OWL Working Group

Minutes of 12 November 2008

Present
Peter Patel-Schneider Markus Krötzsch Ivan Herman Jie Bao Jos de Bruijn Boris Motik Alan Ruttenberg Uli Sattler Sandro Hawke Zhe Wu Carsten Lutz Michael Schneider Bernardo Cuenca Grau Mike Smith Rinke Hoekstra Achille Fokoue Jeff Pan
Regrets
Christine Golbreich Evan Wallace Ian Horrocks Elisa Kendall
Chair
Alan Ruttenberg
Scribe
Markus Krötzsch
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions
  1. Accept minutes of Nov 5 Telco link
  2. Publish ManchesterSyntax as FPWD, after Peter's just-discussed editors notes are added, in our next round of publications. link
  3. Close issue-127 given the work on Data Range Extension is proceeding nicely link
Topics
00:00:00 <MarkusK_> PRESENT: Peter Patel-Schneider, Markus Krötzsch, Ivan Herman, Jie Bao, Jos de Bruijn, Boris Motik, Alan Ruttenberg, Uli Sattler, Sandro Hawke, Zhe Wu, clu, Michael Schneider, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Mike Smith, Rinke Hoekstra, Achille Fokoue, Jeff Pan
00:00:00 <MarkusK_> REGRETS: Christine Golbreich, Evan Wallace, Ian Horrocks, Elisa Kendall
00:00:00 <MarkusK_> CHAIR: Alan Ruttenberg
17:49:12 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/11/12-owl-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/11/12-owl-irc

17:49:21 <pfps> Zakim, this is owlwg

Peter Patel-Schneider: Zakim, this is owlwg

17:49:21 <Zakim> pfps, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be owlwg".

Zakim IRC Bot: pfps, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be owlwg".

17:49:28 <pfps> Zakim, this will be owlwg

Peter Patel-Schneider: Zakim, this will be owlwg

17:49:28 <Zakim> ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes

17:49:39 <pfps> RRSagent, make records public

Peter Patel-Schneider: RRSagent, make records public

17:55:22 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started

(No events recorded for 5 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started

17:55:29 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider

Zakim IRC Bot: +Peter_Patel-Schneider

17:58:06 <Zakim> +??P7

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P7

17:58:16 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip

Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip

17:58:16 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made

17:58:18 <Zakim> +Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan

17:58:35 <ivan> zakim, drop me

Ivan Herman: zakim, drop me

17:58:35 <Zakim> Ivan is being disconnected

Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan is being disconnected

17:58:37 <Zakim> -Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan

17:59:01 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip

Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip

17:59:01 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made

17:59:03 <Zakim> +Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan

17:59:07 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.518.276.aaaa

17:59:39 <Zakim> +josb

Zakim IRC Bot: +josb

17:59:41 <Zakim> +??P11

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P11

17:59:44 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P11 is me

Boris Motik: Zakim, ??P11 is me

17:59:44 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +bmotik; got it

17:59:47 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me

17:59:47 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted

18:00:54 <Zakim> + +1.617.452.aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.617.452.aabb

18:01:13 <Zakim> +??P14

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14

18:01:17 <alanr_> zakim, aabb is me

Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, aabb is me

18:01:17 <Zakim> +alanr_; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +alanr_; got it

18:01:21 <uli> zakim, ??P14 is me

Uli Sattler: zakim, ??P14 is me

18:01:21 <Zakim> +uli; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +uli; got it

18:01:23 <alanr_> zakim, who is here?

Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, who is here?

18:01:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, +1.518.276.aaaa, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, +1.518.276.aaaa, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli

18:01:25 <Zakim> On IRC I see baojie, alanr_, josb, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, clu, alanr, sandro, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see baojie, alanr_, josb, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, clu, alanr, sandro, trackbot

18:01:25 <uli> zakim, mute me

Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me

18:01:25 <Zakim> uli should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted

18:01:34 <baojie> Zakim, aaaa is me

Jie Bao: Zakim, aaaa is me

18:01:34 <Zakim> +baojie; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +baojie; got it

18:02:42 <Zakim> +Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro

18:02:53 <Zakim> +Zhe

Zakim IRC Bot: +Zhe

18:03:00 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?

Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call?

18:03:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe

18:03:42 <Zakim> + +0494212186aacc

Zakim IRC Bot: + +0494212186aacc

18:03:56 <clu> zakim, aacc is me

Carsten Lutz: zakim, aacc is me

18:03:56 <Zakim> +clu; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +clu; got it

18:04:00 <clu> zakim, mute me

Carsten Lutz: zakim, mute me

18:04:00 <Zakim> clu should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: clu should now be muted

18:04:20 <Zakim> +wonsuk

Zakim IRC Bot: +wonsuk

18:04:39 <alanr_> zakim, who is here?

Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, who is here?

18:04:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe, clu (muted), wonsuk

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe, clu (muted), wonsuk

18:04:41 <Zakim> On IRC I see msmith, bcuencagrau, Zhe, baojie, alanr_, josb, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, clu, sandro, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see msmith, bcuencagrau, Zhe, baojie, alanr_, josb, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, clu, sandro, trackbot

18:04:50 <schneid> zakim, wonsuk is me

Michael Schneider: zakim, wonsuk is me

18:04:59 <Zakim> +schneid; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +schneid; got it

18:05:03 <schneid> zakim, mute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me

18:05:10 <Zakim> +??P20

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P20

18:05:15 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, ??P20 is me

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, ??P20 is me

18:05:19 <alanr_> zakim, who is here

Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, who is here

18:05:22 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted

18:05:25 <alanr_> zakim, who is here?

Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, who is here?

18:05:30 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +bcuencagrau; got it

18:05:34 <Zakim> alanr_, you need to end that query with '?'

Zakim IRC Bot: alanr_, you need to end that query with '?'

18:05:36 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me

18:05:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe, clu (muted), schneid (muted), bcuencagrau

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe, clu (muted), schneid (muted), bcuencagrau

18:05:51 <MarkusK_> Scribe: MarkusK_

(Scribe set to Markus Krötzsch)

18:05:53 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should now be muted

18:05:57 <Zakim> On IRC I see Rinke, msmith, bcuencagrau, Zhe, baojie, alanr_, josb, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, clu, sandro, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Rinke, msmith, bcuencagrau, Zhe, baojie, alanr_, josb, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, clu, sandro, trackbot

18:06:02 <MarkusK_> Topic: Admin

1. Admin

18:06:05 <uli> Alan, you are very quiet

Uli Sattler: Alan, you are very quiet

18:06:07 <Rinke> ScribeNick: MarkusK_
18:06:09 <Zakim> +msmith

Zakim IRC Bot: +msmith

18:06:23 <MarkusK_> Alan: Last minute agenda extension regarding question on XML literals

Alan Ruttenberg: Last minute agenda extension regarding question on XML literals

18:06:28 <MarkusK_> Previous minutes

Previous minutes

18:06:40 <alanr_> zakim is slow

Alan Ruttenberg: zakim is slow

18:06:52 <Zakim> +Tom

Zakim IRC Bot: +Tom

18:06:54 <alanr_> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-11-05

Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-11-05

18:06:57 <Rinke> zakim, Tom is me

Rinke Hoekstra: zakim, Tom is me

18:06:57 <Zakim> +Rinke; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Rinke; got it

18:07:05 <msmith> last week's minutes looked ok to me

Mike Smith: last week's minutes looked ok to me

18:07:36 <MarkusK_> Alan: I did mechanical cleanup on F2F4 2nd day minutes

Alan Ruttenberg: I did mechanical cleanup on F2F4 2nd day minutes

18:07:57 <MarkusK_> Alan: Contents should be in better shape now

Alan Ruttenberg: Contents should be in better shape now

18:08:19 <MarkusK_> Alan: Anyone looked at last week's minutes?

Alan Ruttenberg: Anyone looked at last week's minutes?

