OWL Working Group

Minutes of 23 October 2008

Present
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
Remote
Elisa Kendall Zhe Wu
Observers
Henson Graves Jeremy Carroll Scott Marshall Blaž Novak Holger Stenzhorn Alexandre Passant
Scribe
Peter Patel-Schneider Bernardo Cuenca Grau Michael Schneider Rinke Hoekstra
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions
  1. resolve issue 114 as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Oct/0048.html and subsequent thread link
  2. the diagrams plus the supportive text are the definitive specification for the language and there will be a normative reference for the diagrams link
  3. Close Issue-134, saying we don't expect to have a MOF metamodel in a Rec-Track document. Maybe a Note someday. link
  4. Resolve Issue 142 by Addition of a proof sketch to the profiles document link
  5. 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 link
  6. We keep ISSUE-97 (GRDDL XSLT) open through this Last Call, not needing to make a decision until PR. If necessary, we'll do another Last Call for this -- and doing so won't be a reason not to accept the XSLT. We'll document this decision as necessary to keep expectations properly set, and we'll keep soliciting a suitable XSLT transform. link
  7. We won't use GRDDL until we figure out what we're doing with GRDDL. By charter, we'll have to figure out eventually what we're doing with GRDDL. At the namespace document, for now, we can refer to this issue. link
  8. Close issue-150 saying conformant OWL reasoners MUST accept RDF/XML. They MAY accept other serializations. Systems publishing OWL2 MUST publish it in RDF/XML if asked (eg with HTTP content-negotiation); they MAY also publish in other serializations. link
Topics
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)

00:00:00 <pfps> Topic: Introductions, etc.

1. Introductions, etc.

06:58:12 <Zakim> SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has now started

(No events recorded for 418 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has now started

06:58:19 <Zakim> +Elisa_Kendall

Zakim IRC Bot: +Elisa_Kendall

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

07:14:42 <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

00:00:00 <pfps> Topic: Timeline

2. Timeline

07:16:42 <pfps> IanH: Timeline (follow link in agenda)

(No events recorded for 436 minutes)

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

3. Document Status

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

3.1. 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: Organization is currently for the spec/implementation, not users

Evan Wallace: Organization 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

07:22:46 <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

Zhe Wu: 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!

Zhe Wu: 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

3.2. 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.

Ian Horrocks: Finished, modulo outstanding issues. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

07:32:05 <pfps> SubTopic: RDF Semantics

3.3. 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

07:32:30 <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

3.4. 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&amp;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

3.5. 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

3.6. 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 <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 ]

08:09:33 <pfps> Subtopic: Profiles

3.7. Profiles

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

3.8. 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)

08:27:37 <pfps> Subtopic: Quick Reference Guide:

3.9. Quick Reference Guide:

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

08:28:16 <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 contain the "syntax" of the language constructs

Michael Schneider: One problem is that RDF semantics doesn't contain the "syntax" of the language constructs

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

3.10. 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

Zhe Wu: +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

00:00:00 <pfps> Subtopic: Extra introductions

3.11. Extra introductions

09:17:18 <ivan> alexandre passant

(No events recorded for 557 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> scott marshall

scott marshall

09:18:47 <bmotik> Blaz Novak

Boris Motik: Blaz Novak

09:18:58 <pfps> Subtopic: Manchester Syntax

3.12. 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

3.13. 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

4. Outstanding Issues

<sandro> Subtopic: Issue-114: Which combinations of punning should be allowed?

4.1. 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 =&gt; 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)

Zhe Wu: +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

4.2. 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> achille: If we do not have a formal description, I wouldn't care that much

Achille Fokoue: 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> 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

10:49:24 <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)

Zhe Wu: +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)

Zhe Wu: +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> ScribeNick: schneid

(No events recorded for 59 minutes)

(Scribe set to Michael Schneider)

12:09:54 <schneid> SubTopic: Issue 142 Relationship between OWL-RL DL and OWL-RL Full (Theorem 1)

4.3. ISSUE-142 Relationship between OWL-RL DL and OWL-RL Full (Theorem 1)

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 it looked reasonable

Ian Horrocks: looked at proof and it looked reasonable

12:13:00 <schneid> alanr: proposal is to close issue

Alan Ruttenberg: proposal is to close issue

12:13:17 <schneid> bparsia: has reviewed it too, and it was fine

Bijan Parsia: has reviewed it too, and it 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

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +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> SubTopic: Issue-145 Which serializations should have mime types and file extensions (and what should they be)

4.4. ISSUE-145 Which serializations should have mime types and file extensions (and what should they be)

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

12:17:19 <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 syntax

Alan Ruttenberg: two extreme options: lowest = application/xml and text/plain, maximum is a new mime type for each syntax

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 goes rec track, then pressure on us to give mime type is higher

Ivan Herman: reformulate what sandro sais: if syntax goes rec track, then pressure on us to give mime type is higher

12:27:26 <schneid> alanr: let's have a straw poll

Alan Ruttenberg: let's have a 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: this would look like that wg thinks that we don't have the resources to bring manchester syntax on rec track

Bijan Parsia: this would look like that wg thinks that we don't have the resources to bring manchester syntax on 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: it wasn't hard to come up with converters

Bijan Parsia: it 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 an rdf point of view, system only has to understand rdf/xml; turtle is around, but not needed to be supported officially

Ivan Herman: from an 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 will not become a rec, we cannot say that tools have to support it

Ivan Herman: because manchester will not become a rec, we cannot say that tools have to support it

12:38:07 <schneid> ivan: mime type discussion should be primarily on owl/xml, because this syntax is on rec track

Ivan Herman: mime type discussion should be primarily on owl/xml, because this syntax 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 we need a mime type, 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 we need a mime type, 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 only one normative exchange syntax [fixme]

Bijan Parsia: in owl 2 we should not have only 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 documents not in official syntax, which is a good thing

Peter Patel-Schneider: more and more people produce rdf documents 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 require normativity of syntax

Alan Ruttenberg: let's settle on a few things: mime does not require 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

Zhe Wu: 0

12:55:17 <bernardo> +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

12:55:20 <schneid> schneid: +0 (it's perhaps a lot of work)

Michael Schneider: +0 (it's perhaps a lot of work)

12:55:21 <cgolbrei> 0

Christine Golbreich: 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> schneid: I fear that this will be a lot of work on the WG

Michael Schneider: I fear that this will be a lot of work on the 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 I like to see that people can distinguish between syntaxes

Markus Krötzsch: giving a functional syntax doesn't change the state of the respective syntax, but I like 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, we had the same discussion about mime types, and normativity was not a topic

Ian Horrocks: last telco, we had the same discussion about 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 whether to opt against or not

Bijan Parsia: I have to first talk to Uli before I can decide whether to 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 generally in favour of progress

Bijan Parsia: Uli is generally 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, it did not have a mime type

Peter Patel-Schneider: no, it did not have a 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)

Zhe Wu: 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> schneid: +1 (FZI)

Michael Schneider: +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: Manchester has to wait for Uli to object or not

Bijan Parsia: Manchester has 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].

13:17:07 <schneid> SubTopic: Issue 127 n-ary Datatypes and Issue 87 (rational numbers)

4.5. ISSUE-127 n-ary Datatypes and ISSUE-87 (rational numbers)

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 rational numbers?

Alan Ruttenberg: what is the connection between n-aries and rational numbers?

13:20:17 <schneid> bparsia: xsd:decimal doesn't represent all possible rationals, and we want solvability, and want to write down the literals

Bijan Parsia: xsd:decimal doesn'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 the "rational" issue dependent on the "n-ary" issue?

Alan Ruttenberg: is the "rational" issue dependent on the "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, "n > w"

... plain comparsion, "n &gt; w"

13:28:30 <schneid> ... scaled comparison, "3n > w"

... scaled comparison, "3n &gt; w"

13:29:02 <schneid> ... linear comparsion, "3n > xn + s"

... linear comparsion, "3n &gt; xn + 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: we have to decide whether the document becomes a note or a rec

Alan Ruttenberg: we have to decide whether the document becomes a note or a 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?

