00:00:00 <scribenick> PRESENT: bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, Michael Schneider (muted), uli (muted), Alan Ruttenberg, Ivan, Bernardo, Christine, Jie, Mike Smith, Peter Patel-Schneider, zhe, Martin
17:52:54 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/02/04-owl-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/02/04-owl-irc ←
17:53:14 <Rinke> ScribeNick: Rinke
(Scribe set to Rinke Hoekstra)
17:54:48 <bijan> zakim, who is here?
Bijan Parsia: zakim, who is here? ←
17:54:48 <Zakim> sorry, bijan, I don't know what conference this is
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, bijan, I don't know what conference this is ←
17:54:49 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace ←
17:54:54 <bijan> zakim, this is owl
Bijan Parsia: zakim, this is owl ←
17:54:55 <Zakim> ok, bijan; that matches SW_OWL()1:00PM
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, bijan; that matches SW_OWL()1:00PM ←
17:55:05 <bijan> zakim, who is here?
Bijan Parsia: zakim, who is here? ←
17:55:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ??P1 ←
17:55:07 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace ←
17:55:12 <bijan> zakim, ??p1 is me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, ??p1 is me ←
17:55:13 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bijan; got it ←
17:55:32 <bmotik> Zakim, this will be owl
Boris Motik: Zakim, this will be owl ←
17:55:32 <Zakim> ok, bmotik, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM already started
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, bmotik, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM already started ←
17:56:29 <Zakim> +??P0
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P0 ←
17:56:37 <Zakim> + +86528aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +86528aaaa ←
17:56:43 <Rinke> zakim, ??P0 is me
zakim, ??P0 is me ←
17:56:43 <Zakim> +Rinke; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Rinke; got it ←
17:56:50 <bmotik> Zakim, +86528aaaa is me
Boris Motik: Zakim, +86528aaaa is me ←
17:56:50 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bmotik; got it ←
17:56:54 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
17:56:54 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
17:57:00 <Rinke> zakim, mute me
zakim, mute me ←
17:57:00 <Zakim> Rinke should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Rinke should now be muted ←
17:57:26 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
17:57:26 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
17:57:48 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: +Evan_Wallace ←
17:58:07 <alanr> FYI I am traveling and a promised spot for me to chair from did not materialize. I have contacted Ian, who I expect to be here. If not I will chair using sometimes flakey skype connection in hotel room.
Alan Ruttenberg: FYI I am traveling and a promised spot for me to chair from did not materialize. I have contacted Ian, who I expect to be here. If not I will chair using sometimes flakey skype connection in hotel room. ←
17:58:18 <alanr> ah, there you are Ian
Alan Ruttenberg: ah, there you are Ian ←
17:58:39 <IanH> yes
Ian Horrocks: yes ←
17:58:56 <alanr> did you get my text/email?
Alan Ruttenberg: did you get my text/email? ←
17:58:58 <Zakim> +Ian_Horrocks
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ian_Horrocks ←
17:59:07 <IanH> about chairing? yes
Ian Horrocks: about chairing? yes ←
17:59:12 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
17:59:29 <Rinke> rrsagent, make records public
rrsagent, make records public ←
17:59:30 <alanr> ok. apologies for the late notice (which is less than I got when they didn't cough up the promised room)
Alan Ruttenberg: ok. apologies for the late notice (which is less than I got when they didn't cough up the promised room) ←
17:59:41 <IanH> no prob
Ian Horrocks: no prob ←
18:00:05 <Zakim> +[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
18:00:12 <Achille> Zakim, IBM is me
Achille Fokoue: Zakim, IBM is me ←
18:00:12 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Achille; got it ←
18:00:17 <IanH> IanH has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.02.04/Agenda
Ian Horrocks: IanH has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.02.04/Agenda ←
18:00:32 <IanH> ScribeNick: Rinke
18:00:51 <IanH> zakim, Ian_Horrocks is IanH
Ian Horrocks: zakim, Ian_Horrocks is IanH ←
18:00:51 <Zakim> +IanH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +IanH; got it ←
18:01:00 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
18:01:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille ←
18:01:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace ←
18:01:14 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
18:01:21 <Zakim> +??P13
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P13 ←
18:01:29 <schneid> zakim, ??P13 is me
Michael Schneider: zakim, ??P13 is me ←
18:01:29 <Zakim> +schneid; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +schneid; got it ←
18:01:32 <Zakim> + +0186528aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +0186528aabb ←
18:01:33 <schneid> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
18:01:33 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted ←
18:01:37 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
18:01:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), +0186528aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), +0186528aabb ←
18:01:47 <Zakim> On IRC I see uli_, uli, schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see uli_, uli, schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace ←
18:01:52 <Zakim> +??P15
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P15 ←
18:01:54 <Zakim> - +0186528aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: - +0186528aabb ←
18:02:01 <uli> zakim, ??P15 is me
Uli Sattler: zakim, ??P15 is me ←
18:02:01 <Zakim> +uli; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +uli; got it ←
18:02:03 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
18:02:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), uli
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), uli ←
18:02:05 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
18:02:11 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
18:02:13 <Zakim> On IRC I see uli_, uli, schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see uli_, uli, schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace ←
18:02:19 <Rinke> topic: Admin
18:02:27 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
18:02:27 <Rinke> Roll call
Roll call ←
18:02:28 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), uli (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), uli (muted) ←
18:02:35 <Zakim> On IRC I see uli_, uli, schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see uli_, uli, schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace ←
18:02:37 <Rinke> subtopic: agenda amendments?
18:02:40 <Zakim> + +0186528aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: + +0186528aacc ←
18:02:46 <bijan> me!
Bijan Parsia: me! ←
18:02:49 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, +0186528aacc is me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, +0186528aacc is me ←
18:02:49 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bcuencagrau; got it ←
18:02:51 <Rinke> no amendments
no amendments ←
18:02:53 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me ←
18:02:53 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should now be muted ←
18:02:57 <bijan> I ahve an agenda amendment
Bijan Parsia: I ahve an agenda amendment ←
18:02:57 <Rinke> PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (28 January)
PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (28 January) ←
18:03:12 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
18:03:17 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
18:03:18 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
18:03:19 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
18:03:19 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
18:03:21 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
18:03:23 <Rinke> RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes (28 January)
RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes (28 January) ←
18:03:30 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:03:44 <Zakim> +??P9
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P9 ←
18:03:48 <Rinke> Bijan finished action-275, move to pending
Bijan finished ACTION-275, move to pending ←
18:03:53 <alanr> zakim, ??P9 is alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, ??P9 is alanr ←
18:03:53 <Zakim> +alanr; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +alanr; got it ←
18:03:57 <Rinke> subtopic: action item status
18:04:09 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:04:25 <Rinke> IanH: Action-271, Action-276, and Action-277 done?