18:08:27 <MarkusK_> Pfps: Yes, they appear to be ok

Peter Patel-Schneider: Yes, they appear to be ok

18:08:46 <uli> something is causing  static noise

Uli Sattler: something is causing static noise

18:09:01 <MarkusK_> Proposed: Accept minutes of Nov 5 Telco

PROPOSED: Accept minutes of Nov 5 Telco

18:09:22 <MarkusK_> Accepted:  Accept minutes of Nov 5 Telco

RESOLVED: Accept minutes of Nov 5 Telco

18:09:36 <pfps> I haven't had a chance to look at the F2F4 minutes since yesterday

Peter Patel-Schneider: I haven't had a chance to look at the F2F4 minutes since yesterday

18:09:37 <Zakim> +[IBM]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM]

18:09:58 <Achille> Zakim, IBM is me

Achille Fokoue: Zakim, IBM is me

18:09:58 <Zakim> +Achille; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Achille; got it

18:10:10 <MarkusK_> Action item status

Action item status

18:10:10 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - item

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - item

18:10:22 <msmith> I updated the action, it was actually done by markus k

Mike Smith: I updated the action, it was actually done by markus k

18:10:36 <MarkusK_> Action 243 completed

ACTION-243 completed

18:10:36 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 243

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - 243

18:10:59 <sandro> action-243 closed

Sandro Hawke: ACTION-243 closed

18:10:59 <trackbot> ACTION-243 Edit test section of test & conf to include two links and explanatory text closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-243 Edit test section of test &amp; conf to include two links and explanatory text closed

18:11:00 <MarkusK_> Alan: I completed Action 242

Alan Ruttenberg: I completed ACTION-242

18:11:19 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?

Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call?

18:11:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe, clu (muted), schneid (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), msmith,

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe, clu (muted), schneid (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), msmith,

18:11:22 <Zakim> ... Rinke, Achille

Zakim IRC Bot: ... Rinke, Achille

18:11:23 <MarkusK_> Topic: Reviewing and Publishing

2. Reviewing and Publishing

18:11:23 <MarkusK_> SubTopic: OWL2 Datatypes

2.1. OWL2 Datatypes

18:11:31 <MarkusK_> Alan: Jos de Bruijn is joining OWL WG to look at issues related to datatypes, esp. regarding RIF-OWL compatibility.

Alan Ruttenberg: Jos de Bruijn is joining OWL WG to look at issues related to datatypes, esp. regarding RIF-OWL compatibility.

18:12:11 <josb> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB#Primitive_Datatypes

Jos de Bruijn: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB#Primitive_Datatypes

18:12:24 <JeffP> {JeffP am only available on IRC)

Jeff Pan: {JeffP am only available on IRC)

18:12:28 <MarkusK_> Jos: We have a certain set of required datatypes in RIF. These are required, but you are free to implement further datatypes. The conformance conditions of RIF require that only the required datatypes are implemented but conformance can be parameterized to include further datatypes. Now OWL requires much more datatypes than RIF, so the extended conformance conditions would apply.

Jos de Bruijn: We have a certain set of required datatypes in RIF. These are required, but you are free to implement further datatypes. The conformance conditions of RIF require that only the required datatypes are implemented but conformance can be parameterized to include further datatypes. Now OWL requires much more datatypes than RIF, so the extended conformance conditions would apply.

18:14:01 <bmotik> +q

Boris Motik: +q

18:14:10 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me

18:14:10 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted

18:13:30 <sandro> ID, IDREF, ENTITY

Sandro Hawke: ID, IDREF, ENTITY

18:14:15 <MarkusK_> Jos: I was surprised to see the datatypes ID, IDREF, ENTITY being included in OWL since they were partly discouraged by WebOnt.

Jos de Bruijn: I was surprised to see the datatypes ID, IDREF, ENTITY being included in OWL since they were partly discouraged by WebOnt.

18:14:18 <alanr_> ack bmotik

Alan Ruttenberg: ack bmotik

18:14:34 <msmith> Where in the RIF documents is the description of conformance?

Mike Smith: Where in the RIF documents is the description of conformance?

18:14:37 <MarkusK_> Boris: I can try to explain. The datatypes ID, IDREF, ENTITY essentially are just restricted types of strings. They have no relation to documents or anything so things are done like in XML Schema.

Boris Motik: I can try to explain. The datatypes ID, IDREF, ENTITY essentially are just restricted types of strings. They have no relation to documents or anything so things are done like in XML Schema.

18:15:35 <schneid> RDF Semantics document tells people they should not use xsd:ENTITY and such: <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#DTYPEINTERP>

Michael Schneider: RDF Semantics document tells people they should not use xsd:ENTITY and such: &lt;http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#DTYPEINTERP&gt;

18:15:42 <MarkusK_> Boris: Those particular special forms of strings should not cause problems since they are not relatvie to a document.

Boris Motik: Those particular special forms of strings should not cause problems since they are not relatvie to a document.

18:15:46 <sandro> boris: We understand ID, IDREF, and ENTITY to just be subtypes of string with a restricted syntax.   This is how they are done in XML Schema.  They are just strings with additional restrictions.

Boris Motik: We understand ID, IDREF, and ENTITY to just be subtypes of string with a restricted syntax. This is how they are done in XML Schema. They are just strings with additional restrictions. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

18:16:00 <josb> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#ENTITY

Jos de Bruijn: http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#ENTITY

18:16:10 <MarkusK_> Jos: I think at least ENTITY seems to point to a document (see link pasted).

Jos de Bruijn: I think at least ENTITY seems to point to a document (see link pasted).

18:16:32 <MarkusK_> Boris: (reads from linked text)

Boris Motik: (reads from linked text)

18:16:34 <pfps> q+

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+

18:16:40 <MarkusK_> Boris: Indeed, it mentions a document. I had not noticed this; this was not the intention in OWL. I will check version 1.1 of the spec.

Boris Motik: Indeed, it mentions a document. I had not noticed this; this was not the intention in OWL. I will check version 1.1 of the spec.

18:16:38 <msmith> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#ENTITY

Mike Smith: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#ENTITY

18:16:52 <alanr_> says same thing in 1.1

Alan Ruttenberg: says same thing in 1.1

18:17:00 <pfps> the 1.1 document appears to be incoherent

Peter Patel-Schneider: the 1.1 document appears to be incoherent

18:17:27 <Zakim> -uli

Zakim IRC Bot: -uli

18:17:32 <MarkusK_> Jos: The intended interpretation is that entities need to be distinguished when taking the union of two documents.

Jos de Bruijn: The intended interpretation is that entities need to be distinguished when taking the union of two documents.

18:17:41 <MarkusK_> Boris: this was not intended in OWL. Anything beyond simple strings would be out of scope.

Boris Motik: this was not intended in OWL. Anything beyond simple strings would be out of scope.

18:17:52 <Zakim> +??P14

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14

18:18:00 <uli> zakim, ??P14 is me

Uli Sattler: zakim, ??P14 is me

18:18:00 <Zakim> +uli; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +uli; got it

18:18:10 <uli> zakim, mute me

Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me

18:18:10 <Zakim> uli should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted

18:18:26 <sandro> q?

Sandro Hawke: q?

18:18:31 <MarkusK_> Jos: Why was this a concern for WebOnt and RDF but not for OWL?

Jos de Bruijn: Why was this a concern for WebOnt and RDF but not for OWL?

18:18:38 <josb> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#DTYPEINTERP

Jos de Bruijn: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#DTYPEINTERP

18:19:21 <MarkusK_> Jos: this link is relevant to the discussion of ENTITIY.

Jos de Bruijn: this link is relevant to the discussion of ENTITIY.

18:19:22 <pfps> q+ to ask why we are doing this sort of thing at a teleconference

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ to ask why we are doing this sort of thing at a teleconference

18:19:32 <msmith> rdf-mt says, "xsd:QName and xsd:ENTITY require an enclosing XML document context"

Mike Smith: rdf-mt says, "xsd:QName and xsd:ENTITY require an enclosing XML document context"

18:19:40 <MarkusK_> Jos: Both RDF and OWL discourage the use of this type, pointing to this section.

Jos de Bruijn: Both RDF and OWL discourage the use of this type, pointing to this section.

18:19:42 <alanr_> ack pfps

Alan Ruttenberg: ack pfps

18:19:42 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask why we are doing this sort of thing at a teleconference

Zakim IRC Bot: pfps, you wanted to ask why we are doing this sort of thing at a teleconference

18:19:59 <josb> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/syntax.html#owl_built_in_datatypes

Jos de Bruijn: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/syntax.html#owl_built_in_datatypes

18:20:05 <schneid> +1 to PFPS

Michael Schneider: +1 to PFPS

18:20:13 <MarkusK_> Pfps: Should this be discussed during the current telco? We are not sufficiently prepared. Let us take this to Email.

