00:00:00 <scribenick> PRESENT: bmotik, ewallace, Achille, BCuencaGrau, ratnesh, Zhe, baojie, bijan, MartinD, IanH, sandro, pfps, michael_schneider, ivan, christine, msmith
00:00:00 <scribenick> CHAIR: IanH
00:00:00 <scribenick> REGRETS: Markus Krötzsch, Rinke Hoekstra, Elisa Kendall
17:36:01 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/01/28-owl-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/01/28-owl-irc ←
17:36:13 <MartinD> Zakim, this will be owlwg
Martin Dzbor: Zakim, this will be owlwg ←
17:36:13 <Zakim> ok, MartinD; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 24 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, MartinD; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 24 minutes ←
17:36:42 <MartinD> RRSagent, make records public
Martin Dzbor: RRSagent, make records public ←
17:54:20 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
(No events recorded for 17 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started ←
17:54:27 <Zakim> +??P0
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P0 ←
17:54:33 <bijan> zakim, ??p0 is me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, ??p0 is me ←
17:54:33 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bijan; got it ←
17:54:55 <Zakim> + +0190827aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +0190827aaaa ←
17:54:58 <Zakim> -bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: -bijan ←
17:54:59 <Zakim> +bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: +bijan ←
17:55:05 <MartinD> zakim, aaaa is me
Martin Dzbor: zakim, aaaa is me ←
17:55:05 <Zakim> +MartinD; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MartinD; got it ←
17:55:15 <MartinD> zakim, mute me
Martin Dzbor: zakim, mute me ←
17:55:15 <Zakim> MartinD should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MartinD should now be muted ←
17:55:20 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
17:55:20 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
17:59:04 <Zakim> + +1.914.421.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.914.421.aabb ←
17:59:24 <Achille> Zakim, aabb is me
Achille Fokoue: Zakim, aabb is me ←
17:59:25 <Zakim> + +86528aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: + +86528aacc ←
17:59:25 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Achille; got it ←
17:59:39 <Achille> Zakim, mute me
Achille Fokoue: Zakim, mute me ←
17:59:39 <Zakim> Achille should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Achille should now be muted ←
17:59:48 <Zakim> +IanH
Zakim IRC Bot: +IanH ←
18:00:00 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
18:00:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), MartinD (muted), Achille (muted), +86528aacc, IanH
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see bijan (muted), MartinD (muted), Achille (muted), +86528aacc, IanH ←
18:00:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see ewallace, Achille, BCuencaGrau, ratnesh, Zhe, baojie, bijan, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, IanH, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see ewallace, Achille, BCuencaGrau, ratnesh, Zhe, baojie, bijan, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, IanH, sandro, trackbot ←
18:00:21 <Zakim> - +86528aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: - +86528aacc ←
18:00:30 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: +Evan_Wallace ←
18:00:43 <IanH> ScribeNick: MartinD
(Scribe set to Martin Dzbor)
18:00:54 <Zakim> +??P5
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P5 ←
18:00:55 <IanH> omit: Martin, are you ready to scribe?
18:01:02 <Zakim> + +0186528aadd
Zakim IRC Bot: + +0186528aadd ←
18:01:05 <MartinD> omit: yep...
18:01:06 <Zakim> +pfps
Zakim IRC Bot: +pfps ←
18:01:13 <IanH> Today's teleconference starts...
Ian Horrocks: Today's teleconference starts... ←
18:01:15 <bmotik> Zakim, ++0186528aadd is me
Boris Motik: Zakim, ++0186528aadd is me ←
18:01:15 <Zakim> sorry, bmotik, I do not recognize a party named '++0186528aadd'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, bmotik, I do not recognize a party named '++0186528aadd' ←
18:01:19 <ratnesh> zakim, ??P5 is me
Ratnesh Sahay: zakim, ??P5 is me ←
18:01:19 <Zakim> +ratnesh; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ratnesh; got it ←
18:01:20 <bmotik> Zakim, +0186528aadd is me
Boris Motik: Zakim, +0186528aadd is me ←
18:01:20 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bmotik; got it ←
18:01:23 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
18:01:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), MartinD (muted), Achille (muted), IanH, Evan_Wallace, ratnesh, bmotik, pfps
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see bijan (muted), MartinD (muted), Achille (muted), IanH, Evan_Wallace, ratnesh, bmotik, pfps ←
18:01:25 <Zakim> On IRC I see bmotik, ewallace, Achille, BCuencaGrau, ratnesh, Zhe, baojie, bijan, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, IanH, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see bmotik, ewallace, Achille, BCuencaGrau, ratnesh, Zhe, baojie, bijan, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, IanH, sandro, trackbot ←
18:01:26 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
18:01:27 <Zakim> +baojie
Zakim IRC Bot: +baojie ←
18:01:27 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
18:01:39 <Zakim> +bmotik.a
Zakim IRC Bot: +bmotik.a ←
18:01:54 <MartinD> Topic: Admin matters
18:02:09 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
18:02:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), MartinD (muted), Achille (muted), IanH, Evan_Wallace, ratnesh, bmotik (muted), pfps, baojie, bmotik.a
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see bijan (muted), MartinD (muted), Achille (muted), IanH, Evan_Wallace, ratnesh, bmotik (muted), pfps, baojie, bmotik.a ←
18:02:12 <Zakim> On IRC I see bmotik, ewallace, Achille, BCuencaGrau, ratnesh, Zhe, baojie, bijan, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, IanH, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see bmotik, ewallace, Achille, BCuencaGrau, ratnesh, Zhe, baojie, bijan, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, IanH, sandro, trackbot ←
18:02:16 <bijan> msmith will be a bit late
Bijan Parsia: msmith will be a bit late ←
18:02:21 <pfps> q+
18:02:23 <MartinD> Ian: checking who's here; any agenda ammendments?
Ian Horrocks: checking who's here; any agenda ammendments? ←
18:02:28 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:02:33 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
18:02:35 <Zakim> -bmotik.a
Zakim IRC Bot: -bmotik.a ←
18:02:39 <Zakim> +Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: +Zhe ←
18:02:48 <Zhe> zakim, mute me
18:02:49 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Zhe should now be muted ←
18:02:59 <MartinD> Peter: agenda was messed up - e.g., the minute approval for 14 instead of 21 January
Peter Patel-Schneider: agenda was messed up - e.g., the minute approval for 14 instead of 21 January ←
18:03:09 <Zakim> +bmotik.a
Zakim IRC Bot: +bmotik.a ←
18:03:22 <MartinD> Ian: extra item needed -- approving both sets of minutes (14 Jan, 21 Jan)
Ian Horrocks: extra item needed -- approving both sets of minutes (14 Jan, 21 Jan) ←
18:03:26 <bijan> My actions aren't on
Bijan Parsia: My actions aren't on ←
18:03:29 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:03:30 <MartinD> Peter: action status has also changed
Peter Patel-Schneider: action status has also changed ←
18:03:33 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
18:03:38 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:03:46 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:03:51 <bijan> Can we we resolve my pending review actions?
Bijan Parsia: Can we we resolve my pending review actions? ←
18:03:57 <MartinD> Ian: let's look at the agenda from 14 Jan
Ian Horrocks: let's look at the agenda from 14 Jan ←
18:04:09 <Zakim> +??P15
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P15 ←
18:04:10 <Zakim> +??P14
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14 ←
18:04:11 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:04:16 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
18:04:16 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
18:04:17 <Achille> q+
Achille Fokoue: q+ ←
18:04:20 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
18:04:28 <MartinD> ...there was a problem with incorrect records, which needed fixing
...there was a problem with incorrect records, which needed fixing ←
18:04:31 <michael_schneider> zakim, ??P15 is me
Michael Schneider: zakim, ??P15 is me ←
18:04:32 <Zakim> I already had ??P15 as BCuencaGrau, michael_schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: I already had ??P15 as BCuencaGrau, michael_schneider ←
18:04:37 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
18:04:37 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
18:04:38 <michael_schneider> zakim, ??P14 is me
Michael Schneider: zakim, ??P14 is me ←
18:04:39 <Zakim> +michael_schneider; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +michael_schneider; got it ←
18:04:39 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
18:04:44 <BCuencaGrau> Zakim, mute me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me ←
18:04:44 <Zakim> BCuencaGrau should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: BCuencaGrau should now be muted ←
18:04:50 <michael_schneider> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
18:04:50 <Zakim> michael_schneider should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: michael_schneider should now be muted ←
18:04:56 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:04:56 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
18:04:56 <MartinD> Bijan: is it correct, there is only one item under pending review?
