There are some format problems with the chatlog. Please correct them and reload this page. They are labeled on this page in a red box, like this message.
00:00:00 <sandro> PRESENT: Ian, Boris, pfps, Bernardo, Sandro, MarkusK, m_schnei, Achille, Bijan, Evan, Christine, Rinke, Ivan, Alan_Ruttenberg
00:00:00 <sandro> Observers: Henson_Graves, Jeremy_Carroll, scott_marshall, novak, holger, alexandre
00:00:00 <sandro> Remote: Elisa_Kendall, Zhe
06:55:50 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-owl-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-owl-irc ←
06:56:07 <pfps> Zakim, this will be owlwg
Peter Patel-Schneider: Zakim, this will be owlwg ←
06:56:07 <Zakim> ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM scheduled to start 26 minutes ago
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM scheduled to start 26 minutes ago ←
06:56:21 <pfps> RRSAgent, make records public
Peter Patel-Schneider: RRSAgent, make records public ←
06:56:33 <pfps> ScribeNick: pfps
(Scribe set to Peter Patel-Schneider)
06:56:59 <pfps> elisa?
elisa? ←
06:58:12 <Zakim> SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has now started ←
06:58:19 <Zakim> +Elisa_Kendall
Zakim IRC Bot: +Elisa_Kendall ←
06:58:25 <Elisa> hi
Elisa Kendall: hi ←
07:07:40 <pfps> IanH: Welcome (to ...)
(No events recorded for 9 minutes)
Ian Horrocks: Welcome (to ...) ←
07:07:51 <sandro> zakim, who is here?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is here? ←
07:07:51 <Zakim> On the phone I see Elisa_Kendall
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Elisa_Kendall ←
07:07:52 <Zakim> On IRC I see MarkusK_, sandro, bernardo, IanH, Elisa, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, ivan, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see MarkusK_, sandro, bernardo, IanH, Elisa, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, ivan, trackbot ←
07:12:49 <sandro> zakim, call Riviera_B
Sandro Hawke: zakim, call Riviera_B ←
07:12:49 <Zakim> ok, sandro; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, sandro; the call is being made ←
07:12:51 <Zakim> +Riviera_B
Zakim IRC Bot: +Riviera_B ←
07:14:09 <pfps> Sandro: nothing on local arrangement
Sandro Hawke: nothing on local arrangement ←
07:14:30 <pfps> IanH: introductions
Ian Horrocks: introductions ←
07:14:40 <pfps> ...: Hi, I'm me
...: Hi, I'm me ←
07:14:42 <ivan> zakim, dial Riviera_B
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial Riviera_B ←
07:14:42 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
07:14:43 <Zakim> +Riviera_B.a
Zakim IRC Bot: +Riviera_B.a ←
07:15:51 <pfps> Observers - Henson Graves, Jeremy Carroll
Observers - Henson Graves, Jeremy Carroll ←
07:16:41 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Timeline
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Timeline ←
07:16:42 <pfps> IanH: Timeline (follow link in agenda)
Ian Horrocks: Timeline (follow link in agenda) ←
07:17:13 <pfps> IanH: I put a real timeine (not T0+)
Ian Horrocks: I put a real timeine (not T0+) ←
07:17:38 <pfps> IanH: We are about 2 months behind the scheduled time for Last Call
Ian Horrocks: We are about 2 months behind the scheduled time for Last Call ←
07:17:53 <pfps> IanH: It thus would be good to move forward with due haste
Ian Horrocks: It thus would be good to move forward with due haste ←
07:18:43 <pfps> Bijan: The schedule was designed to be aggressive (but with a bit of slack)
Bijan Parsia: The schedule was designed to be aggressive (but with a bit of slack) ←
07:18:56 <pfps> Sandro: The slack is ... two months
Sandro Hawke: The slack is ... two months ←
07:19:09 <pfps> Topic: Document Status
07:19:19 <pfps> Polycom goes Beep
Polycom goes Beep ←
07:19:34 <pfps> IanH: This section is intended as a review
Ian Horrocks: This section is intended as a review ←
07:19:45 <pfps> IanH: Can the editors say the status
Ian Horrocks: Can the editors say the status ←
07:19:45 <Zakim> -Riviera_B.a
Zakim IRC Bot: -Riviera_B.a ←
07:19:49 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call? ←
07:19:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see Elisa_Kendall, Riviera_B
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Elisa_Kendall, Riviera_B ←
<sandro> subtopic: Syntax
07:20:23 <pfps> Boris: Syntax is up to date - there are some issues that will impact it
Boris Motik: Syntax is up to date - there are some issues that will impact it ←
07:20:42 <pfps> IanH: There has been internal review (for last PWD)
Ian Horrocks: There has been internal review (for last PWD) ←
07:20:47 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:20:55 <pfps> Ivan: There has been no major external comments
Ivan Herman: There has been no major external comments ←
07:21:03 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
07:21:03 <Zakim> On the phone I see Elisa_Kendall, Riviera_B
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Elisa_Kendall, Riviera_B ←
07:21:04 <Zakim> On IRC I see bmotik, m_schnei, wallace, MarkusK_, sandro, bernardo, IanH, Elisa, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, ivan, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see bmotik, m_schnei, wallace, MarkusK_, sandro, bernardo, IanH, Elisa, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, ivan, trackbot ←
07:21:09 <pfps> Bijan: Does current syntax document meet Evan's needs
Bijan Parsia: Does current syntax document meet Evan's needs ←
07:21:29 <pfps> Evan: Way better than it was - usable - not great because of organization
Evan Wallace: Way better than it was - usable - not great because of organization ←
07:22:00 <pfps> Evan: Reorganization is currently for the spec/implementation, not users
Evan Wallace: Reorganization is currently for the spec/implementation, not users ←
07:22:15 <pfps> Bijan: Not explicitly - we did have discussions on the order
Bijan Parsia: Not explicitly - we did have discussions on the order ←
07:22:29 <pfps> s/Reorganization/Organization
s/Reorganization/Organization ←
07:22:46 <pfps> Bijan: There are various organizations of reference docs in the literature
Bijan Parsia: There are various organizations of reference docs in the literature ←
07:22:59 <pfps> Boris: Currently Syntax is a *reference* document
Boris Motik: Currently Syntax is a *reference* document ←
07:23:34 <pfps> Evan: Quick Reference Guide could be used as an index
Evan Wallace: Quick Reference Guide could be used as an index ←
07:23:47 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:24:04 <pfps> Bijan: Primer can serve as another "index"
Bijan Parsia: Primer can serve as another "index" ←
07:24:42 <pfps> Bijan: Three "indexes" - ToC, QRG, Primer
Bijan Parsia: Three "indexes" - ToC, QRG, Primer ←
07:24:50 <Zakim> + +1.978.692.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.978.692.aaaa ←
07:24:57 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:25:05 <pfps> Evan: The problem is using it as a reference
Evan Wallace: The problem is using it as a reference ←
07:25:13 <Zhe> zakim, +1.978.692.aaaa is me
Zhe Wu: zakim, +1.978.692.aaaa is me ←
07:25:13 <pfps> Evan: The ordering is wrong
Evan Wallace: The ordering is wrong ←
07:25:13 <Zakim> +Zhe; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Zhe; got it ←
07:25:19 <pfps> Boris: What is needed?
Boris Motik: What is needed? ←
07:25:20 <IanH> Hello Zhe!
Ian Horrocks: Hello Zhe! ←
07:25:25 <Zhe> zakim, mute me
07:25:25 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Zhe should now be muted ←
07:25:28 <Zhe> Hi Ian!
07:25:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:25:48 <pfps> Evan: Things related to object properties grouped together
Evan Wallace: Things related to object properties grouped together ←
07:26:11 <pfps> Boris: But what about domain axioms - they are related to both classes and object properties
Boris Motik: But what about domain axioms - they are related to both classes and object properties ←
07:27:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:27:41 <pfps> Christine: What is under discussion now?
Christine Golbreich: What is under discussion now? ←
07:28:09 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:28:11 <pfps> Bijan: We are now discussing the Syntax document - but are also pulling in relationships to other documents
Bijan Parsia: We are now discussing the Syntax document - but are also pulling in relationships to other documents ←
07:28:47 <pfps> Bijan: Old reference has informal discussions, which are not in the QRG
Bijan Parsia: Old reference has informal discussions, which are not in the QRG ←
07:29:04 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:29:11 <pfps> IanH: A complete redesign of Syntax is a major effort
Ian Horrocks: A complete redesign of Syntax is a major effort ←
07:29:39 <pfps> Evan: A complete redesign is not in the cards
Evan Wallace: A complete redesign is not in the cards ←
07:30:00 <sandro> Evan: I'm fine with using the Quick Reference Guide as the index to Syntax.
Evan Wallace: I'm fine with using the Quick Reference Guide as the index to Syntax. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
07:30:05 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:30:06 <pfps> Evan: A reference index is needed - either QRG or part of the document
Evan Wallace: A reference index is needed - either QRG or part of the document ←
07:30:40 <pfps> IanH: OK, syntax is in pretty good shape, modulo outstanding issues and perhaps an index
Ian Horrocks: OK, syntax is in pretty good shape, modulo outstanding issues and perhaps an index ←
07:30:49 <pfps> SubTopic: Semantics Document
07:30:59 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:31:13 <pfps> Boris: Similar status to syntax - up to date - outstanding issues may need changes
Boris Motik: Similar status to syntax - up to date - outstanding issues may need changes ←
07:31:38 <sandro> pfps: It's our contention that the Direct Semantics current correctly describes the meaning of OWL.
Peter Patel-Schneider: It's our contention that the Direct Semantics current correctly describes the meaning of OWL. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
07:32:02 <sandro> ian; Finished, modulo outstanding issues.
Sandro Hawke: ian; Finished, modulo outstanding issues. ←
07:32:05 <pfps> SubTopic: RDF Semantics
07:32:06 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:32:15 <pfps> Michael: RDF Semantics is a bit behind
Michael Schneider: RDF Semantics is a bit behind ←
07:32:18 <sandro> s/ian;/ian:/
Sandro Hawke: s/ian;/ian:/ ←
07:32:30 <pfps> Michael: There are a couple of minor things that need to be added
Michael Schneider: There are a couple of minor things that need to be added ←
07:32:43 <pfps> Michael: The two documents are structurally aligned
Michael Schneider: The two documents are structurally aligned ←
07:33:31 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:33:44 <pfps> Michael: Outstanding issues - correspondence theorem, test cases that exercise rdf semantics
Michael Schneider: Outstanding issues - correspondence theorem, test cases that exercise rdf semantics ←
07:33:51 <sandro> m_schnei: the correspondence theorem proof still needs work.
Michael Schneider: the correspondence theorem proof still needs work. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
07:34:10 <pfps> Bijan: Do we believe that the theorem is correct - if so then we should be able to go to last call - if not then we need to worry
Bijan Parsia: Do we believe that the theorem is correct - if so then we should be able to go to last call - if not then we need to worry ←
07:34:19 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:34:32 <pfps> Michael: I believe the theorem and that it is a good as we can get
Michael Schneider: I believe the theorem and that it is a good as we can get ←
07:34:55 <sandro> bijan: Are any proof errors such that the language would have to change?
Bijan Parsia: Are any proof errors such that the language would have to change? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
07:35:00 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:35:05 <sandro> m_schnei: I don't think the language will have to change.