13:47:07 <sandro> BREAK

Sandro Hawke: BREAK

14:19:01 <Rinke> scribenick: Rinke

(No events recorded for 31 minutes)

(Scribe set to Rinke Hoekstra)

14:19:50 <Rinke> Subtopic: Outstanding XML issues (ISSUE-97)

4.6. Outstanding XML issues (ISSUE-97)

14:19:58 <Rinke> Evan: possible agenda change for tomorrow

Evan Wallace: possible agenda change for tomorrow

14:20:11 <Rinke> Ian: suggested by Bijan to flip the first two sessions of tomorrow

Ian Horrocks: suggested by Bijan to flip the first two sessions of tomorrow

14:20:21 <Rinke> Ian: any problems with that?

Ian Horrocks: any problems with that?

14:21:07 <Rinke> christine: apologise in advance, as I will be late

Christine Golbreich: apologise in advance, as I will be late

14:21:31 <Rinke> schneid: shouldn't discussion of future work be at the end of the session?

Michael Schneider: shouldn't discussion of future work be at the end of the session?

14:21:55 <Rinke> Ian: last week's teleconf we decided that ISSUE-56 should be generalised to a broader future work issue

Ian Horrocks: last week's teleconf we decided that ISSUE-56 should be generalised to a broader future work issue

14:22:46 <Rinke> Ian: other suggestion 10-10:45 will be the last session, and bump the other sessions

Ian Horrocks: other suggestion 10-10:45 will be the last session, and bump the other sessions

14:23:08 <Rinke> bijan: that's great

Bijan Parsia: that's great

14:23:26 <Rinke> IanH_: other people ok by that?

Ian Horrocks: other people ok by that?

14:23:46 <Rinke> IanH_: moving 10-10:45 session to 16:15

Ian Horrocks: moving 10-10:45 session to 16:15

14:24:03 <Rinke> IanH_: ok, settled.

Ian Horrocks: ok, settled.

14:24:10 <Rinke> IanH_: back to GRDDL discussion

Ian Horrocks: back to GRDDL discussion

14:24:21 <Rinke> IanH_: what to say about the GRDDL thing?

Ian Horrocks: what to say about the GRDDL thing?

14:24:41 <Rinke> IanH_: we are waiting for an actual XSLT transform to materialise

Ian Horrocks: we are waiting for an actual XSLT transform to materialise

14:24:55 <Rinke> alanr: the point is, what level of maturity we need to go to last call

Alan Ruttenberg: the point is, what level of maturity we need to go to last call

14:25:15 <Rinke> alanr: until now things have been changing... do we have any dependency on having the GRDDL finished?

Alan Ruttenberg: until now things have been changing... do we have any dependency on having the GRDDL finished?

14:25:32 <Rinke> pfps: I suggest we put a pointer to the spec as the GRDDL thing for now

Peter Patel-Schneider: I suggest we put a pointer to the spec as the GRDDL thing for now

14:25:50 <Rinke> pfps: do whatever is (minimally) required

Peter Patel-Schneider: do whatever is (minimally) required

14:26:14 <Rinke> alanr: will changing the content of the GRDDL after last call cause any problems

Alan Ruttenberg: will changing the content of the GRDDL after last call cause any problems

14:26:43 <Rinke> sandro: there needs to be a statement saying we may do XSLT in the future, but in the meantime here's the spec that we point to in the meantime

Sandro Hawke: there needs to be a statement saying we may do XSLT in the future, but in the meantime here's the spec that we point to in the meantime

14:27:49 <Rinke> bijan: this would be a change in design... anything we said about security needs to be adjusted (potential downloading of code)... pointing to the spec would not involve this. It is not merely a change in description.

Bijan Parsia: this would be a change in design... anything we said about security needs to be adjusted (potential downloading of code)... pointing to the spec would not involve this. It is not merely a change in description.

14:28:11 <Rinke> bijan: there's a detectable impact on implementations. I

Bijan Parsia: there's a detectable impact on implementations. I

14:28:29 <Rinke> schneid: for a long time nothing has been discussed?

Michael Schneider: for a long time nothing has been discussed?

14:28:42 <Rinke> bijan: there has been a lot of discussion on the GRDDL group

Bijan Parsia: there has been a lot of discussion on the GRDDL group

14:29:00 <Rinke> schneid: if someone gets up and says I do it... would someone object?

Michael Schneider: if someone gets up and says I do it... would someone object?

14:29:03 <Rinke> bijan: yes, I would

Bijan Parsia: yes, I would

14:29:22 <Rinke> IanH_: last time we pushed this issue off, to see whether the issue would solve itself

Ian Horrocks: last time we pushed this issue off, to see whether the issue would solve itself

14:29:46 <Rinke> alanr: it would be some work to do it... but if it's going to be thrown away...

Alan Ruttenberg: it would be some work to do it... but if it's going to be thrown away...

14:29:55 <Rinke> bijan: but it's still an implementation of the transformation

Bijan Parsia: but it's still an implementation of the transformation

14:30:38 <Rinke> alanr: there's a specified place in protocol where GRDDL transforms are found. That's what somebody would be doing it for

Alan Ruttenberg: there's a specified place in protocol where GRDDL transforms are found. That's what somebody would be doing it for

14:30:54 <Rinke> IanH_: what has changed since last time

Ian Horrocks: what has changed since last time

14:31:56 <Rinke> ivan: I agree with alan, that the situation today is such that people will not really be willing to do the XSLT because (without going into the discussion on GRDDL interpretation)... the GRDDL users community, regardless of the spec, expects an XSLT transformation in that location

Ivan Herman: I agree with alan, that the situation today is such that people will not really be willing to do the XSLT because (without going into the discussion on GRDDL interpretation)... the GRDDL users community, regardless of the spec, expects an XSLT transformation in that location

14:32:21 <Rinke> ivan: people will not invest their time in making an XSLT that 99% of the GRDDL implementations will not find

Ivan Herman: people will not invest their time in making an XSLT that 99% of the GRDDL implementations will not find

14:33:10 <Rinke> bijan: suggest we'll have a decision. Either party can formally object, and we'll have  (the chairs?) decide in some way

Bijan Parsia: suggest we'll have a decision. Either party can formally object, and we'll have (the chairs?) decide in some way

14:33:31 <Rinke> sandro: but we cannot give a carte blanche to anyone who promises to build an XSLT

Sandro Hawke: but we cannot give a carte blanche to anyone who promises to build an XSLT

14:34:42 <Rinke> ivan_: If I start from the principle that someone can come up with an XSLT transformation that passes all the tests, (that we need for OWL/XML) then I would like to see that transformation to be put there and be accessible in that place. But we know that Manchester would be formally agains

Ivan Herman: If I start from the principle that someone can come up with an XSLT transformation that passes all the tests, (that we need for OWL/XML) then I would like to see that transformation to be put there and be accessible in that place. But we know that Manchester would be formally agains

14:35:23 <Rinke> bijan: there's nothing certain about this (e.g. if we have two, limited resources etc.)

Bijan Parsia: there's nothing certain about this (e.g. if we have two, limited resources etc.)

14:35:33 <Rinke> IanH_: suggestions on how to resolve this?

Ian Horrocks: suggestions on how to resolve this?

14:35:57 <Rinke> alanr: we should say what we would consider to be crap and unacceptable, i.e. a call for implementation

Alan Ruttenberg: we should say what we would consider to be crap and unacceptable, i.e. a call for implementation

14:36:13 <Rinke> IanH_: would that say anything about if it meets all the ...

Ian Horrocks: would that say anything about if it meets all the ...

14:36:34 <Rinke> ivan_: somehow we have to be able to say that some implementation that converts owl xml is correct

Ivan Herman: somehow we have to be able to say that some implementation that converts owl xml is correct

14:36:44 <Rinke> ivan_: this xslt transform has to pass all test cases

Ivan Herman: this xslt transform has to pass all test cases

14:37:08 <Rinke> IanH_: you didn't say whether you would set a bar 'if it's beyond this level, then we'll definitely use it'

Ian Horrocks: you didn't say whether you would set a bar 'if it's beyond this level, then we'll definitely use it'

14:37:31 <Rinke> bijan: I'm a little confused? Did we say we would give out a call for implementations... that's unusual?