Bijan Parsia: is it correct, there is only one item under pending review? ←
18:05:00 <bijan> yes
Bijan Parsia: yes ←
18:05:05 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:05:11 <Achille> Zakim, unmute me
Achille Fokoue: Zakim, unmute me ←
18:05:11 <Zakim> Achille should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Achille should no longer be muted ←
18:05:15 <IanH> ack Achille
Ian Horrocks: ack Achille ←
18:05:36 <christine> thanks
Christine Golbreich: thanks ←
18:05:52 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:05:52 <Zakim> bijan was already muted, bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was already muted, bijan ←
18:05:55 <MartinD> Achille: I just send an email about the issues/concerns raised in those minutes from 14 Jan
Achille Fokoue: I just send an email about the issues/concerns raised in those minutes from 14 Jan ←
18:05:58 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
18:05:58 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
18:06:03 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:06:15 <MartinD> Bijan: changes look fine
Bijan Parsia: changes look fine ←
18:06:40 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:06:40 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
18:06:46 <Achille> Zakim, mute me
Achille Fokoue: Zakim, mute me ←
18:06:46 <Zakim> Achille should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Achille should now be muted ←
18:06:47 <pfps> 14 jan acceptable
Peter Patel-Schneider: 14 jan acceptable ←
18:07:00 <MartinD> PROPOSED: Accept minutes from 14 January (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-01-14)
PROPOSED: Accept minutes from 14 January (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-01-14) ←
18:07:11 <pfps> 14 jan minutes minimally acceptable ...
Peter Patel-Schneider: 14 jan minutes minimally acceptable ... ←
18:07:14 <MartinD> RESOLVED: Accept minutes from 14 January (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-01-14)
RESOLVED: Accept minutes from 14 January (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-01-14) ←
18:07:16 <ewallace> They looked good to me.
Evan Wallace: They looked good to me. ←
18:07:28 <pfps> 21 jan MINIMALLY acceptable ...
Peter Patel-Schneider: 21 jan MINIMALLY acceptable ... ←
18:07:41 <pfps> one thing that scribes should do is reorder headings to get things in the right place
Peter Patel-Schneider: one thing that scribes should do is reorder headings to get things in the right place ←
18:07:45 <pfps> but I'm not going to hold up this time, as the intent can be deciphered
Peter Patel-Schneider: but I'm not going to hold up this time, as the intent can be deciphered ←
18:07:56 <MartinD> Ian: from people's opinion it looks 21 Jan is also acceptable, although minimally
Ian Horrocks: from people's opinion it looks 21 Jan is also acceptable, although minimally ←
18:08:10 <MartinD> ...any more work needs to be done by scribe?
...any more work needs to be done by scribe? ←
18:08:23 <MartinD> ... let's accept the other ones too
... let's accept the other ones too ←
18:08:37 <MartinD> PROPOSED: Accept minutes from 21 January (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-01-21)
PROPOSED: Accept minutes from 21 January (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-01-21) ←
18:08:46 <MartinD> RESOLVED: Accept minutes from 21 January (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-01-21)
RESOLVED: Accept minutes from 21 January (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-01-21) ←
18:08:55 <MartinD> Topic: Action items status
18:08:55 <bijan> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/actions/pendingreview
Bijan Parsia: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/actions/pendingreview ←
18:09:16 <MartinD> Ian: we have several actions from Bijan, most are done afaik
Ian Horrocks: we have several actions from Bijan, most are done afaik ←
18:09:21 <pfps> q+
18:09:29 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
18:09:35 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:09:43 <MartinD> Peter: a number of these have to do with Last Call (LC) actions, but not sure what's the process here
Peter Patel-Schneider: a number of these have to do with Last Call (LC) actions, but not sure what's the process here ←
18:10:10 <MartinD> ... do we need to re-vote or re-send message or approve message(s) from Bijan or ??
... do we need to re-vote or re-send message or approve message(s) from Bijan or ?? ←
18:10:18 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
18:10:18 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
18:10:23 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:10:26 <MartinD> Ian: unsure what's the official line...
Ian Horrocks: unsure what's the official line... ←
18:10:32 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
18:10:57 <MartinD> Bijan: this is not about my ownership of the docs written...
Bijan Parsia: this is not about my ownership of the docs written... ←
18:11:03 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:11:51 <MartinD> Ian: if someone was in charge of acting on some changes, that person would send it as a "proposal" and if no objections then approved... but let's get back to this later
Ian Horrocks: if someone was in charge of acting on some changes, that person would send it as a "proposal" and if no objections then approved... but let's get back to this later ←
18:12:07 <MartinD> Ian: all actions in pending category can be cleared now...
Ian Horrocks: all actions in pending category can be cleared now... ←
18:12:08 <pfps> q+
18:12:12 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:12:16 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
18:12:23 <bijan> ACTION-269 is done ormotted
Bijan Parsia: ACTION-269 is done ormotted ←
18:12:25 <bijan> mooted
Bijan Parsia: mooted ←
18:12:49 <MartinD> Peter: one of alan's action (action 247) was outstanding for quite a while...
Peter Patel-Schneider: one of alan's action (ACTION-247) was outstanding for quite a while... ←
18:13:04 <MartinD> Ian: yes, this needs to be concluded soon
Ian Horrocks: yes, this needs to be concluded soon ←
18:13:33 <MartinD> ACTION: Ian to talk to Alan about acting on action 247 or withdraw the comment...
ACTION: Ian to talk to Alan about acting on ACTION-247 or withdraw the comment... ←
18:13:33 <trackbot> Created ACTION-271 - Talk to Alan about acting on action 247 or withdraw the comment... [on Ian Horrocks - due 2009-02-04].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-271 - Talk to Alan about acting on ACTION-247 or withdraw the comment... [on Ian Horrocks - due 2009-02-04]. ←
18:13:49 <pfps> the point is that 247 is blocking other work
Peter Patel-Schneider: the point is that 247 is blocking other work ←
18:14:06 <MartinD> Ian: other actions cannot be moved on, at this point
Ian Horrocks: other actions cannot be moved on, at this point ←
18:14:15 <MartinD> Topic: face to face meeting (no.5)
18:14:17 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:14:39 <MartinD> Ian: we are confirming, this meeting goes ahead...
Ian Horrocks: we are confirming, this meeting goes ahead... ←
18:15:03 <MartinD> ... F2F5 = http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F5
... F2F5 = http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F5 ←
18:15:24 <MartinD> ... would be useful if as many people as possible come and join, as there is quite some important stuff to do
... would be useful if as many people as possible come and join, as there is quite some important stuff to do ←
18:15:36 <MartinD> Topic: Last call comments
18:16:00 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:16:02 <MartinD> Ian: see here http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/ and http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Responses_to_Last_Call_Comments
Ian Horrocks: see here http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/ and http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Responses_to_Last_Call_Comments ←
18:16:08 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
18:16:08 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was not muted, bijan ←
18:16:08 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
18:16:34 <MartinD> ... first let's talk about how to approach the situation if somebody has an action to draft a response, what should we do with the outcome
... first let's talk about how to approach the situation if somebody has an action to draft a response, what should we do with the outcome ←
18:16:41 <pfps> q+
18:16:42 <MartinD> Subtopic: Tracking responses to comments
18:16:46 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:16:59 <MartinD> Bijan: depends on type of action - whether it proposes to change something or only to clarify
Bijan Parsia: depends on type of action - whether it proposes to change something or only to clarify ←
18:17:39 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
18:17:45 <MartinD> Ian: might be useful to look at the last call page on the wiki... so that we can go down, see the status, see the response and if happy, just go on with it
Ian Horrocks: might be useful to look at the last call page on the wiki... so that we can go down, see the status, see the response and if happy, just go on with it ←
18:18:17 <MartinD> Peter: we already had this response to the call; that is THE thing we did... the affected doc does map correctly?