Michael Schneider: I don't think the language will have to change. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
07:35:28 <pfps> Bijan: Do you think that the semantics is OK
Bijan Parsia: Do you think that the semantics is OK ←
07:35:35 <pfps> Michael: 95 per cent
Michael Schneider: 95 per cent ←
07:35:56 <pfps> Subtopic: Conformance and Test Cases
07:36:07 <pfps> IanH: This could be more contentious
Ian Horrocks: This could be more contentious ←
07:36:15 <pfps> Ivan: We need more test cases
Ivan Herman: We need more test cases ←
07:36:34 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:36:42 <pfps> IanH: Mike Smith wants to participate
Ian Horrocks: Mike Smith wants to participate ←
07:37:00 <pfps> Bijan: When I wanted to submit test cases the structure wasn't redy
Bijan Parsia: When I wanted to submit test cases the structure wasn't redy ←
07:37:12 <pfps> Ivan: What is the experience of the OWL 1 test cases
Ivan Herman: What is the experience of the OWL 1 test cases ←
07:37:47 <pfps> Bijan: They are great, much better than before, they help a lot in checking initial part of implementation
Bijan Parsia: They are great, much better than before, they help a lot in checking initial part of implementation ←
07:38:13 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:38:16 <pfps> Markus: Most OWL 1 test cases have been copied over
Markus Krötzsch: Most OWL 1 test cases have been copied over ←
07:38:35 <pfps> Ivan: We might only need tests for the new features
Ivan Herman: We might only need tests for the new features ←
07:38:49 <pfps> Bijan: We could do more, but getting to the OWL 1 level is adequate
Bijan Parsia: We could do more, but getting to the OWL 1 level is adequate ←
07:39:17 <pfps> IanH: There was also fitting into Lite, DL, Full, so the tests need to be remarked
Ian Horrocks: There was also fitting into Lite, DL, Full, so the tests need to be remarked ←
07:39:33 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:39:44 <pfps> IanH: We also probably need test cases to check the boundaries of the profiles
Ian Horrocks: We also probably need test cases to check the boundaries of the profiles ←
07:39:46 <MarkusK_> Test cases http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test_cases
Markus Krötzsch: Test cases http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test_cases ←
07:40:08 <MarkusK_> This page contains links to lists showing all test cases, by various criteria
Markus Krötzsch: This page contains links to lists showing all test cases, by various criteria ←
07:40:59 <pfps> Pfps: What about the status of T&C itself
Peter Patel-Schneider: What about the status of T&C itself ←
07:41:09 <pfps> Bijan: We will ask for tests at OWLED
Bijan Parsia: We will ask for tests at OWLED ←
07:41:22 <pfps> Ivan: We need test cases ready for CR
Ivan Herman: We need test cases ready for CR ←
07:41:41 <pfps> Bijan: Not so - test cases could come out of CR - we need a reasonable set going in
Bijan Parsia: Not so - test cases could come out of CR - we need a reasonable set going in ←
07:41:45 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:42:23 <pfps> Jeremy: OWL 1 test cases lagged going into LC by two months
Jeremy Carroll: OWL 1 test cases lagged going into LC by two months ←
07:42:33 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:42:55 <pfps> Sandro: At some time there has to be a set of approved test cases
Sandro Hawke: At some time there has to be a set of approved test cases ←
07:43:10 <pfps> IanH: Mike Smith wants a process for approving new test cases
Ian Horrocks: Mike Smith wants a process for approving new test cases ←
07:43:27 <pfps> Sandro: Initially by hand, then we can use implementations to help approval process
Sandro Hawke: Initially by hand, then we can use implementations to help approval process ←
07:43:51 <pfps> Jeremy: OWL 1 document included the process for approving test cases
Jeremy Carroll: OWL 1 document included the process for approving test cases ←
07:44:20 <pfps> IanH: Conformance part has been approved - and has no outstanding issues
Ian Horrocks: Conformance part has been approved - and has no outstanding issues ←
07:44:32 <pfps> Subtopic: RDF Mapping
07:44:39 <pfps> IanH: What about RDF Mapping?
Ian Horrocks: What about RDF Mapping? ←
07:45:10 <pfps> Boris: Same status as Syntax and Semantics - up to date - some outstanding issues
Boris Motik: Same status as Syntax and Semantics - up to date - some outstanding issues ←
07:45:23 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:46:13 <pfps> Ivan: Looking at the QRG there appear to be some mismatches between functional and RDF syntaxes
Ivan Herman: Looking at the QRG there appear to be some mismatches between functional and RDF syntaxes ←
07:47:01 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:47:27 <pfps> Boris: There are reasons for some of the mismatches
Boris Motik: There are reasons for some of the mismatches ←
07:47:36 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:47:44 <pfps> ACTION: pfps to check differences between functional and RDF syntaxes
ACTION: pfps to check differences between functional and RDF syntaxes ←
07:47:44 <trackbot> Created ACTION-232 - Check differences between functional and RDF syntaxes [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2008-10-30].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-232 - Check differences between functional and RDF syntaxes [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2008-10-30]. ←
07:48:12 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:48:19 <pfps> Ivan: also XML syntax
Ivan Herman: also XML syntax ←
07:48:54 <pfps> Bijan: XML syntax mirrors functional syntax
Bijan Parsia: XML syntax mirrors functional syntax ←
07:49:04 <pfps> Subtopic: XML serialization
07:50:13 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:50:27 <pfps> Bijan: Document is up to date - potential outstanding issues
Bijan Parsia: Document is up to date - potential outstanding issues ←
07:50:49 <pfps> Bijan: Would be nice to have a non-normative RelaxNG syntax
Bijan Parsia: Would be nice to have a non-normative RelaxNG syntax ←
07:51:10 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:51:26 <pfps> Bijan: This would an editorial addition - non critical - could even be after last call
Bijan Parsia: This would an editorial addition - non critical - could even be after last call ←
07:51:49 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:52:20 <pfps> Bijan: Issues with aspects of design - too verbose - need to check with Matt Horridge
Bijan Parsia: Issues with aspects of design - too verbose - need to check with Matt Horridge ←
07:52:42 <pfps> IanH: There was a query from Alan related to the MOF metamodel - can we generate the syntax from the MOF?
Ian Horrocks: There was a query from Alan related to the MOF metamodel - can we generate the syntax from the MOF? ←
07:53:25 <Elisa> What would be generated from the MOF metamodel is XMI, which is an OMG specification for XML schema interchange
Elisa Kendall: What would be generated from the MOF metamodel is XMI, which is an OMG specification for XML schema interchange ←
07:53:32 <pfps> Bijan: Not a good idea - no evidence that it would work - know that conversion to RelaxNG works
Bijan Parsia: Not a good idea - no evidence that it would work - know that conversion to RelaxNG works ←
07:53:46 <pfps> Bijan: MOF conversion to XML might result in an unreadable schema
Bijan Parsia: MOF conversion to XML might result in an unreadable schema ←
07:53:58 <pfps> Boris: Could end up very close
Boris Motik: Could end up very close ←
07:54:06 <Elisa> This could be mapped to various other surface syntaxes in an automated way
Elisa Kendall: This could be mapped to various other surface syntaxes in an automated way ←
07:54:28 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:54:41 <pfps> Bijan: I want to see the output before I determine whether it is a good idea
Bijan Parsia: I want to see the output before I determine whether it is a good idea ←
07:55:02 <sandro> Sandro: We can just wait until someone comes forward wanting this, and see if they're offering to do it.
Sandro Hawke: We can just wait until someone comes forward wanting this, and see if they're offering to do it. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
07:55:24 <pfps> Elisa: Lots of tools generate XML Schema from a metamodel - could be verbose
Elisa Kendall: Lots of tools generate XML Schema from a metamodel - could be verbose ←
07:55:32 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
07:55:36 <sandro> elisa: The XMI -- the automatic XML schema -- will be generated automatically by any decent UML tool -- but the XMI has extra cruft, which you'd have to map out of it.
Elisa Kendall: The XMI -- the automatic XML schema -- will be generated automatically by any decent UML tool -- but the XMI has extra cruft, which you'd have to map out of it. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
07:55:51 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:55:56 <pfps> Elisa: What does the WG want to do with the result?
Elisa Kendall: What does the WG want to do with the result? ←
07:56:08 <bijan> q-
Bijan Parsia: q- ←
07:56:35 <pfps> Boris: Why do we want XMI? We then get an automatically-generated syntax
Boris Motik: Why do we want XMI? We then get an automatically-generated syntax ←
07:56:47 <pfps> Boris: Depends on result of metamodel issue
Boris Motik: Depends on result of metamodel issue ←
07:57:17 <sandro> Bijan: The question is whether this would result in a better schema. More accurate, ...?
Bijan Parsia: The question is whether this would result in a better schema. More accurate, ...? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
07:57:21 <pfps> Bijan: I can see point related to above claim. However, is the result a better schema?
Bijan Parsia: I can see point related to above claim. However, is the result a better schema? ←
07:57:52 <pfps> Bijan: I would prefer RelaxNG but I'm not proposing to change at this point.
Bijan Parsia: I would prefer RelaxNG but I'm not proposing to change at this point. ←
07:57:59 <pfps> Bijan: We need to be sure of the benefit.
Bijan Parsia: We need to be sure of the benefit. ←
07:58:24 <pfps> Boris: Peter Hasse sent me an automatically generated schema - it wasn't pretty.
Boris Motik: Peter Hasse sent me an automatically generated schema - it wasn't pretty. ←
07:58:52 <pfps> Boris: Peter Hasse said that the generation can be controlled, so maybe a good schema could result
Boris Motik: Peter Hasse said that the generation can be controlled, so maybe a good schema could result ←
07:59:15 <pfps> Boris: In any case this depends on the metamodel issue and then a benefits analysis
Boris Motik: In any case this depends on the metamodel issue and then a benefits analysis ←
07:59:21 <pfps> Bijan: Agree
Bijan Parsia: Agree ←
07:59:35 <pfps> IanH: Agree and also worry about timeline
Ian Horrocks: Agree and also worry about timeline ←
07:59:45 <pfps> Bijan: Can we test whether our schema matches the metamodel
Bijan Parsia: Can we test whether our schema matches the metamodel ←
08:00:09 <pfps> Elisa: Yes, but I'm not up on the tools - I do know someone who knows how to do this
Elisa Kendall: Yes, but I'm not up on the tools - I do know someone who knows how to do this ←
08:00:26 <pfps> Bijan: Testing our Schema would be a good idea
Bijan Parsia: Testing our Schema would be a good idea ←
08:00:47 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:01:16 <pfps> Elisa: This can also be a debugging tool
Elisa Kendall: This can also be a debugging tool ←
08:01:52 <pfps> Elisa: ECLIPSE has tools that help working on ontologies
Elisa Kendall: ECLIPSE has tools that help working on ontologies ←
08:03:19 <pfps> Evan: The tools check XMI not Schema
Evan Wallace: The tools check XMI not Schema ←
08:04:06 <pfps> Bijan: But tools turn metamodels into XML Schema - what about doing the reverse?
Bijan Parsia: But tools turn metamodels into XML Schema - what about doing the reverse? ←
08:04:31 <pfps> Evan: The tools result in ugly schema
Evan Wallace: The tools result in ugly schema ←
08:04:41 <pfps> Bijan: So there are no recognizers?
Bijan Parsia: So there are no recognizers? ←
08:04:55 <sandro> wikipedia says "exchanging files between UML modeling tools using XMI is rarely possible."
Sandro Hawke: wikipedia says "exchanging files between UML modeling tools using XMI is rarely possible." ←
08:05:18 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:05:40 <pfps> Boris: If we can automatically generate a nice Schema from the metamodel then we get automatic correspondence
Boris Motik: If we can automatically generate a nice Schema from the metamodel then we get automatic correspondence ←
08:05:53 <Rinke> (sandro, that's my personal experience as well)
Rinke Hoekstra: (sandro, that's my personal experience as well) ←
08:06:25 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:06:36 <pfps> Bijan: Correctness (consistence) is the only benefit, I believe the schema over the metamodel
Bijan Parsia: Correctness (consistence) is the only benefit, I believe the schema over the metamodel ←
08:07:17 <pfps> Sandro: If what Boris is saying works, then we get some increment to confidence
Sandro Hawke: If what Boris is saying works, then we get some increment to confidence ←
08:07:25 <pfps> IanH: Not critical path
Ian Horrocks: Not critical path ←
08:08:03 <pfps> Rinke: There are tools that generate metamodel from XML Schema
Rinke Hoekstra: There are tools that generate metamodel from XML Schema ←
08:08:07 <sandro> Sandro: If we can generate a schema from the metamodel, then run it against all the test cases, that would be a nice validation of the metamodel.