Ian Horrocks: ACTION-271, ACTION-276, and ACTION-277 done? ←
18:04:35 <Rinke> bijan: Action-265 is done as well...
Bijan Parsia: ACTION-265 is done as well... ←
18:04:35 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:04:44 <Rinke> bijan: looking at the wrong agenda
Bijan Parsia: looking at the wrong agenda ←
18:04:59 <Rinke> IanH: all of these are done
Ian Horrocks: all of these are done ←
18:05:10 <Rinke> due and overdue actions
due and overdue actions ←
18:05:26 <alanr> 247 done. 264 not (scheduling issues)
Alan Ruttenberg: 247 done. 264 not (scheduling issues) ←
18:05:31 <Rinke> bijan: with regard to action-276, I drafted a response, should I send it?
Bijan Parsia: with regard to ACTION-276, I drafted a response, should I send it? ←
18:05:44 <Rinke> IanH: discuss this with the last call comments
Ian Horrocks: discuss this with the last call comments ←
18:05:45 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:06:08 <alanr> the action is done - a proposal has been made
Alan Ruttenberg: the action is done - a proposal has been made ←
18:06:17 <Zakim> + +1.202.408.aadd
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.202.408.aadd ←
18:06:22 <Rinke> ianh: Action-247 leave it there, lots of conclusion.
Ian Horrocks: ACTION-247 leave it there, lots of conclusion. ←
18:06:28 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me ←
18:06:28 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted ←
18:06:29 <Rinke> IanH: agree, proposal has been made, consider that done
Ian Horrocks: agree, proposal has been made, consider that done ←
18:06:31 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:06:33 <Rinke> action-264
18:06:40 <alanr> 264 scheduling snafus
Alan Ruttenberg: 264 scheduling snafus ←
18:06:41 <Rinke> IanH: any progress on that one? Alan?
Ian Horrocks: any progress on that one? Alan? ←
18:06:41 <alanr> not done
Alan Ruttenberg: not done ←
18:06:52 <Rinke> IanH: ok, push that till next week
Ian Horrocks: ok, push that till next week ←
18:06:55 <Rinke> action-269
18:07:00 <bijan> It was mooted long agao
Bijan Parsia: It was mooted long agao ←
18:07:05 <bijan> It's moot
Bijan Parsia: It's moot ←
18:07:07 <bijan> Kill it
Bijan Parsia: Kill it ←
18:07:10 <alanr> closed last week
Alan Ruttenberg: closed last week ←
18:07:13 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:07:20 <ewallace> +1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
18:07:22 <Rinke> bijan: moot after we assigned it
Bijan Parsia: moot after we assigned it ←
18:07:27 <Rinke> IanH: consider it closed
Ian Horrocks: consider it closed ←
18:07:29 <Rinke> action-270
18:07:50 <Rinke> bmotik: would prefer a revision of the whole document, will be a bunch of other changes. Prefer to do them all at once
Boris Motik: would prefer a revision of the whole document, will be a bunch of other changes. Prefer to do them all at once ←
18:07:53 <alanr> this makes tracking much harder.
Alan Ruttenberg: this makes tracking much harder. ←
18:08:00 <alanr> Better to do them incrementally where possible.
Alan Ruttenberg: Better to do them incrementally where possible. ←
18:08:03 <Zakim> + +1.603.897.aaee
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.603.897.aaee ←
18:08:07 <Rinke> bmotik: decide at F2F, one action, and I'll do it.
Boris Motik: decide at F2F, one action, and I'll do it. ←
18:08:19 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
18:08:26 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:08:29 <Rinke> IanH: hm, ok, we'll leave it until you build up the necessary amendments that need to be made
Ian Horrocks: hm, ok, we'll leave it until you build up the necessary amendments that need to be made ←
18:08:31 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
18:08:36 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
18:08:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan, Rinke (muted), bmotik, Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), Ivan, alanr, msmith,
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see bijan, Rinke (muted), bmotik, Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), Ivan, alanr, msmith, ←
18:08:42 <Zakim> ... +1.603.897.aaee
Zakim IRC Bot: ... +1.603.897.aaee ←
18:08:44 <Zakim> On IRC I see Zhe, baojie, msmith, ivan, uli_, uli, schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Zhe, baojie, msmith, ivan, uli_, uli, schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace ←
18:08:51 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:08:53 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
18:08:56 <Rinke> alanr: there are items that can be incrementally done, more easily, that would make identifying changes to people more easy
Alan Ruttenberg: there are items that can be incrementally done, more easily, that would make identifying changes to people more easy ←
18:09:00 <alanr> q-
Alan Ruttenberg: q- ←
18:09:03 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:09:07 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
18:09:33 <Zakim> +??P4
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4 ←
18:09:39 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:09:43 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
18:09:49 <Rinke> IanH: I take that point as well. I see Boris' point as well. Where there are clear isolated changes, doing them directly can be done as well
Ian Horrocks: I take that point as well. I see Boris' point as well. Where there are clear isolated changes, doing them directly can be done as well ←
18:09:56 <Christine> zakim, ??P4 is christine
Christine Golbreich: zakim, ??P4 is christine ←
18:09:56 <Zakim> +christine; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +christine; got it ←
18:10:09 <Rinke> bijan: these are not at odds, we can do them incrementally in one go.
Bijan Parsia: these are not at odds, we can do them incrementally in one go. ←
18:10:29 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aaff
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.518.276.aaff ←
18:10:33 <Rinke> bijan: editorial changes... would be more sensible to make them part of one big rereview
Bijan Parsia: editorial changes... would be more sensible to make them part of one big rereview ←
18:10:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:10:44 <baojie> Zakim, aaff is baojie
Jie Bao: Zakim, aaff is baojie ←
18:10:44 <Zakim> +baojie; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +baojie; got it ←
18:11:03 <Rinke> IanH: we can take it on a case-by-case basis. The key-thing can be done, respond to jim, cross it of the list
Ian Horrocks: we can take it on a case-by-case basis. The key-thing can be done, respond to jim, cross it of the list ←
18:11:08 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:11:10 <bmotik> q-
Boris Motik: q- ←
18:11:13 <Rinke> IanH: it doesn't make sense to do global comments in isolation
Ian Horrocks: it doesn't make sense to do global comments in isolation ←
18:11:14 <IanH> ack boris
Ian Horrocks: ack boris ←
18:11:20 <Rinke> bmotik: exactly
Boris Motik: exactly ←
18:11:39 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
18:11:42 <Rinke> IanH: case-by-case basis. For this particular comment, doing it right now does not make much sense
Ian Horrocks: case-by-case basis. For this particular comment, doing it right now does not make much sense ←
18:11:49 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
18:11:49 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
18:11:49 <Rinke> IanH: we'll leave it open
Ian Horrocks: we'll leave it open ←
18:12:03 <bmotik> -)
Boris Motik: -) ←
18:12:07 <Rinke> IanH: would be good for you to have the pressure of an open action
Ian Horrocks: would be good for you to have the pressure of an open action ←
18:12:09 <alanr> "it will do you good"
Alan Ruttenberg: "it will do you good" ←
18:12:10 <Rinke> aciton-275
aciton-275 ←
18:12:21 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:12:22 <Rinke> IanH: that's done, bijan?