Peter Patel-Schneider: we already had this response to the call; that is THE thing we did... the affected doc does map correctly? ←
18:18:35 <MartinD> Ian: might be useful to say explicitly which doc needs touching
Ian Horrocks: might be useful to say explicitly which doc needs touching ←
18:19:30 <MartinD> Bijan: I would update keys with what I understand happened... no draft there to doc on syntax? do we need another column on this?
Bijan Parsia: I would update keys with what I understand happened... no draft there to doc on syntax? do we need another column on this? ←
18:19:46 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:20:03 <MartinD> Ian: maybe enough to just put in who does work on it, otherwise bookkeeping is going to take too much overhead
Ian Horrocks: maybe enough to just put in who does work on it, otherwise bookkeeping is going to take too much overhead ←
18:20:38 <MartinD> Bijan: if chairs are not sending those responses, then each response should have a concrete owner - who would then respond, right?
Bijan Parsia: if chairs are not sending those responses, then each response should have a concrete owner - who would then respond, right? ←
18:21:07 <MartinD> Peter: the response would link to an email, point made earlier
Peter Patel-Schneider: the response would link to an email, point made earlier ←
18:21:13 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:21:13 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
18:21:21 <MartinD> Ian: should also point to incoming email and perhaps copied to public owl list
Ian Horrocks: should also point to incoming email and perhaps copied to public owl list ←
18:21:42 <MartinD> Peter: there is quite a few msgs in the "response" column...
Peter Patel-Schneider: there is quite a few msgs in the "response" column... ←
18:21:48 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
18:21:48 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
18:21:50 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:21:56 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:22:05 <MartinD> Ian: do we need to contact the people making responses that we provided comments?
Ian Horrocks: do we need to contact the people making responses that we provided comments? ←
18:22:22 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
18:22:26 <ivan> ack bijan
Ivan Herman: ack bijan ←
18:22:30 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:22:30 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
18:22:38 <pfps> q-
18:22:48 <MartinD> ... we should have a template for email going out to people with a response, asking them whether this satisfies the objections, etc.
... we should have a template for email going out to people with a response, asking them whether this satisfies the objections, etc. ←
18:22:57 <bijan> yep
Bijan Parsia: yep ←
18:22:57 <MartinD> ... provide this later...
... provide this later... ←
18:22:58 <pfps> +1
18:22:58 <bijan> good
Bijan Parsia: good ←
18:23:18 <christine> q+
Christine Golbreich: q+ ←
18:23:31 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
18:23:33 <MartinD> ... so, we will add an "owner" to each objection/response, and the "response" will actually point to the email sent to the original objection
... so, we will add an "owner" to each objection/response, and the "response" will actually point to the email sent to the original objection ←
18:23:57 <MartinD> Ivan: we may need another column - need pointer to the email from commentator saying "yes happy with changes"
Ivan Herman: we may need another column - need pointer to the email from commentator saying "yes happy with changes" ←
18:24:11 <pfps> commentor responses could go in status column
Peter Patel-Schneider: commentor responses could go in status column ←
18:24:30 <MartinD> ... we need a trace from "objection" - "our response" - "their acceptance of change or otherwise"
... we need a trace from "objection" - "our response" - "their acceptance of change or otherwise" ←
18:24:55 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:25:00 <IanH> ack christine
Ian Horrocks: ack christine ←
18:25:01 <MartinD> ... in between these recorded points there may be some discussion, but at least resolutions would be clear
... in between these recorded points there may be some discussion, but at least resolutions would be clear ←
18:25:14 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:25:25 <Zakim> +msmith
Zakim IRC Bot: +msmith ←
18:25:48 <IanH> Christine -- we can't hear you!
Ian Horrocks: Christine -- we can't hear you! ←
18:26:13 <christine> a columm about who answers
Christine Golbreich: a columm about who answers ←
18:26:21 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:26:23 <Zakim> -michael_schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: -michael_schneider ←
18:26:25 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:26:25 <Zakim> bijan was already muted, bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was already muted, bijan ←
18:26:27 <MartinD> Ian: what are we doing about comments on new features/requirements
Ian Horrocks: what are we doing about comments on new features/requirements ←
18:26:30 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
18:26:43 <christine> seems there is a mix wi
Christine Golbreich: seems there is a mix wi ←
18:27:04 <MartinD> Bijan: suggestion - treat these separately, comments on draft are different from suggestions for new features;
Bijan Parsia: suggestion - treat these separately, comments on draft are different from suggestions for new features; ←
18:27:24 <christine> please wait for the connection
Christine Golbreich: please wait for the connection ←
18:27:27 <MartinD> ... we may then contact proposers separately with what is going to happen with their suggestions
... we may then contact proposers separately with what is going to happen with their suggestions ←
18:27:34 <Zakim> +??P21
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P21 ←
18:27:35 <pfps> just use a special status flag for these
Peter Patel-Schneider: just use a special status flag for these ←
18:27:39 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:27:55 <MartinD> Ian: but we may still want to trace these responses somehow... some of them might be quite substantial
Ian Horrocks: but we may still want to trace these responses somehow... some of them might be quite substantial ←
18:27:56 <christine> zakim, P21 is christine
Christine Golbreich: zakim, P21 is christine ←
18:27:56 <Zakim> sorry, christine, I do not recognize a party named 'P21'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, christine, I do not recognize a party named 'P21' ←
18:28:02 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:28:02 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
18:28:12 <MartinD> zakim, ?p21 is christine
zakim, ?p21 is christine ←
18:28:12 <Zakim> sorry, MartinD, I do not recognize a party named '?p21'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, MartinD, I do not recognize a party named '?p21' ←
18:28:13 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:28:20 <MartinD> zakim, ??p21 is christine
zakim, ??p21 is christine ←
18:28:20 <Zakim> +christine; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +christine; got it ←
18:28:47 <MartinD> Christine: regarding that special column for replies... I didn't understand how the owner is going to be appointed
Christine Golbreich: regarding that special column for replies... I didn't understand how the owner is going to be appointed ←
18:29:08 <MartinD> Ian: volunteering or general agreement? but there will be a column on the owner
Ian Horrocks: volunteering or general agreement? but there will be a column on the owner ←
18:29:09 <ewallace> Do we need a place to collect the comments on NF and R?
Evan Wallace: Do we need a place to collect the comments on NF and R? ←
18:29:28 <MartinD> Christine: regarding how to comment / react on new features
Christine Golbreich: regarding how to comment / react on new features ←
18:29:49 <bijan> ewallace, i suggested that we put them into one issue in the tracker
Bijan Parsia: ewallace, i suggested that we put them into one issue in the tracker ←
18:29:57 <bijan> but a wiki page are good
Bijan Parsia: but a wiki page are good ←
18:30:13 <MartinD> ... pick points from mailing list and sort them into two type - "can't fix them directly" vs. "somehow linked to LC comments - need reply"?
... pick points from mailing list and sort them into two type - "can't fix them directly" vs. "somehow linked to LC comments - need reply"? ←
18:30:15 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:30:19 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
18:30:19 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
18:30:38 <MartinD> Bijan: not sure we need to have them as LC
Bijan Parsia: not sure we need to have them as LC ←
18:30:58 <christine> +q
Christine Golbreich: +q ←
18:31:02 <MartinD> Ian: the issue is that LC comments are mixed with new feature proposal..
Ian Horrocks: the issue is that LC comments are mixed with new feature proposal.. ←
18:31:22 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:31:30 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:31:30 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
18:31:37 <MartinD> ... "can't see feature X" now; but then the amendments may be included in the final version...
... "can't see feature X" now; but then the amendments may be included in the final version... ←
18:31:54 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
18:32:03 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:32:03 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
18:32:05 <MartinD> ... christine's point on a concrete wiki page, similar to LC comments may do... trying to categorize as suggested
... christine's point on a concrete wiki page, similar to LC comments may do... trying to categorize as suggested ←
18:32:08 <IanH> ack christine
Ian Horrocks: ack christine ←
18:32:28 <MartinD> Christine: agree that these are not LC comments, it's just they may need reply and we should be consistent
Christine Golbreich: agree that these are not LC comments, it's just they may need reply and we should be consistent ←
18:32:47 <MartinD> Ian: you take action then to produce the page consolidating new features and rationale?