Sandro Hawke: If we can generate a schema from the metamodel, then run it against all the test cases, that would be a nice validation of the metamodel. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
08:08:16 <pfps> IanH: Also a good idea, but not on our critical path
Ian Horrocks: Also a good idea, but not on our critical path ←
08:08:27 <pfps> Evan: What is the canonical form of an OWL 2 ontology
Evan Wallace: What is the canonical form of an OWL 2 ontology ←
08:08:51 <pfps> Boris: The metamodel (but this is not completely formally defined)
Boris Motik: The metamodel (but this is not completely formally defined) ←
08:09:33 <pfps> Subtopic: Profiles
08:09:33 <sandro> Boris: the metamodel -- in natural language, UML, functional syntax etc -- spread through all these bits -- that's the metamodel, and it's the canonical form.
Boris Motik: the metamodel -- in natural language, UML, functional syntax etc -- spread through all these bits -- that's the metamodel, and it's the canonical form. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
08:09:47 <pfps> Boris: Up to date - some outstanding issues
Boris Motik: Up to date - some outstanding issues ←
08:09:57 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:10:11 <pfps> Bijan: What about descriptive stuff on the various profiles?
Bijan Parsia: What about descriptive stuff on the various profiles? ←
08:10:25 <pfps> IanH: I added some of this stuff - it is controversial
Ian Horrocks: I added some of this stuff - it is controversial ←
08:10:54 <pfps> Ivan: Want full grammars for each profile
Ivan Herman: Want full grammars for each profile ←
08:10:57 <bijan> Editor's Note: This appendix will contain the full grammars of each of the profiles. The grammar will be completed when the technical work on each of the profiles has been finished.
Bijan Parsia: Editor's Note: This appendix will contain the full grammars of each of the profiles. The grammar will be completed when the technical work on each of the profiles has been finished. ←
08:11:01 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:11:10 <bijan> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profiles#Appendix:_Complete_Grammars_for_Profiles
Bijan Parsia: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profiles#Appendix:_Complete_Grammars_for_Profiles ←
08:11:17 <pfps> Boris: Editorial note - will be done before Last Call - don't want to do before final changes
Boris Motik: Editorial note - will be done before Last Call - don't want to do before final changes ←
08:11:23 <pfps> Ivan: What about Theorem 1
Ivan Herman: What about Theorem 1 ←
08:11:41 <pfps> IanH: Up for discussion later
Ian Horrocks: Up for discussion later ←
08:11:50 <pfps> IanH: Some issues related to RL
Ian Horrocks: Some issues related to RL ←
08:12:00 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:12:04 <pfps> Subtopic: Primer
08:12:23 <pfps> Bijan: I'm waiting for the other documents to stabilize
Bijan Parsia: I'm waiting for the other documents to stabilize ←
08:12:41 <pfps> Bijan: I might want to change the example - traditional families might be controversial
Bijan Parsia: I might want to change the example - traditional families might be controversial ←
08:13:17 <pfps> Ivan: For me the example works - I propose not to change unless there are major objections
Ivan Herman: For me the example works - I propose not to change unless there are major objections ←
08:13:52 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:14:27 <pfps> Sandro: Stay biological - social is controversial
Sandro Hawke: Stay biological - social is controversial ←
08:15:09 <pfps> Ivan: Turtle examples are not nice - I will work on them
Ivan Herman: Turtle examples are not nice - I will work on them ←
08:15:50 <pfps> Bijan: I can't commit to Primer before end of year
Bijan Parsia: I can't commit to Primer before end of year ←
08:16:33 <pfps> Ivan: What is the status of the primer - rec track vs note - undetermined so far
Ivan Herman: What is the status of the primer - rec track vs note - undetermined so far ←
08:16:49 <pfps> Ivan: What about profiles in primer?
Ivan Herman: What about profiles in primer? ←
08:16:53 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:17:13 <pfps> Bijan: As little as possible - bulks up the primer too much
Bijan Parsia: As little as possible - bulks up the primer too much ←
08:17:22 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:17:35 <pfps> Ivan: How about using the same example for all profiles?
Ivan Herman: How about using the same example for all profiles? ←
08:17:43 <pfps> Bijan: Could be a good idea
Bijan Parsia: Could be a good idea ←
08:17:54 <pfps> Ivan: Appendices?
Ivan Herman: Appendices? ←
08:18:12 <pfps> Bijan: Profiles in text - non-starter - overwhelming
Bijan Parsia: Profiles in text - non-starter - overwhelming ←
08:18:24 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:18:26 <pfps> Bijan: Profiles in appendices - better
Bijan Parsia: Profiles in appendices - better ←
08:18:30 <pfps> Ivan: More useful
Ivan Herman: More useful ←
08:18:41 <pfps> Bijan: Let's try one of them
Bijan Parsia: Let's try one of them ←
08:18:45 <pfps> Ivan: I'll try RL
Ivan Herman: I'll try RL ←
08:19:35 <Zhe> Ivan I can help you if you need anything
Zhe Wu: Ivan I can help you if you need anything ←
08:19:56 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:20:40 <pfps> Christine: Primer is similar to Ontology Development 101, which was useful
Christine Golbreich: Primer is similar to Ontology Development 101, which was useful ←
08:23:14 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:23:22 <pfps> Christine: I don't like the Manchester Syntax - it is frame-like and uses "fact" - may lead to misunderstanding
Christine Golbreich: I don't like the Manchester Syntax - it is frame-like and uses "fact" - may lead to misunderstanding ←
08:24:29 <pfps> Bijan: The Primer just uses the majorly-used syntaxes - We used Manchester syntax initially so it comes first
Bijan Parsia: The Primer just uses the majorly-used syntaxes - We used Manchester syntax initially so it comes first ←
08:24:32 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:25:33 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:26:25 <pfps> IanH: We will discuss status and schedule later in the F2F.
Ian Horrocks: We will discuss status and schedule later in the F2F. ←
08:27:26 <pfps> Bijan: There is some perspective-specific stuff in the primer (that can be removed from the presentation)
Bijan Parsia: There is some perspective-specific stuff in the primer (that can be removed from the presentation) ←
08:27:32 <Elisa> Latest version of the QRG (wiki) is at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Quick_Reference_Guide
Elisa Kendall: Latest version of the QRG (wiki) is at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Quick_Reference_Guide ←
08:27:37 <pfps> Subtopic: Quick Reference Guide:
08:28:16 <pfps> pfps: Agenda has pointer to most recent version
Peter Patel-Schneider: Agenda has pointer to most recent version ←
08:28:21 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:28:26 <pfps> Ivan: QRG has changed tremendously
Ivan Herman: QRG has changed tremendously ←
08:28:42 <pfps> Elisa: Yes it did change a lot, and it changed again just recently
Elisa Kendall: Yes it did change a lot, and it changed again just recently ←
08:28:50 <pfps> Ivan: QRG looks good
Ivan Herman: QRG looks good ←
08:29:08 <pfps> Elisa: We took a recommendation from pfps to reorganize
Elisa Kendall: We took a recommendation from pfps to reorganize ←
08:29:18 <pfps> Elisa: Not everything is hyperlinked
Elisa Kendall: Not everything is hyperlinked ←
08:29:29 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:29:58 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
08:30:01 <pfps> Elisa: Intent is to hyperlink everything (functional syntax, RDF syntax, etc.)
Elisa Kendall: Intent is to hyperlink everything (functional syntax, RDF syntax, etc.) ←
08:30:17 <pfps> Elisa: Might also link to Primer
Elisa Kendall: Might also link to Primer ←
08:30:29 <pfps> Elisa: Might require anchors in other documents
Elisa Kendall: Might require anchors in other documents ←
08:30:43 <pfps> Elisa: Still want a two-page print version from this structure
Elisa Kendall: Still want a two-page print version from this structure ←
08:30:59 <pfps> Elisa: Also want a page for the profiles
Elisa Kendall: Also want a page for the profiles ←
08:31:18 <bijan> I like this a lot!
Bijan Parsia: I like this a lot! ←
08:31:36 <pfps> Elisa: Examples - we might not keep them but instead link to Primer
Elisa Kendall: Examples - we might not keep them but instead link to Primer ←
08:31:39 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:31:39 <bijan> Or link to the syntax, which has examples for every feature
Bijan Parsia: Or link to the syntax, which has examples for every feature ←
08:32:32 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:32:56 <pfps> Elisa: We want feedback on structure, later sections need more review
Elisa Kendall: We want feedback on structure, later sections need more review ←
08:33:22 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:33:22 <bijan> Note- Old documents had a similar multi-docuoment index: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#appA
Bijan Parsia: Note- Old documents had a similar multi-docuoment index: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#appA ←
08:33:26 <bijan> But this is much nicer
Bijan Parsia: But this is much nicer ←
08:33:35 <pfps> Ivan: I like it
Ivan Herman: I like it ←
08:33:52 <bijan> And is much better than: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#appC
Bijan Parsia: And is much better than: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#appC ←
08:33:56 <pfps> Ivan: What should the third column link to?
Ivan Herman: What should the third column link to? ←
08:34:17 <pfps> Elisa: We are not sure - I think semantics
Elisa Kendall: We are not sure - I think semantics ←
08:34:30 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:34:44 <pfps> Ivan: Mapping document is just a table - so not good to link to it - semantics is better
Ivan Herman: Mapping document is just a table - so not good to link to it - semantics is better ←
08:35:44 <pfps> Michael: One problem is that RDF semantics doesn't have the "syntax"
Michael Schneider: One problem is that RDF semantics doesn't have the "syntax" ←
08:35:54 <pfps> IanH: Semantic isn't great to link to
Ian Horrocks: Semantic isn't great to link to ←
08:36:18 <pfps> Elisa: Might link to Primer instead - we may try some things
Elisa Kendall: Might link to Primer instead - we may try some things ←
08:36:50 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:36:53 <pfps> Bijan: Neither RDF mapping nor RDF semantics is useful to link to
Bijan Parsia: Neither RDF mapping nor RDF semantics is useful to link to ←
08:36:57 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
08:37:08 <pfps> Ivan: perhaps linking to primer is best
Ivan Herman: perhaps linking to primer is best ←
08:37:30 <pfps> Bijan: Primer is not comprehensive but could serve, perhaps with minor changes
Bijan Parsia: Primer is not comprehensive but could serve, perhaps with minor changes ←
08:38:53 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:39:00 <pfps> Christine: QRG is most useful as initial point of contact
Christine Golbreich: QRG is most useful as initial point of contact ←
08:39:31 <pfps> Christine: QRG is too terse
Christine Golbreich: QRG is too terse ←
08:40:17 <pfps> Christine: LInk to requirements document instead?