Ian Horrocks: that's done, bijan? ←
18:12:28 <Rinke> bijan: all parts of it are done
Bijan Parsia: all parts of it are done ←
18:12:36 <Rinke> action-273
18:12:42 <Rinke> IanH: have not finished it yet
Ian Horrocks: have not finished it yet ←
18:12:50 <Rinke> IanH: (that's me slapping my own wrist)
Ian Horrocks: (that's me slapping my own wrist) ←
18:12:53 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:12:54 <Rinke> IanH: done by next week
Ian Horrocks: done by next week ←
18:13:00 <Rinke> bijan: would you like to reassign it?
Bijan Parsia: would you like to reassign it? ←
18:13:07 <Rinke> IanH: would be happy to work with you on it
Ian Horrocks: would be happy to work with you on it ←
18:13:15 <Rinke> action-272
18:13:25 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:13:33 <Rinke> IanH: wiki page by christine to deal with comments on new features and rationale. Is christine here?
Ian Horrocks: wiki page by christine to deal with comments on new features and rationale. Is christine here? ←
18:13:40 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:13:46 <Rinke> Christine: it was too early to do it, I changed the due date
Christine Golbreich: it was too early to do it, I changed the due date ←
18:13:52 <Rinke> IanH: ok, fine.
Ian Horrocks: ok, fine. ←
18:14:07 <Rinke> subtopic: f2f5
18:14:23 <Rinke> IanH: make clear participation and non-participation wrt f2f5
Ian Horrocks: make clear participation and non-participation wrt f2f5 ←
18:14:28 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
18:14:37 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
18:14:37 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
18:14:38 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
18:14:50 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:14:53 <Rinke> IanH: 14 people in all, that's not a lot. There should be more people who know whether they can make it or not
Ian Horrocks: 14 people in all, that's not a lot. There should be more people who know whether they can make it or not ←
18:14:57 <Rinke> topic: last call comments
18:15:32 <Rinke> IanH: some responses have already been drafted, for us to say yay or nay
Ian Horrocks: some responses have already been drafted, for us to say yay or nay ←
18:15:49 <Rinke> Subtopic: MS1
18:15:49 <Rinke> IanH: MSI just a bug, changes were made to fix the bug
Ian Horrocks: MSI just a bug, changes were made to fix the bug ←
18:15:52 <ivan> pointer to the entry?
Ivan Herman: pointer to the entry? ←
18:15:56 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:16:00 <IanH> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1
Ian Horrocks: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1 ←
18:16:09 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
18:16:13 <alanr> to close
Alan Ruttenberg: to close ←
18:16:16 <msmith> +1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
18:16:16 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: +Peter_Patel-Schneider ←
18:16:19 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
18:16:23 <Rinke> IanH: happy to accept the change?
Ian Horrocks: happy to accept the change? ←
18:16:31 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
18:16:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:16:51 <IanH> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1
Ian Horrocks: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1 ←
18:16:54 <Rinke> IanH: peter, perhaps you can briefly explain the changes you made in response to MS1
Ian Horrocks: peter, perhaps you can briefly explain the changes you made in response to MS1 ←
18:17:37 <Rinke> pfps: under the last call version of the mapping from RDF back to the FS, it did not check for lists that shared tails, or crossed or looped. I changed the wording to forbid these kinds of situations.
Peter Patel-Schneider: under the last call version of the mapping from RDF back to the FS, it did not check for lists that shared tails, or crossed or looped. I changed the wording to forbid these kinds of situations. ←
18:17:47 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:17:55 <Rinke> pfps: requires all lists to be separate
Peter Patel-Schneider: requires all lists to be separate ←
18:18:10 <msmith> I'm ok without getting an email :)
Mike Smith: I'm ok without getting an email :) ←
18:18:11 <alanr> right
Alan Ruttenberg: right ←
18:18:18 <Rinke> IanH: given that this is an internal LC comment... do we need to send an official message to msmith
Ian Horrocks: given that this is an internal LC comment... do we need to send an official message to msmith ←
18:18:28 <Rinke> pfps: but we should list it as a post LC change
Peter Patel-Schneider: but we should list it as a post LC change ←
18:18:48 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
18:18:49 <alanr> emoting positively towards Mike for finding a bug.
Alan Ruttenberg: emoting positively towards Mike for finding a bug. ←
18:18:50 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
18:18:50 <Zhe> +1
18:18:52 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
18:19:01 <baojie> +1
18:19:13 <alanr> and peter for fixing :)
Alan Ruttenberg: and peter for fixing :) ←
18:19:18 <msmith> +1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
18:19:20 <sandro> :-)
Sandro Hawke: :-) ←
18:20:03 <IanH> PROPOSED: Changes described in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1 are an adequate response to comment MS1
PROPOSED: Changes described in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1 are an adequate response to comment MS1 ←
18:20:05 <Achille> +1
Achille Fokoue: +1 ←
18:20:06 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
18:20:08 <ewallace> +1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
18:20:15 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
18:20:15 <Rinke> Rinke: +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
18:20:19 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
18:20:23 <Zhe> +1
18:20:23 <schneid> +1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
18:20:23 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
18:20:30 <bcuencagrau> +1
18:20:33 <IanH> RESOLVED: Changes described in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1 are an adequate response to comment MS1
RESOLVED: Changes described in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1 are an adequate response to comment MS1 ←
18:20:37 <pfps> +1
18:20:47 <pfps> q+
18:20:54 <Rinke> IanH: now MD1 (unicode), comment from Martin Duerr
Ian Horrocks: now MD1 (unicode), comment from Martin Duerr ←
18:21:03 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
18:21:11 <Rinke> pfps: backtrack a sec, do we now send out a response?
Peter Patel-Schneider: backtrack a sec, do we now send out a response? ←
18:21:39 <schneid> I think, people from outside watching this list will wait for a response
Michael Schneider: I think, people from outside watching this list will wait for a response ←
18:21:49 <Rinke> IanH: no, not on this one. Actually this was sent to public-owl-comments. It might be good to send an official response to public-owl-comments.