Bijan Parsia: I'm a little confused? Did we say we would give out a call for implementations... that's unusual?

14:37:39 <Rinke> IanH_: no we're considering wording

Ian Horrocks: no we're considering wording

14:37:45 <Rinke> ivan: it has happened

Ivan Herman: it has happened

14:38:35 <Rinke> bijan: I have some qualms about that. We've put really high bars on what we included. I'm just weirded out on the special status of this thing wrt. the other parts of the spec.

Bijan Parsia: I have some qualms about that. We've put really high bars on what we included. I'm just weirded out on the special status of this thing wrt. the other parts of the spec.

14:39:00 <Rinke> bijan: I'm wondering why we're going down this road at all?

Bijan Parsia: I'm wondering why we're going down this road at all?

14:39:08 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/actions/145

Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/actions/145

14:39:18 <Rinke> sandro: We asked for volunteers (ACTION-145)... jeremy took this on

Sandro Hawke: We asked for volunteers (ACTION-145)... jeremy took this on

14:39:51 <Rinke> sandro: Its out of order to say we shoudn't ask for more implementations, because we have established precedent

Sandro Hawke: Its out of order to say we shoudn't ask for more implementations, because we have established precedent

14:40:11 <Rinke> sandro: does bijan have a problem with a call for implementations that's neutral wrt. GRDDL

Sandro Hawke: does bijan have a problem with a call for implementations that's neutral wrt. GRDDL

14:40:23 <Rinke> bijan: no, I'd even contribute to that, potentially

Bijan Parsia: no, I'd even contribute to that, potentially

14:40:53 <Rinke> pfps: I agree entirely. There's no way we can specify a bar for anything to be included

Peter Patel-Schneider: I agree entirely. There's no way we can specify a bar for anything to be included

14:41:03 <Rinke> pfps: the bar would be incredibly high

Peter Patel-Schneider: the bar would be incredibly high

14:41:25 <sandro> sandro: cf action-145

Sandro Hawke: cf ACTION-145 [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

14:41:45 <Rinke> alan: I don't agree. We have the test cases: if it passes the testcases we might deem it ok (that's still to decide though... just to make a point that we can set a bar)

Alan Ruttenberg: I don't agree. We have the test cases: if it passes the testcases we might deem it ok (that's still to decide though... just to make a point that we can set a bar)

14:42:13 <Rinke> alanr: we ought to say what we want or don't want, what it is trying to accomplish. If it doesn't do it, then we shouldn't do it.

Alan Ruttenberg: we ought to say what we want or don't want, what it is trying to accomplish. If it doesn't do it, then we shouldn't do it.

14:42:13 <sandro> Sandro: Let's ask for implementations, and encourage people, say it might be for GRDDL, etc, we'll publicize it as an OWL (translator) implementation, etc.

Sandro Hawke: Let's ask for implementations, and encourage people, say it might be for GRDDL, etc, we'll publicize it as an OWL (translator) implementation, etc. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

14:42:42 <Rinke> alanr: We did this for the nary, and I say we should do the same for a GRDDL transformation

Alan Ruttenberg: We did this for the nary, and I say we should do the same for a GRDDL transformation

14:43:20 <Rinke> IanH_: that sounds reasonable, but what we said about n-ary... is that if the n-ary thing is spec-standard, then we'll decide on whether we push to include it. If it's not good enough then we chuck it out

Ian Horrocks: that sounds reasonable, but what we said about n-ary... is that if the n-ary thing is spec-standard, then we'll decide on whether we push to include it. If it's not good enough then we chuck it out

14:43:28 <Rinke> IanH_: are we happy with the same thing for grddl

Ian Horrocks: are we happy with the same thing for grddl

14:43:48 <Rinke> alanr: not entirely... if it's not up to standard, it might be a note still

Alan Ruttenberg: not entirely... if it's not up to standard, it might be a note still

14:44:23 <Rinke> alanr: we shouldn't try to solve this on procedural grounds.

Alan Ruttenberg: we shouldn't try to solve this on procedural grounds.

14:44:51 <Rinke> alanr: there are some people who think that XSLT for GRDDL transform is bad, and some who don't think it is.

Alan Ruttenberg: there are some people who think that XSLT for GRDDL transform is bad, and some who don't think it is.

14:45:27 <Rinke> IanH_: I propose to go forward in exactly the same way as with the nary issue. And do this call, and then decide whether this is up to spec-standard-quality, and move on from there

Ian Horrocks: I propose to go forward in exactly the same way as with the nary issue. And do this call, and then decide whether this is up to spec-standard-quality, and move on from there

14:45:58 <sandro> Ivan: We seem all agreed that it would be good to have the XSLT transformation.

Ivan Herman: We seem all agreed that it would be good to have the XSLT transformation. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

14:46:30 <Rinke> ivan_: having that XSLT and try to get one is a good case. We agree on that. However, we know in advance that even if this is the bestest XSLT transformation in the whole world, then there will still be objections. This is the difference with the nary issue

Ivan Herman: having that XSLT and try to get one is a good case. We agree on that. However, we know in advance that even if this is the bestest XSLT transformation in the whole world, then there will still be objections. This is the difference with the nary issue

14:47:03 <Rinke> sandro: we will have formal objections either way (no XSLT vs. XSLT)

Sandro Hawke: we will have formal objections either way (no XSLT vs. XSLT)

14:47:15 <Rinke> ivan_: other way out is no ref to GRDDL

Ivan Herman: other way out is no ref to GRDDL

14:47:23 <Rinke> (general outings of disagreement)

(general outings of disagreement)

14:47:32 <Rinke> bijan: let's not overstate our disagreements here.

Bijan Parsia: let's not overstate our disagreements here.

14:48:09 <Rinke> bijan: all this period of time, we already knew that I would have a problem with this... ever since ACTION-145

Bijan Parsia: all this period of time, we already knew that I would have a problem with this... ever since ACTION-145

14:48:24 <Rinke> bijan: I don't see that the situation has changed?

Bijan Parsia: I don't see that the situation has changed?

14:49:01 <Rinke> schneid: the two situations are not the same. for nary already a lot of work done, a very weak chance on objection. on the other side, no work done on XSLT, and large chance of objection

Michael Schneider: the two situations are not the same. for nary already a lot of work done, a very weak chance on objection. on the other side, no work done on XSLT, and large chance of objection

14:49:15 <Rinke> sandro: I don't understand what we're talking about. Nothing has changed since then.

Sandro Hawke: I don't understand what we're talking about. Nothing has changed since then.

14:49:25 <Rinke> alanr: there hasn't been a lot done because the spec is not stable

Alan Ruttenberg: there hasn't been a lot done because the spec is not stable

14:49:38 <Rinke> IanH_: I don't see how this is different from what I've been saying?

Ian Horrocks: I don't see how this is different from what I've been saying?

14:49:45 <Rinke> IanH_: we make this call, and see what comes?

Ian Horrocks: we make this call, and see what comes?

14:50:07 <Rinke> IanH_: what;'s your alternative suggestion? I want to hear! (to alan and ivan)

Ian Horrocks: what;'s your alternative suggestion? I want to hear! (to alan and ivan)

14:50:45 <Rinke> ivan_: I don't have a clear alternative suggestion. One suggestion that you could work with (and I would be unhappy) is remove GRDDL. There is no suggestion I would be happy with.

Ivan Herman: I don't have a clear alternative suggestion. One suggestion that you could work with (and I would be unhappy) is remove GRDDL. There is no suggestion I would be happy with.

14:51:19 <Rinke> alanr: grddl pointer to current syntax doc. Can we change this after we've gone for last call?

Alan Ruttenberg: grddl pointer to current syntax doc. Can we change this after we've gone for last call?