Christine Golbreich: LInk to requirements document instead? ←
08:40:56 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:41:09 <pfps> Evan: What about linking from Recommendations to Notes
Evan Wallace: What about linking from Recommendations to Notes ←
08:41:21 <pfps> Ivan: Not a good idea
Ivan Herman: Not a good idea ←
08:41:28 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:41:29 <pfps> Bijan: I don't see a problem - just need to be careful
Bijan Parsia: I don't see a problem - just need to be careful ←
08:41:48 <pfps> Ivan: Need to refer to stable documents
Ivan Herman: Need to refer to stable documents ←
08:41:55 <pfps> Bijan: I like the document
Bijan Parsia: I like the document ←
08:42:18 <pfps> IanH: QRG is getting close to being done, still needs work
Ian Horrocks: QRG is getting close to being done, still needs work ←
08:42:44 <pfps> Bijan: Publish as working draft at last call, even if not done
Bijan Parsia: Publish as working draft at last call, even if not done ←
08:43:10 <Zakim> -Elisa_Kendall
Zakim IRC Bot: -Elisa_Kendall ←
08:43:16 <pfps> Subtopic: Requirements
08:43:49 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:44:17 <pfps> Christine: I think that requirements is close to done - I would make changes - may need changes based on F2F discussion
Christine Golbreich: I think that requirements is close to done - I would make changes - may need changes based on F2F discussion ←
08:44:37 <pfps> Christine: There have been several reviews - Bijan, Jie, Elisa
Christine Golbreich: There have been several reviews - Bijan, Jie, Elisa ←
08:44:48 <pfps> Christine: Only Bijan had major comments
Christine Golbreich: Only Bijan had major comments ←
08:44:57 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:45:45 <pfps> Christine: Addressing Bijan's comments needs input from WG
Christine Golbreich: Addressing Bijan's comments needs input from WG ←
08:46:21 <pfps> Christine: There are some conflicting reviews
Christine Golbreich: There are some conflicting reviews ←
08:46:48 <pfps> Christine: Almost all done - changes needed in response to outstanding comments
Christine Golbreich: Almost all done - changes needed in response to outstanding comments ←
08:47:15 <pfps> Christine: Major decision is whether to cut chunks out
Christine Golbreich: Major decision is whether to cut chunks out ←
08:47:25 <pfps> Ivan: I like Section 5
Ivan Herman: I like Section 5 ←
08:47:59 <pfps> Ivan: What does the button do?
Ivan Herman: What does the button do? ←
08:48:23 <pfps> Ivan: Oh, I see -
Ivan Herman: Oh, I see - ←
08:48:47 <pfps> Evan: Need feedback on what do to with the document
Evan Wallace: Need feedback on what do to with the document ←
08:49:02 <pfps> Evan: One possibility is to split into two
Evan Wallace: One possibility is to split into two ←
08:49:04 <Zhe> +1 to Evan
08:50:20 <pfps> Rinke: Large fraction of HCLS use cases - how about recategorizing them?
Rinke Hoekstra: Large fraction of HCLS use cases - how about recategorizing them? ←
08:51:26 <pfps> IanH: Need to discuss this document later
Ian Horrocks: Need to discuss this document later ←
08:51:50 <pfps> Christine: Suggest to move features to Quick Reference Guide
Christine Golbreich: Suggest to move features to Quick Reference Guide ←
08:53:45 <sandro> BREAK
Sandro Hawke: BREAK ←
09:17:18 <ivan> alexandre passant
(No events recorded for 23 minutes)
Ivan Herman: alexandre passant ←
09:17:58 <sandro> holger stezhorm
Sandro Hawke: holger stezhorm ←
09:18:00 <pfps> holger stenzhorl
holger stenzhorl ←
09:18:09 <pfps> scot marshall
scot marshall ←
09:18:22 <ivan> s/scot/scott/
Ivan Herman: s/scot/scott/ ←
09:18:30 <sandro> Blaz
Sandro Hawke: Blaz ←
09:18:47 <bmotik> Blaz Novak
Boris Motik: Blaz Novak ←
09:18:58 <pfps> Subtopic: Manchester Syntax
09:19:35 <pfps> pfps: up to date - perhaps one or two issues that might affect it
Peter Patel-Schneider: up to date - perhaps one or two issues that might affect it ←
09:20:17 <pfps> pfps: there have 2.5+? reviews - one substantive comment
Peter Patel-Schneider: there have 2.5+? reviews - one substantive comment ←
09:21:37 <pfps> christine: what about mapping from functional to manchester?
Christine Golbreich: what about mapping from functional to manchester? ←
09:21:56 <pfps> pfps: responded with comment that the mapping is "trivial" - comment remains in document
Peter Patel-Schneider: responded with comment that the mapping is "trivial" - comment remains in document ←
09:22:07 <pfps> Subtopic: Internationalized String Spec
09:22:34 <pfps> Boris: Still waiting on Axel Polares for built-in functions (wanted by RIF)
Boris Motik: Still waiting on Axel Polares for built-in functions (wanted by RIF) ←
09:23:58 <pfps> jeremy: should refer to RDF 4647 as well as 4646 - which may result in changes
Jeremy Carroll: should refer to RDF 4647 as well as 4646 - which may result in changes ←
09:24:11 <pfps> s/RDF/RFC/
s/RDF/RFC/ ←
09:24:33 <pfps> boris: what is the impact
Boris Motik: what is the impact ←
09:24:51 <pfps> jeremy: may need to change matching
Jeremy Carroll: may need to change matching ←
09:25:06 <pfps> IanH: plan / schedule reviewing?
Ian Horrocks: plan / schedule reviewing? ←
09:25:22 <pfps> Ivan: needs to be at least a WD by last call
Ivan Herman: needs to be at least a WD by last call ←
09:25:32 <pfps> Ivan: what is RIF status?
Ivan Herman: what is RIF status? ←
09:25:46 <pfps> Sandro: waiting for Axel's changes
Sandro Hawke: waiting for Axel's changes ←
09:26:08 <pfps> IanH: We need to wait for changes
Ian Horrocks: We need to wait for changes ←
09:26:32 <sandro> I18N
Sandro Hawke: I18N ←
09:26:39 <pfps> jeremy: also review I18N
Jeremy Carroll: also review I18N ←
09:26:40 <sandro> I18N == "Internationalization"
Sandro Hawke: I18N == "Internationalization" ←
09:27:10 <pfps> Bijan: we should push a FPWD ASAP - it blocks us
Bijan Parsia: we should push a FPWD ASAP - it blocks us ←
09:27:26 <pfps> Bijan: What does CR mean for this?
Bijan Parsia: What does CR mean for this? ←
09:28:03 <pfps> pfps: if we don't care about built-ins why not push for our approval
Peter Patel-Schneider: if we don't care about built-ins why not push for our approval ←
09:28:37 <pfps> Ivan: The CR criteria are the purview of the OWL WG and the RIF WG
Ivan Herman: The CR criteria are the purview of the OWL WG and the RIF WG ←
09:29:05 <pfps> Ivan: There could be different CR exit criteria from the rest of our spec
Ivan Herman: There could be different CR exit criteria from the rest of our spec ←
09:29:59 <pfps> Boris: I sent Axel a message
Boris Motik: I sent Axel a message ←
09:30:15 <pfps> Bijan: let's push the document even without the built ins
Bijan Parsia: let's push the document even without the built ins ←
09:30:20 <pfps> IanH: We don't need them at all
Ian Horrocks: We don't need them at all ←
09:30:24 <pfps> Ivan: RIF wants them
Ivan Herman: RIF wants them ←
09:30:57 <pfps> Boris: RIF thought that the old version was lopsided (as it had facets but not built-ins)
Boris Motik: RIF thought that the old version was lopsided (as it had facets but not built-ins) ←
09:31:27 <pfps> Boris: they may not sign off without built-ins
Boris Motik: they may not sign off without built-ins ←
09:31:58 <pfps> Alan: a WG can have open areas - a section with a missing bit is OK
Alan Ruttenberg: a WG can have open areas - a section with a missing bit is OK ←
09:32:36 <pfps> Ivan: we vote to publish ASAP even if there is a missing section
Ivan Herman: we vote to publish ASAP even if there is a missing section ←
09:33:13 <pfps> Alan: include editor's note in FPWD
Alan Ruttenberg: include editor's note in FPWD ←
09:33:32 <pfps> IanH: can we push now?
Ian Horrocks: can we push now? ←
09:34:09 <pfps> IanH: tomorrow we can vote on this
Ian Horrocks: tomorrow we can vote on this ←
09:34:56 <pfps> Bijan: this has come from us, and we discussed it, so we don't really need *more* review
Bijan Parsia: this has come from us, and we discussed it, so we don't really need *more* review ←
09:35:46 <pfps> Bijan: what about patent review? this means that we *need* FPWD at least 90 days before end
Bijan Parsia: what about patent review? this means that we *need* FPWD at least 90 days before end ←
09:36:09 <pfps> ScribeNick: bernardo
(Scribe set to Bernardo Cuenca Grau)
<sandro> Topic: Outstanding Issues
<sandro> Subtopic: Issue-114: Which combinations of punning should be allowed?
09:36:41 <bernardo> IanH: outstanding issues
Ian Horrocks: outstanding issues ←
09:37:01 <bernardo> IanH: first issue, punning (Isuue 114)
Ian Horrocks: first issue, punning (Isuue 114) ←
09:37:29 <bernardo> bmotik: the issues with annotations are orthogonal to punning
Boris Motik: the issues with annotations are orthogonal to punning ←
09:37:48 <bernardo> bmotik: we will add a section on punning, where we will explain what punning is by example
Boris Motik: we will add a section on punning, where we will explain what punning is by example ←
09:38:28 <bernardo> bcuencagrau: we will explain punning as different ``views'' over the same URI
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: we will explain punning as different ``views'' over the same URI ←
09:38:40 <bernardo> bmotik: there was a proposal concerning annotations
Boris Motik: there was a proposal concerning annotations ←
09:39:45 <bernardo> bmotik: annotations do not have semantics in DLs
Boris Motik: annotations do not have semantics in DLs ←
09:40:02 <bernardo> bmotik: instead of attaching annotations to entities we would attach annotations to URIs
Boris Motik: instead of attaching annotations to entities we would attach annotations to URIs ←
09:40:17 <bernardo> bmotik: this would make the mapping to RDF easier
Boris Motik: this would make the mapping to RDF easier ←
09:40:37 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
09:40:44 <bernardo> alanr: talking of annotations as being a URI might be confusing
Alan Ruttenberg: talking of annotations as being a URI might be confusing ←
09:41:30 <bernardo> alanr: there is a connection between annotations and punning
Alan Ruttenberg: there is a connection between annotations and punning ←
09:41:54 <bernardo> ianH: could we think of this issue as a bug fix?
Ian Horrocks: could we think of this issue as a bug fix? ←
09:42:20 <bernardo> alanr: there may also be a problem with anonymous individuals and literals
Alan Ruttenberg: there may also be a problem with anonymous individuals and literals ←
09:42:49 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
09:43:08 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
09:43:17 <bernardo> bmotik: the only change is that the values of annotations will change from entities to URIs
Boris Motik: the only change is that the values of annotations will change from entities to URIs ←
09:43:56 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
09:44:08 <bernardo> ivan: this idea of `view' over entities is irrelevant from the OWL Full point of view
Ivan Herman: this idea of `view' over entities is irrelevant from the OWL Full point of view ←
09:45:05 <alanr> 1) URI not the greatest name
Alan Ruttenberg: 1) URI not the greatest name ←
09:45:34 <alanr> 2) Explain missing individual sameAs => extensions equivalent
Alan Ruttenberg: 2) Explain missing individual sameAs => extensions equivalent ←
09:46:01 <bernardo> bparsia: there will be a section on punning/metamodeling
Bijan Parsia: there will be a section on punning/metamodeling ←
09:46:36 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
09:46:40 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
09:47:47 <bernardo> alanr: we should make in the document a clear distinction between the OWL Full and DL views
Alan Ruttenberg: we should make in the document a clear distinction between the OWL Full and DL views ←
09:48:05 <bernardo> ianH: where are we concerning this issue?
