconsistent due to self restrictions) per Ian's email ←
17:37:03 <m_schnei> +1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
17:37:06 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
17:37:09 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:37:09 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
17:37:10 <msmith> +1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
17:37:12 <Achille> +1
Achille Fokoue: +1 ←
17:37:14 <MartinD> Ian's email = http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0033.html
Ian's email = http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0033.html ←
17:37:17 <MartinD> +1
+1 ←
17:37:18 <pfps> +1
17:37:25 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
17:37:29 <baojie> +1
17:37:36 <Zhe> +1
17:37:45 <MartinD> RESOLVED: Issue 119 (OWL 2 Full may become inconsistent due to self restrictions) per Ian's email (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0033.html)
RESOLVED: ISSUE-119 (OWL 2 Full may become inconsistent due to self restrictions) per Ian's email (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0033.html) ←
17:38:18 <MartinD> Subtopic: Issue 130 (Conformance, warnings, errors)
17:38:31 <MartinD> IanH: this has been discussed last week, a few emails...
Ian Horrocks: this has been discussed last week, a few emails... ←
17:38:35 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
17:38:36 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:38:43 <IanH> ack sandro
Ian Horrocks: ack sandro ←
17:38:43 <MartinD> ... spend a few minutes to get a resolution?
... spend a few minutes to get a resolution? ←
17:38:54 <MartinD> Sandro: we exchanged some emails and mostly we're happy
Sandro Hawke: we exchanged some emails and mostly we're happy ←
17:39:09 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:39:10 <MartinD> ... there was a proposal to amend some text, I liked it
... there was a proposal to amend some text, I liked it ←
17:39:29 <MartinD> IanH: shall be make a change agreed in the email?
Ian Horrocks: shall be make a change agreed in the email? ←
17:39:32 <Zhe> q+
17:39:33 <pfps> make change and produce a proposal
Peter Patel-Schneider: make change and produce a proposal ←
17:39:39 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:39:41 <Zhe> zakim, unmute me
17:39:41 <Zakim> Zhe should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Zhe should no longer be muted ←
17:39:43 <MartinD> ... ok, let's assume we go for the change
... ok, let's assume we go for the change ←
17:39:52 <IanH> ack Zhe
Ian Horrocks: ack Zhe ←
17:39:54 <alanr> pointer
Alan Ruttenberg: pointer ←
17:40:10 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
17:40:19 <sandro> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0029.html
Sandro Hawke: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0029.html ←
17:40:22 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:40:31 <sandro> the text starting "An OWL 2 RL...."
Sandro Hawke: the text starting "An OWL 2 RL...." ←
17:40:33 <MartinD> IanH: I will update the conformance document with the modified text and I will send an email how was this implemented, so that people can comment
Ian Horrocks: I will update the conformance document with the modified text and I will send an email how was this implemented, so that people can comment ←
17:40:56 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:40:59 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
17:41:02 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:41:05 <MartinD> ... proposals from the author re words like could, should,... will be made into the text too
... proposals from the author re words like could, should,... will be made into the text too ←
17:41:19 <sandro> Unknown, Reason=
Sandro Hawke: Unknown, Reason= ←
17:41:19 <sandro> - Resource Limits Reached
Sandro Hawke: - Resource Limits Reached ←
17:41:19 <sandro> - Finished Incomplete Algorithm
Sandro Hawke: - Finished Incomplete Algorithm ←
17:41:19 <sandro> - Unexpected Error
Sandro Hawke: - Unexpected Error ←
17:41:26 <MartinD> Alan: yesterday we discussed with Sandro - there are two meanings of "unknown"
Alan Ruttenberg: yesterday we discussed with Sandro - there are two meanings of "unknown" ←
17:41:37 <MartinD> ... unable to complete, e.g. due to resource limitations
... unable to complete, e.g. due to resource limitations ←
17:41:50 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:41:58 <MartinD> ... another is due to finished but not guaranteed entailment alg.
... another is due to finished but not guaranteed entailment alg. ←
17:42:22 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:42:27 <MartinD> ... then, if the answer doesn't make sense... we may not have a terminating message
... then, if the answer doesn't make sense... we may not have a terminating message ←
17:42:36 <sandro> q+ is this a test case question or an API question?