14:51:31 <Rinke> alanr: (add the XSLT)

Alan Ruttenberg: (add the XSLT)

14:51:51 <Rinke> ivan_: we could add a note that it may change to point to an XSLT

Ivan Herman: we could add a note that it may change to point to an XSLT

14:52:31 <Rinke> ivan: there is a precedent. RDF/A made it clear that if there is a proposed recommendation, through the namespace document, an xslt will be included

Ivan Herman: there is a precedent. RDF/A made it clear that if there is a proposed recommendation, through the namespace document, an xslt will be included

14:53:09 <Rinke> alanr: we need to enable whatever we need to enable to make sure that we do not preclude the possibility to add this later

Alan Ruttenberg: we need to enable whatever we need to enable to make sure that we do not preclude the possibility to add this later

14:53:24 <sandro> PROPOSED: We keep option-97 (GRDDL XSLT) open through Last Call, not needing to make a decision until PR.

PROPOSED: We keep option-97 (GRDDL XSLT) open through Last Call, not needing to make a decision until PR.

14:53:35 <sandro> PROPOSED: We keep ISSUE-97 (GRDDL XSLT) open through Last Call, not needing to make a decision until PR.

PROPOSED: We keep ISSUE-97 (GRDDL XSLT) open through Last Call, not needing to make a decision until PR.

14:53:36 <Rinke> IanH_: apparently, if we add such a note we wouldn't need to go through last call again

Ian Horrocks: apparently, if we add such a note we wouldn't need to go through last call again

14:54:22 <Rinke> IanH_: if no one comes up with one that passes the test cases, then we don't add one (on a remark from schneid on difficulty)

Ian Horrocks: if no one comes up with one that passes the test cases, then we don't add one (on a remark from schneid on difficulty)

14:54:30 <Rinke> alanr: should formulate our standards

Alan Ruttenberg: should formulate our standards

14:55:02 <sandro> PROPOSED: We keep ISSUE-97 (GRDDL XSLT) open through Last Call, not needing to make a decision until PR.   We'll document this decision as necessary to keep expectations properly set, and we'll keep soliciting a suitable XSLT transform.

PROPOSED: We keep ISSUE-97 (GRDDL XSLT) open through Last Call, not needing to make a decision until PR. We'll document this decision as necessary to keep expectations properly set, and we'll keep soliciting a suitable XSLT transform.

14:55:46 <Rinke> bijan: in the rdfa case they already had agreement that they *wanted* it. But here, we're not all in that situation. I guess I won't be a blocker on this, but I really ahve to ask about myself why I should agree with this (which is not process and not in my interest)

Bijan Parsia: in the rdfa case they already had agreement that they *wanted* it. But here, we're not all in that situation. I guess I won't be a blocker on this, but I really ahve to ask about myself why I should agree with this (which is not process and not in my interest)

14:56:02 <Rinke> sandro: last call is looser than CR

Sandro Hawke: last call is looser than CR

14:56:21 <Rinke> bijan: smaller LC to ask for comments?

Bijan Parsia: smaller LC to ask for comments?

14:57:01 <sandro> PROPOSED: We keep ISSUE-97 (GRDDL XSLT) open through this Last Call, not needing to make a decision until PR.  If necessary, we'll do another Last Call for this -- and doing so won't be a reason not to accept the XSLT.   We'll document this decision as necessary to keep expectations properly set, and we'll keep soliciting a suitable XSLT transform.

PROPOSED: We keep ISSUE-97 (GRDDL XSLT) open through this Last Call, not needing to make a decision until PR. If necessary, we'll do another Last Call for this -- and doing so won't be a reason not to accept the XSLT. We'll document this decision as necessary to keep expectations properly set, and we'll keep soliciting a suitable XSLT transform.

14:57:04 <Rinke> IanH_: If some xslt comes up, bijan reserves the right to 'tell us' to go back to last call

Ian Horrocks: If some xslt comes up, bijan reserves the right to 'tell us' to go back to last call

14:57:44 <IanH_> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

14:57:44 <Rinke> alanr: we shouldnt be blasting over the web, have our requirements in place

Alan Ruttenberg: we shouldnt be blasting over the web, have our requirements in place

14:57:55 <Rinke> alanr: first

Alan Ruttenberg: first

14:58:14 <sandro> PROPOSED: We keep ISSUE-97 (GRDDL XSLT) open through this Last Call, not needing to make a decision until PR.  If necessary, we'll do another Last Call for this -- and doing so won't be a reason not to accept the XSLT.   We'll document this decision as necessary to keep expectations properly set, and we'll keep soliciting a suitable XSLT transform.

PROPOSED: We keep ISSUE-97 (GRDDL XSLT) open through this Last Call, not needing to make a decision until PR. If necessary, we'll do another Last Call for this -- and doing so won't be a reason not to accept the XSLT. We'll document this decision as necessary to keep expectations properly set, and we'll keep soliciting a suitable XSLT transform.

14:58:45 <Rinke> IanH_: apart from the separate decision on what would constitute a satisfactory/suitable XSLT should do

Ian Horrocks: apart from the separate decision on what would constitute a satisfactory/suitable XSLT should do

14:59:02 <Rinke> IanH_: we don't need that in this resolution

Ian Horrocks: we don't need that in this resolution

14:59:25 <Rinke> pfps: the reason for requiring a second last call is that we put a pointer?

Peter Patel-Schneider: the reason for requiring a second last call is that we put a pointer?

14:59:32 <Rinke> bijan: no, it would constitute a change

Bijan Parsia: no, it would constitute a change

14:59:46 <Rinke> sandro: that's this line about sufficient documentation

Sandro Hawke: that's this line about sufficient documentation

15:00:45 <Rinke> pfps: I would like to have us decide now that our at least temporary grddl transform says "do what the spec says"

Peter Patel-Schneider: I would like to have us decide now that our at least temporary grddl transform says "do what the spec says"

15:02:05 <Rinke> ivan: there is a disagreement between bijan and the WG members of the group, that yes it is allowed legally to have something in there which is not an XSLT, but the whole community expects an XSLT there. It might be correct, but nobody expects it

Ivan Herman: there is a disagreement between bijan and the WG members of the group, that yes it is allowed legally to have something in there which is not an XSLT, but the whole community expects an XSLT there. It might be correct, but nobody expects it

15:02:20 <Rinke> pfps: it's a recommendation. We're doing the right thing according the rec, case closed

Peter Patel-Schneider: it's a recommendation. We're doing the right thing according the rec, case closed

15:02:29 <Rinke> ivan: we're doing it for the community

Ivan Herman: we're doing it for the community

15:03:05 <Rinke> bijan: I do agree with you on this

Bijan Parsia: I do agree with you on this

15:03:29 <Rinke> IanH_: there's a simple thing to decide on this. Leave the GRDDL empty, or point to the spec?

Ian Horrocks: there's a simple thing to decide on this. Leave the GRDDL empty, or point to the spec?

15:04:04 <Rinke> pfps: if we're doing this for the community, as opposed to a de jure requirement. If it's not a requirement, then don't do it!

Peter Patel-Schneider: if we're doing this for the community, as opposed to a de jure requirement. If it's not a requirement, then don't do it!

15:04:10 <Rinke> pfps: let's just put nothing there

Peter Patel-Schneider: let's just put nothing there

15:05:25 <Rinke> alanr: leaving a pointer, is not what the community expects. In terms of being friendly to the community that's not the best idea. I won't object to it... but it is really a statement by some members of the OWL WG, and does not communicate what it was supposed to do.

Alan Ruttenberg: leaving a pointer, is not what the community expects. In terms of being friendly to the community that's not the best idea. I won't object to it... but it is really a statement by some members of the OWL WG, and does not communicate what it was supposed to do.

15:05:45 <Rinke> alanr: put nothing there in the meantime

Alan Ruttenberg: put nothing there in the meantime

15:05:59 <Rinke> sandro: I didn't hear any objection to my proposal right?