Ian Horrocks: no, not on this one. Actually this was sent to public-owl-comments. It might be good to send an official response to public-owl-comments. ←
18:22:01 <ivan> s/Duerr/Duerst/
Ivan Herman: s/Duerr/Duerst/ ←
18:22:26 <Rinke> IanH: peter, can you take the task of sending a response to mike on the public-owl-comments list
Ian Horrocks: peter, can you take the task of sending a response to mike on the public-owl-comments list ←
18:23:20 <Rinke> (some discussion on where the response will be archived)
(some discussion on where the response will be archived) ←
18:23:52 <Rinke> IanH: if decide we should try to respond "in thread" then we should modify the page..
Ian Horrocks: if decide we should try to respond "in thread" then we should modify the page.. ←
18:24:33 <Rinke> sandro: don't know whether it's worth making changes to the ones we already responded to.
Sandro Hawke: don't know whether it's worth making changes to the ones we already responded to. ←
18:25:07 <Rinke> bijan: isn't it enough to have everything in one place (Rinke: rough paraphrase)
Bijan Parsia: isn't it enough to have everything in one place (Rinke: rough paraphrase) ←
18:25:15 <Rinke> IanH: we should decide whether we respond in thread
Ian Horrocks: we should decide whether we respond in thread ←
18:25:23 <Rinke> sandro: people should, but not must, respond in thread
Sandro Hawke: people should, but not must, respond in thread ←
18:25:38 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:25:40 <Rinke> IanH: if you can respond in thread, that's a good thing. Ok, we're done with that?
Ian Horrocks: if you can respond in thread, that's a good thing. Ok, we're done with that? ←
18:26:04 <Rinke> bijan: I think that's just dumb. I like having straightforward directions for sending responses.
Bijan Parsia: I think that's just dumb. I like having straightforward directions for sending responses. ←
18:26:39 <Rinke> sandro: there's only one done that was not done in thread
Sandro Hawke: there's only one done that was not done in thread ←
18:26:54 <Rinke> IanH: if anything else went wrong, then there was something wrong with the list
Ian Horrocks: if anything else went wrong, then there was something wrong with the list ←
18:27:10 <Rinke> IanH: then we come back to MD1 (unicode) Martin Duerst
Ian Horrocks: then we come back to MD1 (unicode) Martin Duerst ←
18:27:25 <ivan> +1 to the response
Ivan Herman: +1 to the response ←
18:27:27 <alanr> +1 to respond
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 to respond ←
18:27:29 <Rinke> IanH: response drafted by bijan, discussed by email. Anyone would like to object?
Ian Horrocks: response drafted by bijan, discussed by email. Anyone would like to object? ←
18:27:43 <alanr> yes, already agreed to be formal
Alan Ruttenberg: yes, already agreed to be formal ←
18:27:45 <Rinke> IanH: do we need to do formal proposals, sandro, ivan?
Ian Horrocks: do we need to do formal proposals, sandro, ivan? ←
18:27:51 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:27:56 <Rinke> sandro: we don't need to vote on it, if nobody cares
Sandro Hawke: we don't need to vote on it, if nobody cares ←
18:28:04 <alanr> remember peter's discussion ?
Alan Ruttenberg: remember peter's discussion ? ←
18:28:08 <Rinke> sandro: if hearing no objections, it's resolved
Sandro Hawke: if hearing no objections, it's resolved ←
18:28:13 <Rinke> IanH: you wanted to be formal?
Ian Horrocks: you wanted to be formal? ←
18:28:39 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:28:43 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:28:52 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
18:28:56 <Rinke> alanr: if I remember correctly, peter asked that any changes we made to the documents should be formally approved. There should be something in the record. Hearing no objections, but putting a resolved in would be good.
Alan Ruttenberg: if I remember correctly, peter asked that any changes we made to the documents should be formally approved. There should be something in the record. Hearing no objections, but putting a resolved in would be good. ←
18:29:07 <alanr> I'll go with what pfps thinks on this issue
Alan Ruttenberg: I'll go with what pfps thinks on this issue ←
18:29:23 <pfps> no document change (so far) so no need to vote, I think
Peter Patel-Schneider: no document change (so far) so no need to vote, I think ←
18:29:23 <Rinke> bijan: are we voting on the text I sent in? I only located the references, and sent an email: no documents have been changed yet. What are we voting on?
Bijan Parsia: are we voting on the text I sent in? I only located the references, and sent an email: no documents have been changed yet. What are we voting on? ←
18:29:25 <schneid> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
18:29:26 <alanr> ok
Alan Ruttenberg: ok ←
18:29:29 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
18:29:29 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should no longer be muted ←
18:29:29 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:29:32 <IanH> ack schneid
Ian Horrocks: ack schneid ←
18:29:52 <schneid> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
18:29:52 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted ←
18:29:54 <Rinke> schneid: I suggest we vote or not, but keep it on the list, on the queue, and flush the queue in one go.
Michael Schneider: I suggest we vote or not, but keep it on the list, on the queue, and flush the queue in one go. ←
18:30:04 <Rinke> bijan: not send the response before the work has been done
Bijan Parsia: not send the response before the work has been done ←
18:30:18 <ivan> we need to action the editors
Ivan Herman: we need to action the editors ←
18:30:19 <Rinke> IanH: we are happy with the response, but we need to make the changes in question
Ian Horrocks: we are happy with the response, but we need to make the changes in question ←
18:30:26 <Rinke> bijan: we need to action people appropriately
Bijan Parsia: we need to action people appropriately ←
18:30:30 <ivan> :-) with the response
Ivan Herman: :-) with the response ←
18:30:31 <bijan> I am!
Bijan Parsia: I am! ←
18:30:33 <Rinke> IanH: are we happy with the response? I was happy
Ian Horrocks: are we happy with the response? I was happy ←
18:30:35 <schneid> +1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
18:30:59 <Rinke> RESOLVED: the response to MD1 is appropriate, http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1
RESOLVED: the response to MD1 is appropriate, http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1 ←
18:31:14 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
18:31:17 <IanH> RESOLVED: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1 is an appropriate response to MD1
RESOLVED: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1 is an appropriate response to MD1 ←
18:31:32 <Zhe> noise
18:31:38 <ivan> noise noise noise
Ivan Herman: noise noise noise ←
18:31:38 <bijan> zakim, who is talking?
Bijan Parsia: zakim, who is talking? ←
18:31:39 <sandro> zakim, who is talking?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is talking? ←
18:31:44 <uli> pfew!