Sandro Hawke: q+ is this a test case question or an API question? ←
17:42:40 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:42:45 <sandro> q+ to ask is this a test case question or an API question?
Sandro Hawke: q+ to ask is this a test case question or an API question? ←
17:42:56 <MartinD> ... a proposal for something that would make clear that alg. ran out of resources vs. not knowing the answer
... a proposal for something that would make clear that alg. ran out of resources vs. not knowing the answer ←
17:43:09 <m_schnei> "Out of Resource" sounds pretty technical for a formal spec
Michael Schneider: "Out of Resource" sounds pretty technical for a formal spec ←
17:43:16 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:43:21 <IanH> ack sandro
Ian Horrocks: ack sandro ←
17:43:21 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask is this a test case question or an API question?
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to ask is this a test case question or an API question? ←
17:43:23 <MartinD> ... even if these messages are present in OWL 1, there is no reason why to keep previous language
... even if these messages are present in OWL 1, there is no reason why to keep previous language ←
17:43:37 <MartinD> Sandro: I pasted the three meanings of "unknown" above
Sandro Hawke: I pasted the three meanings of "unknown" above ←
17:44:05 <MartinD> ... not sure how useful this is; it can help in test cases, but not sure how valuable this would be in API
... not sure how useful this is; it can help in test cases, but not sure how valuable this would be in API ←
17:44:05 <m_schnei> {True, False, Unknown} is better than {True,False} in Prolog
Michael Schneider: {True, False, Unknown} is better than {True,False} in Prolog ←
17:44:27 <sandro> I DONT think it helps in the test cases.
Sandro Hawke: I DONT think it helps in the test cases. ←
17:44:29 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:44:38 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
17:44:39 <MartinD> IanH: one can perhaps distinguish even more cases to complement values of true and false
Ian Horrocks: one can perhaps distinguish even more cases to complement values of true and false ←
17:44:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:44:46 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
17:44:50 <MartinD> ... any opinions from implementers
... any opinions from implementers ←
17:45:30 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:45:35 <MartinD> ... one case where it makes sense is when the check hasn't been done, so it maybe undesirable to return unknow
... one case where it makes sense is when the check hasn't been done, so it maybe undesirable to return unknow ←
17:45:49 <sandro> "Completed-Unknown"
Sandro Hawke: "Completed-Unknown" ←
17:45:54 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:46:21 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:46:22 <m_schnei> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
17:46:25 <sandro> Ian: {True, False, UnexpectedError, CompletedComputationButNoAnswer }
Ian Horrocks: {True, False, UnexpectedError, CompletedComputationButNoAnswer } [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:46:26 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
17:46:26 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should no longer be muted ←
17:46:27 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:46:28 <pfps> =0
17:46:32 <sandro> +1 four cases for OWL RL
Sandro Hawke: +1 four cases for OWL RL ←
17:46:36 <pfps> +0
17:47:03 <MartinD> m_schnei: one can put comments re conformance, e.g. for OWL Full it cannot be avoided that "unknown" will come out
Michael Schneider: one can put comments re conformance, e.g. for OWL Full it cannot be avoided that "unknown" will come out ←
17:47:11 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:47:21 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:47:21 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should now be muted ←
17:47:33 <uli> perhaps we can see the different alternatives in writing?
Uli Sattler: perhaps we can see the different alternatives in writing? ←
17:47:39 <Zhe> +1 to Ian
17:47:44 <IanH> ack m_schnei
Ian Horrocks: ack m_schnei ←
17:47:47 <MartinD> IanH: I will have another pass on the doc and see if people like it
Ian Horrocks: I will have another pass on the doc and see if people like it ←
17:47:49 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:48:22 <MartinD> Sandro: we should say that in general, one should not be returning "unknown", which may pose a conflict with an OWL test case?
Sandro Hawke: we should say that in general, one should not be returning "unknown", which may pose a conflict with an OWL test case? ←
17:48:35 <MartinD> ... what about query answering issues?