Sandro Hawke: I didn't hear any objection to my proposal right?

15:06:13 <sandro> PROPOSED: We keep ISSUE-97 (GRDDL XSLT) open through this Last Call, not needing to make a decision until PR.  If necessary, we'll do another Last Call for this -- and doing so won't be a reason not to accept the XSLT.   We'll document this decision as necessary to keep expectations properly set, and we'll keep soliciting a suitable XSLT transform.

PROPOSED: We keep ISSUE-97 (GRDDL XSLT) open through this Last Call, not needing to make a decision until PR. If necessary, we'll do another Last Call for this -- and doing so won't be a reason not to accept the XSLT. We'll document this decision as necessary to keep expectations properly set, and we'll keep soliciting a suitable XSLT transform.

15:06:14 <Rinke> sandro: we could deal with my proposal first, and then continue the discussion

Sandro Hawke: we could deal with my proposal first, and then continue the discussion

15:06:21 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

15:06:23 <Rinke> pfps: I'm happy to vote on the proposal

Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm happy to vote on the proposal

15:06:31 <ivan_> 1

Ivan Herman: 1

15:08:30 <Rinke> bijan: the proposal as it stands has a presumption that I won't go out and badmouth it. It might be good to just put our cards on the table and go ... at this moment I abstain, as I am not sure that this way of going is moving us anything closer to consensus

Bijan Parsia: the proposal as it stands has a presumption that I won't go out and badmouth it. It might be good to just put our cards on the table and go ... at this moment I abstain, as I am not sure that this way of going is moving us anything closer to consensus

15:08:35 <pfps> 0

Peter Patel-Schneider: 0

15:08:35 <Rinke> IanH_: we already accepted that

Ian Horrocks: we already accepted that

15:08:39 <bijan> 0

Bijan Parsia: 0

15:08:47 <Rinke> sandro: there's no phrasing that would improve it?

Sandro Hawke: there's no phrasing that would improve it?

15:08:47 <alanr> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

15:08:49 <Rinke> bijan: no

Bijan Parsia: no

15:08:52 <wallace> 0

Evan Wallace: 0

15:08:54 <Zhe> +1

Zhe Wu: +1

15:08:54 <achilleF> 0

Achille Fokoue: 0

15:08:56 <ivan_> 1

Ivan Herman: 1

15:08:57 <MarkusK_> 0

Markus Krötzsch: 0

15:09:00 <bernardo> 0

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: 0

15:09:02 <Rinke> 0

0

15:09:09 <schneid> 0

Michael Schneider: 0

15:09:17 <cgolbrei> 0 (uvsq)

Christine Golbreich: 0 (uvsq)

15:09:34 <IanH_> 0

Ian Horrocks: 0

15:09:54 <Rinke> bijan: there doesn't seem to be strong support on this

Bijan Parsia: there doesn't seem to be strong support on this

15:10:18 <Rinke> IanH_: we've got weak acceptance for this, but no objection

Ian Horrocks: we've got weak acceptance for this, but no objection

15:10:27 <Rinke> alan: so this proposal is resolved

Alan Ruttenberg: so this proposal is resolved

15:10:47 <sandro> RESOLVED: We keep ISSUE-97 (GRDDL XSLT) open through this Last Call, not needing to make a decision until PR.  If necessary, we'll do another Last Call for this -- and doing so won't be a reason not to accept the XSLT.   We'll document this decision as necessary to keep expectations properly set, and we'll keep soliciting a suitable XSLT transform.

RESOLVED: We keep ISSUE-97 (GRDDL XSLT) open through this Last Call, not needing to make a decision until PR. If necessary, we'll do another Last Call for this -- and doing so won't be a reason not to accept the XSLT. We'll document this decision as necessary to keep expectations properly set, and we'll keep soliciting a suitable XSLT transform.

15:11:27 <Rinke> bijan: I agree in general that spec worship is bad. I prefer in general to break spec-backwardscompatibility.......

Bijan Parsia: I agree in general that spec worship is bad. I prefer in general to break spec-backwardscompatibility.......

15:11:48 <Rinke> bijan: if you appeal to what the grddl community wants, then that's not convincing.

Bijan Parsia: if you appeal to what the grddl community wants, then that's not convincing.

15:12:09 <Rinke> sandro: it's too bad the GRDDL wasn't more clear on this, allowing you to be more clear in your objection

Sandro Hawke: it's too bad the GRDDL wasn't more clear on this, allowing you to be more clear in your objection

15:12:53 <Rinke> schneid: general question about bugs. For all recommendations there is an erratum, how do these bugfixes get into the errata. How is it created?

Michael Schneider: general question about bugs. For all recommendations there is an erratum, how do these bugfixes get into the errata. How is it created?

15:13:06 <Rinke> ivan_: it is the responsibility of the WG to set up a mechanism.

Ivan Herman: it is the responsibility of the WG to set up a mechanism.

15:13:16 <Rinke> ivan_: we took into account the errata for OWL 1

Ivan Herman: we took into account the errata for OWL 1

15:13:51 <Rinke> schneid: could there not be a way out if bijan et al. fixed the loophole?

Michael Schneider: could there not be a way out if bijan et al. fixed the loophole?

15:14:20 <Rinke> bijan: I would have objected. The loophole is the right way to go

Bijan Parsia: I would have objected. The loophole is the right way to go

15:14:26 <Rinke> pfps: the loophole is the right way to do

Peter Patel-Schneider: the loophole is the right way to do

15:14:30 <Rinke> s/do/go

s/do/go

15:14:47 <sandro> sandro: I'd like to understand why you think it's the right way to go.

Sandro Hawke: I'd like to understand why you think it's the right way to go. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:15:02 <Rinke> alan: is it a good idea to have everyone who has an idea on how to guarantee quality on this transform put this on email

Alan Ruttenberg: is it a good idea to have everyone who has an idea on how to guarantee quality on this transform put this on email

15:15:21 <Rinke> alan: I don't know what the bar is, I'd like to have some idea...

Alan Ruttenberg: I don't know what the bar is, I'd like to have some idea...

15:15:52 <sandro> Peter: An automatic process that would produce the XSLT from our documents.

Peter Patel-Schneider: An automatic process that would produce the XSLT from our documents. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:15:55 <Rinke> pfps: a provably correct automated process that would derive an XSLT transform from our documents.

Peter Patel-Schneider: a provably correct automated process that would derive an XSLT transform from our documents.

15:16:00 <sandro> Sandro: Yes.   That would be great!

Sandro Hawke: Yes. That would be great! [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:16:15 <Rinke> bijan: yes, that would be a first step

Bijan Parsia: yes, that would be a first step

15:17:18 <Rinke> bijan: that would be nice... other things that would be nice is if it were software-readable. Performance is an issue... it has to have a very clear forward errata process (my early objection was that the initial version would be a default standard)

Bijan Parsia: that would be nice... other things that would be nice is if it were software-readable. Performance is an issue... it has to have a very clear forward errata process (my early objection was that the initial version would be a default standard)

15:17:34 <Rinke> alan: doesn't this hold for the schema document as well?

Alan Ruttenberg: doesn't this hold for the schema document as well?

15:18:43 <Rinke> bijan: we need an errata process in general. My point is that it is much less likely that an XML schema is downloaded automatically... and it does not produce any meaning. An XSLT really changes something that I put out... xml schema does checking, and I would need to explicitly invoke this

Bijan Parsia: we need an errata process in general. My point is that it is much less likely that an XML schema is downloaded automatically... and it does not produce any meaning. An XSLT really changes something that I put out... xml schema does checking, and I would need to explicitly invoke this

15:19:16 <Rinke> sandro: you say 'typical', but schema can be used to generate parse tree (?)

Sandro Hawke: you say 'typical', but schema can be used to generate parse tree (?)

15:19:27 <Rinke> bijan: you mean the schema is at the location of namespace?

Bijan Parsia: you mean the schema is at the location of namespace?