Ian Horrocks: you take action then to produce the page consolidating new features and rationale? ←
18:33:14 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:33:19 <MartinD> ACTION: Christine to produce a wiki page to consolidate new features/rationales from email responses that got mixed into LC comments
ACTION: Christine to produce a wiki page to consolidate new features/rationales from email responses that got mixed into LC comments ←
18:33:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-272 - Produce a wiki page to consolidate new features/rationales from email responses that got mixed into LC comments [on Christine Golbreich - due 2009-02-04].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-272 - Produce a wiki page to consolidate new features/rationales from email responses that got mixed into LC comments [on Christine Golbreich - due 2009-02-04]. ←
18:33:30 <MartinD> Subtopic: Potential break in use cases - RDF imports
18:33:36 <MartinD> Ian: was asked by Alan to include comment from Mike here...
Ian Horrocks: was asked by Alan to include comment from Mike here... ←
18:33:48 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:34:03 <MartinD> Mike: related to issue 135, resolved earlier...
Mike Smith: related to ISSUE-135, resolved earlier... ←
18:34:08 <msmith> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Mapping_to_RDF_Graphs&diff=11045&oldid=10323
Mike Smith: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Mapping_to_RDF_Graphs&diff=11045&oldid=10323 ←
18:34:22 <MartinD> ... resolution embedded in the RDF mapping doc
... resolution embedded in the RDF mapping doc ←
18:34:53 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
18:34:54 <MartinD> ... then it was written in a way that any RDF graph with no typing triple will become "an anonymous OWL ontology"?
... then it was written in a way that any RDF graph with no typing triple will become "an anonymous OWL ontology"? ←
18:35:03 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:35:11 <pfps> pointers?
Peter Patel-Schneider: pointers? ←
18:35:12 <bmotik> zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: zakim, unmute me ←
18:35:12 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted ←
18:35:16 <MartinD> ... in my email I gave example how this may affect our test cases
... in my email I gave example how this may affect our test cases ←
18:35:17 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
18:35:42 <MartinD> Boris: at last f2f this was the decision taken - imports vs. inclusions vs. etc.
Boris Motik: at last f2f this was the decision taken - imports vs. inclusions vs. etc. ←
18:35:53 <MartinD> ... alan was for allowing imports of arbitrary graphs
... alan was for allowing imports of arbitrary graphs ←
18:36:21 <msmith> One example http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/TestCase:WebOnt-I5.2-001
Mike Smith: One example http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/TestCase:WebOnt-I5.2-001 ←
18:36:42 <MartinD> Ian: the point may be subtler - if RDF graph with no typing header was allowed, now this is reversed, it should work?
Ian Horrocks: the point may be subtler - if RDF graph with no typing header was allowed, now this is reversed, it should work? ←
18:37:03 <MartinD> Boris: targets of import statements would be merged into graphs...
Boris Motik: targets of import statements would be merged into graphs... ←
18:37:08 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:37:15 <pfps> q+
18:37:27 <MartinD> ... no aware that these graphs were ok in owl 1...
... no aware that these graphs were ok in owl 1... ←
18:37:28 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
18:37:56 <MartinD> Peter: discussion turned on the backward compatibility... this was the solution to regain that back compatibility
Peter Patel-Schneider: discussion turned on the backward compatibility... this was the solution to regain that back compatibility ←
18:38:06 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:38:08 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:38:18 <bijan> q-
Bijan Parsia: q- ←
18:38:19 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:38:22 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
18:38:22 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
18:38:22 <bmotik> +1 to pfps
Boris Motik: +1 to pfps ←
18:38:25 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
18:38:25 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
18:38:28 <MartinD> Ian: so should we treat headerless RDF graphs as OWL ontologies
Ian Horrocks: so should we treat headerless RDF graphs as OWL ontologies ←
18:38:34 <MartinD> Peter: as OWL DL ontologies
Peter Patel-Schneider: as OWL DL ontologies ←
18:38:38 <msmith> q+
Mike Smith: q+ ←
18:38:58 <MartinD> Ian: currently they are treated as OWL FULL ontologies, if I follow Peter and Boris correctly
Ian Horrocks: currently they are treated as OWL FULL ontologies, if I follow Peter and Boris correctly ←
18:38:59 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:39:02 <IanH> ack msmith
Ian Horrocks: ack msmith ←
18:39:07 <msmith> http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/TestCase:WebOnt-I5.2-001
Mike Smith: http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/TestCase:WebOnt-I5.2-001 ←
18:39:29 <MartinD> Mike: ontologies like the ones in test case above will not be valid OWL 2 DL, if the doc remains as it is now
Mike Smith: ontologies like the ones in test case above will not be valid OWL 2 DL, if the doc remains as it is now ←
18:39:42 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
18:39:46 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:39:46 <MartinD> Ian: so, there is some back compatibility issue and a case that reveals the point
Ian Horrocks: so, there is some back compatibility issue and a case that reveals the point ←
18:40:10 <MartinD> Bijan: confused now; we would normally handle this case, surprised we are not following this up
Bijan Parsia: confused now; we would normally handle this case, surprised we are not following this up ←
18:40:54 <MartinD> Ian: this is a kind of along Alan's repair idea... include the graphs, import even graphs that do not satisfy header requirements - treat them as merging with other content
Ian Horrocks: this is a kind of along Alan's repair idea... include the graphs, import even graphs that do not satisfy header requirements - treat them as merging with other content ←
18:41:02 <pfps> q+
18:41:09 <MartinD> Bijan: importing seems fine, treating them as standalone is tricky
Bijan Parsia: importing seems fine, treating them as standalone is tricky ←
18:41:17 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
18:41:27 <MartinD> Ian: yes, they should be imported into "unbroken" one
Ian Horrocks: yes, they should be imported into "unbroken" one ←
18:41:35 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:41:36 <michael_schneider> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
18:41:44 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
18:41:56 <MartinD> Peter: current broken ontologies are those that miss certain declarations; the discussion was not about importing
Peter Patel-Schneider: current broken ontologies are those that miss certain declarations; the discussion was not about importing ←
18:42:28 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:42:38 <michael_schneider> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
18:42:38 <Zakim> sorry, michael_schneider, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, michael_schneider, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you ←
18:42:39 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:42:39 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
18:42:44 <MartinD> Bijan: standalone fragments remain OWL FULL, if imported into properly typed ontologies, they may become OWL 2 DL - but only via import (kind of inherit typing info)
Bijan Parsia: standalone fragments remain OWL FULL, if imported into properly typed ontologies, they may become OWL 2 DL - but only via import (kind of inherit typing info) ←
18:42:45 <IanH> ack michael_schneider
Ian Horrocks: ack michael_schneider ←
18:42:51 <IanH> ack michael_schneider
Ian Horrocks: ack michael_schneider ←
18:43:22 <michael_schneider> what with the RHS of an entailment: does it need an ontology header?
Michael Schneider: what with the RHS of an entailment: does it need an ontology header? ←
18:43:25 <Zakim> -christine
Zakim IRC Bot: -christine ←
18:43:30 <michael_schneider> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
18:43:30 <Zakim> sorry, michael_schneider, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, michael_schneider, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you ←
18:43:32 <MartinD> Ian: are we happy that we knew about this and nothing needs changing right now?
Ian Horrocks: are we happy that we knew about this and nothing needs changing right now? ←
18:43:41 <bijan> Let O1 be the OWL Full but not OWL DL ontology, and O2 another ontology. If O2 imports O1 results in a OWL DL ontology, that is fine and does not involve repair.
Bijan Parsia: Let O1 be the OWL Full but not OWL DL ontology, and O2 another ontology. If O2 imports O1 results in a OWL DL ontology, that is fine and does not involve repair. ←
18:43:47 <bmotik> I am extatic
Boris Motik: I am extatic ←
18:44:03 <christine> there was a mix between scnheid and me !
Christine Golbreich: there was a mix between scnheid and me ! ←
18:44:03 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:44:05 <bijan> Fixing O1 is changing the ontology, which puts it into repair mode
Bijan Parsia: Fixing O1 is changing the ontology, which puts it into repair mode ←
18:44:08 <MartinD> ... mike raised this, are you accepting this?