Ian Horrocks: where are we concerning this issue? ←
09:49:08 <bernardo> ianH: we are essentially fixing a bug
Ian Horrocks: we are essentially fixing a bug ←
09:49:27 <bernardo> bmotik: there is an email with a proposal that already acknowledges this bug
Boris Motik: there is an email with a proposal that already acknowledges this bug ←
09:49:51 <bernardo> bmotik: resolution would involve adding the new section and make the sall change on annotations
Boris Motik: resolution would involve adding the new section and make the sall change on annotations ←
09:50:15 <bernardo> bparsia: let us resolve this issue as in Borise's proposal
Bijan Parsia: let us resolve this issue as in Borise's proposal ←
09:50:47 <bmotik> s/Borise's/Boris's
Boris Motik: s/Borise's/Boris's ←
09:50:48 <bernardo> IanH: modulo editorial issues we should have a clear proposal to resolve
Ian Horrocks: modulo editorial issues we should have a clear proposal to resolve ←
09:51:49 <bmotik> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Oct/0048.html
Boris Motik: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Oct/0048.html ←
09:52:49 <IanH> PROPOSED: resolve issue 114 as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Oct/0048.html and subsequent thread
PROPOSED: resolve ISSUE-114 as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Oct/0048.html and subsequent thread ←
09:53:21 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
Boris Motik: +1 (Oxford) ←
09:53:31 <bernardo> +1 (Oxford)
+1 (Oxford) ←
09:53:59 <bijan> +1 (Manchester)
Bijan Parsia: +1 (Manchester) ←
09:54:03 <Rinke> +1 (UvA)
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 (UvA) ←
09:54:06 <bernardo> sandro: is the resolution proposal in the email itself or in the thread?
Sandro Hawke: is the resolution proposal in the email itself or in the thread? ←
09:54:25 <sandro> Ian: There is still some editorial work to be done, which might open up related issues.
Ian Horrocks: There is still some editorial work to be done, which might open up related issues. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:54:26 <bernardo> ianH: we have agreed that there will be some editorial issues involved
Ian Horrocks: we have agreed that there will be some editorial issues involved ←
09:54:28 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
Markus Krötzsch: +1 (FZI) ←
09:54:30 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
09:54:34 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons)
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (Science Commons) ←
09:54:34 <sandro> +1 (W3C)
Sandro Hawke: +1 (W3C) ←
09:54:38 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
09:54:45 <IanH> +1 (Oxford)
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford) ←
09:54:46 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM) ←
09:54:53 <cgolbrei> +1 (uvsq)
Christine Golbreich: +1 (uvsq) ←
09:55:01 <wallace> 0 (NIST)
Evan Wallace: 0 (NIST) ←
09:55:01 <sandro> Zakim, who is here?
Sandro Hawke: Zakim, who is here? ←
09:55:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe (muted) ←
09:55:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see cgolbrei, wallace, Blaz, Achille, alanr, Rinke, FabGandon, schneid, bijan, bmotik, Zhe, MarkusK_, sandro, bernardo, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, ivan, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see cgolbrei, wallace, Blaz, Achille, alanr, Rinke, FabGandon, schneid, bijan, bmotik, Zhe, MarkusK_, sandro, bernardo, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, ivan, trackbot ←
09:55:33 <IanH> RESOLVED: resolve issue 114 as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Oct/0048.html and subsequent thread
RESOLVED: resolve ISSUE-114 as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Oct/0048.html and subsequent thread ←
09:55:46 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
09:55:46 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-owl-irc#T09-55-46
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-owl-irc#T09-55-46 ←
09:56:13 <bernardo> subtopic: Issue-134 Metamodel for OWL 2
09:56:29 <bernardo> alanr: we have asked Elisa for feedback
Alan Ruttenberg: we have asked Elisa for feedback ←
09:56:52 <bernardo> Evan: speaking for Elisa. The person who was our contact is moving at the moment
Evan Wallace: speaking for Elisa. The person who was our contact is moving at the moment ←
09:57:18 <bernardo> alanr: will evan have time to look into it?
Alan Ruttenberg: will evan have time to look into it? ←
09:57:39 <bernardo> evan: the problem is getting to work the tools needed
Evan Wallace: the problem is getting to work the tools needed ←
09:57:45 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
09:57:54 <bernardo> evan: I can talk with Peter Haase
Evan Wallace: I can talk with Peter Haase ←
09:58:00 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
09:58:07 <bernardo> evan: Peter can provide the tool
Evan Wallace: Peter can provide the tool ←
09:58:33 <bernardo> alanr: first issue: what is the impact of the metamodel in the current docs?
Alan Ruttenberg: first issue: what is the impact of the metamodel in the current docs? ←
09:58:52 <bernardo> ianH: we need to figure out whether we want to have it at all
Ian Horrocks: we need to figure out whether we want to have it at all ←
09:59:15 <bernardo> bmotik: concerning accessibility, it is from someversion ofEclipse
Boris Motik: concerning accessibility, it is from someversion ofEclipse ←
09:59:36 <bernardo> bmotik: the diagrams are in an IBM format
Boris Motik: the diagrams are in an IBM format ←
09:59:47 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
09:59:51 <bernardo> bmotik: the metamodel can be used to a large extent using Eclipse
Boris Motik: the metamodel can be used to a large extent using Eclipse ←
10:00:34 <bernardo> bmotik: the metamodel is a representation of the diagrams in a machine readable, formal way
Boris Motik: the metamodel is a representation of the diagrams in a machine readable, formal way ←
10:00:44 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
10:01:03 <bernardo> bmotik: layout-related information is not part of the metamodel, but on top of it
Boris Motik: layout-related information is not part of the metamodel, but on top of it ←
10:01:15 <bernardo> bmotik: this extra stuff is in the IBM format
Boris Motik: this extra stuff is in the IBM format ←
10:01:29 <bernardo> bmotik: the structure can be viewed using Eclipse
Boris Motik: the structure can be viewed using Eclipse ←
10:01:50 <bernardo> bmotik: Eclipse 3.4. with EMF on
Boris Motik: Eclipse 3.4. with EMF on ←
10:01:59 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
10:02:07 <bernardo> bmotik: it does not have a diagram capability, though
Boris Motik: it does not have a diagram capability, though ←
10:03:05 <bernardo> bparsia: if the metamodel does involve the layout information, but this is largely unimportant
Bijan Parsia: if the metamodel does involve the layout information, but this is largely unimportant ←
10:03:18 <bernardo> IanH: do we need to have this as a part of the spec?
Ian Horrocks: do we need to have this as a part of the spec? ←
10:03:38 <bernardo> alanr: I would like to have a clear metamodel in a machine-readable format
Alan Ruttenberg: I would like to have a clear metamodel in a machine-readable format ←
10:04:14 <bernardo> alanr: the content of the document Met describing the metamodel has changed
Alan Ruttenberg: the content of the document Met describing the metamodel has changed ←
10:04:22 <bernardo> bmotik: I disagree
Boris Motik: I disagree ←
10:04:25 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
10:04:56 <bernardo> evan: I like to look at the diagrams
Evan Wallace: I like to look at the diagrams ←
10:05:24 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
10:05:52 <bernardo> evan: the situation is not that bad. There's other tools that can be used for layout
Evan Wallace: the situation is not that bad. There's other tools that can be used for layout ←
10:06:29 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
10:06:30 <bernardo> evan: we have public domain tools that allow us to look at the metamodel. A separate question is whether it conforms to MOF
Evan Wallace: we have public domain tools that allow us to look at the metamodel. A separate question is whether it conforms to MOF ←
10:07:21 <bernardo> bparsia: the way you would do it is to read the text, look at the diagrams and even click on them and get some sort of code (e.g. javascript) that represents the diagram
Bijan Parsia: the way you would do it is to read the text, look at the diagrams and even click on them and get some sort of code (e.g. javascript) that represents the diagram ←
10:08:27 <bernardo> bmotik: metamodel is about connectivity
Boris Motik: metamodel is about connectivity ←
10:08:35 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
10:08:50 <bernardo> bmotik: in IBM RSA you can draw the diagrams and get the metamodel on the fly
Boris Motik: in IBM RSA you can draw the diagrams and get the metamodel on the fly ←
10:09:12 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
10:09:16 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
10:09:19 <bernardo> bmotik: we have to insist on total MOF compliance
Boris Motik: we have to insist on total MOF compliance ←
10:09:41 <bernardo> alanr: what is the benefit of having this metamodel?
Alan Ruttenberg: what is the benefit of having this metamodel? ←
10:10:10 <bernardo> bmotik: we want to have a very precise statement saying what is the structure of OWL
Boris Motik: we want to have a very precise statement saying what is the structure of OWL ←
10:10:22 <bernardo> bmotik: this would be described by the metamodel
Boris Motik: this would be described by the metamodel ←
10:10:41 <bernardo> bmotik: precision is provided by the metamodel, and that alone is enough to justify it
Boris Motik: precision is provided by the metamodel, and that alone is enough to justify it ←
10:10:43 <IanH> ?
Ian Horrocks: ? ←
10:10:46 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
10:11:07 <bernardo> bmotik: from a practical point of view, people could generate classes directly from the metamodel
Boris Motik: from a practical point of view, people could generate classes directly from the metamodel ←
10:11:24 <bernardo> bmotik: also how to transform between metamodels
Boris Motik: also how to transform between metamodels ←
10:11:37 <alanr> q+ to ask a few follow questions
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ to ask a few follow questions ←
10:11:50 <bernardo> bmotik: but the important thing is to have a precise specification
Boris Motik: but the important thing is to have a precise specification ←
10:12:08 <bernardo> bparsia: I am ok with the text, the metamodel would be good but not a must
Bijan Parsia: I am ok with the text, the metamodel would be good but not a must ←
10:12:26 <alanr> q+ to propose it not be critical path to lc
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ to propose it not be critical path to lc ←
10:12:34 <bernardo> bparsia: the benefit would be in people using it
Bijan Parsia: the benefit would be in people using it ←
10:13:16 <bernardo> jeremy: is the extension of the document with the machine-readable metamodel intended to be normative or informative?
Jeremy Carroll: is the extension of the document with the machine-readable metamodel intended to be normative or informative? ←
10:13:25 <bernardo> Ianh: that is a question
Ian Horrocks: that is a question ←
10:14:09 <bernardo> bparsia: what we mean is that, if we have a conflict between the text and the metamodel, the metamodel wins
Bijan Parsia: what we mean is that, if we have a conflict between the text and the metamodel, the metamodel wins ←
10:14:27 <bernardo> ivan: this is a lot of work, and probably not a priority
Ivan Herman: this is a lot of work, and probably not a priority ←
10:14:32 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
10:14:46 <bernardo> q+
q+ ←
10:15:21 <bernardo> christine: I am not clear what boris means with ``precision''
Christine Golbreich: I am not clear what boris means with ``precision'' ←
10:15:56 <bernardo> christine: not clear what is the real benefit
Christine Golbreich: not clear what is the real benefit ←
10:16:15 <bijan> +1 I have good confidence in the current document
Bijan Parsia: +1 I have good confidence in the current document ←
10:16:18 <bernardo> alanr: if it is normative, then we will have a lot of work
Alan Ruttenberg: if it is normative, then we will have a lot of work ←
10:16:22 <bijan> But I also think the metamodel is useful
Bijan Parsia: But I also think the metamodel is useful ←
10:16:40 <bernardo> alanr: I suggest it to become a note
Alan Ruttenberg: I suggest it to become a note ←
10:17:48 <bernardo> ianH: nobody thinks that there is no way we shouldn't have it
Ian Horrocks: nobody thinks that there is no way we shouldn't have it ←
10:18:45 <bernardo> bmotik: sometimes English introduces ambiguity. Ambiguity is bad for implementors
Boris Motik: sometimes English introduces ambiguity. Ambiguity is bad for implementors ←
10:19:10 <cgolbrei> but we do have the diagrams in the syntax
Christine Golbreich: but we do have the diagrams in the syntax ←
10:22:10 <sandro> Sandro: As long as it doesn't affect implementations, it's okay after Last Call
Sandro Hawke: As long as it doesn't affect implementations, it's okay after Last Call [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:22:39 <sandro> Jeremy: There is a risk to adding a new master version of the spec, after last call.
Jeremy Carroll: There is a risk to adding a new master version of the spec, after last call. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:22:50 <sandro> Bijan: Yes, it's a risk, but it's doable if necessary.
Bijan Parsia: Yes, it's a risk, but it's doable if necessary. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:23:20 <bernardo> bmotik: one question, how bout changing ``UML'' into MOF?