Peter Patel-Schneider: Should this be discussed during the current telco? We are not sufficiently prepared. Let us take this to Email.

18:20:37 <schneid> I just stumbled over the RDFS paragraph a few days ago, not related to this discussion.

Michael Schneider: I just stumbled over the RDFS paragraph a few days ago, not related to this discussion.

18:20:38 <MarkusK_> Sandro: It seemed to be an urgent issue that needed some discussion.

Sandro Hawke: It seemed to be an urgent issue that needed some discussion.

18:21:01 <MarkusK_> Alan: Should we simply remove the problematic types then? Or is anybody interested in having them?

Alan Ruttenberg: Should we simply remove the problematic types then? Or is anybody interested in having them?

18:20:56 <schneid> q+

Michael Schneider: q+

18:20:58 <pfps> I'm perfectly happy to junk them

Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm perfectly happy to junk them

18:21:00 <uli> I would think that this would be too rushed

Uli Sattler: I would think that this would be too rushed

18:21:01 <schneid> zakim, unmute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me

18:21:01 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should no longer be muted

18:22:32 <alanr_> ack schneid

Alan Ruttenberg: ack schneid

18:21:28 <MarkusK_> Schneid: I would feel incomfortable with keeping these datatypes in, because RDFS semantics says SHOULD NOT be used, while RDF-based Semantics would have it in its datatype map.

Michael Schneider: I would feel incomfortable with keeping these datatypes in, because RDFS semantics says SHOULD NOT be used, while RDF-based Semantics would have it in its datatype map.

18:21:25 <msmith> I think junking them is ok, but suggest that proposal go to the list and be resolved next week.

Mike Smith: I think junking them is ok, but suggest that proposal go to the list and be resolved next week.

18:21:33 <uli> +1 to Mike

Uli Sattler: +1 to Mike

18:21:37 <schneid> zakim, mute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me

18:21:37 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted

18:21:48 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

18:21:49 <uli> yes

Uli Sattler: yes

18:21:50 <JeffP> +1 to Mike

Jeff Pan: +1 to Mike

18:21:55 <MarkusK_> Alan: Then we can discuss this over email and schedule a proposal for next week.

Alan Ruttenberg: Then we can discuss this over email and schedule a proposal for next week.

18:22:14 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: XMLLiteral in OWL 2

2.2. XMLLiteral in OWL 2

18:22:14 <MarkusK_> Jos: XMLLiteral is a datatype not included in OWL 2, but required in RDF; in OWL 1 it was built-in. Is it a mistake that it is not in OWL 2?

Jos de Bruijn: XMLLiteral is a datatype not included in OWL 2, but required in RDF; in OWL 1 it was built-in. Is it a mistake that it is not in OWL 2?

18:22:16 <pfps> q+

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+

18:22:23 <pfps> q+ on a point of order

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ on a point of order

18:22:25 <bmotik> q+

Boris Motik: q+

18:23:54 <ivan> ack pfps

Ivan Herman: ack pfps

18:23:54 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to comment on a point of order

Zakim IRC Bot: pfps, you wanted to comment on a point of order

18:23:04 <MarkusK_> Pfps: A link in the agenda is not accessible without a login.

Peter Patel-Schneider: A link in the agenda is not accessible without a login.

18:23:12 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Sorry, I will fix this.

Sandro Hawke: Sorry, I will fix this.

18:23:32 <MarkusK_> Pfps: What good can we do with this discussion now? I am clueless. More preparation would be useful.

Peter Patel-Schneider: What good can we do with this discussion now? I am clueless. More preparation would be useful.

18:24:07 <MarkusK_> Sandro: OK, but maybe Jos can still bring forward what the issue is, and then we can possibly move on.

Sandro Hawke: OK, but maybe Jos can still bring forward what the issue is, and then we can possibly move on.

18:24:10 <msmith> +1 to adding XMLLiteral if we can.

Mike Smith: +1 to adding XMLLiteral if we can.

18:24:15 <ivan> XMLLiteral is not an xsd datatype

Ivan Herman: XMLLiteral is not an xsd datatype

18:24:39 <MarkusK_> Boris: The only normative types in OWL 1.0 are strings and integers; I overlooked the XMLLiteral type.

Boris Motik: The only normative types in OWL 1.0 are strings and integers; I overlooked the XMLLiteral type.

18:24:41 <schneid> XMLLiteral is in the RDF namespace

Michael Schneider: XMLLiteral is in the RDF namespace

18:24:53 <schneid> q+

Michael Schneider: q+

18:24:58 <schneid> zakim, unmute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me

18:24:58 <Zakim> schneid was not muted, schneid

Zakim IRC Bot: schneid was not muted, schneid

18:24:58 <ivan> XMLLiteral is (the only) datatype defined in RDF

Ivan Herman: XMLLiteral is (the only) datatype defined in RDF

18:24:59 <alanr_> ack bmotik

Alan Ruttenberg: ack bmotik

18:25:06 <bmotik> ACTION: bmotik2 to Come up with an analysis of whether OWL 2 should include XMLLiteral

ACTION: bmotik2 to Come up with an analysis of whether OWL 2 should include XMLLiteral

18:25:06 <trackbot> Created ACTION-244 - Come up with an analysis of whether OWL 2 should include XMLLiteral [on Boris Motik - due 2008-11-19].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-244 - Come up with an analysis of whether OWL 2 should include XMLLiteral [on Boris Motik - due 2008-11-19].

18:25:07 <josb> I would expect an answer to my public comment to be an outcome of the action

Jos de Bruijn: I would expect an answer to my public comment to be an outcome of the action

18:25:10 <MarkusK_> Alan: We should come up with a proposal whether or not to include XMLLiteral in OWL 2

Alan Ruttenberg: We should come up with a proposal whether or not to include XMLLiteral in OWL 2

18:25:34 <josb>  rdf:XMLLiteral spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-XMLLiteral

Jos de Bruijn: rdf:XMLLiteral spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-XMLLiteral

18:25:38 <MarkusK_> Schneid: XMLLiteral is mandatory in RDF and thus it is mandatory for the RDF-based semantics. I do not see why it is required for DL datatype maps though. XMLLiteral is already covered for OWL 2 Full.

Michael Schneider: XMLLiteral is mandatory in RDF and thus it is mandatory for the RDF-based semantics. I do not see why it is required for DL datatype maps though. XMLLiteral is already covered for OWL 2 Full.

18:28:16 <schneid>  rdf:XMLLiteral in RDF Semantics: <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#RDFINTERP>

Michael Schneider: rdf:XMLLiteral in RDF Semantics: &lt;http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#RDFINTERP&gt;

18:25:45 <alanr_> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q?

18:25:49 <schneid> zakim, mute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me

18:25:49 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted

18:25:50 <alanr_> acm schneid

Alan Ruttenberg: acm schneid

18:25:52 <ivan> q?

Ivan Herman: q?

18:25:54 <alanr_> ack schneid

Alan Ruttenberg: ack schneid

18:26:01 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me

18:26:01 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted

18:26:29 <bmotik> -q

Boris Motik: -q

18:26:35 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me

18:26:35 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted

18:26:38 <MarkusK_> Thanks to Jos for attending, bye

Thanks to Jos for attending, bye

18:26:43 <Zakim> -josb

Zakim IRC Bot: -josb

18:26:48 <JeffP> bye

Jeff Pan: bye

18:22:14 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Progress report on document changes

2.3. Progress report on document changes

18:27:09 <sandro> Boris: my parts of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Last_Call_Check_List to be done by the end of the week

Boris Motik: my parts of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Last_Call_Check_List to be done by the end of the week [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

18:27:29 <MarkusK_> Alan: I also noticed a link at the end where the full grammar should be

Alan Ruttenberg: I also noticed a link at the end where the full grammar should be

18:27:32 <schneid> Ivan, several of the RDF semantic conditions are about rdf:XMLLiteral

Michael Schneider: Ivan, several of the RDF semantic conditions are about rdf:XMLLiteral

18:27:35 <MarkusK_> Boris: I can fix this too.

Boris Motik: I can fix this too.