... mike raised this, are you accepting this? ←
18:44:09 <Zakim> -BCuencaGrau
Zakim IRC Bot: -BCuencaGrau ←
18:44:29 <MartinD> Mike: good that other people are comfortable, I just came across a case raising this
Mike Smith: good that other people are comfortable, I just came across a case raising this ←
18:44:40 <MartinD> Subtopic: Filtering key comments on LC
18:44:44 <MartinD> Ian: let's go to last call comments
Ian Horrocks: let's go to last call comments ←
18:45:00 <Zakim> +??P15
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P15 ←
18:45:07 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:45:08 <MartinD> ... thing that wasn't discussed - do we go down the list, quick discussion and allocate ownership?
... thing that wasn't discussed - do we go down the list, quick discussion and allocate ownership? ←
18:45:14 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
18:45:18 <MartinD> ... suggeestions?
... suggeestions? ←
18:45:19 <pfps> chair's pero.. perrog.. choice
Peter Patel-Schneider: chair's pero.. perrog.. choice ←
18:45:20 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:45:23 <christine> zakim, ??P15 is christine
Christine Golbreich: zakim, ??P15 is christine ←
18:45:23 <Zakim> +christine; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +christine; got it ←
18:45:55 <MartinD> Ivan: there is a number of comments of type "good job" and many editorial - those might be useful to get out of our way, done
Ivan Herman: there is a number of comments of type "good job" and many editorial - those might be useful to get out of our way, done ←
18:46:04 <bijan> How about the chairs, or some person, does it offline?
Bijan Parsia: How about the chairs, or some person, does it offline? ←
18:46:13 <MartinD> ... we need to know which comments are serious and require serious work
... we need to know which comments are serious and require serious work ←
18:46:14 <bijan> and then we do a batch agreement
Bijan Parsia: and then we do a batch agreement ←
18:46:18 <Zakim> +??P21
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P21 ←
18:46:20 <pfps> can't the chairs do this sort of thing? I don't view it as a good thing to do now.
Peter Patel-Schneider: can't the chairs do this sort of thing? I don't view it as a good thing to do now. ←
18:46:29 <michael_schneider> zakim, ??P21 is me
Michael Schneider: zakim, ??P21 is me ←
18:46:29 <Zakim> +michael_schneider; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +michael_schneider; got it ←
18:46:29 <MartinD> ... otherwise we may waste time on minor points and find the big ones too late
... otherwise we may waste time on minor points and find the big ones too late ←
18:46:43 <michael_schneider> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
18:46:49 <ivan> ack ivan
Ivan Herman: ack ivan ←
18:46:55 <michael_schneider> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
18:46:55 <Zakim> michael_schneider was not muted, michael_schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: michael_schneider was not muted, michael_schneider ←
18:46:57 <pfps> chairs could just send back 'we're happy that you are happy'
Peter Patel-Schneider: chairs could just send back 'we're happy that you are happy' ←
18:47:00 <MartinD> Ian: chairs can go through the list, filter minor comments, editorial ones = no discussion required... etc.
Ian Horrocks: chairs can go through the list, filter minor comments, editorial ones = no discussion required... etc. ←
18:47:07 <IanH> ack michael_schneider
Ian Horrocks: ack michael_schneider ←
18:47:10 <pfps> chairs could assign editorial fixes to some editor
Peter Patel-Schneider: chairs could assign editorial fixes to some editor ←
18:47:24 <bijan> Yes
Bijan Parsia: Yes ←
18:47:27 <msmith> yes
Mike Smith: yes ←
18:47:29 <msmith> q+
Mike Smith: q+ ←
18:47:33 <bijan> Both sides do
Bijan Parsia: Both sides do ←
18:47:35 <pfps> yes, otherwise the rhs is not an ontology
Peter Patel-Schneider: yes, otherwise the rhs is not an ontology ←
18:47:37 <MartinD> michael_schneider: there are still situations when you have entailment, does the right side need onto header
Michael Schneider: there are still situations when you have entailment, does the right side need onto header ←
18:47:40 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:47:47 <IanH> ack msmith
Ian Horrocks: ack msmith ←
18:47:48 <MartinD> Mike: RHS cannot exist as ontology without its header
Mike Smith: RHS cannot exist as ontology without its header ←
18:47:58 <michael_schneider> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
18:47:58 <Zakim> michael_schneider should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: michael_schneider should now be muted ←
18:47:58 <bijan> Tools are free to be more liberal of course, but then they aren't checking "ontologies"
Bijan Parsia: Tools are free to be more liberal of course, but then they aren't checking "ontologies" ←
18:48:17 <MartinD> Ian: we should then go through those comments offline, and focus/discuss the important ones
Ian Horrocks: we should then go through those comments offline, and focus/discuss the important ones ←
18:48:29 <MartinD> ... it's not that clear which one had attention until now
... it's not that clear which one had attention until now ←
18:48:45 <michael_schneider> it's actually a little formal problem with the correspondence theorem, since ontology headers are not interpreted by the Direct Semantics... but I will solve this :)
Michael Schneider: it's actually a little formal problem with the correspondence theorem, since ontology headers are not interpreted by the Direct Semantics... but I will solve this :) ←
18:48:46 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:48:50 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:48:51 <MartinD> Subtopic: Discussion on comments from TopQuadrant / Jeremy Carroll
18:48:52 <MartinD> Ian: for example, one obvious case - how to deal with points raised by TopQuadrant - quite a large one?
Ian Horrocks: for example, one obvious case - how to deal with points raised by TopQuadrant - quite a large one? ←
18:48:52 <pfps> number, please?
Peter Patel-Schneider: number, please? ←
18:48:56 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
18:48:56 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
18:48:56 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:49:01 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
18:49:05 <bmotik> number 34
Boris Motik: number 34 ←
18:49:25 <pfps> found it, but do we have a final version?
Peter Patel-Schneider: found it, but do we have a final version? ←
18:49:29 <MartinD> Bijan: TQ is a bunch of comments, we can now go through them now or just filter them as suggested earlier
Bijan Parsia: TQ is a bunch of comments, we can now go through them now or just filter them as suggested earlier ←
18:49:55 <MartinD> Ian: either chairs or somebody should split TQ comments into "proper" focused comments
Ian Horrocks: either chairs or somebody should split TQ comments into "proper" focused comments ←
18:50:01 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
18:50:07 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:50:15 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
18:50:19 <MartinD> Bijan: do the pointer first and then check if they match...
Bijan Parsia: do the pointer first and then check if they match... ←
18:50:21 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/mid/003801c98000$a83794e0$f8a6bea0$@com
Ivan Herman: http://www.w3.org/mid/003801c98000$a83794e0$f8a6bea0$@com ←
18:50:37 <MartinD> Ivan: Jeremy sent separately email above - the main TQ comment...
Ivan Herman: Jeremy sent separately email above - the main TQ comment... ←
18:50:54 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:50:56 <MartinD> ... how to treat this separate page he edited - what is the comment, what is the blurb around
... how to treat this separate page he edited - what is the comment, what is the blurb around ←
18:51:00 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
18:51:01 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was not muted, bijan ←
18:51:06 <msmith> the mail ivan pasted is much smaller
Mike Smith: the mail ivan pasted is much smaller ←
18:51:27 <MartinD> Bijan: the key point is second to last paragraph
Bijan Parsia: the key point is second to last paragraph ←
18:51:37 <MartinD> ... about unmotivated new features, etc.
... about unmotivated new features, etc. ←
18:51:56 <MartinD> ... alternatives they suggest might not be key for us at the moment
... alternatives they suggest might not be key for us at the moment ←
18:52:18 <MartinD> ... the only hard comments are those last two paragraphs on OWL2..