Boris Motik: one question, how bout changing ``UML'' into MOF? ←
10:24:41 <sandro> Bernardo: If we have this formal metamodel, then what would the review consist of? Someone checking english text vs formal model? Thousands of people look at this, then send their reports to the list?
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: If we have this formal metamodel, then what would the review consist of? Someone checking english text vs formal model? Thousands of people look at this, then send their reports to the list? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:24:56 <bmotik> s/bout/about
Boris Motik: s/bout/about ←
10:25:11 <bernardo> Achille: the diagrams we have are supposed to play the role of the MOF metamodel
Achille Fokoue: the diagrams we have are supposed to play the role of the MOF metamodel ←
10:25:28 <bernardo> achille: the spac has already been carefully reviewed
Achille Fokoue: the spac has already been carefully reviewed ←
10:25:54 <bernardo> achille: we could probably add a simple note stating the priority of the diagrams over the text
Achille Fokoue: we could probably add a simple note stating the priority of the diagrams over the text ←
10:26:20 <bernardo> achile: If we do not have a formal description, I wouldn't care that much
Scribe problem: the name 'achile' does not match any of the 25 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Ian Horrocks Boris Motik Peter Patel-Schneider Bernardo Cuenca Grau Sandro Hawke Markus Krötzsch Michael Schneider Achille Fokoue Bijan Parsia Evan Wallace Christine Golbreich Rinke Hoekstra Ivan Herman Alan Ruttenberg Elisa Kendall Zhe Wu Henson Graves Jeremy Carroll Scott Marshall Blaž Novak Holger Stenzhorn Alexandre Passant Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot
Unknown achile: If we do not have a formal description, I wouldn't care that much ←
10:26:42 <bernardo> IanH: so, there seems to be consensus that this is not in our critical path
Ian Horrocks: so, there seems to be consensus that this is not in our critical path ←
10:26:54 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
10:27:05 <bernardo> -q
-q ←
10:27:26 <bernardo> MarkusK: if there is work to be done Peter Haase can contribute
Markus Krötzsch: if there is work to be done Peter Haase can contribute ←
10:27:53 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
10:27:53 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to ask a few follow questions and to propose it not be critical path to lc
Zakim IRC Bot: alanr, you wanted to ask a few follow questions and to propose it not be critical path to lc ←
10:28:00 <IanH> ack bernardo
Ian Horrocks: ack bernardo ←
10:28:15 <bernardo> bijan: we could still have it, and not lose this work
Bijan Parsia: we could still have it, and not lose this work ←
10:28:40 <bernardo> bparsia: whether we have it as an appendix or somewhere else doesn't really matter
Bijan Parsia: whether we have it as an appendix or somewhere else doesn't really matter ←
10:28:40 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
10:29:17 <bernardo> alanr: we could then, as Boris suggests, simply make an editorial change
Alan Ruttenberg: we could then, as Boris suggests, simply make an editorial change ←
10:29:50 <cgolbrei> link to MOF please ?
Christine Golbreich: link to MOF please ? ←
10:29:54 <MarkusK_> pointer to MOF on the wiki: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/MOF-Based_Metamodel
Markus Krötzsch: pointer to MOF on the wiki: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/MOF-Based_Metamodel ←
10:29:57 <sandro> Jeremy: If they MOF is normative, then what normative documents are are needed to understand it?
Jeremy Carroll: If they MOF is normative, then what normative documents are are needed to understand it? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:30:02 <bernardo> bparsia; currently we do not have any statement saying that the diagrams have priority over the text
bparsia; currently we do not have any statement saying that the diagrams have priority over the text ←
10:30:12 <bernardo> +q
+q ←
10:31:05 <bernardo> sandro: it is a good practice to have several normative ways, because it can help identifying bugs
Sandro Hawke: it is a good practice to have several normative ways, because it can help identifying bugs ←
10:31:53 <sandro> Jeremy: While the OWL1 test cases are normative, it's stated that the Semantics rules.
Jeremy Carroll: While the OWL1 test cases are normative, it's stated that the Semantics rules. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:32:10 <bernardo> bmotik: how about changing the first sentence of Section 2.1
Boris Motik: how about changing the first sentence of Section 2.1 ←
10:32:55 <bernardo> bmotik: I want to say that the diagrams are intended to define the structure of the language
Boris Motik: I want to say that the diagrams are intended to define the structure of the language ←
10:33:22 <bernardo> alanr: I do not understand the difference between normative and controlling
Alan Ruttenberg: I do not understand the difference between normative and controlling ←
10:34:00 <bernardo> alanr: the question is whethr among two normative representations, there is one that is controlling
Alan Ruttenberg: the question is whethr among two normative representations, there is one that is controlling ←
10:34:30 <bernardo> bparsia: we need a controlling view for interoperability issues
Bijan Parsia: we need a controlling view for interoperability issues ←
10:34:42 <sandro> +1 Bijan: it's best to pick a controlling normative version, so you get more interoperability.
Sandro Hawke: +1 Bijan: it's best to pick a controlling normative version, so you get more interoperability. ←
10:34:53 <sandro> Bijan: You do less harm if you have people converge.
Bijan Parsia: You do less harm if you have people converge. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:35:20 <sandro> Peter: if the controlling one is flat-out-broken, then people will revolt and use the other one.
Peter Patel-Schneider: if the controlling one is flat-out-broken, then people will revolt and use the other one. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:35:23 <bernardo> peter: agree with bijan
Peter Patel-Schneider: agree with bijan ←
10:35:53 <bernardo> ianH: the conclusion is that we say what is the controlling representation
Ian Horrocks: the conclusion is that we say what is the controlling representation ←
10:36:07 <sandro> Ian: I'm hearing that people do want to pick a controlling one.
Ian Horrocks: I'm hearing that people do want to pick a controlling one. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:36:29 <bernardo> ivan: we have two candidates
Ivan Herman: we have two candidates ←
10:36:32 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
10:36:47 <bernardo> ivan: functional + text versus diagrams
Ivan Herman: functional + text versus diagrams ←
10:36:47 <sandro> q=
Sandro Hawke: q= ←
10:36:50 <sandro> queue=
Sandro Hawke: queue= ←
10:37:14 <bernardo> bparsia: 1) diagrams plus english
Bijan Parsia: 1) diagrams plus english ←
10:37:22 <bernardo> 2) grammar + english
2) grammar + english ←
10:37:28 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
10:37:34 <bernardo> 3) metamodel + english
3) metamodel + english ←
10:37:56 <bernardo> bmotik: I agree these are the candidates
Boris Motik: I agree these are the candidates ←
10:38:24 <bernardo> achille: there is an ambiguity when we talk about ``text''
Achille Fokoue: there is an ambiguity when we talk about ``text'' ←
10:38:41 <bernardo> bparsia: this is a presentation issue
Bijan Parsia: this is a presentation issue ←
10:39:04 <bernardo> mschneider: diagrams plus English tells us the whole story?
Michael Schneider: diagrams plus English tells us the whole story? ←
10:39:28 <bernardo> bmotik: you could use either 1) or 2)
Boris Motik: you could use either 1) or 2) ←
10:40:25 <bernardo> christine: what is the difference between 1) and 3)?
Christine Golbreich: what is the difference between 1) and 3)? ←
10:40:45 <bernardo> christine: what about diagrams plus grammar?
Christine Golbreich: what about diagrams plus grammar? ←
10:40:52 <bernardo> bmotik: this is not sufficient
Boris Motik: this is not sufficient ←
10:41:05 <bernardo> IanH: we should have a straw poll
Ian Horrocks: we should have a straw poll ←
10:42:35 <bernardo> IanH: it seems that the vast majority liked 1) and 3)
Ian Horrocks: it seems that the vast majority liked 1) and 3) ←
10:44:29 <bernardo> bparsia: we should have a sentence at the beginning of the syntax doc explaining this
Bijan Parsia: we should have a sentence at the beginning of the syntax doc explaining this ←
10:45:06 <bernardo> alanr: we should add information saying how to read the diagrams
Alan Ruttenberg: we should add information saying how to read the diagrams ←
10:45:50 <bernardo> bparsia: we need to have a pointer to the formal meaning of the diagrams
Bijan Parsia: we need to have a pointer to the formal meaning of the diagrams ←
10:46:36 <bernardo> jeremy: there is an issue concerning people who cannot see the diagrams
Jeremy Carroll: there is an issue concerning people who cannot see the diagrams ←
10:47:09 <bernardo> bparsia: we should have an official resolution about the controlling text
Bijan Parsia: we should have an official resolution about the controlling text ←
10:47:36 <bernardo> proposal: the diagrams plus the supportive text are the definitive specification
PROPOSED: the diagrams plus the supportive text are the definitive specification ←
10:48:32 <IanH> PROPOSAL: the diagrams plus the supportive text are the definitive specification and there will be a normative reference for the diagrams
PROPOSED: the diagrams plus the supportive text are the definitive specification and there will be a normative reference for the diagrams ←
10:49:01 <IanH> ROPOSAL: the diagrams plus the supportive text are the definitive specification for the language and there will be a normative reference for the diagrams
Scribe problem: the name 'ROPOSAL' does not match any of the 25 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Ian Horrocks Boris Motik Peter Patel-Schneider Bernardo Cuenca Grau Sandro Hawke Markus Krötzsch Michael Schneider Achille Fokoue Bijan Parsia Evan Wallace Christine Golbreich Rinke Hoekstra Ivan Herman Alan Ruttenberg Elisa Kendall Zhe Wu Henson Graves Jeremy Carroll Scott Marshall Blaž Novak Holger Stenzhorn Alexandre Passant Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot
Unknown ROPOSAL: the diagrams plus the supportive text are the definitive specification for the language and there will be a normative reference for the diagrams [ Scribe Assist by Ian Horrocks ] ←
10:49:24 <IanH> PROPOSAL: the diagrams plus the supportive text are the definitive specification for the language and there will be a normative reference for the diagrams
PROPOSED: the diagrams plus the supportive text are the definitive specification for the language and there will be a normative reference for the diagrams ←
10:49:26 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
10:49:29 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM) ←
10:49:32 <bernardo> +1 (Oxford)
+1 (Oxford) ←
10:49:32 <wallace> +1 (NIST)
Evan Wallace: +1 (NIST) ←
10:49:32 <bijan> +1 (Manchester)
Bijan Parsia: +1 (Manchester) ←
10:49:35 <IanH> +1 (Oxford)
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford) ←
10:49:37 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
10:49:37 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
Boris Motik: +1 (Oxford) ←
10:49:42 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
Markus Krötzsch: +1 (FZI) ←
10:49:47 <alanr> 0 (Science Commons)
Alan Ruttenberg: 0 (Science Commons) ←
10:49:49 <Rinke> +1 (UvA)
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 (UvA) ←
10:50:00 <IanH> RESOLVED: the diagrams plus the supportive text are the definitive specification for the language and there will be a normative reference for the diagrams
RESOLVED: the diagrams plus the supportive text are the definitive specification for the language and there will be a normative reference for the diagrams ←
10:50:01 <sandro> 0
Sandro Hawke: 0 ←
10:50:18 <ivan> 1
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
10:50:30 <cgolbrei> +1 (uvsq)
Christine Golbreich: +1 (uvsq) ←
10:50:50 <bernardo> bparsia: I already have an action for checking about accessibility
Bijan Parsia: I already have an action for checking about accessibility ←
10:51:52 <bernardo> bparsia: finding alternative text for the diagrams that is accessibility-friendly is very hard
Bijan Parsia: finding alternative text for the diagrams that is accessibility-friendly is very hard ←
10:52:50 <bernardo> bparsia: we should have some text, because it is more useful for disabled people
Bijan Parsia: we should have some text, because it is more useful for disabled people ←
10:53:58 <bernardo> IanH: should we move on?
Ian Horrocks: should we move on? ←
10:54:19 <bernardo> IanH: we can skip it and it is not in our critical path for last call
Ian Horrocks: we can skip it and it is not in our critical path for last call ←
10:57:19 <bernardo> bmotik: we could close the issue
Boris Motik: we could close the issue ←
10:57:21 <sandro> Ian: could close and say it'll be a note, if anything.