18:27:57 <MarkusK_> Alan: Some remaining changes seems to be more than editorial

Alan Ruttenberg: Some remaining changes seems to be more than editorial

18:28:16 <MarkusK_> Boris: Yes, the original reviewers should be asked to look over it again after I finish. I will send a pointer by email.

Boris Motik: Yes, the original reviewers should be asked to look over it again after I finish. I will send a pointer by email.

18:28:27 <alanr_> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q?

18:28:35 <MarkusK_> Sandro: I will provide a color-coded diff then.

Sandro Hawke: I will provide a color-coded diff then.

18:28:45 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me

18:28:45 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted

18:29:02 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Mime types

2.4. Mime types

18:29:11 <sandro> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Oct/0164.html

Sandro Hawke: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Oct/0164.html

18:29:28 <sandro> q?

Sandro Hawke: q?

18:29:29 <MarkusK_> Alan: Peter's email suggested mime types for functional and Manchester syntax. There are still question marks for XML syntax.

Alan Ruttenberg: Peter's email suggested mime types for functional and Manchester syntax. There are still question marks for XML syntax.

18:29:57 <sandro> q+

Sandro Hawke: q+

18:30:14 <MarkusK_> Alan: Do we still need to specify file extensions?

Alan Ruttenberg: Do we still need to specify file extensions?

18:30:24 <MarkusK_> Pfps: I assume that file extensions should be specified. A three-character extension might be good. It should be possible to find un-occupied 3-char extensions. I propose oxl or just xml for XML syntax.

Peter Patel-Schneider: I assume that file extensions should be specified. A three-character extension might be good. It should be possible to find un-occupied 3-char extensions. I propose oxl or just xml for XML syntax.

18:31:51 <MarkusK_> Sandro: I think it could be xml, but I need to check.

Sandro Hawke: I think it could be xml, but I need to check.

18:32:11 <MarkusK_> For RDF/XML the extension is rdf.

For RDF/XML the extension is rdf.

18:32:29 <MarkusK_> Alan: So the choice is between oxl and xml?

Alan Ruttenberg: So the choice is between oxl and xml?

18:32:29 <alanr_> owx

Alan Ruttenberg: owx

18:32:31 <sandro> .xml or .oxl   (.owx)

Sandro Hawke: .xml or .oxl (.owx)

18:32:33 <MarkusK_> Pfps: Yes

Peter Patel-Schneider: Yes

18:32:40 <MarkusK_> Sandro: owx is another option

Sandro Hawke: owx is another option

18:33:06 <MarkusK_> Action: Sandro to check if it would be recommendable to use xml as file extension for XML syntax files.

ACTION: Sandro to check if it would be recommendable to use xml as file extension for XML syntax files.

18:33:06 <trackbot> Created ACTION-245 - Check if it would be recommendable to use xml as file extension for XML syntax files. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-11-19].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-245 - Check if it would be recommendable to use xml as file extension for XML syntax files. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-11-19].

18:33:09 <ivan> good point

Ivan Herman: good point

18:33:27 <MarkusK_> Alan: Using xml might cause confusion with some tools, e.g. Protege.

Alan Ruttenberg: Using xml might cause confusion with some tools, e.g. Protege.

18:33:58 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Also web servers might like to have a separate extension for serving the right mime type.

Sandro Hawke: Also web servers might like to have a separate extension for serving the right mime type.

18:34:14 <MarkusK_> Alan: Then we should probably not consider xml.

Alan Ruttenberg: Then we should probably not consider xml.

18:34:14 <sandro> action-245 closed

Sandro Hawke: ACTION-245 closed

18:34:14 <trackbot> ACTION-245 Check if it would be recommendable to use xml as file extension for XML syntax files. closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-245 Check if it would be recommendable to use xml as file extension for XML syntax files. closed

18:34:24 <MarkusK_> Pfps: ok

Peter Patel-Schneider: ok

18:34:26 <Rinke> oxl = OMEGA Product Suite File

Rinke Hoekstra: oxl = OMEGA Product Suite File

18:34:27 <ivan> toss a coin

Ivan Herman: toss a coin

18:34:29 <MarkusK_> Sandro: ok

Sandro Hawke: ok

18:34:31 <sandro> owx

Sandro Hawke: owx

18:34:45 <MarkusK_> Alan: So the choice is between owx and oxl.

Alan Ruttenberg: So the choice is between owx and oxl.

18:35:10 <msmith> Does mime registration limit us to 3 characters?

Mike Smith: Does mime registration limit us to 3 characters?

18:35:22 <sandro> No, but some people prefer it.

Sandro Hawke: No, but some people prefer it.

18:35:37 <Rinke> ... and some filesystems do as well

Rinke Hoekstra: ... and some filesystems do as well

18:35:43 <MarkusK_> Alan: There appears to be a file type for oxl but none for owx, which might support the latter. Peter, do you like owx?

Alan Ruttenberg: There appears to be a file type for oxl but none for owx, which might support the latter. Peter, do you like owx?

18:35:57 <JeffP> xol?

Jeff Pan: xol?

18:36:04 <ivan> owx it is!

Ivan Herman: owx it is!

18:36:07 <MarkusK_> Pfps: I don't care.

Peter Patel-Schneider: I don't care.

18:36:17 <Zhe> owx is not bad

Zhe Wu: owx is not bad

18:36:32 <MarkusK_> Alan: Ok, then let us use owx.

Alan Ruttenberg: Ok, then let us use owx.

18:36:48 <MarkusK_> Pfps: I will edit all relevant documents to mirror this choice.

Peter Patel-Schneider: I will edit all relevant documents to mirror this choice.

18:37:02 <ivan> :-)

Ivan Herman: :-)

18:37:16 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Could we fix who will contact IETF for registering the mime types?

Sandro Hawke: Could we fix who will contact IETF for registering the mime types?

18:38:13 <sandro> q?

Sandro Hawke: q?

18:38:15 <sandro> q-

Sandro Hawke: q-

18:38:30 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Alignment of functional syntax keywords and RDF syntax URIs

2.5. Alignment of functional syntax keywords and RDF syntax URIs

18:38:41 <MarkusK_> (Sandro takes over chairing)

(Sandro takes over chairing)

18:39:09 <MarkusK_> Alan: The action was to have a smaller group of people to work-out a proposal. It might be good to have another week for a coherent proposal.

Alan Ruttenberg: The action was to have a smaller group of people to work-out a proposal. It might be good to have another week for a coherent proposal.

18:39:59 <pfps> q+

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+

18:40:08 <sandro> ack pfps

Sandro Hawke: ack pfps

18:40:18 <MarkusK_> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/AligningSyntaxKeywords

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/AligningSyntaxKeywords

18:40:27 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

18:41:07 <alanr_> q+

Alan Ruttenberg: q+

18:41:13 <alanr_> ack ivan

Alan Ruttenberg: ack ivan

18:41:17 <MarkusK_> Ivan: One option for solving the dealock would be to not do any change.

Ivan Herman: One option for solving the dealock would be to not do any change.

18:41:41 <pfps> there are a couple of suggestions that don't seem to have much, if any, pushback

Peter Patel-Schneider: there are a couple of suggestions that don't seem to have much, if any, pushback

18:42:09 <bmotik> I'm afraid that the only noncontentious thing is ExistsSelf

Boris Motik: I'm afraid that the only noncontentious thing is ExistsSelf

18:42:26 <sandro> STRAWPOLL: Should we put effort into aligning the functional syntax and RDF names?

STRAWPOLL: Should we put effort into aligning the functional syntax and RDF names?

18:42:29 <bmotik> -1

Boris Motik: -1

18:42:32 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

18:42:32 <bcuencagrau> -1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: -1

18:42:32 <alanr_> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

18:42:35 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

18:42:38 <pfps> -1

Peter Patel-Schneider: -1

18:42:44 <MarkusK_> 0

0

18:42:44 <schneid> -0

Michael Schneider: -0

18:42:44 <msmith> 0

Mike Smith: 0

18:42:45 <JeffP> 0

Jeff Pan: 0

18:42:48 <uli> -0

Uli Sattler: -0

18:42:51 <Zhe> +1 consistency is always a good thing

Zhe Wu: +1 consistency is always a good thing

18:42:53 <Rinke> +0.5

Rinke Hoekstra: +0.5

18:42:59 <Achille> 0

Achille Fokoue: 0

18:43:28 <sandro> baojie?   opinion?

Sandro Hawke: baojie? opinion?