... the only hard comments are those last two paragraphs on OWL2.. ←
18:52:34 <MartinD> ... they are mostly detailing what means "undermotivated"
... they are mostly detailing what means "undermotivated" ←
18:52:59 <MartinD> ... the substantive point is about OWL XML, OWL Manchester syntax
... the substantive point is about OWL XML, OWL Manchester syntax ←
18:53:33 <MartinD> ... we should do enumeration of those features, weigh the benefit of feature vs. motivation... this is what they may expect from us as response
... we should do enumeration of those features, weigh the benefit of feature vs. motivation... this is what they may expect from us as response ←
18:53:52 <MartinD> Ian: it's a bit strange email "we ask many
Ian Horrocks: it's a bit strange email "we ask many ←
18:54:07 <michael_schneider> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
18:54:11 <MartinD> ... asking many unmotivated features to be dropped
... asking many unmotivated features to be dropped ←
18:54:15 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:54:21 <MartinD> ... a way to address is to add motivation to all features?
... a way to address is to add motivation to all features? ←
18:54:24 <michael_schneider> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
18:54:24 <Zakim> michael_schneider should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: michael_schneider should no longer be muted ←
18:54:28 <IanH> ack michael_schneider
Ian Horrocks: ack michael_schneider ←
18:54:33 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:54:53 <MartinD> michael_schneider: the story talks about cost problem
Michael Schneider: the story talks about cost problem ←
18:55:34 <MartinD> ... is this about extension of any kind of ontology language? is there something specific they want to have extended here? Some points apply to C, Java, etc.
... is this about extension of any kind of ontology language? is there something specific they want to have extended here? Some points apply to C, Java, etc. ←
18:55:43 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
18:55:43 <Zakim> bmotik was already muted, bmotik
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik was already muted, bmotik ←
18:55:52 <michael_schneider> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
18:55:52 <Zakim> michael_schneider should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: michael_schneider should now be muted ←
18:55:55 <MartinD> ... there are features that have additional cost, always... which we may not want to start including
... there are features that have additional cost, always... which we may not want to start including ←
18:55:56 <bmotik> no
Boris Motik: no ←
18:56:01 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:56:29 <MartinD> Ian: rough agreement here
Ian Horrocks: rough agreement here ←
18:56:40 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:56:51 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:56:52 <MartinD> ... what is the concrete action - breaking the email down into detailed list? (BIjan thinks no need for this)
... what is the concrete action - breaking the email down into detailed list? (BIjan thinks no need for this) ←
18:56:57 <christine> +q
Christine Golbreich: +q ←
18:56:58 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
18:57:01 <MartinD> Bijan: I may draft the response
Bijan Parsia: I may draft the response ←
18:57:30 <MartinD> ... we should identify what we see as substantive comment, and then respond to this - WG doesn't think there are unmotivated features
... we should identify what we see as substantive comment, and then respond to this - WG doesn't think there are unmotivated features ←
18:57:31 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
18:57:45 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:57:48 <bmotik> +1 to bijan
Boris Motik: +1 to bijan ←
18:57:49 <IanH> ack christine
Ian Horrocks: ack christine ←
18:57:52 <MartinD> ... so, thanking them for listing them, raising them and we will definitely address explicit motivation in the further drafts
... so, thanking them for listing them, raising them and we will definitely address explicit motivation in the further drafts ←
18:57:56 <pfps> +1 to bijan
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to bijan ←
18:58:09 <MartinD> Christine: not sure this is about motivation for new features
Christine Golbreich: not sure this is about motivation for new features ←
18:58:26 <MartinD> ... they suggested there are too many features, maybe not needed
... they suggested there are too many features, maybe not needed ←
18:58:37 <MartinD> ... more motivation in the New Features doc will not change anything, his comments basically concern OWL 2 in general, not specifically the New Features doc
... more motivation in the New Features doc will not change anything, his comments basically concern OWL 2 in general, not specifically the New Features doc ←
18:58:45 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:58:48 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
18:58:53 <MartinD> Ivan: two issues here
Ivan Herman: two issues here ←
18:59:22 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
18:59:27 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:59:36 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:59:43 <MartinD> ... one point is that answer as suggested above by Bijan (that feature doc is extended, etc.) may open us to the objection that we now work with many features that do not have explicit cases/motivation
... one point is that answer as suggested above by Bijan (that feature doc is extended, etc.) may open us to the objection that we now work with many features that do not have explicit cases/motivation ←
18:59:48 <michael_schneider> not all concerns were actually about "unmotivated features". there were a few more concrete things
Michael Schneider: not all concerns were actually about "unmotivated features". there were a few more concrete things ←
18:59:56 <christine> url please ?
Christine Golbreich: url please ? ←
18:59:57 <MartinD> ... then there are some technical issue, which can be treated as such
... then there are some technical issue, which can be treated as such ←
19:00:23 <MartinD> ... property chain inclusion, how RDF is treated, etc. etc.
... property chain inclusion, how RDF is treated, etc. etc. ←
19:00:24 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:00:32 <MartinD> ... these should not be forgotten
... these should not be forgotten ←
19:01:04 <michael_schneider> +1 to ian, this is not a software development project
Michael Schneider: +1 to ian, this is not a software development project ←
19:01:17 <MartinD> Ian: one about requirements - always clear that we are not producing fully fledged requirements doc, it was more about capturing some experiences from previous work in WG, elsewhere
Ian Horrocks: one about requirements - always clear that we are not producing fully fledged requirements doc, it was more about capturing some experiences from previous work in WG, elsewhere ←
19:01:26 <bijan> That's what I meant
Bijan Parsia: That's what I meant ←
19:01:37 <bijan> pfft
Bijan Parsia: pfft ←
19:01:44 <bmotik> zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: zakim, unmute me ←
19:01:44 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted ←
19:01:53 <MartinD> ... this is not about acquiring all requirements, about continuously formulating needs as things emerge... this is not a "done" req. doc
... this is not about acquiring all requirements, about continuously formulating needs as things emerge... this is not a "done" req. doc ←
19:02:38 <MartinD> ... one of the jobs of chair should be to go through comments, to filter those technical ones, and then we can give a part response to TQ in general terms, and a part in concrete technical points raised to LC
... one of the jobs of chair should be to go through comments, to filter those technical ones, and then we can give a part response to TQ in general terms, and a part in concrete technical points raised to LC ←
19:02:44 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:02:52 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
19:03:15 <MartinD> Boris: if we go through those comments from TQ, he agrees with most substantive logical changes
Boris Motik: if we go through those comments from TQ, he agrees with most substantive logical changes ←
19:04:06 <MartinD> ... another thing to include in our response, is about symmetry issue - people were not sure why certain things are included, so this syntactic sugar helps them to make sense of changes
... another thing to include in our response, is about symmetry issue - people were not sure why certain things are included, so this syntactic sugar helps them to make sense of changes ←
19:04:25 <MartinD> ... there should not be problem with RDF compatibility, we have RDF-friendly fragment
... there should not be problem with RDF compatibility, we have RDF-friendly fragment ←
19:04:27 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
19:04:27 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
19:04:36 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:04:38 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
19:04:38 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was not muted, bijan ←
19:04:40 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
19:04:46 <MartinD> Ian: the basic plan of a general reply on motivation + adding points on technical aspects, remains valid
Ian Horrocks: the basic plan of a general reply on motivation + adding points on technical aspects, remains valid ←
19:04:59 <christine> +q
Christine Golbreich: +q ←
19:05:14 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
19:05:14 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
19:05:24 <MartinD> Ian: can we take some action here?
Ian Horrocks: can we take some action here? ←
19:05:30 <christine> no
Christine Golbreich: no ←
19:05:37 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:05:39 <christine> want to speak
Christine Golbreich: want to speak ←
19:05:45 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:05:48 <IanH> ack christine
Ian Horrocks: ack christine ←
19:06:02 <MartinD> Christine: how many new features are a matter of concern here?
Christine Golbreich: how many new features are a matter of concern here? ←
19:06:21 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
19:06:21 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
19:06:32 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:06:34 <MartinD> Ian: still working on documenting all the feature motivations - may get more motivation on some features
Ian Horrocks: still working on documenting all the feature motivations - may get more motivation on some features ←
19:07:02 <MartinD> Christine: I would like to be involved in the reply, to see which specific feature is without motivation, etc.