... what about query answering issues? ←
17:49:10 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:49:25 <MartinD> IanH: we can mention something like XML query answering and show how these entailment checks would impact on QA... rather than having a complete new sections on QA
Ian Horrocks: we can mention something like XML query answering and show how these entailment checks would impact on QA... rather than having a complete new sections on QA ←
17:49:40 <MartinD> Subtopic: Issue 144 (Missing base triple in serialization of axioms with annotations)
17:49:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:49:48 <Zhe> q+
17:49:53 <sandro> SCRIBE-CORRECTION: No, what I said was that there is nothing wrong with returning "unknown" in OWL RL.
Sandro Hawke: SCRIBE-CORRECTION: No, what I said was that there is nothing wrong with returning "unknown" in OWL RL. ←
17:49:55 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:49:58 <IanH> ack Zhe
Ian Horrocks: ack Zhe ←
17:50:05 <alanr> also note: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2008Jul/0002.html
Alan Ruttenberg: also note: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2008Jul/0002.html ←
17:50:12 <MartinD> Zhe: we discussed this in the WG before...
Zhe Wu: we discussed this in the WG before... ←
17:50:32 <MartinD> ... if we don't include the base triple we may put unnecessary burden on implementations
... if we don't include the base triple we may put unnecessary burden on implementations ←
17:50:33 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:50:33 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
17:50:35 <m_schnei> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
17:50:39 <pfps> q+
17:50:42 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me ←
17:50:42 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted ←
17:50:48 <MartinD> ... we are suggesting to simply including it, which makes life easier
... we are suggesting to simply including it, which makes life easier ←
17:50:50 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:50:54 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
17:50:55 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
17:51:20 <MartinD> Boris: seems like reasonable thing to do but the problem is that an axiom is not represented as one thing vs. two things
Boris Motik: seems like reasonable thing to do but the problem is that an axiom is not represented as one thing vs. two things ←
17:51:39 <MartinD> ... what if you find both - base axiom and the reified one... then what?
... what if you find both - base axiom and the reified one... then what? ←
17:52:00 <MartinD> ... we may decide e.g. on forgeting the base one if reified axiom is found
... we may decide e.g. on forgeting the base one if reified axiom is found ←
17:52:06 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:52:08 <MartinD> ... this may cause some mapping issues
... this may cause some mapping issues ←
17:52:35 <MartinD> ... then there is another issue = including the triple does not tell you what to do with it or if it is not find
... then there is another issue = including the triple does not tell you what to do with it or if it is not find ←
17:53:00 <MartinD> ... something along lines "from reified triple define the original"
... something along lines "from reified triple define the original" ←
17:53:05 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:53:11 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
17:53:11 <Zakim> m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei ←
17:53:23 <MartinD> ... should we start adding original triples if we find a reified one
... should we start adding original triples if we find a reified one ←
17:53:39 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me ←
17:53:39 <Zakim> bcuencagrau was already muted, bcuencagrau
Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau was already muted, bcuencagrau ←
17:53:48 <MartinD> ... finally, I don't think this will occur often enough, so that it can cause problems with efficiency
... finally, I don't think this will occur often enough, so that it can cause problems with efficiency ←
17:53:54 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:54:09 <IanH> ack m_schnei
Ian Horrocks: ack m_schnei ←
17:54:25 <MartinD> m_schnei: without the triples it seems more stable?
Michael Schneider: without the triples it seems more stable? ←
17:54:39 <pfps> Boris has made my points
Peter Patel-Schneider: Boris has made my points ←
17:54:41 <pfps> q-
17:54:52 <MartinD> ... would current RDF serializations...
... would current RDF serializations... ←
17:55:31 <MartinD> ... if it is not always avoidable to have triple in (if you want to annotate the triple without having access to the orig. ontology), would you define new ontology?
... if it is not always avoidable to have triple in (if you want to annotate the triple without having access to the orig. ontology), would you define new ontology? ←
17:55:33 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:55:47 <MartinD> ... there might arise problems with axiom closure
... there might arise problems with axiom closure ←
17:55:58 <MartinD> ... I would not be in favour, not necessary IMHO
... I would not be in favour, not necessary IMHO ←
17:56:07 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:56:17 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
17:56:17 <Zakim> m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei ←
17:56:22 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
17:56:39 <MartinD> Alan: what about missing base triple -- there is a syntax for it, so no major issue
Alan Ruttenberg: what about missing base triple -- there is a syntax for it, so no major issue ←
17:57:08 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:57:12 <pfps> q+
17:57:13 <MartinD> ... regarding michael's comment, not sure this would be a really problem, perhaps only in some profiles?