18:43:33 <schneid> consequently, one could then also ask for aligning the Manchester Syntax...

Michael Schneider: consequently, one could then also ask for aligning the Manchester Syntax...

18:43:43 <Rinke> I don't really think differences in singular vs plural form are a problem

Rinke Hoekstra: I don't really think differences in singular vs plural form are a problem

18:43:44 <pfps> there are various different kinds of consistency that could be aimed for here.   The current status is for a particular kind of consistency.

Peter Patel-Schneider: there are various different kinds of consistency that could be aimed for here. The current status is for a particular kind of consistency.

18:43:51 <bmotik> +q

Boris Motik: +q

18:43:58 <ivan> ack alanr_

Ivan Herman: ack alanr_

18:44:02 <sandro> q?

Sandro Hawke: q?

18:44:05 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me

18:44:05 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted

18:44:05 <sandro> ack bmotik

Sandro Hawke: ack bmotik

18:44:09 <MarkusK_> Sandro: If there was no effort involved, would there be objections changing the names?

Sandro Hawke: If there was no effort involved, would there be objections changing the names?

18:44:34 <baojie> sorry, was off for a few minutes, I would vote +1

Jie Bao: sorry, was off for a few minutes, I would vote +1

18:44:24 <MarkusK_> Boris: I voted with -1. In an ideal world, it would be great to have that alignment but in practice, forcing an alignment would make the functional syntax ugly. For instance, we do have singular names in RDF where we have n-ary constructs in functional-style syntax. Given that we cannot change RDF, I believe that the alignment is not practical.

Boris Motik: I voted with -1. In an ideal world, it would be great to have that alignment but in practice, forcing an alignment would make the functional syntax ugly. For instance, we do have singular names in RDF where we have n-ary constructs in functional-style syntax. Given that we cannot change RDF, I believe that the alignment is not practical.

18:44:46 <alanr_> q+

Alan Ruttenberg: q+

18:44:56 <sandro> boris: In an ideal world, yes, we'd like the same names. But the RDF syntax takes precidence, so the function syntax would start to get very ugly.

Boris Motik: In an ideal world, yes, we'd like the same names. But the RDF syntax takes precidence, so the function syntax would start to get very ugly. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

18:45:29 <sandro> boris: If we were designing two syntax from scratch, then sure, align them.

Boris Motik: If we were designing two syntax from scratch, then sure, align them. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

18:45:40 <sandro> boris: but since we can't change RDF, let's not make functional ugly.

Boris Motik: but since we can't change RDF, let's not make functional ugly. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

18:45:41 <sandro> q?

Sandro Hawke: q?

18:45:43 <bcuencagrau> +q

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +q

18:45:45 <sandro> ack alanr_

Sandro Hawke: ack alanr_

18:45:46 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me

18:45:46 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted

18:46:23 <sandro> alan: let's accept plurality issues, but try to solve the other?

Alan Ruttenberg: let's accept plurality issues, but try to solve the other? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

18:46:30 <MarkusK_> Alan: Maybe one could focus on alignments that are less problematic than the plurals/singulars. There are other issues that could possibly be changed with less effort. I will suggest this in an email.

Alan Ruttenberg: Maybe one could focus on alignments that are less problematic than the plurals/singulars. There are other issues that could possibly be changed with less effort. I will suggest this in an email.

18:46:38 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

18:46:57 <sandro> ack bcuencagrau

Sandro Hawke: ack bcuencagrau

18:46:57 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, unmute me

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, unmute me

18:47:00 <Zakim> bcuencagrau was not muted, bcuencagrau

Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau was not muted, bcuencagrau

18:47:24 <msmith> q+ to mention the OWL XML schema

Mike Smith: q+ to mention the OWL XML schema

18:47:27 <MarkusK_> Bernardo: Do you then only suggest to change some names? I agree with Boris. We have a nice and well-developed functional syntax now. It has been developed for quite some time, and I would not like to implement major changes there now.

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Do you then only suggest to change some names? I agree with Boris. We have a nice and well-developed functional syntax now. It has been developed for quite some time, and I would not like to implement major changes there now.

18:47:52 <sandro> q?

Sandro Hawke: q?

18:47:53 <alanr_> q+

Alan Ruttenberg: q+

18:48:06 <sandro> ack ivan

Sandro Hawke: ack ivan

18:48:12 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me

18:48:12 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should now be muted

18:48:44 <MarkusK_> Ivan: I also see that the complete alignment appears to be unrealistic. We only arrived at consensus in a few cases, while most of the namings remained disputed. Still there is a problem in understanding OWL 2 for people coming to OWL from the RDF world. A possible answer of course is that people from the DL world would prefer the current namings over the RDF-compatible ones. But changing only two or three names seems not to solve the problem anyway, so we might just avoid this extra work.

Ivan Herman: I also see that the complete alignment appears to be unrealistic. We only arrived at consensus in a few cases, while most of the namings remained disputed. Still there is a problem in understanding OWL 2 for people coming to OWL from the RDF world. A possible answer of course is that people from the DL world would prefer the current namings over the RDF-compatible ones. But changing only two or three names seems not to solve the problem anyway, so we might just avoid this extra work.

18:49:19 <bcuencagrau> +q

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +q

18:49:25 <bmotik> +q

Boris Motik: +q

18:50:27 <sandro> ack msmith

Sandro Hawke: ack msmith

18:50:27 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to mention the OWL XML schema

Zakim IRC Bot: msmith, you wanted to mention the OWL XML schema

18:51:00 <ivan> +1 to msmith

Ivan Herman: +1 to msmith

18:51:09 <sandro> ack alanr_

Sandro Hawke: ack alanr_

18:51:11 <MarkusK_> MikeSmith: Note that the functional syntax is also aligned with the OWL XML syntax. Any change in the names would thus also affect the XML syntax.

Mike Smith: Note that the functional syntax is also aligned with the OWL XML syntax. Any change in the names would thus also affect the XML syntax.

18:51:08 <schneid> of course, every change in the FS would need to be followed by OWL/XML

Michael Schneider: of course, every change in the FS would need to be followed by OWL/XML

18:51:17 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, unmute me

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, unmute me

18:51:17 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should no longer be muted

18:52:06 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Many people may arrive at OWL as an extension of RDF and those people should be supported.

Sandro Hawke: Many people may arrive at OWL as an extension of RDF and those people should be supported.

18:52:25 <sandro> q?

Sandro Hawke: q?

18:52:29 <sandro> ack bcuencagrau

Sandro Hawke: ack bcuencagrau

18:52:48 <MarkusK_> Sandro: An editorial improvement could be to (scribe did not get this, sorry)

Sandro Hawke: An editorial improvement could be to (scribe did not get this, sorry)

18:53:01 <pfps> q+

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+

18:53:05 <pfps> q-

Peter Patel-Schneider: q-

18:53:10 <sandro> Alan: We could xref the function syntax to the RDF vocabulary, as an editorial fix.

Alan Ruttenberg: We could xref the function syntax to the RDF vocabulary, as an editorial fix. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

18:53:13 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me

18:53:13 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted

18:53:13 <MarkusK_> Bernardo: One way to move forward would be to check if there are comments from the community after publishing the documents. So we may want to wait for comments before starting major changes.

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: One way to move forward would be to check if there are comments from the community after publishing the documents. So we may want to wait for comments before starting major changes.

18:53:33 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me

18:53:33 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should now be muted

18:53:36 <sandro> ack bmotik

Sandro Hawke: ack bmotik

18:53:48 <MarkusK_> Sandro: The downside would be that this may require a second last call.

Sandro Hawke: The downside would be that this may require a second last call.

18:54:26 <MarkusK_> Boris: We should keep in mind that OWL is indeed serving two partially overlapping communities. I am not convinced that changing some names would solve the problem that those different approaches bring. And there are various documents addressing the view of the RDF community, including the Primer that shows explicitly how to translate syntactic forms.

Boris Motik: We should keep in mind that OWL is indeed serving two partially overlapping communities. I am not convinced that changing some names would solve the problem that those different approaches bring. And there are various documents addressing the view of the RDF community, including the Primer that shows explicitly how to translate syntactic forms.

18:54:14 <sandro> (Hey, let's have two different languages, with different names! :-)

Sandro Hawke: (Hey, let's have two different languages, with different names! :-)

18:54:38 <sandro> q?