Christine Golbreich: I would like to be involved in the reply, to see which specific feature is without motivation, etc. ←
19:07:17 <bijan> I'm happy to yeidl
Bijan Parsia: I'm happy to yeidl ←
19:07:19 <bijan> I don't have to do it
Bijan Parsia: I don't have to do it ←
19:07:27 <MartinD> Ian: we should start with drafting, the others would then see the draft and react to it
Ian Horrocks: we should start with drafting, the others would then see the draft and react to it ←
19:07:51 <MartinD> Christine: I don't want to have many new additions to new features, this was addressed by WG for long enough
Christine Golbreich: I don't want to have many new additions to new features, this was addressed by WG for long enough ←
19:08:19 <MartinD> Ian: yes, we should not promise a large number of new features; but everybody will be able to react to Bijan's draft
Ian Horrocks: yes, we should not promise a large number of new features; but everybody will be able to react to Bijan's draft ←
19:08:20 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
19:09:07 <MartinD> Ivan: there is one criticism we raised at F2F - the motivation doc has bias towards life science, issue we found earlier
Ivan Herman: there is one criticism we raised at F2F - the motivation doc has bias towards life science, issue we found earlier ←
19:09:07 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
19:09:07 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
19:09:17 <MartinD> ... trying to rebalance this bias may be really helpful
... trying to rebalance this bias may be really helpful ←
19:09:27 <christine> +q
Christine Golbreich: +q ←
19:10:01 <MartinD> Ian: (speaking on behalf of Christine) relating that chairs had called for UCs from other domains many times, but I (Christine) relied on other people for it and without feedback I (Christine) obviously worked with all UCs I (Christine) found and got, therfore mainly from LS
Ian Horrocks: (speaking on behalf of Christine) relating that chairs had called for UCs from other domains many times, but I (Christine) relied on other people for it and without feedback I (Christine) obviously worked with all UCs I (Christine) found and got, therfore mainly from LS ←
19:10:08 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
19:10:45 <MartinD> Bijan: two points - what we need to add to the list of things - XML syntax may need a new section (e.g.)
Bijan Parsia: two points - what we need to add to the list of things - XML syntax may need a new section (e.g.) ←
19:11:13 <MartinD> ... we should either have one umbrella section or concrete sections to respond to things raised, so that we don't get the same comments again
... we should either have one umbrella section or concrete sections to respond to things raised, so that we don't get the same comments again ←
19:11:21 <MartinD> ... some comments came from me as well
... some comments came from me as well ←
19:11:44 <MartinD> ... there is a lot of work to be done, but this is only first publicly released working draft
... there is a lot of work to be done, but this is only first publicly released working draft ←
19:11:55 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
19:11:55 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
19:12:07 <MartinD> Ian: the doc is only working draft, correct - there will be changes to it
Ian Horrocks: the doc is only working draft, correct - there will be changes to it ←
19:12:09 <IanH> ack christine
Ian Horrocks: ack christine ←
19:12:39 <MartinD> Ian: let's get back to actions
Ian Horrocks: let's get back to actions ←
19:13:13 <MartinD> ACTION: Ian to sift through Jeremy's / TQ email and web page to filter those aspects requiring further work
ACTION: Ian to sift through Jeremy's / TQ email and web page to filter those aspects requiring further work ←
19:13:13 <trackbot> Created ACTION-273 - Sift through Jeremy's / TQ email and web page to filter those aspects requiring further work [on Ian Horrocks - due 2009-02-04].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-273 - Sift through Jeremy's / TQ email and web page to filter those aspects requiring further work [on Ian Horrocks - due 2009-02-04]. ←
19:13:17 <MartinD> ACTION: Bijan to draft general response w.r.t. motivation issue raised in the TQ email/comment
ACTION: Bijan to draft general response w.r.t. motivation issue raised in the TQ email/comment ←
19:13:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-274 - Draft general response w.r.t. motivation issue raised in the TQ email/comment [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-04].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-274 - Draft general response w.r.t. motivation issue raised in the TQ email/comment [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-04]. ←
19:13:21 <bijan> Or someone else!
Bijan Parsia: Or someone else! ←
19:13:26 <bijan> Oh, too late
Bijan Parsia: Oh, too late ←
19:13:31 <MartinD> Subtopic: Approving responses to comments
19:13:53 <MartinD> Ian: probably concludes that aspect
Ian Horrocks: probably concludes that aspect ←
19:14:12 <MartinD> ... we currently don't have that status column on comments
... we currently don't have that status column on comments ←
19:14:23 <MartinD> ... quite a few issues discussed, people drafted responses, any ready for formal agreement in WG?
... quite a few issues discussed, people drafted responses, any ready for formal agreement in WG? ←
19:14:24 <bijan> First one: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/ALR1
Bijan Parsia: First one: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/ALR1 ←
19:14:29 <pfps> +1
19:14:31 <MartinD> ... we can look at them and move them forward
... we can look at them and move them forward ←
19:14:33 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:14:52 <pfps> ALR1, MS1
Peter Patel-Schneider: ALR1, MS1 ←
19:14:55 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
19:14:55 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
19:14:59 <MartinD> Ian: without owner/status tracking it's abit confusing, but let's try
Ian Horrocks: without owner/status tracking it's abit confusing, but let's try ←
19:15:16 <MartinD> Bijan: the pointer to the first is above
Bijan Parsia: the pointer to the first is above ←
19:15:30 <MartinD> Ian: the actual comment is at the bottom "The WG has decided"
Ian Horrocks: the actual comment is at the bottom "The WG has decided" ←
19:15:35 <pfps> Bijan's response looks fine to me (and quite subdued)
Peter Patel-Schneider: Bijan's response looks fine to me (and quite subdued) ←
19:16:00 <MartinD> Bijan: this was discussed, at least two people saw it
Bijan Parsia: this was discussed, at least two people saw it ←
19:16:07 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:16:16 <pfps> victory!
Peter Patel-Schneider: victory! ←
19:16:27 <MartinD> Ian: unless anybody has a problem, let's declare this done - as soon as boilerplating is ready we can move on
Ian Horrocks: unless anybody has a problem, let's declare this done - as soon as boilerplating is ready we can move on ←
19:16:34 <ivan> q+\
Ivan Herman: q+\ ←
19:16:36 <pfps> MS1, but it requires a technical change
Peter Patel-Schneider: MS1, but it requires a technical change ←
19:16:37 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
19:16:44 <MartinD> ... any other responses in the same category - drafted, ready to go?
... any other responses in the same category - drafted, ready to go? ←
19:16:45 <IanH> ack \
Ian Horrocks: ack \ ←
19:16:49 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
19:16:59 <bijan> There's a decision to be made on Martin Duerst
Bijan Parsia: There's a decision to be made on Martin Duerst ←
19:17:08 <MartinD> Ivan: issue with unicode... in RDF comments, where are we?
Ivan Herman: issue with unicode... in RDF comments, where are we? ←
19:17:20 <bijan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0094.html
Bijan Parsia: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0094.html ←
19:17:27 <MartinD> Bijan: decide how to reply to the issue (I only summarized the point, not replied)
Bijan Parsia: decide how to reply to the issue (I only summarized the point, not replied) ←
19:17:46 <MartinD> ... we can send this to RDF list...
... we can send this to RDF list... ←
19:17:58 <MartinD> ... we talk now about number 5
... we talk now about number 5 ←
19:18:34 <MartinD> ... my proposal - send generic syntax ref doc, as now, may XML syntax too, and .....
... my proposal - send generic syntax ref doc, as now, may XML syntax too, and ..... ←
19:19:14 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:19:16 <michael_schneider> +1 to generic
Michael Schneider: +1 to generic ←
19:19:21 <pfps> rather complex and not optimal, but I guess the legalese is required
Peter Patel-Schneider: rather complex and not optimal, but I guess the legalese is required ←
19:19:21 <MartinD> ... according to conformance doc, we restrict parsing to certain minimal levels, so characters of unicode5 should not be serialized, as tthey are not supported at these levels?
... according to conformance doc, we restrict parsing to certain minimal levels, so characters of unicode5 should not be serialized, as tthey are not supported at these levels? ←
19:19:34 <pfps> no LC for this
Peter Patel-Schneider: no LC for this ←
19:19:48 <MartinD> ... would require some changes to syntax doc, and all other docs referencing unicode
... would require some changes to syntax doc, and all other docs referencing unicode ←
19:19:50 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
19:19:50 <pfps> but we need to document the change
Peter Patel-Schneider: but we need to document the change ←
19:19:57 <MartinD> Ian: how difficult to draft response?