Uli Sattler: pfew! ←
18:31:45 <ivan> yes
Ivan Herman: yes ←
18:31:51 <Zakim> bijan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: IanH (59%), Sandro (5%)
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: IanH (59%), Sandro (5%) ←
18:31:53 <schneid> for comparison, I got a whole bunch of answers to my SKOS LC comments all on the same day
Michael Schneider: for comparison, I got a whole bunch of answers to my SKOS LC comments all on the same day ←
18:31:56 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:32:03 <Zakim> sandro, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: bijan (46%), IanH (47%), Sandro (5%)
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: bijan (46%), IanH (47%), Sandro (5%) ←
18:32:06 <Rinke> IanH: bijan, which documents need changing here?
Ian Horrocks: bijan, which documents need changing here? ←
18:32:32 <Rinke> bijan: syntax, I can do that... actually there's an issue. I know what to do for the unicode reference.
Bijan Parsia: syntax, I can do that... actually there's an issue. I know what to do for the unicode reference. ←
18:32:50 <Rinke> bijan: but for XML and RDF there is still the question on how to draft what we're going to do
Bijan Parsia: but for XML and RDF there is still the question on how to draft what we're going to do ←
18:33:14 <Rinke> bijan: for unicode, syntax, ms, and internationalized string, and ... needs changing
Bijan Parsia: for unicode, syntax, ms, and internationalized string, and ... needs changing ←
18:33:44 <Rinke> bijan: i believe we're inconsistent with references to unicode.
Bijan Parsia: i believe we're inconsistent with references to unicode. ←
18:34:01 <Rinke> IanH: if we are happy with that, and it answers his actual comment, then we should do that
Ian Horrocks: if we are happy with that, and it answers his actual comment, then we should do that ←
18:34:33 <Rinke> bijan: we now have syntax pointing to XML 1.1, which I think is wrong. And then it also refers to the RDF syntax, which it shouldn't. Everything else is actually fine
Bijan Parsia: we now have syntax pointing to XML 1.1, which I think is wrong. And then it also refers to the RDF syntax, which it shouldn't. Everything else is actually fine ←
18:34:38 <Rinke> IanH: only syntax?
Ian Horrocks: only syntax? ←
18:35:01 <Rinke> bijan: no, all the ones I mentioned before, and rdf:text
Bijan Parsia: no, all the ones I mentioned before, and rdf:text ←
18:35:03 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
18:35:06 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
18:35:14 <Rinke> bijan: just give me a global action to do all the unicode changes
Bijan Parsia: just give me a global action to do all the unicode changes ←
18:35:19 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:35:27 <bijan> Unicode The Unicode Consortium, The Unicode Standard, Version 5.1.0, ISBN 0-321-48091-0, as updated from time to time by the publication of new versions. (See http://www.unicode.org/unicode/standard/versions for the latest version and additional information on versions of the standard and of the Unicode Character Database).
Bijan Parsia: Unicode The Unicode Consortium, The Unicode Standard, Version 5.1.0, ISBN 0-321-48091-0, as updated from time to time by the publication of new versions. (See http://www.unicode.org/unicode/standard/versions for the latest version and additional information on versions of the standard and of the Unicode Character Database). ←
18:35:35 <Rinke> ivan: just a very small issue on the rdf:text, please contact the RIF person to take on this.
Ivan Herman: just a very small issue on the rdf:text, please contact the RIF person to take on this. ←
18:35:43 <Rinke> bijan: could Jie take this on?
Bijan Parsia: could Jie take this on? ←
18:36:14 <Rinke> IanH: are you able to take on the action to take on the change to the rdf:text document.
Ian Horrocks: are you able to take on the action to take on the change to the rdf:text document. ←
18:36:26 <Rinke> baojie: I can do that
18:36:41 <Rinke> yes
yes ←
18:37:15 <Rinke> ACTION, baojie to make the necessary changes to the rdf:text document, given the response to MD1 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1)
ACTION, baojie to make the necessary changes to the rdf:text document, given the response to MD1 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1) ←
18:38:20 <Rinke> action: baojie to make the necessary changes to the rdf:text document, given the response to MD1 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1)
ACTION: baojie to make the necessary changes to the rdf:text document, given the response to MD1 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1) ←
18:38:20 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - baojie
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - baojie ←
18:38:30 <Rinke> action: jie to make the necessary changes to the rdf:text document, given the response to MD1 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1)
ACTION: jie to make the necessary changes to the rdf:text document, given the response to MD1 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1) ←
18:38:31 <trackbot> Created ACTION-278 - Make the necessary changes to the rdf:text document, given the response to MD1 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1) [on Jie Bao - due 2009-02-11].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-278 - Make the necessary changes to the rdf:text document, given the response to MD1 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1) [on Jie Bao - due 2009-02-11]. ←
18:39:00 <Rinke> subtopic: JH1
18:39:00 <Rinke> IanH: JH1 (keys), where bijan drafted a proposed response
Ian Horrocks: JH1 (keys), where bijan drafted a proposed response ←
18:39:02 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:39:15 <Rinke> IanH: needed an additional example to the document
Ian Horrocks: needed an additional example to the document ←
18:39:25 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:39:27 <Christine> +q
Christine Golbreich: +q ←
18:39:31 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
18:39:31 <ivan> ack ivan
Ivan Herman: ack ivan ←
18:39:32 <Rinke> bijan: Jim was happy with the additional line to the document, that I sent to the mailing list
Bijan Parsia: Jim was happy with the additional line to the document, that I sent to the mailing list ←
18:39:37 <IanH> ack Christine
Ian Horrocks: ack Christine ←
18:40:01 <Rinke> ACTION: bijan to make the necessary changes to the documents given the response to MD1 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1)
ACTION: bijan to make the necessary changes to the documents given the response to MD1 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1) ←
18:40:01 <trackbot> Created ACTION-279 - Make the necessary changes to the documents given the response to MD1 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1) [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-11].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-279 - Make the necessary changes to the documents given the response to MD1 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1) [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-11]. ←
18:40:21 <Rinke> IanH: no general agreement on whether this is the appropriate response
Ian Horrocks: no general agreement on whether this is the appropriate response ←
18:40:37 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:40:38 <Rinke> IanH: I don't want that discussion on the teleconf (waste of time). Bring this back next week.
Ian Horrocks: I don't want that discussion on the teleconf (waste of time). Bring this back next week. ←
18:40:41 <alanr> recommend discuss on chairs before that
Alan Ruttenberg: recommend discuss on chairs before that ←
18:40:48 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
18:40:55 <Rinke> IanH: after we have discussed the response via email
Ian Horrocks: after we have discussed the response via email ←
18:41:02 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:41:07 <Rinke> bijan: can I add the change to the document?