Sandro Hawke: q?

18:55:09 <uli> good points, Boris

Uli Sattler: good points, Boris

18:55:11 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me

18:55:11 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted

18:55:18 <alanr_> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q?

18:56:00 <MarkusK_> Ivan: So how should we continue?

Ivan Herman: So how should we continue?

18:56:24 <schneid> we had pretty much a draw in the straw poll, with half of the votes being 0

Michael Schneider: we had pretty much a draw in the straw poll, with half of the votes being 0

18:56:34 <MarkusK_> Sandro: This can be discussed on the mailing lists; if not enough people continue to work on this, we need to give up on the alignment.

Sandro Hawke: This can be discussed on the mailing lists; if not enough people continue to work on this, we need to give up on the alignment.

18:56:45 <MarkusK_> Alan: I will send a mail with some suggestions for discussion

Alan Ruttenberg: I will send a mail with some suggestions for discussion

18:56:51 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Manchester syntax

2.6. Manchester syntax

18:57:08 <MarkusK_> Pfps: Some months ago, I mailed that Manchester syntax is ready for review. There have been some at least partial reviews since then. I have addressed most of those comments, but one major comment resulted in issue-146.

Peter Patel-Schneider: Some months ago, I mailed that Manchester syntax is ready for review. There have been some at least partial reviews since then. I have addressed most of those comments, but one major comment resulted in ISSUE-146.

18:58:23 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Any other comments before publishing this?

Sandro Hawke: Any other comments before publishing this?

18:59:11 <MarkusK_> Alan: Some review comments are still in the document, maybe these should be turned into editor's notes.

Alan Ruttenberg: Some review comments are still in the document, maybe these should be turned into editor's notes.

18:59:31 <MarkusK_> Pfps: I still wait for responses from the authors of some of these comments.

Peter Patel-Schneider: I still wait for responses from the authors of some of these comments.

19:00:25 <MarkusK_> Alan: I guess I would like my comments turned into editor's notes without open issues. If Peter agrees with that.

Alan Ruttenberg: I guess I would like my comments turned into editor's notes without open issues. If Peter agrees with that.

19:01:18 <Rinke> (my two remaining review comments have been addressed, as far as I'm concerned they may be removed)

Rinke Hoekstra: (my two remaining review comments have been addressed, as far as I'm concerned they may be removed)

19:01:23 <MarkusK_> Pfps: For this document there appears to be disagreement between the editor and the reviewers. Keeping the comments as notes will not solve the problem in the end.

Peter Patel-Schneider: For this document there appears to be disagreement between the editor and the reviewers. Keeping the comments as notes will not solve the problem in the end.

19:01:42 <schneid> q+

Michael Schneider: q+

19:01:50 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

19:02:00 <Rinke> I don't have an alternative either

Rinke Hoekstra: I don't have an alternative either

19:02:00 <MarkusK_> Sandro: But we can ask the public for comments on open issues.

Sandro Hawke: But we can ask the public for comments on open issues.

19:02:14 <Rinke> yes

Rinke Hoekstra: yes

19:02:34 <MarkusK_> Pfps: OK, I can turn the comments into editor's notes, and we can then go forward with publication.

Peter Patel-Schneider: OK, I can turn the comments into editor's notes, and we can then go forward with publication.

19:02:42 <schneid> q-

Michael Schneider: q-

19:02:57 <sandro> ACTION: Pfps convert review comments to editors notes (except rinke's)

ACTION: Pfps convert review comments to editors notes (except rinke's)

19:02:57 <trackbot> Created ACTION-246 - Convert review comments to editors notes (except rinke's) [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2008-11-19].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-246 - Convert review comments to editors notes (except rinke's) [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2008-11-19].

19:03:14 <msmith> and in test&conf (responding to the question where to find examples for making editor's notes on the wiki)

Mike Smith: and in test&amp;conf (responding to the question where to find examples for making editor's notes on the wiki)

19:04:06 <schneid> there's also an EdNote resulting from some open disagreement between the editor and one of the reviewers of the RDF-Based Semantics ... :)

Michael Schneider: there's also an EdNote resulting from some open disagreement between the editor and one of the reviewers of the RDF-Based Semantics ... :)

19:03:29 <ivan> q?

Ivan Herman: q?

19:03:33 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Can we propose to publish? Should publication be as soon as possible or in combination with other publications?

Sandro Hawke: Can we propose to publish? Should publication be as soon as possible or in combination with other publications?

19:04:08 <MarkusK_> Alan: Maybe we can at least resolve now to publish.

Alan Ruttenberg: Maybe we can at least resolve now to publish.

19:04:33 <sandro> PROPOSED: Publish ManchesterSyntax as FPWD, after Peter's just-discussed editors notes are added, in our next round of publications.

PROPOSED: Publish ManchesterSyntax as FPWD, after Peter's just-discussed editors notes are added, in our next round of publications.

19:05:29 <MarkusK_> Alan: So "next round" would mean the next time we publish; is this at Last Call?

Alan Ruttenberg: So "next round" would mean the next time we publish; is this at Last Call?

19:05:36 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Yes, that would be useful.

Sandro Hawke: Yes, that would be useful.

19:04:40 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)

Boris Motik: +1 (Oxford)

19:04:45 <Rinke> +1 (UvA)

Rinke Hoekstra: +1 (UvA)

19:04:46 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)

+1 (FZI)

19:04:48 <pfps> +1 (ALU)

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU)

19:04:50 <bcuencagrau> +1 (Oxford)

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1 (Oxford)

19:04:53 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)

Zhe Wu: +1 (ORACLE)

19:04:55 <ivan> +1 (w3c)

Ivan Herman: +1 (w3c)

19:04:58 <alanr_> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

19:04:58 <Achille> +1 (IBM)

Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM)

19:05:11 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

19:05:12 <alanr_> +1 (science commons)

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (science commons)

19:05:19 <uli> +1 (Man)

Uli Sattler: +1 (Man)

19:05:33 <msmith> +1 (C&P)

Mike Smith: +1 (C&amp;P)

19:05:38 <sandro> RESOLVED: Publish ManchesterSyntax as FPWD, after Peter's just-discussed editors notes are added, in our next round of publications.

RESOLVED: Publish ManchesterSyntax as FPWD, after Peter's just-discussed editors notes are added, in our next round of publications.

19:05:42 <baojie> +1 (RPI)

Jie Bao: +1 (RPI)

19:05:48 <sandro> ack ivan

Sandro Hawke: ack ivan

19:06:16 <MarkusK_> Ivan: There is one open issue related to the Manchester Syntax; I do not understand what it says.

Ivan Herman: There is one open issue related to the Manchester Syntax; I do not understand what it says.

19:06:31 <MarkusK_> Sandro: This one is on the agenda, maybe we can get to this.

Sandro Hawke: This one is on the agenda, maybe we can get to this.

19:06:43 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Datarange extensions

2.7. Datarange extensions

19:07:24 <MarkusK_> Alan: We have had some reviews, and the question now is if we can make this a publishable WG note.

Alan Ruttenberg: We have had some reviews, and the question now is if we can make this a publishable WG note.

19:07:12 <bmotik> q+

Boris Motik: q+

19:07:18 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me

19:07:18 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted

19:07:22 <alanr_> ack bmotik

Alan Ruttenberg: ack bmotik

19:07:45 <MarkusK_> Boris: I think the document is good, but some of the comments need to be addressed. I think all reviewers agreed that this should be published as a note. Some open issues remain, but I do not see why those should not be solvable.

Boris Motik: I think the document is good, but some of the comments need to be addressed. I think all reviewers agreed that this should be published as a note. Some open issues remain, but I do not see why those should not be solvable.

19:07:57 <uli> q+

Uli Sattler: q+

19:08:05 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me

19:08:05 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted

19:08:09 <uli> zakim, unmute me

Uli Sattler: zakim, unmute me

19:08:09 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: uli should no longer be muted

19:08:41 <MarkusK_> Uli: We plan to address all the reviewers' comments, but this won't happen by next week.

Uli Sattler: We plan to address all the reviewers' comments, but this won't happen by next week.

19:08:55 <uli> zakim, mute me

Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me

19:08:55 <Zakim> uli should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted

19:09:22 <MarkusK_> Alan: OK; so let us continue to work on this.