Ian Horrocks: could close and say it'll be a note, if anything. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:58:17 <bernardo> IanH: that would mean that the MOF XML will not be included in Syntax
Ian Horrocks: that would mean that the MOF XML will not be included in Syntax ←
10:59:39 <bernardo> evan: I wouldn't like o close it like that
Evan Wallace: I wouldn't like o close it like that ←
11:00:10 <bernardo> bparsia: if we had a great MOF, we could always revise
Bijan Parsia: if we had a great MOF, we could always revise ←
11:00:38 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close Issue-134, saying we don't expect to have a MOF metamodel in a Rec-Track document. Maybe a Note someday.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-134, saying we don't expect to have a MOF metamodel in a Rec-Track document. Maybe a Note someday. ←
11:00:47 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
Boris Motik: +1 (Oxford) ←
11:00:51 <ivan> 1
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
11:00:51 <Rinke> +1 (UvA)
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 (UvA) ←
11:00:51 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
11:00:53 <bernardo> +1 (Oxford)
+1 (Oxford) ←
11:00:54 <wallace> 0 (NIST)
Evan Wallace: 0 (NIST) ←
11:00:54 <Achille> 0 (IBM)
Achille Fokoue: 0 (IBM) ←
11:00:55 <MarkusK_> +0 (FZI)
Markus Krötzsch: +0 (FZI) ←
11:00:56 <IanH> +1 (Oxford)
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford) ←
11:00:57 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
11:01:03 <sandro> +1 (W3C)
Sandro Hawke: +1 (W3C) ←
11:01:11 <bijan> +1 (Manchester)
Bijan Parsia: +1 (Manchester) ←
11:01:14 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
11:01:37 <cgolbrei> 0(uvsq)
Christine Golbreich: 0(uvsq) ←
11:01:50 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close Issue-134, saying we don't expect to have a MOF metamodel in a Rec-Track document. Maybe a Note someday.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-134, saying we don't expect to have a MOF metamodel in a Rec-Track document. Maybe a Note someday. ←
11:09:48 <Zakim> -Zhe
(No events recorded for 7 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: -Zhe ←
12:09:47 <sandro> scribe: schneid
(No events recorded for 59 minutes)
(Scribe set to Michael Schneider)
12:09:49 <schneid> Topic: 142
12:09:54 <schneid> Topic: Issue-142
12:10:28 <schneid> bmotik: there are actually three issues
Boris Motik: there are actually three issues ←
12:11:00 <schneid> alanr: about the sketch proof of thereme 1
Alan Ruttenberg: about the sketch proof of thereme 1 ←
12:12:37 <schneid> ianh: looked at proof and looked reasonable
Ian Horrocks: looked at proof and looked reasonable ←
12:13:00 <schneid> alanr: proposal is to close issue
Alan Ruttenberg: proposal is to close issue ←
12:13:17 <schneid> bparsia: i have reviewed it too, and was fine
Bijan Parsia: i have reviewed it too, and was fine ←
12:13:58 <alanr> Proposed: Resolve Issue 142 by Addition of a proof sketch to the profiles document
PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-142 by Addition of a proof sketch to the profiles document ←
12:14:05 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
12:14:17 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
12:14:24 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
12:14:27 <bernardo> +1
12:14:27 <Rinke> +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
12:14:29 <Achille> +1
Achille Fokoue: +1 ←
12:14:30 <IanH_> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
12:14:30 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
12:14:37 <wallace> +1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
12:14:38 <pfps> Bijan: +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
12:14:52 <sandro> 0
Sandro Hawke: 0 ←
12:15:07 <alanr> RESOLVED: Resolve Issue 142 by Addition of a proof sketch to the profiles document
RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-142 by Addition of a proof sketch to the profiles document ←
12:15:23 <schneid> Topic: Issue-145
12:16:09 <schneid> sandro: any format we publish on the web must have an own mime type
Sandro Hawke: any format we publish on the web must have an own mime type ←
12:17:10 <schneid> we have to tell the ITF
we have to tell the ITF ←
12:17:19 <schneid> sandro: we have to tell the ITF
Sandro Hawke: we have to tell the ITF ←
12:17:51 <schneid> sandro: my example that I sent by mail was what I sent for RIF
Sandro Hawke: my example that I sent by mail was what I sent for RIF ←
12:18:46 <schneid> alanr: so this is about OWL/XML syntax, functional syntax, and manchester syntax
Alan Ruttenberg: so this is about OWL/XML syntax, functional syntax, and manchester syntax ←
12:19:18 <schneid> ivan: we definitely need it for functional and manchester
Ivan Herman: we definitely need it for functional and manchester ←
12:19:24 <schneid> sandro: we can use text/plain
Sandro Hawke: we can use text/plain ←
12:21:22 <schneid> alanr: another consideration is predictability
Alan Ruttenberg: another consideration is predictability ←
12:22:06 <schneid> bijan: one cannot rely on mimetypes when one wants to disambiguate
Bijan Parsia: one cannot rely on mimetypes when one wants to disambiguate ←
12:22:27 <sandro> W3C Process document on this: http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype
Sandro Hawke: W3C Process document on this: http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype ←
12:22:59 <schneid> alanr: two extreme options: lowest = application/xml and text/plain, maximum is a new mime type for each
Alan Ruttenberg: two extreme options: lowest = application/xml and text/plain, maximum is a new mime type for each ←
12:23:08 <sandro> My e-mail on this for RIF, giving an example of how much to do: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Sep/0023.html
Sandro Hawke: My e-mail on this for RIF, giving an example of how much to do: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Sep/0023.html ←
12:24:32 <schneid> bparsia: does turtle or n3 has a mime type
Bijan Parsia: does turtle or n3 has a mime type ←
12:25:25 <schneid> sandro: we should have mime type iff particular syntax is intended as a definitive exchange syntax on the web (his opinion)
Sandro Hawke: we should have mime type iff particular syntax is intended as a definitive exchange syntax on the web (his opinion) ←
12:27:09 <schneid> ivan: reformulate what sandro sais: if syntax rec track, then pressure on us to give mime type higher
Ivan Herman: reformulate what sandro sais: if syntax rec track, then pressure on us to give mime type higher ←
12:27:26 <schneid> alanr: let's straw poll
Alan Ruttenberg: let's straw poll ←
12:28:01 <schneid> sandro: generic mime types do sort of say: "don't put this stuff on the web"
Sandro Hawke: generic mime types do sort of say: "don't put this stuff on the web" ←
12:28:43 <schneid> alanr: if a syntax isn't first class, then we shouldn't do anything about it.
Alan Ruttenberg: if a syntax isn't first class, then we shouldn't do anything about it. ←
12:29:44 <schneid> bparsia: looks like that wg thinks that we don't have the resources to bring manchester syntax on the rec track
Bijan Parsia: looks like that wg thinks that we don't have the resources to bring manchester syntax on the rec track ←
12:30:18 <schneid> ivan: we can still decide to give mime type to manchester syntax
Ivan Herman: we can still decide to give mime type to manchester syntax ←
12:30:37 <Zakim> +Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: +Zhe ←
12:31:54 <sandro> Sandro: I think we need to require all OWL implementations to parse all "first-class" serializations.
Sandro Hawke: I think we need to require all OWL implementations to parse all "first-class" serializations. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:32:06 <sandro> Sandro: Otherwise we fragment the OWL world.
Sandro Hawke: Otherwise we fragment the OWL world. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:32:56 <schneid> ivan: we have mime types for RDF/XML and turtle
Ivan Herman: we have mime types for RDF/XML and turtle ←
12:33:13 <schneid> bparsia: wasn't hard to come up with converters
Bijan Parsia: wasn't hard to come up with converters ←
12:33:38 <schneid> bmotik: is it realistic to require tools to support all the different syntaxes?
Boris Motik: is it realistic to require tools to support all the different syntaxes? ←
12:34:13 <schneid> achille: not clear why is it our responsibility to give mime type to manchester syntax
Achille Fokoue: not clear why is it our responsibility to give mime type to manchester syntax ←
12:34:55 <schneid> bparsia: pfps and the wg did much of the work on the manchester draft
Bijan Parsia: pfps and the wg did much of the work on the manchester draft ←
12:36:56 <schneid> ivan: from rdf point of view, system only has to understand rdf/xml; turtle is around, but not needed to be supported officially
Ivan Herman: from rdf point of view, system only has to understand rdf/xml; turtle is around, but not needed to be supported officially ←
12:37:13 <sandro> Sandro: We have a duty to tell people which syntaxes they can publish in and assume that conformant OWL consumers will understand.
Sandro Hawke: We have a duty to tell people which syntaxes they can publish in and assume that conformant OWL consumers will understand. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:37:26 <schneid> ivan: because manchester is not rec, we cannot say that tools have to support it
Ivan Herman: because manchester is not rec, we cannot say that tools have to support it ←
12:38:07 <schneid> ivan: mime type discussion should be primarily be on owl/xml, because this is on rec track
Ivan Herman: mime type discussion should be primarily be on owl/xml, because this is on rec track ←
12:38:42 <schneid> ivan: for functional, it has to be discussed, whether it is meant to be put into a file and send to the web, then mime too
Ivan Herman: for functional, it has to be discussed, whether it is meant to be put into a file and send to the web, then mime too ←
12:39:24 <wallace> can we call the question on this?
Evan Wallace: can we call the question on this? ←
12:39:41 <schneid> pfps: case of owl 1, it looks that the only normative exchange syntax was rdf/xml, but could also have been the abstract syntax
Peter Patel-Schneider: case of owl 1, it looks that the only normative exchange syntax was rdf/xml, but could also have been the abstract syntax ←
12:41:11 <schneid> bparsia: in owl 2 we should not have one normative exchange syntax [fixme]
Bijan Parsia: in owl 2 we should not have one normative exchange syntax [fixme] ←
12:41:40 <schneid> sandro: in owl 2, the normative exchange syntax should be rdf/xml, as in owl 1
Sandro Hawke: in owl 2, the normative exchange syntax should be rdf/xml, as in owl 1 ←
12:43:12 <schneid> sandro: if we have more than one mandatory exchange syntax, then we have a problem
Sandro Hawke: if we have more than one mandatory exchange syntax, then we have a problem ←
12:43:51 <schneid> pfps: i would at least see the functional syntax as an official syntax, and would also prefer manchester to be official
Peter Patel-Schneider: i would at least see the functional syntax as an official syntax, and would also prefer manchester to be official ←
12:44:22 <sandro> sandro: ... where owl/xml is allowed, using GRDDL.
Sandro Hawke: ... where owl/xml is allowed, using GRDDL. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:44:55 <sandro> conformant provider --- provides in a normative stynax
Sandro Hawke: conformant provider --- provides in a normative stynax ←
12:46:10 <schneid> bparsia: if we would use n-triple syntax only for test cases but would say that n-triple is not an official syntax, than this would be a problem
Bijan Parsia: if we would use n-triple syntax only for test cases but would say that n-triple is not an official syntax, than this would be a problem ←
12:47:12 <schneid> sandro: if someone publishes n-triple, than he can do so, but has also to give the rdf/xml version
Sandro Hawke: if someone publishes n-triple, than he can do so, but has also to give the rdf/xml version ←
12:48:27 <schneid> pfps: more and more people produce rdf document not in official syntax, which is a good thing
Peter Patel-Schneider: more and more people produce rdf document not in official syntax, which is a good thing ←
12:49:47 <schneid> alanr: peter, is what you say about content negotiation?
Alan Ruttenberg: peter, is what you say about content negotiation? ←
12:51:14 <schneid> alanr: let's settle on a few things: mime does not need normativity of syntax...
Alan Ruttenberg: let's settle on a few things: mime does not need normativity of syntax... ←
12:51:32 <sandro> Alan: Let's do MIME types for all the syntaxes, to enable content negotiation.