... regarding michael's comment, not sure this would be a really problem, perhaps only in some profiles? ←
17:57:18 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
17:57:18 <m_schnei> of course, you can have two ontology files, one having the spo, the other having the reification, and then having the second import the first
Michael Schneider: of course, you can have two ontology files, one having the spo, the other having the reification, and then having the second import the first ←
17:57:20 <Zhe> q+
17:57:23 <pfps> q+ to ask why Alan's example is monotonic
Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ to ask why Alan's example is monotonic ←
17:57:31 <pfps> s/monotonic/nonmonotonic/
Peter Patel-Schneider: s/monotonic/nonmonotonic/ ←
17:57:33 <MartinD> ... issues are not really with performance, more about monotonicity...
... issues are not really with performance, more about monotonicity... ←
17:57:41 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
17:58:00 <msmith> q+
Mike Smith: q+ ←
17:58:27 <alanr> last statement re OWL RL seems wrong. OWL RL has specific syntax.
Alan Ruttenberg: last statement re OWL RL seems wrong. OWL RL has specific syntax. ←
17:58:31 <MartinD> Boris: if triple is not there, one can reverse-parse it... but what would OWL-RL parser do with this... if you have RDF graph without this triple, you are missing on some inferences
Boris Motik: if triple is not there, one can reverse-parse it... but what would OWL-RL parser do with this... if you have RDF graph without this triple, you are missing on some inferences ←
17:58:43 <alanr> conformance allows OWL RL entailment checked to take and RDF
Alan Ruttenberg: conformance allows OWL RL entailment checked to take and RDF ←
17:58:49 <alanr> s/checked/checker/
Alan Ruttenberg: s/checked/checker/ ←
17:58:49 <MartinD> ... there is no guarantee the triple will be included (as it should...
... there is no guarantee the triple will be included (as it should... ←
17:58:53 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:59:18 <m_schnei> yes, OWL Full infers the spo
Michael Schneider: yes, OWL Full infers the spo ←
17:59:28 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:59:33 <MartinD> ... then about monotonicity, we already have in OWL Full semantics, there is a possibility to get to non-reified version by means of reasoning...
... then about monotonicity, we already have in OWL Full semantics, there is a possibility to get to non-reified version by means of reasoning... ←
17:59:34 <alanr> where is there that reification implies base triple?
Alan Ruttenberg: where is there that reification implies base triple? ←
17:59:36 <alanr> wasn't in RDF
Alan Ruttenberg: wasn't in RDF ←
17:59:57 <MartinD> pfps: don't think Alan's example is non-mononotonic
Peter Patel-Schneider: don't think Alan's example is non-mononotonic ←
18:00:00 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:00:03 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
18:00:03 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask why Alan's example is monotonic
Zakim IRC Bot: pfps, you wanted to ask why Alan's example is monotonic ←
18:00:06 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
18:00:08 <IanH> ack Zhe
Ian Horrocks: ack Zhe ←
18:00:09 <MartinD> Zhe: still want to stress the performance issue
Zhe Wu: still want to stress the performance issue ←
18:00:11 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:00:23 <MartinD> ... if an application wants to use this type of annotation
... if an application wants to use this type of annotation ←
18:00:49 <MartinD> ... you can imagine this is an additional burden to keep checking on info on every single triple
... you can imagine this is an additional burden to keep checking on info on every single triple ←
18:00:51 <pfps> q+ to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the relative costs
Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the relative costs ←
18:01:19 <MartinD> ... if base triple is out, it's possible, it's not efficient... if there is a mix of annotated and non-annotated axioms, what should we do?
... if base triple is out, it's possible, it's not efficient... if there is a mix of annotated and non-annotated axioms, what should we do? ←
18:01:20 <uli> Zhe, perhaps this can be overcome by some clever data structures?