Alan Ruttenberg: OK; so let us continue to work on this.

19:09:28 <sandro> Alan: consensus seems to be that this is moving along nicely to end up as a Note.

Alan Ruttenberg: consensus seems to be that this is moving along nicely to end up as a Note. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

19:09:49 <bmotik> Given this outcome, could we perhaps resolve ISSUE-127 now/soon?

Boris Motik: Given this outcome, could we perhaps resolve ISSUE-127 now/soon?

19:10:03 <MarkusK_> Topic: Issues

3. Issues

19:10:12 <sandro> subtopic: issue-127

3.1. ISSUE-127

19:10:29 <MarkusK_> (Alan is back chairing)

(Alan is back chairing)

19:10:28 <bmotik> +1 to close

Boris Motik: +1 to close

19:10:33 <bmotik> q+

Boris Motik: q+

19:10:42 <sandro> ack uli

Sandro Hawke: ack uli

19:10:43 <alanr_> ack uli

Alan Ruttenberg: ack uli

19:10:54 <alanr_> ack bmotik

Alan Ruttenberg: ack bmotik

19:10:56 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me

19:10:56 <Zakim> bmotik was not muted, bmotik

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik was not muted, bmotik

19:11:01 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

19:11:02 <uli> zakim, mute me

Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me

19:11:02 <Zakim> uli should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted

19:11:16 <MarkusK_> Boris: Does anything speak against closing Issue 127?

Boris Motik: Does anything speak against closing ISSUE-127?

19:11:43 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me

19:11:43 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted

19:11:47 <ivan> q-

Ivan Herman: q-

19:11:55 <schneid> we had /3/ proposals to close this in the last few days, AFAIR :)

Michael Schneider: we had /3/ proposals to close this in the last few days, AFAIR :)

19:12:07 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-127 given the work on Data Range Extension is proceeding nicely

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-127 given the work on Data Range Extension is proceeding nicely

19:12:09 <bmotik> +1

Boris Motik: +1

19:12:12 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

19:12:13 <alanr_> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

19:12:13 <msmith> +1

Mike Smith: +1

19:12:13 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

19:12:14 <Rinke> +1

Rinke Hoekstra: +1

19:12:14 <schneid> +1

Michael Schneider: +1

19:12:14 <MarkusK_> +1

+1

19:12:14 <pfps> +1

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1

19:12:17 <Zhe> +1

Zhe Wu: +1

19:12:18 <bcuencagrau> +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

19:12:23 <uli> +1

Uli Sattler: +1

19:12:24 <JeffP> 0

Jeff Pan: 0

19:12:26 <baojie> +1

Jie Bao: +1

19:12:33 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close issue-127 given the work on Data Range Extension is proceeding nicely

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-127 given the work on Data Range Extension is proceeding nicely

19:12:56 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Issue-87

3.2. ISSUE-87

19:13:08 <MarkusK_> (Sandro is chairing this)

(Sandro is chairing this)

19:13:50 <MarkusK_> Alan: It is considered useful to add rational numbers as a datatype. The question was how this should be realized, and what conformance would require for this datatype. Also it was asked if we should have a dedicated lexical representation for rationals.

Alan Ruttenberg: It is considered useful to add rational numbers as a datatype. The question was how this should be realized, and what conformance would require for this datatype. Also it was asked if we should have a dedicated lexical representation for rationals.

19:14:05 <bmotik> q+

Boris Motik: q+

19:14:18 <msmith> q+

Mike Smith: q+

19:14:20 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me

19:14:20 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted

19:14:23 <sandro> ack bmotik

Sandro Hawke: ack bmotik

19:15:17 <MarkusK_> Boris: Regarding the dedicated lexical form, I do not see any problems. There might be some implementation challenges involved. One would probably store rationals as pairs of integers. We do not need arithmetics, since OWL does not include much arithmetics anyway. But comparing floats and rationals might be a slight challenge for implementors.

Boris Motik: Regarding the dedicated lexical form, I do not see any problems. There might be some implementation challenges involved. One would probably store rationals as pairs of integers. We do not need arithmetics, since OWL does not include much arithmetics anyway. But comparing floats and rationals might be a slight challenge for implementors.

19:15:28 <alanr_> q+ to mention finite number of floats between rationals

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ to mention finite number of floats between rationals

19:16:13 <msmith> q-

Mike Smith: q-

19:16:43 <sandro> ack alanr_

Sandro Hawke: ack alanr_

19:16:43 <Zakim> alanr_, you wanted to mention finite number of floats between rationals

Zakim IRC Bot: alanr_, you wanted to mention finite number of floats between rationals

19:16:46 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me

19:16:46 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted

19:16:51 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me

19:16:51 <Zakim> bcuencagrau was already muted, bcuencagrau

Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau was already muted, bcuencagrau

19:17:11 <bmotik> q+

Boris Motik: q+

19:17:33 <MarkusK_> Alan: I was also wondering about the comparison. Maybe we should put this in and tag it as an "at risk" feature. There was also a problem relating to counting floats.

Alan Ruttenberg: I was also wondering about the comparison. Maybe we should put this in and tag it as an "at risk" feature. There was also a problem relating to counting floats.

19:17:33 <sandro> a?

Sandro Hawke: a?

19:17:36 <sandro> q?

Sandro Hawke: q?

19:17:37 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me

19:17:37 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted

19:17:42 <sandro> ack bmotik

Sandro Hawke: ack bmotik

19:17:54 <schneid>  xsd:double just specifies a finite subset of all rationals

Michael Schneider: xsd:double just specifies a finite subset of all rationals

19:18:17 <alanr_> q+

Alan Ruttenberg: q+

19:18:45 <sandro> ack alanr_

Sandro Hawke: ack alanr_

19:18:46 <MarkusK_> Boris: Yes, but the value space of rationals is dense, i.e. there are infinitely many values between each pair of distinct rational numbers. Even if there are only finitely many constants, the number of rationals is not a problem.

Boris Motik: Yes, but the value space of rationals is dense, i.e. there are infinitely many values between each pair of distinct rational numbers. Even if there are only finitely many constants, the number of rationals is not a problem.

19:19:32 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me

19:19:32 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted

19:19:33 <MarkusK_> Alan: Yes, but there might e.g. be a data range of floats bounded by rational constants

Alan Ruttenberg: Yes, but there might e.g. be a data range of floats bounded by rational constants

19:19:58 <MarkusK_> Sandro: This discussion probably should be continued elsewhere.

Sandro Hawke: This discussion probably should be continued elsewhere.

19:19:41 <msmith> +1

Mike Smith: +1

19:19:46 <alanr_> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

19:20:10 <sandro> STRAWPOLL:  go ahead with Rationals in OWL2, marked as At Risk until we get implementation experience

STRAWPOLL: go ahead with Rationals in OWL2, marked as At Risk until we get implementation experience

19:20:11 <ivan> +1 (why putting it on the agenda next week?)

Ivan Herman: +1 (why putting it on the agenda next week?)

19:20:14 <bmotik> +1

Boris Motik: +1

19:20:17 <MarkusK_> +1

+1

19:20:17 <baojie> +1

Jie Bao: +1

19:20:18 <uli> +1

Uli Sattler: +1

19:20:19 <pfps> +1

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1

19:20:19 <Achille> +1

Achille Fokoue: +1

19:20:19 <Zhe> +1

Zhe Wu: +1

19:20:22 <schneid> +1 (even without "at risk")

Michael Schneider: +1 (even without "at risk")

19:20:23 <alanr_> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

19:20:23 <bcuencagrau> +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

19:20:24 <Rinke> +1

Rinke Hoekstra: +1

19:20:29 <JeffP> 0

Jeff Pan: 0

19:20:49 <bmotik> Perhaps we can come up by the next week with questions that need to be answered in order to remove "at risk"

Boris Motik: Perhaps we can come up by the next week with questions that need to be answered in order to remove "at risk"

19:20:55 <MarkusK_> Sandro: It appears to be too early to make this a full resolution, since it was not announced on the agenda.

Sandro Hawke: It appears to be too early to make this a full resolution, since it was not announced on the agenda.

19:21:06 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

19:21:12 <sandro> Subtopic: issue-146

3.3. ISSUE-146

19:21:22 <MarkusK_> (Sandro chairing)

(Sandro chairing)

19:22:16 <MarkusK_> Sandro: We probably could let this issue sit until we have feedback on Manchester syntax.