15:19:38 <Rinke> sandro: yes, at least dereferencable

Sandro Hawke: yes, at least dereferencable

15:19:46 <Rinke> bijan: I'm not sure I would support that

Bijan Parsia: I'm not sure I would support that

15:19:55 <Rinke> alan: issues are very helpful! Location of schema etc.

Alan Ruttenberg: issues are very helpful! Location of schema etc.

15:20:15 <bijan> Also, in general, scarily, XML Schema is easier to understand

Bijan Parsia: Also, in general, scarily, XML Schema is easier to understand

15:20:21 <bijan> At least, have confidence that it is correct

Bijan Parsia: At least, have confidence that it is correct

15:20:23 <bijan> For me at least

Bijan Parsia: For me at least

15:20:28 <Rinke> IanH_: we have some guidelines for what's good quality. No procedure for asking for the implementation

Ian Horrocks: we have some guidelines for what's good quality. No procedure for asking for the implementation

15:20:55 <Rinke> alanr: do we need to decide now to as a WG send out a notice to some list?

Alan Ruttenberg: do we need to decide now to as a WG send out a notice to some list?

15:21:00 <Rinke> sandro: I assume it's editorial

Sandro Hawke: I assume it's editorial

15:21:10 <Rinke> IanH_: are we done with this issue?

Ian Horrocks: are we done with this issue?

15:21:26 <Rinke> alanr: the only thing... where we going to point to the specification?

Alan Ruttenberg: the only thing... where we going to point to the specification?

15:21:42 <Rinke> IanH_: point or do nothing

Ian Horrocks: point or do nothing

15:21:54 <Rinke> sandro, bijan, ivan, alan, pfps: not do anything

sandro, bijan, ivan, alan, pfps: not do anything

15:22:14 <Rinke> bijan: mention of grddl in the charter means that we still...

Bijan Parsia: mention of grddl in the charter means that we still...

15:22:24 <Rinke> sandro: we need to specify how to deal with grddl

Sandro Hawke: we need to specify how to deal with grddl

15:22:36 <Rinke> ivan: if there's a deviation from the charter, we need to document htis

Ivan Herman: if there's a deviation from the charter, we need to document htis

15:22:46 <Rinke> IanH_: that's for later

Ian Horrocks: that's for later

15:23:06 <sandro> <sandro> PROPOSED: We won't use GRDDL until we figure out what we're doing with GRDDL.    By charter, we'll have to figure out eventually what we're doing with GRDDL.     At the namespace document was can refer to this issue.\

Sandro Hawke: &lt;sandro&gt; PROPOSED: We won't use GRDDL until we figure out what we're doing with GRDDL. By charter, we'll have to figure out eventually what we're doing with GRDDL. At the namespace document was can refer to this issue.\

15:23:10 <Rinke> alanr: if it turns out that the strategy is to read the spec by a program i.e. via css... class markup

Alan Ruttenberg: if it turns out that the strategy is to read the spec by a program i.e. via css... class markup

15:23:15 <sandro> PROPOSED: We won't use GRDDL until we figure out what we're doing with GRDDL.    By charter, we'll have to figure out eventually what we're doing with GRDDL.     At the namespace document was can refer to this issue.\

PROPOSED: We won't use GRDDL until we figure out what we're doing with GRDDL. By charter, we'll have to figure out eventually what we're doing with GRDDL. At the namespace document was can refer to this issue.\

15:24:34 <Rinke> pfps: the resolution that we might end up with is that we don't use grddl....

Peter Patel-Schneider: the resolution that we might end up with is that we don't use grddl....

15:24:56 <sandro> PROPOSED: We won't use GRDDL until we figure out what we're doing with GRDDL.    By charter, we'll have to figure out eventually what we're doing with GRDDL.     At the namespace document, for now, was can refer to this issue.

PROPOSED: We won't use GRDDL until we figure out what we're doing with GRDDL. By charter, we'll have to figure out eventually what we're doing with GRDDL. At the namespace document, for now, was can refer to this issue.

15:25:03 <sandro> PROPOSED: We won't use GRDDL until we figure out what we're doing with GRDDL.    By charter, we'll have to figure out eventually what we're doing with GRDDL.     At the namespace document, for now, we can refer to this issue.

PROPOSED: We won't use GRDDL until we figure out what we're doing with GRDDL. By charter, we'll have to figure out eventually what we're doing with GRDDL. At the namespace document, for now, we can refer to this issue.

15:25:31 <Rinke> pfps: I would prefer to say put nothing on the namespace document at all, and put our current lack of consensus elsewhere

Peter Patel-Schneider: I would prefer to say put nothing on the namespace document at all, and put our current lack of consensus elsewhere

15:26:28 <Rinke> sandro: if there's nothing there, grddl-people who look at it will say oh my god, you're not doing grddl

Sandro Hawke: if there's nothing there, grddl-people who look at it will say oh my god, you're not doing grddl

15:26:37 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

15:26:43 <ivan_> 1

Ivan Herman: 1

15:26:43 <bijan> +1

Bijan Parsia: +1

15:26:46 <pfps> +1

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1

15:26:46 <IanH_> +1

Ian Horrocks: +1

15:26:49 <alanr> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

15:26:51 <Rinke> pfps: ok, if it has to be there (Because that's where they'll look) that's ok

Peter Patel-Schneider: ok, if it has to be there (Because that's where they'll look) that's ok

15:26:51 <Rinke> +1

+1

15:26:53 <achilleF> +1

Achille Fokoue: +1

15:26:54 <MarkusK_> +1

Markus Krötzsch: +1

15:26:54 <bernardo> +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

15:27:30 <Rinke> IanH_: that seems to be resolved, more or less unanymously

Ian Horrocks: that seems to be resolved, more or less unanymously

15:27:31 <sandro> RESOLVED: We won't use GRDDL until we figure out what we're doing with GRDDL.    By charter, we'll have to figure out eventually what we're doing with GRDDL.     At the namespace document, for now, we can refer to this issue.

RESOLVED: We won't use GRDDL until we figure out what we're doing with GRDDL. By charter, we'll have to figure out eventually what we're doing with GRDDL. At the namespace document, for now, we can refer to this issue.

15:27:52 <Rinke> ivan_:  there was one discussion we had today that was postponed... should it be recorded as issue perhaps...

Ivan Herman: there was one discussion we had today that was postponed... should it be recorded as issue perhaps...

15:28:02 <Rinke> ivan_: which are the normative serialisations of owl

Ivan Herman: which are the normative serialisations of owl

15:28:14 <Rinke> alanr: yes, open an issue

Alan Ruttenberg: yes, open an issue

15:28:27 <Rinke> ivan_: rdf vs. owl xml

Ivan Herman: rdf vs. owl xml

<sandro> subtopic: ISSUE-150 Normative Exchange Syntax

4.7. ISSUE-150 Normative Exchange Syntax

15:28:35 <sandro> ISSUE: Which serialization of OWL are suitable as normative exchange syntaxed?

ISSUE: Which serialization of OWL are suitable as normative exchange syntaxed?

15:28:36 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-150 - Which serialization of OWL are suitable as normative exchange syntaxed? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/150/edit .

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-150 - Which serialization of OWL are suitable as normative exchange syntaxed? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/150/edit .

15:29:56 <sandro> Bijan: I think some folks outside the group may object to any normative exchange syntax other than RDF/XML

Bijan Parsia: I think some folks outside the group may object to any normative exchange syntax other than RDF/XML [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:30:00 <Rinke> bijan: there might be some tactical issues here

Bijan Parsia: there might be some tactical issues here

15:30:31 <sandro> Sandro: I think GRDDL+XSLT might be enough.

Sandro Hawke: I think GRDDL+XSLT might be enough. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:30:38 <Rinke> pfps: rdf/xml is the default syntax for xml, but content providers might negotiate the exchange of other syntaxes as well

Peter Patel-Schneider: rdf/xml is the default syntax for xml, but content providers might negotiate the exchange of other syntaxes as well

15:30:53 <Rinke> pfps: you have to be prepared to serve RDF/XML for any OWL 2 ontology

Peter Patel-Schneider: you have to be prepared to serve RDF/XML for any OWL 2 ontology

15:31:20 <Rinke> pfps: if you exchange in the FS, you use this mimetype and syntax (normatively). If you ask for XML syntax the same....