Ian Horrocks: how difficult to draft response? ←
19:20:23 <MartinD> Bijan: we now updated all docs, metacomment to RDF group to tie it normatively to XML...
Bijan Parsia: we now updated all docs, metacomment to RDF group to tie it normatively to XML... ←
19:20:50 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
19:20:51 <ivan> ack ivan
Ivan Herman: ack ivan ←
19:20:56 <MartinD> ... we need to change references, docs and probably consider the conformity doc
... we need to change references, docs and probably consider the conformity doc ←
19:21:12 <MartinD> Ivan: we should make it clear we are aware of the problem
Ivan Herman: we should make it clear we are aware of the problem ←
19:21:25 <MartinD> Ian: Bijan, will you take ownership of this too?
Ian Horrocks: Bijan, will you take ownership of this too? ←
19:21:48 <MartinD> ... somebody needs to own the reply, although not being editor of the touched docs
... somebody needs to own the reply, although not being editor of the touched docs ←
19:21:53 <pfps> Bijan can kick the editors and get them to "do the right thing"
Peter Patel-Schneider: Bijan can kick the editors and get them to "do the right thing" ←
19:22:00 <MartinD> Bijan: happy to coordinate, to track those references
Bijan Parsia: happy to coordinate, to track those references ←
19:22:19 <MartinD> ... will send email to the list to change conformance aspects...
... will send email to the list to change conformance aspects... ←
19:22:21 <christine> +q
Christine Golbreich: +q ←
19:22:25 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:22:30 <MartinD> metacomment -- does this need formal action
metacomment -- does this need formal action ←
19:22:30 <IanH> ack christine
Ian Horrocks: ack christine ←
19:22:57 <bijan> Its' not clear that jim means it as a LC comment
Bijan Parsia: Its' not clear that jim means it as a LC comment ←
19:23:13 <MartinD> ACTION: Bijan to track references to unicode 5 in the current drafts and propose changes needed to the conformance doc
ACTION: Bijan to track references to unicode 5 in the current drafts and propose changes needed to the conformance doc ←
19:23:13 <trackbot> Created ACTION-275 - Track references to unicode 5 in the current drafts and propose changes needed to the conformance doc [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-04].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-275 - Track references to unicode 5 in the current drafts and propose changes needed to the conformance doc [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-04]. ←
19:23:18 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
19:23:37 <IanH> ACTION: Bijan to draft response/actions w.r.t. [5]
ACTION: Bijan to draft response/actions w.r.t. [5] ←
19:23:37 <trackbot> Created ACTION-276 - Draft response/actions w.r.t. [5] [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-04].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-276 - Draft response/actions w.r.t. [5] [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-04]. ←
19:23:52 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:23:53 <MartinD> Topic: Concluding points
19:23:55 <christine> +q
Christine Golbreich: +q ←
19:23:56 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
19:23:56 <ivan> quote - RECOMMENDATION FROM THE AC MEMBER OF RPI
Ivan Herman: quote - RECOMMENDATION FROM THE AC MEMBER OF RPI ←
19:23:56 <ivan> I think the WG should seriously consider taking the profiles off of the Rec track for now, getting the rest through, and then putting the profiles either into a separate CR or leaving them as WG notes.
Ivan Herman: I think the WG should seriously consider taking the profiles off of the Rec track for now, getting the rest through, and then putting the profiles either into a separate CR or leaving them as WG notes. ←
19:24:04 <MartinD> Bijan: there is also points from Jim following our discussion, but they are not in the category LC
Bijan Parsia: there is also points from Jim following our discussion, but they are not in the category LC ←
19:24:15 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:24:24 <IanH> ack christine
Ian Horrocks: ack christine ←
19:24:27 <bijan> q+ to point at another issue to dispose of
Bijan Parsia: q+ to point at another issue to dispose of ←
19:24:33 <MartinD> Ian: there is formal suggestion from AC member... as quoted above
Ian Horrocks: there is formal suggestion from AC member... as quoted above ←
19:24:48 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
19:25:02 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
19:25:02 <Zakim> bijan, you wanted to point at another issue to dispose of
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan, you wanted to point at another issue to dispose of ←
19:25:06 <MartinD> ... we have treated comments from other members of WG as last call comments, but not sure how to treat this specific one
... we have treated comments from other members of WG as last call comments, but not sure how to treat this specific one ←
19:25:15 <ivan> q-
Ivan Herman: q- ←
19:25:28 <MartinD> Bijan: chair may want to ask the sender if they want to have their comment as LC or not
Bijan Parsia: chair may want to ask the sender if they want to have their comment as LC or not ←
19:25:54 <MartinD> ... if they want to be LC commenting, fair enough... if not, no need to reply formally at this stage
... if they want to be LC commenting, fair enough... if not, no need to reply formally at this stage ←
19:26:04 <MartinD> Ian: this is about having some more documentation
Ian Horrocks: this is about having some more documentation ←
19:26:15 <christine> have to know before reply
Christine Golbreich: have to know before reply ←
19:26:40 <pfps> go, Bijan, go!
Peter Patel-Schneider: go, Bijan, go! ←
19:26:44 <MartinD> Bijan: we already made changes, we only need to send an email - does that satisfy the needs/points?
Bijan Parsia: we already made changes, we only need to send an email - does that satisfy the needs/points? ←
19:26:47 <bijan> Oy
Bijan Parsia: Oy ←
19:27:01 <bijan> I don't care
Bijan Parsia: I don't care ←
19:27:13 <MartinD> Ian: don't mind doing this - Bijan or myself?
Ian Horrocks: don't mind doing this - Bijan or myself? ←
19:27:18 <MartinD> Bijan: I can do it
Bijan Parsia: I can do it ←
19:27:50 <MartinD> Ian: going reasonably well -
Ian Horrocks: going reasonably well - ←
19:28:10 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:28:17 <MartinD> ... alan and me will go through the comments and filter those needing further action, talk, and which can be sorted by "polite acknowledgement"
... alan and me will go through the comments and filter those needing further action, talk, and which can be sorted by "polite acknowledgement" ←
19:28:34 <MartinD> Bijan: this is not something that chairs *must* do, somebody else can do it
Bijan Parsia: this is not something that chairs *must* do, somebody else can do it ←
19:28:39 <msmith> bye
Mike Smith: bye ←
19:28:41 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: -Evan_Wallace ←
19:28:42 <Zakim> -msmith
Zakim IRC Bot: -msmith ←
19:28:43 <Zakim> -Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: -Zhe ←
19:28:45 <Zakim> -bmotik.a
Zakim IRC Bot: -bmotik.a ←
19:28:45 <Zakim> -bmotik
Zakim IRC Bot: -bmotik ←
19:28:46 <Zakim> -bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: -bijan ←
19:28:46 <Zakim> -Achille
Zakim IRC Bot: -Achille ←
19:28:46 <MartinD> Ian: this concludes today's talk then...
Ian Horrocks: this concludes today's talk then... ←
19:28:47 <Zakim> -pfps
Zakim IRC Bot: -pfps ←
19:28:48 <Zakim> -baojie
Zakim IRC Bot: -baojie ←
19:28:51 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
19:28:52 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
19:28:54 <Zakim> -IanH
Zakim IRC Bot: -IanH ←
19:28:55 <ratnesh> bye
Ratnesh Sahay: bye ←
19:28:55 <MartinD> zakim, who was here
zakim, who was here ←
19:28:56 <Zakim> -christine
Zakim IRC Bot: -christine ←
19:28:58 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who was here', MartinD
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'who was here', MartinD ←
19:29:01 <Zakim> -ratnesh
Zakim IRC Bot: -ratnesh ←
19:29:08 <Zakim> -michael_schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: -michael_schneider ←
19:29:14 <bijan> Ivan, I'm sending the rdf comment to where? and on behalf of the group?
Bijan Parsia: Ivan, I'm sending the rdf comment to where? and on behalf of the group? ←
19:29:15 <Zhe> bye
This revision (#2) generated 2009-01-29 14:56:15 UTC by 'mdzbor', comments: "Minor change of Christine's records"