Sandro Hawke: We probably could let this issue sit until we have feedback on Manchester syntax.

19:22:17 <sandro> we're going to let this sit....

Sandro Hawke: we're going to let this sit....

19:22:52 <ivan> q-

Ivan Herman: q-

19:22:55 <MarkusK_> Ivan: I really do not understand Issue 146. I would like a more detailed explanation via email.

Ivan Herman: I really do not understand ISSUE-146. I would like a more detailed explanation via email.

19:23:19 <sandro> ACTION: Alan make a detailed proposal for edits to ManchesterSyntax to address issue-146 - due Jan 15

ACTION: Alan make a detailed proposal for edits to ManchesterSyntax to address ISSUE-146 - due Jan 15

19:23:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-247 - make a detailed proposal for edits to ManchesterSyntax to address issue-146 [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-01-15].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-247 - make a detailed proposal for edits to ManchesterSyntax to address ISSUE-146 [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-01-15].

19:23:56 <sandro> Subtopic: deprecated

3.4. deprecated

19:24:08 <sandro> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Nov/0076.html

Sandro Hawke: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Nov/0076.html

19:24:18 <bmotik> q+

Boris Motik: q+

19:24:21 <pfps> q+

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+

19:24:36 <MarkusK_> Alan: Since we have punning, we can no longer distinguish deprecation of properties and classes. A simple way to fix this would be to have two separate annotation properties as deprecation markers: one for classes and one for properties.

Alan Ruttenberg: Since we have punning, we can no longer distinguish deprecation of properties and classes. A simple way to fix this would be to have two separate annotation properties as deprecation markers: one for classes and one for properties.

19:24:43 <Zakim> -Rinke

Zakim IRC Bot: -Rinke

19:24:45 <sandro> ack bmotik

Sandro Hawke: ack bmotik

19:24:46 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me

19:24:48 <Zakim> bmotik was not muted, bmotik

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik was not muted, bmotik

19:24:49 <sandro> q?

Sandro Hawke: q?

19:25:04 <pfps> q-

Peter Patel-Schneider: q-

19:25:24 <MarkusK_> Boris: So the suggestion is to have two distinct annotation properties?

Boris Motik: So the suggestion is to have two distinct annotation properties?

19:25:29 <MarkusK_> Alan: Yes.

Alan Ruttenberg: Yes.

19:25:48 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

19:25:51 <schneid> or more: for individuals, classes, datatypes, dataproperties, objectproperties

Michael Schneider: or more: for individuals, classes, datatypes, dataproperties, objectproperties

19:25:54 <sandro> ack ivan

Sandro Hawke: ack ivan

19:25:56 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me

19:25:56 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted

19:25:57 <MarkusK_> Boris: Isnt't it that you deprecate a URI rather than a particular use/view of it?

Boris Motik: Isnt't it that you deprecate a URI rather than a particular use/view of it?

19:26:11 <MarkusK_> Alan: No, my intention is to deprecate a particular view on a URI.

Alan Ruttenberg: No, my intention is to deprecate a particular view on a URI.

19:26:24 <MarkusK_> Ivan: Are there any use cases?

Ivan Herman: Are there any use cases?

19:26:27 <bmotik> +1 to ivan

Boris Motik: +1 to ivan

19:26:37 <bmotik> q+

Boris Motik: q+

19:26:41 <MarkusK_> Alan: Yes, you could have a legacy document that contains a deprecated property. But you can no longer tell that that use was deprecated, and not, e.g., the class.

Alan Ruttenberg: Yes, you could have a legacy document that contains a deprecated property. But you can no longer tell that that use was deprecated, and not, e.g., the class.

19:27:00 <sandro> q?

Sandro Hawke: q?

19:27:37 <MarkusK_> Ivan: Conceptually, URIs still refer to one thing, and this is what I expect to deprecate. Thus the deprecation refers to all uses of the URI.

Ivan Herman: Conceptually, URIs still refer to one thing, and this is what I expect to deprecate. Thus the deprecation refers to all uses of the URI.

19:27:54 <sandro> q?

Sandro Hawke: q?

19:28:01 <schneid> q+

Michael Schneider: q+

19:28:02 <MarkusK_> Alan: My assumption was that single uses of URIs might be deprecated.

Alan Ruttenberg: My assumption was that single uses of URIs might be deprecated.

19:28:23 <MarkusK_> Ivan: If I am in OWL Full, I also deprecate a URI.

Ivan Herman: If I am in OWL Full, I also deprecate a URI.

19:28:41 <bmotik> In OWL Full, there is no distinction between a property and a class

Boris Motik: In OWL Full, there is no distinction between a property and a class

19:28:43 <sandro> ack bmotik

Sandro Hawke: ack bmotik

19:28:44 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me

19:28:44 <Zakim> bmotik was not muted, bmotik

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik was not muted, bmotik

19:29:20 <MarkusK_> Boris: The reason for having deprecated class and deprecated property in OWL 1 seems to be a side effect but not a very thought-through design. For instance, there is no way of deprecating individuals. I do not think that this OWL 1 deprecation was actually used a lot either. Maybe we do not require to spend more effort on this.

Boris Motik: The reason for having deprecated class and deprecated property in OWL 1 seems to be a side effect but not a very thought-through design. For instance, there is no way of deprecating individuals. I do not think that this OWL 1 deprecation was actually used a lot either. Maybe we do not require to spend more effort on this.

19:29:56 <ivan> ???

Ivan Herman: ???

19:30:04 <alanr_> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q?

19:30:10 <schneid> zakim, unmute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me

19:30:10 <Zakim> schneid was not muted, schneid

Zakim IRC Bot: schneid was not muted, schneid

19:31:00 <schneid> zakim, mute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me

19:31:00 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted

19:31:03 <MarkusK_> Schneid: One could imagine that someone wants to deprecate only the class use of a URI but not the property use, but this will probably never happen in practice.

Michael Schneider: One could imagine that someone wants to deprecate only the class use of a URI but not the property use, but this will probably never happen in practice.

19:31:07 <uli> bye

Uli Sattler: bye

19:31:10 <Zhe> bye

Zhe Wu: bye

19:31:10 <Zakim> -bmotik

Zakim IRC Bot: -bmotik

19:31:11 <sandro> ADJOURNED

Sandro Hawke: ADJOURNED

19:31:13 <Zakim> -alanr_

Zakim IRC Bot: -alanr_

19:31:14 <Zakim> -msmith

Zakim IRC Bot: -msmith

19:31:15 <msmith> bye

Mike Smith: bye

19:31:15 <Zakim> -uli

Zakim IRC Bot: -uli

19:31:17 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider

Zakim IRC Bot: -Peter_Patel-Schneider

19:31:17 <Zakim> -Zhe

Zakim IRC Bot: -Zhe

19:31:18 <Zakim> -baojie

Zakim IRC Bot: -baojie

19:31:23 <Zakim> -clu

Zakim IRC Bot: -clu

19:31:24 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau

Zakim IRC Bot: -bcuencagrau

19:31:28 <Zakim> -Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan

19:31:46 <Zakim> -Achille

Zakim IRC Bot: -Achille

19:31:52 <sandro> RRSAgent, make log public

Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, make log public

19:32:02 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Scribe_Conventions

Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Scribe_Conventions

19:32:17 <MarkusK_> Bye

Bye

19:32:17 <Zakim> -Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro

19:32:21 <Zakim> -MarkusK_

Zakim IRC Bot: -MarkusK_

19:34:17 <Zakim> -schneid

Zakim IRC Bot: -schneid

19:34:18 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended

19:34:20 <Zakim> Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, +1.518.276.aaaa, josb, bmotik, +1.617.452.aabb, alanr_, uli, baojie, Sandro, Zhe, +0494212186aacc, clu, schneid, bcuencagrau,

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, +1.518.276.aaaa, josb, bmotik, +1.617.452.aabb, alanr_, uli, baojie, Sandro, Zhe, +0494212186aacc, clu, schneid, bcuencagrau,

19:34:23 <Zakim> ... msmith, Rinke, Achille

Zakim IRC Bot: ... msmith, Rinke, Achille


This revision (#2) generated 2008-11-13 17:31:04 UTC by 'mkrtzsch', comments: None