Peter Patel-Schneider: if you exchange in the FS, you use this mimetype and syntax (normatively). If you ask for XML syntax the same....

15:31:42 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-150 saying RDF/XML is the normative exchange syntax for OWL 2.    Systems should transmit other OWL 2 serializations only when there has been prior arrangement to use the alternative serialization (eg by HTTP Content Negotiation).

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-150 saying RDF/XML is the normative exchange syntax for OWL 2. Systems should transmit other OWL 2 serializations only when there has been prior arrangement to use the alternative serialization (eg by HTTP Content Negotiation).

15:31:46 <Rinke> pfps: if you are a consumer, and you say you only want the XML syntax, the provider may say 'sorry I don't do that'

Peter Patel-Schneider: if you are a consumer, and you say you only want the XML syntax, the provider may say 'sorry I don't do that'

15:32:01 <Rinke> pfps: but if you ask for RDF/XML you have to serve it

Peter Patel-Schneider: but if you ask for RDF/XML you have to serve it

15:32:21 <Rinke> bijan: MUST support RDF/XML, MAY or SHOULD the others

Bijan Parsia: MUST support RDF/XML, MAY or SHOULD the others

15:32:27 <Rinke> pfps: I like SHOULD

Peter Patel-Schneider: I like SHOULD

15:33:04 <Rinke> sandro: there's some toughness here, but the spirit ...

Sandro Hawke: there's some toughness here, but the spirit ...

15:33:17 <Rinke> ivan: at some point in time there has to be some wordsmithing, but the intent is ok

Ivan Herman: at some point in time there has to be some wordsmithing, but the intent is ok

15:34:08 <sandro> pfps: The idea is: you HAVE TO serve RDF/XML, but you may provide others.

Peter Patel-Schneider: The idea is: you HAVE TO serve RDF/XML, but you may provide others. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:34:37 <Rinke> sandro: may even specify weights

Sandro Hawke: may even specify weights

15:34:55 <Rinke> ivan: you can rank what syntaxes you prefer

Ivan Herman: you can rank what syntaxes you prefer

15:35:01 <Rinke> pfps: may even be completely agnostic

Peter Patel-Schneider: may even be completely agnostic

15:35:08 <Rinke> (?)

(?)

15:35:30 <Rinke> alanr: do we want to say something on conformance of tools to take this.

Alan Ruttenberg: do we want to say something on conformance of tools to take this.

15:35:41 <Rinke> ivan_: every tool has to take RDF/XML

Ivan Herman: every tool has to take RDF/XML

15:36:24 <Rinke> pfps: not quite. I could be an editor (damaged P4, that is limited to preserve roundtripping), but could still do something

Peter Patel-Schneider: not quite. I could be an editor (damaged P4, that is limited to preserve roundtripping), but could still do something

15:36:54 <Rinke> bijan: I'm ok with this in general. If I write a tool that only consumes OWL XML... do we care? I mean, who cares? there's only so much influence we can have here

Bijan Parsia: I'm ok with this in general. If I write a tool that only consumes OWL XML... do we care? I mean, who cares? there's only so much influence we can have here

15:37:26 <Rinke> bijan: are we commited to having an errata later on if the facts on the ground change (e.g.Turtle becomes the defacto standard)

Bijan Parsia: are we commited to having an errata later on if the facts on the ground change (e.g.Turtle becomes the defacto standard)

15:37:42 <Rinke> bijan: the more conformance you enforce that does not make sense, the weaker your power

Bijan Parsia: the more conformance you enforce that does not make sense, the weaker your power

15:39:04 <Rinke> alan: does normative RDF/XML mean that every tool must be able to exchange this syntax to be conformant?

Alan Ruttenberg: does normative RDF/XML mean that every tool must be able to exchange this syntax to be conformant?

15:39:06 <Rinke> ivan: yes

Ivan Herman: yes

15:40:06 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-150 saying conformant OWL reasoners MUST accept rdf/xml.  They MAY accept other serializations.    Systems publishing OWL2 should publish it in RDF/XML; they MAY also publish in other serialzations, but should only send it by prior arrangement (eg content-negotiation).

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-150 saying conformant OWL reasoners MUST accept rdf/xml. They MAY accept other serializations. Systems publishing OWL2 should publish it in RDF/XML; they MAY also publish in other serialzations, but should only send it by prior arrangement (eg content-negotiation).

15:40:08 <Rinke> bijan: I don't object, but don't think it's going to do anything useful. Any tool that is doing anything useful will do RDF/XML.... but my student won't do this as it's hard to parse

Bijan Parsia: I don't object, but don't think it's going to do anything useful. Any tool that is doing anything useful will do RDF/XML.... but my student won't do this as it's hard to parse

15:40:24 <Rinke> bijan: what vendor's mind is going to be affected by this decision

Bijan Parsia: what vendor's mind is going to be affected by this decision

15:40:48 <Rinke> pfps: the rason for saying this is to tryo and diffuse the potential laying down on the ground and scream

Peter Patel-Schneider: the rason for saying this is to tryo and diffuse the potential laying down on the ground and scream

15:40:53 <Rinke> s/rason/reason

s/rason/reason

15:40:57 <sandro> peter: the reason for this is to diffuse the lay-down-on-the-ground-and-scream reaction.

Peter Patel-Schneider: the reason for this is to diffuse the lay-down-on-the-ground-and-scream reaction. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:40:57 <Rinke> s/tryo/try

s/tryo/try

15:41:21 <Rinke> schneid: we had normativity for RDF/XML in OWL 1

Michael Schneider: we had normativity for RDF/XML in OWL 1

15:41:28 <Rinke> schneid: would it be possible not to have this in OWL 2

Michael Schneider: would it be possible not to have this in OWL 2

15:41:40 <Rinke> IanH_: It doesn't matter if we decide to do it...

Ian Horrocks: It doesn't matter if we decide to do it...

15:41:52 <Rinke> bijan: If you don't want to make it non-normative, then your question is moot

Bijan Parsia: If you don't want to make it non-normative, then your question is moot

15:42:08 <Rinke> IanH_: does the proposal as it stands capture what it should

Ian Horrocks: does the proposal as it stands capture what it should

15:42:39 <Rinke> wallace: it seems superfluous. It's fine, but I don't understand why this would be needed.

Evan Wallace: it seems superfluous. It's fine, but I don't understand why this would be needed.

15:43:07 <Rinke> pfps: I believe it is useful because there is a community that very much want it to be 'should not' produce other syntaxes

Peter Patel-Schneider: I believe it is useful because there is a community that very much want it to be 'should not' produce other syntaxes

15:43:13 <sandro> peter: This is a community that wanted "SHOULD NOT" instead of "MAY".

Peter Patel-Schneider: This is a community that wanted "SHOULD NOT" instead of "MAY". [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:43:52 <Rinke> pfps: original was MUST be able instead of MAY

Peter Patel-Schneider: original was MUST be able instead of MAY

15:44:43 <Rinke> alanr: it is useful to have a default... predictability is nice

Alan Ruttenberg: it is useful to have a default... predictability is nice

15:45:27 <Rinke> pfps: this is not the way it should be. Suppose I'm a repository of P4 documents, mastered in DL style. And bijan is a pellet reasoner, Under the should, if bijan doesn't care, I take my FS turn it into RDF/XML and bijan does it the other way around.

Peter Patel-Schneider: this is not the way it should be. Suppose I'm a repository of P4 documents, mastered in DL style. And bijan is a pellet reasoner, Under the should, if bijan doesn't care, I take my FS turn it into RDF/XML and bijan does it the other way around.