Uli Sattler: Zhe, perhaps this can be overcome by some clever data structures? ←
18:01:26 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:01:37 <MartinD> ... should we accept axiom with annotation and forget the ones without annotation?
... should we accept axiom with annotation and forget the ones without annotation? ←
18:01:50 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:01:57 <IanH> ack msmith
Ian Horrocks: ack msmith ←
18:02:05 <MartinD> msmith: axiom with and without annotation are structurally different
Mike Smith: axiom with and without annotation are structurally different ←
18:02:12 <bmotik> +1 to msmith
Boris Motik: +1 to msmith ←
18:02:18 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:02:22 <MartinD> ... this is already in the spect
... this is already in the spect ←
18:02:26 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
18:02:51 <MartinD> Boris: we can address the concerns with performance without altering the core
Boris Motik: we can address the concerns with performance without altering the core ←
18:03:27 <MartinD> ... people can produce RDF graphs... it is safer to assume that one gets RDF graph that needs checking if things are in it
... people can produce RDF graphs... it is safer to assume that one gets RDF graph that needs checking if things are in it ←
18:03:40 <MartinD> ... we can think about ways to handle certain common cases
... we can think about ways to handle certain common cases ←
18:03:42 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:04:05 <alanr> Q: How does RDF semantics 4.18 avoid asserting positive triple for negative property assertion?
Alan Ruttenberg: Q: How does RDF semantics 4.18 avoid asserting positive triple for negative property assertion? ←
18:04:07 <MartinD> ... the biggest problem with reification is their occurrence in different part of file = problem for parsers that need to trace this
... the biggest problem with reification is their occurrence in different part of file = problem for parsers that need to trace this ←
18:04:10 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:04:31 <MartinD> ... suggestion: implementation should put reified triples together, one after another...
... suggestion: implementation should put reified triples together, one after another... ←
18:04:40 <alanr> we don't have control of this in the rdf world
Alan Ruttenberg: we don't have control of this in the rdf world ←
18:04:45 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:04:46 <MartinD> ... this would allow more efficient handling
... this would allow more efficient handling ←
18:05:27 <alanr> rdf pipes, etc
Alan Ruttenberg: rdf pipes, etc ←
18:05:31 <MartinD> ... of course, we don't have any control over this... but OWL things are written in files, so we may recommend it?
... of course, we don't have any control over this... but OWL things are written in files, so we may recommend it? ←
18:05:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:05:46 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
18:05:46 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the relative costs
Zakim IRC Bot: pfps, you wanted to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the relative costs ←
18:05:50 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:05:57 <MartinD> Peter: there was a point about performance issue,
Peter Patel-Schneider: there was a point about performance issue, ←
18:06:09 <MartinD> ... reading a triple is expensive, even compared to running rules
... reading a triple is expensive, even compared to running rules ←
18:06:19 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:06:21 <alanr> a whole lot? 1/3 of # axioms that are annotated
Alan Ruttenberg: a whole lot? 1/3 of # axioms that are annotated ←
18:06:23 <alanr> http://pipes.deri.org/
Alan Ruttenberg: http://pipes.deri.org/ ←
18:06:29 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
18:06:40 <MartinD> ... if we had more triples, we are likely to increase the amount of I/O required
... if we had more triples, we are likely to increase the amount of I/O required ←
18:06:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:06:49 <MartinD> Zhe: maybe by 20-30%
18:07:15 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:07:21 <MartinD> Peter: yes, but that's quite substantial... unless we do an actual analysis, I am not prepared to support that we would save actual resources
Peter Patel-Schneider: yes, but that's quite substantial... unless we do an actual analysis, I am not prepared to support that we would save actual resources ←
18:08:03 <alanr> joins more expensive than io
Alan Ruttenberg: joins more expensive than io ←
18:08:05 <MartinD> Zhe: if annotation axioms does not include the base triple, we need to do additional joins in the tables...
Zhe Wu: if annotation axioms does not include the base triple, we need to do additional joins in the tables... ←
18:08:09 <m_schnei> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
18:08:38 <pfps> I'm not prepared to admit that in a decent implementation that rule processing is more exensive than adding triples
Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm not prepared to admit that in a decent implementation that rule processing is more exensive than adding triples ←
18:08:43 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:08:47 <MartinD> IanH: hard to establish what takes more time - loading triples into table or doing joins....