Alan Ruttenberg: Let's do MIME types for all the syntaxes, to enable content negotiation. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:54:07 <schneid> alanr: strawpoll on mimetype or not mimetype
Alan Ruttenberg: strawpoll on mimetype or not mimetype ←
12:54:53 <alanr> straw poll: Mime types for functional, xml, manchester syntaxes?
Alan Ruttenberg: straw poll: Mime types for functional, xml, manchester syntaxes? ←
12:54:57 <ivan> 1
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
12:55:00 <MarkusK_> 1
Markus Krötzsch: 1 ←
12:55:05 <Achille> -1
Achille Fokoue: -1 ←
12:55:09 <Rinke> +0.5
Rinke Hoekstra: +0.5 ←
12:55:09 <sandro> 1 -- because con-neg is useful
Sandro Hawke: 1 -- because con-neg is useful ←
12:55:10 <alanr> pfps +1
Alan Ruttenberg: pfps +1 ←
12:55:13 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
12:55:16 <Zhe> 0
12:55:17 <bernardo> +1
12:55:20 <schneid> +0 (it's perhaps a lot of work)
+0 (it's perhaps a lot of work) ←
12:55:21 <cgolbrei> 0
12:55:24 <alanr> bijan: -1
Bijan Parsia: -1 [ Scribe Assist by Alan Ruttenberg ] ←
12:55:36 <wallace> -0
Evan Wallace: -0 ←
12:55:39 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
12:56:53 <sandro> alan: strong majority in favor of more mime types.
Alan Ruttenberg: strong majority in favor of more mime types. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:57:50 <schneid> m_schnei: I fear that this will be a lot of work on WG
Michael Schneider: I fear that this will be a lot of work on WG ←
12:57:54 <schneid> ivan: no, it's trivial
Ivan Herman: no, it's trivial ←
12:58:39 <schneid> alanr: will someone of the against-voters be opt against in real vote?
Alan Ruttenberg: will someone of the against-voters be opt against in real vote? ←
12:59:18 <schneid> achille: i am not comfortable, and perhaps would vote against
Achille Fokoue: i am not comfortable, and perhaps would vote against ←
13:00:37 <schneid> markusk: giving a functional syntax doesn't change the state of the respective syntax, but likes to see that people can distinguish between syntaxes
Markus Krötzsch: giving a functional syntax doesn't change the state of the respective syntax, but likes to see that people can distinguish between syntaxes ←
13:01:49 <schneid> alanr: explains difference between having mime type and normativity
Alan Ruttenberg: explains difference between having mime type and normativity ←
13:02:14 <schneid> ianh: last telco, same discussion in mime types, and normativity was not a topic
Ian Horrocks: last telco, same discussion in mime types, and normativity was not a topic ←
13:02:22 <IanH_> Network?
Ian Horrocks: Network? ←
13:02:26 <Achille> achille: I am opposing the use of functional and manchester syntaxes as standard exchange formats.
Achille Fokoue: I am opposing the use of functional and manchester syntaxes as standard exchange formats. [ Scribe Assist by Achille Fokoue ] ←
13:02:53 <schneid> bparsia: i have to first talk to uli before i can decide wheter opt against or not
Bijan Parsia: i have to first talk to uli before i can decide wheter opt against or not ←
13:04:46 <schneid> ivan: it seems that unless uli formally objects, we can proceed on mime type topic
Ivan Herman: it seems that unless uli formally objects, we can proceed on mime type topic ←
13:05:31 <schneid> bparsia: uli is in favour of progress
Bijan Parsia: uli is in favour of progress ←
13:06:13 <schneid> alanr: what mime types?
Alan Ruttenberg: what mime types? ←
13:06:28 <schneid> ivan: obvious for OWL/XML: owl+xml
Ivan Herman: obvious for OWL/XML: owl+xml ←
13:06:56 <schneid> sandro: does OWL 1 XML syntax had mime type
Sandro Hawke: does OWL 1 XML syntax had mime type ←
13:07:02 <schneid> pfps: no, no mime type
Peter Patel-Schneider: no, no mime type ←
13:07:06 <alanr> PROPOSAL: We will defined mime types for the functional syntax, manchester syntax, and owl syntax. The mime type for the owl syntax will be application/owl+xml
PROPOSED: We will defined mime types for the functional syntax, manchester syntax, and owl syntax. The mime type for the owl syntax will be application/owl+xml ←
13:07:32 <alanr> PROPOSAL: We will define mime types for the functional syntax, manchester syntax, and owl syntax. The mime type for the owl syntax will be application/owl+xml
PROPOSED: We will define mime types for the functional syntax, manchester syntax, and owl syntax. The mime type for the owl syntax will be application/owl+xml ←
13:07:50 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
13:07:51 <wallace> 0
Evan Wallace: 0 ←
13:07:58 <IanH_> +1 (Oxford)
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford) ←
13:07:59 <Achille> 0 (IBM)
Achille Fokoue: 0 (IBM) ←
13:08:34 <cgolbrei> 0 (uvsq)
Christine Golbreich: 0 (uvsq) ←
13:08:46 <alanr> PROPOSAL: We will define mime types for the functional syntax, manchester syntax, and owl syntax. The mime type for the owl syntax will be application/owl+xml. This does not speak to any of these being normative exchange syntaxes
PROPOSED: We will define mime types for the functional syntax, manchester syntax, and owl syntax. The mime type for the owl syntax will be application/owl+xml. This does not speak to any of these being normative exchange syntaxes ←
13:08:48 <Zhe> 0 (ORACLE)
13:08:51 <Rinke> +1 (UvA)
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 (UvA) ←
13:08:54 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
13:08:55 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons)
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (Science Commons) ←
13:08:55 <wallace> 0 (NIST)
Evan Wallace: 0 (NIST) ←
13:08:59 <IanH_> +1 (Oxford)
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford) ←
13:09:03 <ivan> 1 (W3C)
Ivan Herman: 1 (W3C) ←
13:09:05 <Achille> 0 (IBM)
Achille Fokoue: 0 (IBM) ←
13:09:11 <schneid> +1 (FZI)
+1 (FZI) ←
13:09:54 <cgolbrei> +1 (uvsq)
Christine Golbreich: +1 (uvsq) ←
13:10:16 <schneid> alanr: observes that no vote from manchester
Alan Ruttenberg: observes that no vote from manchester ←
13:10:25 <alanr> RESOLVED: We will define mime types for the functional syntax, manchester syntax, and owl syntax. The mime type for the owl syntax will be application/owl+xml. This does not speak to any of these being normative exchange syntaxes
RESOLVED: We will define mime types for the functional syntax, manchester syntax, and owl syntax. The mime type for the owl syntax will be application/owl+xml. This does not speak to any of these being normative exchange syntaxes ←
13:10:27 <schneid> bparsia: we have to wait for uli to object or not
Bijan Parsia: we have to wait for uli to object or not ←
13:12:02 <schneid> alanr: we need people who work on the mime types
Alan Ruttenberg: we need people who work on the mime types ←
13:12:59 <alanr> action: Ivan to propose mime types for functional and manchester syntaxes
ACTION: Ivan to propose mime types for functional and manchester syntaxes ←
13:12:59 <trackbot> Created ACTION-233 - Propose mime types for functional and manchester syntaxes [on Ivan Herman - due 2008-10-30].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-233 - Propose mime types for functional and manchester syntaxes [on Ivan Herman - due 2008-10-30]. ←
13:17:00 <schneid> Topic: Datatypes
13:17:07 <schneid> SubTopic: n-ary Datatypes
13:17:22 <IanH_> Can we have a volunteer to scribe in the next session please.
Ian Horrocks: Can we have a volunteer to scribe in the next session please. ←
13:18:25 <schneid> bparsia: uli want's 1/3 be representable
Bijan Parsia: uli want's 1/3 be representable ←
13:18:50 <schneid> alanr: what is the connection between n-aries and rationals?
Alan Ruttenberg: what is the connection between n-aries and rationals? ←
13:20:17 <schneid> bparsia: xsd:decimals don't represent all possible rationals, and we want solvability, and want to write down the literals
Bijan Parsia: xsd:decimals don't represent all possible rationals, and we want solvability, and want to write down the literals ←
13:21:17 <schneid> bmotik: satisfiability problem is actually solved by owl:real
Boris Motik: satisfiability problem is actually solved by owl:real ←
13:22:07 <schneid> alanr: is "rational" issue dependent on "n-ary" issue?
Alan Ruttenberg: is "rational" issue dependent on "n-ary" issue? ←
13:23:03 <schneid> alanr: we don't have n-aries in main spec, but could have it in a side spec. do we have this additional spec ?
Alan Ruttenberg: we don't have n-aries in main spec, but could have it in a side spec. do we have this additional spec ? ←
13:23:18 <schneid> alanr: where do we stand with n-ary spec?
Alan Ruttenberg: where do we stand with n-ary spec? ←
13:23:55 <schneid> bparsia: we have support in syntax, in semantics, stratification (3 levels)
Bijan Parsia: we have support in syntax, in semantics, stratification (3 levels) ←
13:24:16 <schneid> alanr: (to bparsia) to you have a document?
Alan Ruttenberg: (to bparsia) to you have a document? ←
13:24:31 <schneid> bparsia: we have syntax and semantics, so essentially yes
Bijan Parsia: we have syntax and semantics, so essentially yes ←
13:25:02 <schneid> alanr: we need reviewers
Alan Ruttenberg: we need reviewers ←
13:27:24 <schneid> bparsia: 3 levels: plain comparison, scaled comparison, linear comparison
Bijan Parsia: 3 levels: plain comparison, scaled comparison, linear comparison ←
13:28:05 <schneid> bparsia: gives examples...
Bijan Parsia: gives examples... ←
13:28:21 <schneid> ... plain comparsion, "h > w"
... plain comparsion, "h > w" ←
13:28:30 <schneid> ... scaled comparison, "3h > w"
... scaled comparison, "3h > w" ←
13:29:02 <schneid> ... linear comparsion, "3h > xh + s"
... linear comparsion, "3h > xh + s" ←
13:29:27 <alanr> action: Bijan to send pointer to nary specification by October 27.
ACTION: Bijan to send pointer to nary specification by October 27. ←
13:29:27 <trackbot> Created ACTION-234 - Send pointer to nary specification by October 27. [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-10-30].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-234 - Send pointer to nary specification by October 27. [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-10-30]. ←
13:30:29 <schneid> alanr: have to decide whether note or rec
Alan Ruttenberg: have to decide whether note or rec ←
13:32:38 <schneid> cgolbrei: decision of specing or not is not only a question of quality, but also on which level should go in
Christine Golbreich: decision of specing or not is not only a question of quality, but also on which level should go in ←
13:33:48 <schneid> pfps: proposes to have different vote on letting hooks in or not [fixme]
Peter Patel-Schneider: proposes to have different vote on letting hooks in or not [fixme] ←
13:35:13 <schneid> bparsia: this potential spec does not block any other spec, so would object, if bad review will lead to drop the hooks
Bijan Parsia: this potential spec does not block any other spec, so would object, if bad review will lead to drop the hooks ←
13:42:07 <schneid> ivan: what documents would be involved? want to have a feeling
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
Ivan Herman: what documents would be involved? want to have a feeling ←
13:42:30 <schneid> bmotik: if it is integrated in one of the other documents, then in syntax
Boris Motik: if it is integrated in one of the other documents, then in syntax ←
13:44:18 <schneid> alanr: again, will we need the n-aries for rationals?
Alan Ruttenberg: again, will we need the n-aries for rationals? ←
13:45:44 <schneid> SubTopic: name of dateType
<sandro> Meeting in progress. New content inserted above this line.
Sandro Hawke: Meeting in progress. New content inserted above this line. ←
This revision (#5) generated 2008-10-23 14:12:45 UTC by 'unknown', comments: 'afternoon break'