Bijan Parsia: can I add the change to the document? ←
18:41:09 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
18:41:16 <Rinke> IanH: is this affected by the critique on the response?
Ian Horrocks: is this affected by the critique on the response? ←
18:41:16 <uli> "Please note that we have added more extensive documentation of hasKey feature in the Syntax, a better explanation in the RDF-Based Semantics, and more documentation in the N"
Uli Sattler: "Please note that we have added more extensive documentation of hasKey feature in the Syntax, a better explanation in the RDF-Based Semantics, and more documentation in the N" ←
18:41:25 <uli> ...is the suggested rephrasing
Uli Sattler: ...is the suggested rephrasing ←
18:41:56 <bijan> Current text: """Please note that we will have a more extensive documentation of the rationale behind this design in the NF&R as well as some discussion in the primer. The working group will contact you when they reach last call to see if the overall solution meets your concerns. "
Bijan Parsia: Current text: """Please note that we will have a more extensive documentation of the rationale behind this design in the NF&R as well as some discussion in the primer. The working group will contact you when they reach last call to see if the overall solution meets your concerns. " ←
18:41:57 <Christine> +q
Christine Golbreich: +q ←
18:42:07 <Rinke> alanr: discuss on chairs list
Alan Ruttenberg: discuss on chairs list ←
18:42:12 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:42:28 <Rinke> bijan: I don't agree. We only need to say that the response is acceptable. The new features and rationale doc is not in LC
Bijan Parsia: I don't agree. We only need to say that the response is acceptable. The new features and rationale doc is not in LC ←
18:42:32 <IanH> ack Christine
Ian Horrocks: ack Christine ←
18:43:00 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:43:01 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
18:43:05 <Rinke> Christine: there was one point in the draft that I did not agree, is the notion of feature. but we make change in the feature document. The change has already been done in the document. The rationale as well.
Christine Golbreich: there was one point in the draft that I did not agree, is the notion of feature. but we make change in the feature document. The change has already been done in the document. The rationale as well. ←
18:43:18 <Rinke> IanH: your point is that the text can be changed to state that we /have/ made some changes.
Ian Horrocks: your point is that the text can be changed to state that we /have/ made some changes. ←
18:43:26 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
18:43:29 <alanr> there is certainly not consensus on that. I disagree concurring with Bijan
Alan Ruttenberg: there is certainly not consensus on that. I disagree concurring with Bijan ←
18:44:00 <Rinke> bijan: the changes thusfar do not address the comment. They do not even take notice of the comment. I would object to doing that. I already explained this to christine on the list.
Bijan Parsia: the changes thusfar do not address the comment. They do not even take notice of the comment. I would object to doing that. I already explained this to christine on the list. ←
18:44:03 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:44:06 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
18:44:20 <Rinke> IanH: I understand what the dispute there is then.
Ian Horrocks: I understand what the dispute there is then. ←
18:44:33 <Rinke> alanr: this is why I think we should moderate it.
Alan Ruttenberg: this is why I think we should moderate it. ←
18:44:34 <Christine> +q
Christine Golbreich: +q ←
18:44:39 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
18:44:45 <Rinke> IanH: I don't really see the usefulnes of carrying on with this discussion right now
Ian Horrocks: I don't really see the usefulnes of carrying on with this discussion right now ←
18:44:47 <Christine> +1
Christine Golbreich: +1 ←
18:45:07 <Rinke> IanH: push this on the mailinglist for discussion.
Ian Horrocks: push this on the mailinglist for discussion. ←
18:45:13 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:45:15 <Rinke> IanH: let's do this via email, and move on.
Ian Horrocks: let's do this via email, and move on. ←
18:45:17 <IanH> ack Christine
Ian Horrocks: ack Christine ←
18:45:43 <Rinke> bijan: can we just decide? this is the smallest wordsmithing... if this is the level of detail we're taking in then it's going to take forever.
Bijan Parsia: can we just decide? this is the smallest wordsmithing... if this is the level of detail we're taking in then it's going to take forever. ←
18:45:54 <Rinke> bijan: I don't want to have this discussion. I want it to be over.
Bijan Parsia: I don't want to have this discussion. I want it to be over. ←
18:46:03 <Rinke> bijan: my text doesn't say anything wrong.
Bijan Parsia: my text doesn't say anything wrong. ←
18:46:03 <Christine> +q
Christine Golbreich: +q ←
18:46:04 <alanr> Bijan, I don't think you need to participate in the discussion further. I understand your point.
Alan Ruttenberg: Bijan, I don't think you need to participate in the discussion further. I understand your point. ←
18:46:07 <alanr> I care
Alan Ruttenberg: I care ←
18:46:10 <Rinke> bijan: why not just vote.
Bijan Parsia: why not just vote. ←
18:46:27 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:46:34 <Rinke> IanH: I've got sympathy with what you say. this is going to produce more heat than light.
Ian Horrocks: I've got sympathy with what you say. this is going to produce more heat than light. ←
18:46:43 <ivan> ack Christine
Ivan Herman: ack Christine ←
18:46:44 <IanH> ack Christine
Ian Horrocks: ack Christine ←
18:46:45 <Rinke> Christine: I agree to move on.
Christine Golbreich: I agree to move on. ←
18:46:52 <alanr> I vote +1
Alan Ruttenberg: I vote +1 ←
18:46:58 <Rinke> bijan: can I add my sentence to the syntax document?
Bijan Parsia: can I add my sentence to the syntax document? ←
18:46:58 <alanr> for Bijan to take this action
Alan Ruttenberg: for Bijan to take this action ←
18:47:06 <Rinke> IanH: this additional explanation-thing that Jim wanted
Ian Horrocks: this additional explanation-thing that Jim wanted ←
18:47:12 <alanr> there is no contest on that
Alan Ruttenberg: there is no contest on that ←
18:47:26 <Rinke> IanH: why don't you go ahead on that
Ian Horrocks: why don't you go ahead on that ←
18:47:54 <Rinke> IanH: we need to find some better, faster way of dealing with these things.
Ian Horrocks: we need to find some better, faster way of dealing with these things. ←
18:48:03 <Rinke> IanH: that's something for me and alan to discuss offline
Ian Horrocks: that's something for me and alan to discuss offline ←
18:48:19 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:48:28 <alanr> group: for your information we have already started discussing that (how to make this more efficient)
Alan Ruttenberg: group: for your information we have already started discussing that (how to make this more efficient) ←
18:48:36 <Rinke> IanH: next is a list of all comments that I thought were significantly nontrivial, that required us to make some decision on the design.