Ian Horrocks: hard to establish what takes more time - loading triples into table or doing joins.... ←
18:09:18 <MartinD> Boris: briefly about RDF pipes... unlikely that you cannot ship related triples
Boris Motik: briefly about RDF pipes... unlikely that you cannot ship related triples ←
18:09:24 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:09:29 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
18:09:37 <alanr> pipes: not if they go through some hash table as part of their processing
Alan Ruttenberg: pipes: not if they go through some hash table as part of their processing ←
18:09:46 <alanr> which is likely
Alan Ruttenberg: which is likely ←
18:10:17 <alanr> anyways, implementation has to handle worse case
Alan Ruttenberg: anyways, implementation has to handle worse case ←
18:10:22 <MartinD> ... if we are processing arbitrary RDF graph, if we have guarantees that in reasonable cases the triples would be close, one can implement a thing that would basically read X triples and replace them with the base triple (if that's needed)
... if we are processing arbitrary RDF graph, if we have guarantees that in reasonable cases the triples would be close, one can implement a thing that would basically read X triples and replace them with the base triple (if that's needed) ←
18:10:38 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:10:39 <Zakim> -Alan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Alan ←
18:10:44 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:10:56 <MartinD> .... if we make sure the triples are close to each, we can leave the spec as it is, and you have control over your implementation
.... if we make sure the triples are close to each, we can leave the spec as it is, and you have control over your implementation ←
18:11:22 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:11:29 <MartinD> IanH: what about doing the thing in tables, in a similar way as you said, filling table once?
Ian Horrocks: what about doing the thing in tables, in a similar way as you said, filling table once? ←
18:11:35 <Zakim> +Alan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alan ←
18:11:55 <MartinD> Boris: true but one may actually save on filling and re-filling the table because the axiom comes later?
Boris Motik: true but one may actually save on filling and re-filling the table because the axiom comes later? ←
18:11:59 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:12:02 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
18:12:02 <Zakim> m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei ←
18:12:26 <MartinD> IanH: sounds interesting... appropriate to take discussion offline for the interested parties, so that they come up with a proposal to resolve this...
Ian Horrocks: sounds interesting... appropriate to take discussion offline for the interested parties, so that they come up with a proposal to resolve this... ←
18:12:35 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:12:37 <MartinD> ... ideally by not having to have base triples?
... ideally by not having to have base triples? ←
18:12:42 <IanH> ack m_schnei
Ian Horrocks: ack m_schnei ←
18:12:50 <MartinD> m_schnei: I/O is perhaps not interesting
Michael Schneider: I/O is perhaps not interesting ←
18:13:11 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:13:20 <MartinD> ... if we find the version of the triple but not the original triple... what is *wrong* with this (disregarding I/O performance)
... if we find the version of the triple but not the original triple... what is *wrong* with this (disregarding I/O performance) ←
18:13:37 <MartinD> IanH: there is no reverse mapping for OWL Full though
Ian Horrocks: there is no reverse mapping for OWL Full though ←
18:13:44 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:13:48 <MartinD> m_schnei: I mean OWL DL
Michael Schneider: I mean OWL DL ←
18:13:53 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:14:00 <m_schnei> q-
Michael Schneider: q- ←
18:14:04 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
18:14:04 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should now be muted ←
18:14:14 <MartinD> IanH: but the discussion is now about OWL RL, so ... let's take this offline and see if things are resolved this way
Ian Horrocks: but the discussion is now about OWL RL, so ... let's take this offline and see if things are resolved this way ←
18:14:21 <MartinD> Subtopic: Issue 109 (Namespace for elements and attributes in the XML serialization)
18:14:34 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:14:37 <MartinD> IanH: last time we were close to resolving namespaces in this issue?