15:45:58 <Rinke> alan: but if you have a random user, then default is easier (because you encounter all these different syntaxes)

Alan Ruttenberg: but if you have a random user, then default is easier (because you encounter all these different syntaxes)

15:46:20 <Rinke> bijan: if you build a crawler, you can specify what format you want to retrieve

Bijan Parsia: if you build a crawler, you can specify what format you want to retrieve

15:47:26 <Rinke> ivan_: we may have the shortest-lived issue ever

Ivan Herman: we may have the shortest-lived issue ever

15:47:37 <Rinke> ivan_: it wasn't even open yet

Ivan Herman: it wasn't even open yet

15:47:39 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-150 saying conformant OWL reasoners MUST accept RDF/XML.  They MAY accept other serializations.  Systems publishing OWL2 MUST publish it in RDF/XML if asked; they MAY also publish in other serialzations, but only by prior arrangement (eg content-negotiation).

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-150 saying conformant OWL reasoners MUST accept RDF/XML. They MAY accept other serializations. Systems publishing OWL2 MUST publish it in RDF/XML if asked; they MAY also publish in other serialzations, but only by prior arrangement (eg content-negotiation).

15:47:51 <Rinke> s/ivan_/IanH_

s/ivan_/IanH_

15:48:14 <pfps> PROPOSED: Close issue-150 saying conformant OWL reasoners MUST accept RDF/XML. They MAY accept other serializations. Systems publishing OWL2 MUST publish it in RDF/XML if asked; they MAY also publish in other serialzations

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-150 saying conformant OWL reasoners MUST accept RDF/XML. They MAY accept other serializations. Systems publishing OWL2 MUST publish it in RDF/XML if asked; they MAY also publish in other serialzations

15:48:47 <Rinke> s/serialzations/serializations

s/serialzations/serializations

15:49:42 <sandro> <pfps> PROPOSED: Close issue-150 saying conformant OWL reasoners MUST accept RDF/XML. They MAY accept other serializations. Systems publishing OWL2 MUST publish it in RDF/XML if asked (eg with HTTP content-negotiation); they MAY also publish in other serializations.

Sandro Hawke: &lt;pfps&gt; PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-150 saying conformant OWL reasoners MUST accept RDF/XML. They MAY accept other serializations. Systems publishing OWL2 MUST publish it in RDF/XML if asked (eg with HTTP content-negotiation); they MAY also publish in other serializations.

15:50:12 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-150 saying conformant OWL reasoners MUST accept RDF/XML. They MAY accept other serializations. Systems publishing OWL2 MUST publish it in RDF/XML if asked (eg with HTTP content-negotiation); they MAY also publish in other serializations.

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-150 saying conformant OWL reasoners MUST accept RDF/XML. They MAY accept other serializations. Systems publishing OWL2 MUST publish it in RDF/XML if asked (eg with HTTP content-negotiation); they MAY also publish in other serializations.

15:50:15 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

15:50:17 <Rinke> +1

+1

15:50:18 <MarkusK_> +1

Markus Krötzsch: +1

15:50:20 <wallace> +1

Evan Wallace: +1

15:50:20 <alanr> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

15:50:20 <ivan_> 1

Ivan Herman: 1

15:50:21 <pfps> +1

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1

15:50:22 <bernardo> +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

15:50:22 <achilleF> +1

Achille Fokoue: +1

15:50:24 <achilleF> +1

Achille Fokoue: +1

15:50:24 <IanH_> +1

Ian Horrocks: +1

15:50:28 <bijan> +1

Bijan Parsia: +1

15:50:30 <cgolbrei> +1

Christine Golbreich: +1

15:50:34 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close issue-150 saying conformant OWL reasoners MUST accept RDF/XML. They MAY accept other serializations. Systems publishing OWL2 MUST publish it in RDF/XML if asked (eg with HTTP content-negotiation); they MAY also publish in other serializations.

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-150 saying conformant OWL reasoners MUST accept RDF/XML. They MAY accept other serializations. Systems publishing OWL2 MUST publish it in RDF/XML if asked (eg with HTTP content-negotiation); they MAY also publish in other serializations.

15:51:02 <Rinke> IanH_: I think we're getting very close to the end of the session

Ian Horrocks: I think we're getting very close to the end of the session

15:51:07 <Rinke> ivan_: we settled everything?

Ivan Herman: we settled everything?

15:51:11 <Rinke> pfps: no, not xsd datetype

Peter Patel-Schneider: no, not xsd datetype

15:51:12 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?

Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer?

15:51:12 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-owl-irc#T15-51-12

RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/10/23-owl-irc#T15-51-12

15:51:22 <Rinke> IanH_: can we do something on that in the 10 minutes left?

Ian Horrocks: can we do something on that in the 10 minutes left?

15:51:32 <Rinke> pfps: I'll meet henry tomorrow to talk on this

Peter Patel-Schneider: I'll meet henry tomorrow to talk on this

15:51:51 <Rinke> ivan_: one question on the manchester syntax

Ivan Herman: one question on the manchester syntax

15:52:06 <Rinke> ivan_: can I put a comment in the manchester syntax?

Ivan Herman: can I put a comment in the manchester syntax?

15:52:47 <Rinke> pfps: there was a discussion in webont that annotations should be comments, this was not accepted.

Peter Patel-Schneider: there was a discussion in webont that annotations should be comments, this was not accepted.

15:53:25 <Rinke> ivan: in RDF/XML I can do XML comments, in Turtle I can use the hash

Ivan Herman: in RDF/XML I can do XML comments, in Turtle I can use the hash

15:53:31 <Rinke> pfps: perfectly happy to have

Peter Patel-Schneider: perfectly happy to have

15:53:46 <Rinke> bmotik: that should be easily changed

Boris Motik: that should be easily changed

15:54:09 <Rinke> bijan: caveats should be explicit

Bijan Parsia: caveats should be explicit

15:54:18 <Rinke> pfps: comments may be stripped: this should be explicitly mentioned

Peter Patel-Schneider: comments may be stripped: this should be explicitly mentioned

15:54:54 <Rinke> bijan: the OWL-S group used xml comments and had trouble using that. So a statement that warns people is useful

Bijan Parsia: the OWL-S group used xml comments and had trouble using that. So a statement that warns people is useful

15:55:01 <Rinke> pfps: I think it's a good idea to add

Peter Patel-Schneider: I think it's a good idea to add

15:55:32 <Rinke> IanH_: editorial for peter and bmotik

Ian Horrocks: editorial for peter and bmotik

15:55:54 <Rinke> "whatever turtle has:"

"whatever turtle has:"

15:56:53 <Rinke> IanH_: are we done?

Ian Horrocks: are we done?

15:57:05 <Rinke> sandro: comment on scribing. I've been making cleanups as we went along

Sandro Hawke: comment on scribing. I've been making cleanups as we went along

15:57:24 <Rinke> sandro: in the wiki... topics, subtopics etc.... I wrote a script that did that realtime

Sandro Hawke: in the wiki... topics, subtopics etc.... I wrote a script that did that realtime

15:57:38 <Rinke> IanH_: talking of scribing... about tomorrow

Ian Horrocks: talking of scribing... about tomorrow

15:58:06 <Rinke> boris: I could scribe the session after lunch

Boris Motik: I could scribe the session after lunch

15:58:17 <Rinke> IanH_: volunteers for the first session

Ian Horrocks: volunteers for the first session

15:58:22 <Rinke> wallace: I will do that

Evan Wallace: I will do that

15:58:28 <Rinke> boris: I will go before lunch

Boris Motik: I will go before lunch

15:59:02 <Rinke> achilleF: first session after lunch

Achille Fokoue: first session after lunch

15:59:19 <Rinke> ivan: roadmap

Ivan Herman: roadmap

15:59:56 <sandro> ADJOURN

Sandro Hawke: ADJOURN

15:59:59 <sandro> talking about dinner.

Sandro Hawke: talking about dinner.

16:00:52 <sandro> Meet at hotel reception desk at 7pm

Sandro Hawke: Meet at hotel reception desk at 7pm


This revision (#11) generated 2008-11-05 17:48:16 UTC by 'ppatelsc', comments: 'clean up topic/subtopic headings'