Ian Horrocks: next is a list of all comments that I thought were significantly nontrivial, that required us to make some decision on the design. ←
18:48:36 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:48:42 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
18:49:04 <Rinke> bijan: I have drafted an initial response to jeremy, and I would like feedback on whether this direction is ok (had some feedback from ivan)
Bijan Parsia: I have drafted an initial response to jeremy, and I would like feedback on whether this direction is ok (had some feedback from ivan) ←
18:49:07 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
18:49:16 <Rinke> IanH: sure, it isn't on this list at the moment.
Ian Horrocks: sure, it isn't on this list at the moment. ←
18:49:18 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:49:20 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
18:50:03 <Rinke> alanr: my judgment is that I wouldn't abandon the draft, rather than refining it right now. There's discussion on the **** list right now, it's very much appreciated. Let's wait until that progresses
Alan Ruttenberg: my judgment is that I wouldn't abandon the draft, rather than refining it right now. There's discussion on the **** list right now, it's very much appreciated. Let's wait until that progresses ←
18:50:13 <alanr> *** = chairs list
Alan Ruttenberg: *** = chairs list ←
18:50:17 <ivan> -:)
Ivan Herman: -:) ←
18:50:18 <Rinke> IanH: coming back to the list
Ian Horrocks: coming back to the list ←
18:50:38 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:50:42 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:50:44 <Rinke> subtopic: Naming issues
18:50:44 <Rinke> IanH: grddl, several comments referring to OWL, OWL DL and OWL Full (being more clear in the documents)
Ian Horrocks: grddl, several comments referring to OWL, OWL DL and OWL Full (being more clear in the documents) ←
18:50:50 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
18:51:25 <Rinke> bijan: I have a question. Looking at comments, not all of them about the design of the language. Just wondering whether the ones that are literally editorial could be moved to a different category (e.g. the use of OWL DL, OWL etc...)
Bijan Parsia: I have a question. Looking at comments, not all of them about the design of the language. Just wondering whether the ones that are literally editorial could be moved to a different category (e.g. the use of OWL DL, OWL etc...) ←
18:51:33 <ivan> it is on the borderline...
Ivan Herman: it is on the borderline... ←
18:51:51 <Rinke> IanH: it could be dealt with in an editorial way, perhaps... it could potentially require major restructuring of the documents
Ian Horrocks: it could be dealt with in an editorial way, perhaps... it could potentially require major restructuring of the documents ←
18:52:10 <Rinke> bijan: let me put it another way, what triggers another last call at this point.
Bijan Parsia: let me put it another way, what triggers another last call at this point. ←
18:52:11 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:52:12 <alanr> Can we postpone this discussion for the moment (of what triggers last call)
Alan Ruttenberg: Can we postpone this discussion for the moment (of what triggers last call) ←
18:52:20 <Rinke> bijan: do we have some sens on that?
Bijan Parsia: do we have some sens on that? ←
18:52:25 <Rinke> s/sens/sense
s/sens/sense ←
18:52:33 <schneid> "OWL 2" --> "OWL 2 DL" will certainly not justify another LC, but it's important anyway
Michael Schneider: "OWL 2" --> "OWL 2 DL" will certainly not justify another LC, but it's important anyway ←
18:52:34 <alanr> A subject of current discussion on chairs list. We are trying to understand issues.
Alan Ruttenberg: A subject of current discussion on chairs list. We are trying to understand issues. ←
18:52:38 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:52:47 <Rinke> IanH: how we decide to deal with them will determine the answer to bijan's question
Ian Horrocks: how we decide to deal with them will determine the answer to bijan's question ←
18:52:52 <schneid> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
18:53:12 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
18:53:12 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should no longer be muted ←
18:53:13 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:53:17 <IanH> ack schneid
Ian Horrocks: ack schneid ←
18:53:18 <Rinke> IanH: see whether we have a rough agreement on these... see whether we can get a high-level plan on what to do
Ian Horrocks: see whether we have a rough agreement on these... see whether we can get a high-level plan on what to do ←
18:53:19 <MartinD> MartinD has joined #OWL
Martin Dzbor: MartinD has joined #OWL ←
18:53:38 <Rinke> schneid: we should have a clear story about the OWL names.
Michael Schneider: we should have a clear story about the OWL names. ←
18:53:46 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:53:51 <Rinke> schneid: what do the names signify, only syntax, only semantics?
Michael Schneider: what do the names signify, only syntax, only semantics? ←
18:54:07 <Rinke> schneid: I understood OWL 2 Full only as semantics, but now realize that's a bad idea.
Michael Schneider: I understood OWL 2 Full only as semantics, but now realize that's a bad idea. ←
18:54:21 <Rinke> schneid: it's very unclear at the moment. We should have a clear story on this.
Michael Schneider: it's very unclear at the moment. We should have a clear story on this. ←
18:54:25 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:54:33 <Rinke> IanH: I agree, this is also what the commenters ask.
Ian Horrocks: I agree, this is also what the commenters ask. ←
18:54:42 <schneid> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
18:54:42 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted ←
18:54:58 <Rinke> schneid: we should state "that's the name of the syntax, that's the name of the semantics, that's the name of the whole language"
Michael Schneider: we should state "that's the name of the syntax, that's the name of the semantics, that's the name of the whole language" ←
18:55:00 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:55:09 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/mid/82658D86-CD96-4178-B822-E9D4ECFAAB99@comlab.ox.ac.uk -> Ian's mail
Ivan Herman: http://www.w3.org/mid/82658D86-CD96-4178-B822-E9D4ECFAAB99@comlab.ox.ac.uk -> Ian's mail ←
18:55:18 <Rinke> IanH: I sent an email summarising. A couple of people have been working on diagrammatic responses
Ian Horrocks: I sent an email summarising. A couple of people have been working on diagrammatic responses ←
18:55:30 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:55:47 <bijan> Ok, "RIF1 (Disjoint numeric datatypes)", I think we should make them disjoint
Bijan Parsia: Ok, "RIF1 (Disjoint numeric datatypes)", I think we should make them disjoint ←
18:55:48 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
18:55:50 <Rinke> IanH: we need to be clearer about all of these things. I don't think we'll succeed in doing this in the next 5 minutes. Unless anyone really objects...
Ian Horrocks: we need to be clearer about all of these things. I don't think we'll succeed in doing this in the next 5 minutes. Unless anyone really objects... ←
18:56:11 <Rinke> IanH: let's leave FH2, SWD1 for the moment
Ian Horrocks: let's leave FH2, SWD1 for the moment ←
18:56:18 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:56:23 <Rinke> subtopic: XML and GRDDL
18:56:23 <Rinke> IanH: skipped over XML and GRDDL (TM1, FH3, BP2)
Ian Horrocks: skipped over XML and GRDDL (TM1, FH3, BP2) ←
18:56:25 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:56:32 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
18:56:39 <Rinke> bijan: I drafted some text in response to Frank's email.