Ian Horrocks: last time we were close to resolving namespaces in this issue? ←
18:14:49 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:14:49 <MartinD> ... no conclusions yet
... no conclusions yet ←
18:15:24 <alanr> :)
Alan Ruttenberg: :) ←
18:15:31 <MartinD> Sandro: we are waiting for getting some objective... we need to find technical differences to rule one way or another
Sandro Hawke: we are waiting for getting some objective... we need to find technical differences to rule one way or another ←
18:16:11 <MartinD> IanH: so at the end of discussion we will somehow need to flip the coin, unless there is an agreement between protagonists
Ian Horrocks: so at the end of discussion we will somehow need to flip the coin, unless there is an agreement between protagonists ←
18:16:19 <MartinD> Sandro: do we have pros and cons?
Sandro Hawke: do we have pros and cons? ←
18:16:28 <Zakim> +??P5
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P5 ←
18:16:31 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:16:38 <MartinD> IanH: we looked at it from different angles and the point is in different opinions
Ian Horrocks: we looked at it from different angles and the point is in different opinions ←
18:17:04 <MartinD> Alan: is this an architectural issue?
Alan Ruttenberg: is this an architectural issue? ←
18:17:16 <bijan> I won't accept TAG arbitration
Bijan Parsia: I won't accept TAG arbitration ←
18:17:22 <MartinD> ... if this is on stake, why not bringing some else in?
... if this is on stake, why not bringing some else in? ←
18:17:25 <bijan> zakim, who is here
Bijan Parsia: zakim, who is here ←
18:17:25 <Zakim> bijan, you need to end that query with '?'
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan, you need to end that query with '?' ←
18:17:35 <bijan> zakim, who is here?
Bijan Parsia: zakim, who is here? ←
18:17:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Sandro, IanH, bmotik, Zhe, m_schnei (muted), Achille, uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), baojie, msmith, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Alan, ??P5
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Sandro, IanH, bmotik, Zhe, m_schnei (muted), Achille, uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), baojie, msmith, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Alan, ??P5 ←
18:17:38 <Zakim> On IRC I see bijan, pfps, ewallace, msmith, Achille, uli, Zhe, bcuencagrau, m_schnei, bmotik, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, baojie, sandro, alanr, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see bijan, pfps, ewallace, msmith, Achille, uli, Zhe, bcuencagrau, m_schnei, bmotik, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, baojie, sandro, alanr, trackbot ←
18:17:44 <bijan> zakim, ??p5 is me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, ??p5 is me ←
18:17:44 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bijan; got it ←
18:17:46 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:17:51 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:18:12 <MartinD> ... is there a suggestion where we can ask for ideas? e.g. XML WG
... is there a suggestion where we can ask for ideas? e.g. XML WG ←
18:18:35 <IanH> I would listen to TAG opinion
Ian Horrocks: I would listen to TAG opinion ←
18:18:38 <MartinD> Alan: do we need more time to this? next week?
Alan Ruttenberg: do we need more time to this? next week? ←
18:18:54 <alanr> yes
Alan Ruttenberg: yes ←
18:18:58 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:19:02 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
18:19:37 <MartinD> Bijan: curious about these situations, there should be some evidence which we don't have at the moment... mere judgments are not really making much difference here
Bijan Parsia: curious about these situations, there should be some evidence which we don't have at the moment... mere judgments are not really making much difference here ←
18:19:53 <MartinD> IanH: in the end there will have to be a vote on this in WG
Ian Horrocks: in the end there will have to be a vote on this in WG ←
18:20:52 <MartinD> ... so it's really about other members of WG to make up their minds and in voting go one way or another... so far it's mainly W3C and Manchester objecting (with most being indifferent)
... so it's really about other members of WG to make up their minds and in voting go one way or another... so far it's mainly W3C and Manchester objecting (with most being indifferent) ←
18:20:54 <alanr> I object to that
Alan Ruttenberg: I object to that ←
18:21:02 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:21:07 <MartinD> ... so what about that coin idea = if no decision reached
... so what about that coin idea = if no decision reached ←
18:21:51 <MartinD> ... when do we expect to make this decision
... when do we expect to make this decision ←
18:22:04 <MartinD> Alan: why don't we see what happens next week?
Alan Ruttenberg: why don't we see what happens next week? ←
18:22:29 <MartinD> Bijan: the issue is that one can hardly expect to get new information to change mind
Bijan Parsia: the issue is that one can hardly expect to get new information to change mind ←
18:22:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:22:58 <MartinD> Alan: it's not about changing minds but about other people getting information to understand what's going on
Alan Ruttenberg: it's not about changing minds but about other people getting information to understand what's going on ←
18:23:26 <MartinD> IanH: let's wait until the next week if additional information appears, if not, just call for a vote
Ian Horrocks: let's wait until the next week if additional information appears, if not, just call for a vote ←
18:23:38 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:23:43 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
18:23:44 <pfps> q+
18:23:46 <MartinD> Subtopic: Issue 138 (Name of dateTime datatype)
18:23:48 <bijan> +1 to owl:datetime
Bijan Parsia: +1 to owl:datetime ←
18:23:51 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
18:23:51 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
18:24:15 <pfps> q?
18:24:19 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:24:20 <MartinD> We are waiting for the response to Peter's email
We are waiting for the response to Peter's email ←
18:24:22 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
18:24:33 <MartinD> Peter: perhaps we should put this in some documents
Peter Patel-Schneider: perhaps we should put this in some documents ←
18:24:52 <bmotik> Yes
Boris Motik: Yes ←
18:24:58 <MartinD> ... not as a resolved but just to make sure it's not forgotten
... not as a resolved but just to make sure it's not forgotten ←
18:24:58 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:25:01 <bmotik> There is an editor's note
Boris Motik: There is an editor's note ←
18:25:08 <m_schnei> PFPS: owl:dateTime would be the save choice
Peter Patel-Schneider: owl:dateTime would be the save choice [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
18:25:16 <pfps> s/save/safe/
Peter Patel-Schneider: s/save/safe/ ←
18:25:19 <MartinD> ... this would be in syntax, Boris says it would there
... this would be in syntax, Boris says it would there ←
18:25:55 <MartinD> Alan: (?) what is the definition of punning at the moment?
Alan Ruttenberg: (?) what is the definition of punning at the moment? ←
18:25:58 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:26:10 <bijan> I think it's what peter says it was
Bijan Parsia: I think it's what peter says it was ←
18:26:11 <m_schnei> shouldn't there be an email discussion in the past about the "which punning" question?
Michael Schneider: shouldn't there be an email discussion in the past about the "which punning" question? ←
18:26:28 <MartinD> ... there are a few definitions going, so which is the one we subscribe to? to explain it to people
... there are a few definitions going, so which is the one we subscribe to? to explain it to people ←
18:26:40 <MartinD> IanH: other issues are probably longer to discuss
Ian Horrocks: other issues are probably longer to discuss ←
18:26:42 <MartinD> Topic: AOB
18:26:53 <MartinD> IanH: no additional items, so let's conclude
Ian Horrocks: no additional items, so let's conclude ←
18:26:54 <Zakim> -msmith
Zakim IRC Bot: -msmith ←
18:26:55 <m_schnei> bye
Michael Schneider: bye ←
18:26:56 <Zakim> -bmotik
Zakim IRC Bot: -bmotik ←
18:26:56 <uli> bye bye
Uli Sattler: bye bye ←
18:27:01 <Zakim> -uli
Zakim IRC Bot: -uli ←
18:27:01 <IanH> bye
Ian Horrocks: bye ←
18:27:02 <Zakim> -baojie
Zakim IRC Bot: -baojie ←
18:27:02 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: -Peter_Patel-Schneider ←
18:27:04 <Zakim> -bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: -bijan ←
18:27:04 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
18:27:05 <Zakim> -Achille
Zakim IRC Bot: -Achille ←
18:27:07 <sandro> thank, Ian :-)
Sandro Hawke: thank, Ian :-) ←
18:27:08 <Zakim> -IanH
Zakim IRC Bot: -IanH ←
18:27:09 <Zakim> -Alan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Alan ←
18:27:10 <Zakim> -m_schnei
Zakim IRC Bot: -m_schnei ←
18:27:13 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
Zakim IRC Bot: -bcuencagrau ←
18:27:25 <IanH> And thanks to you too :-)
Ian Horrocks: And thanks to you too :-) ←
This revision (#2) generated 2008-09-12 10:34:13 UTC by 'mdzbor', comments: None