Bijan Parsia: I drafted some text in response to Frank's email. ←
18:57:03 <Rinke> bijan: which provided extensive rationale for the XML syntax. Jonathan Rees liked those, but still wanted GRDDL.
Bijan Parsia: which provided extensive rationale for the XML syntax. Jonathan Rees liked those, but still wanted GRDDL. ←
18:57:24 <Rinke> IanH: I agree, motivating the XML stuff isn't too difficult, but the GRDDL point is still there.
Ian Horrocks: I agree, motivating the XML stuff isn't too difficult, but the GRDDL point is still there. ←
18:57:34 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:57:44 <alanr> chocolate?
Alan Ruttenberg: chocolate? ←
18:57:44 <ivan> two beers?
Ivan Herman: two beers? ←
18:57:47 <Rinke> IanH: I had the idea that you might have come round, and perhaps even be the man to take on GRDDL.
Ian Horrocks: I had the idea that you might have come round, and perhaps even be the man to take on GRDDL. ←
18:57:48 <alanr> hugs
Alan Ruttenberg: hugs ←
18:57:55 <alanr> genuine gratitude?
Alan Ruttenberg: genuine gratitude? ←
18:58:42 <Rinke> bijan: I am negotiating... I'm unsure what my official position would be if the discussion went the other way...
Bijan Parsia: I am negotiating... I'm unsure what my official position would be if the discussion went the other way... ←
18:58:58 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:59:12 <Rinke> bijan: I am negotiating with the pro-GRDDL people on the group. But I'm not there yet.
Bijan Parsia: I am negotiating with the pro-GRDDL people on the group. But I'm not there yet. ←
18:59:13 <schneid> IMHO, asking for dropping XML is very exaggerated, but I think the commenters believe that OWL/XML MUST be supported --> point them to the Conformance document!
Michael Schneider: IMHO, asking for dropping XML is very exaggerated, but I think the commenters believe that OWL/XML MUST be supported --> point them to the Conformance document! ←
18:59:16 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
18:59:22 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:00:17 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
19:00:26 <Rinke> ivan: I think there is a general feeling that the exact whole of OWL/XML in the whole framework is heavily misunderstood. There have been several comments, some came only a few days ago, is the feeling that RDF/XML is abandoned. This is not true, but it seems the messaging on this has gone wrong.
Ivan Herman: I think there is a general feeling that the exact whole of OWL/XML in the whole framework is heavily misunderstood. There have been several comments, some came only a few days ago, is the feeling that RDF/XML is abandoned. This is not true, but it seems the messaging on this has gone wrong. ←
19:00:33 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:00:39 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
19:00:39 <Rinke> ivan: one remark about all different syntaxes in the examples.
Ivan Herman: one remark about all different syntaxes in the examples. ←
19:00:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:00:42 <bmotik> +q
Boris Motik: +q ←
19:00:46 <Rinke> ivan: it's part of the same set of comments.
Ivan Herman: it's part of the same set of comments. ←
19:01:10 <Rinke> IanH: more related to what we discussed previously, but next on the list, misunderstanding on the whole messaging thing.
Ian Horrocks: more related to what we discussed previously, but next on the list, misunderstanding on the whole messaging thing. ←
19:01:37 <Rinke> ivan: the whole OWL/XML made people feel that this was the exchange syntax. I had the discussion with some of my colleagues this week.
Ivan Herman: the whole OWL/XML made people feel that this was the exchange syntax. I had the discussion with some of my colleagues this week. ←
19:01:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:01:45 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
19:01:50 <Rinke> IanH: not directly related to the whole OWL/XML GRDDL thing.
Ian Horrocks: not directly related to the whole OWL/XML GRDDL thing. ←
19:02:01 <Rinke> bijan: I agree, I think people have lashed on the Functional Syntax and XML
Bijan Parsia: I agree, I think people have lashed on the Functional Syntax and XML ←
19:02:05 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:02:06 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me ←
19:02:06 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted ←
19:02:12 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
19:02:18 <alanr> to what Bijan says
Alan Ruttenberg: to what Bijan says ←
19:02:31 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:02:35 <Rinke> bijan: we haven't changed how OWL was specified. Putting the two semantics in two documents confused people who thought there was only one semantics.
Bijan Parsia: we haven't changed how OWL was specified. Putting the two semantics in two documents confused people who thought there was only one semantics. ←
19:02:37 <schneid> actually, in OWL 1 there have been even three different semantics...
Michael Schneider: actually, in OWL 1 there have been even three different semantics... ←
19:02:42 <Rinke> bijan: that does need to be dealt with.
Bijan Parsia: that does need to be dealt with. ←
19:02:55 <Rinke> IanH: there's a whole presentation issue that needs to be dealt with.
Ian Horrocks: there's a whole presentation issue that needs to be dealt with. ←
19:03:09 <bmotik> -q
Boris Motik: -q ←
19:03:25 <Rinke> IanH: there isn't one specific comment that says this. but we need a response to such a comment.
Ian Horrocks: there isn't one specific comment that says this. but we need a response to such a comment. ←
19:03:29 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:03:38 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
19:03:38 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
19:04:06 <bmotik> +q
Boris Motik: +q ←
19:04:10 <Rinke> subtopic: RIF1
19:04:10 <Rinke> IanH: ok, what about the RIF1 related to numeric datatypes
Ian Horrocks: ok, what about the RIF1 related to numeric datatypes ←
19:04:11 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me ←
19:04:11 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted ←
19:04:12 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:04:17 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
19:04:32 <alanr> missed that
Alan Ruttenberg: missed that ←
19:04:35 <Rinke> bmotik: I have a proposal, we make the datatypes exactly as they are in XML
Boris Motik: I have a proposal, we make the datatypes exactly as they are in XML ←
19:04:38 <sandro> +1 stoning
Sandro Hawke: +1 stoning ←
19:04:40 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:04:41 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
19:04:45 <alanr> -1
Alan Ruttenberg: -1 ←
19:04:53 <Rinke> bmotik: throw a stone at me at the F2F5 for starting this in the first place
Boris Motik: throw a stone at me at the F2F5 for starting this in the first place ←
19:04:59 <ivan> +1 stoning (in virtual space, will not be at the f2f...)
Ivan Herman: +1 stoning (in virtual space, will not be at the f2f...) ←
19:05:13 <IanH> NO -- I want to see blood
Ian Horrocks: NO -- I want to see blood ←
19:05:16 <alanr> I'm not sorry yet
Alan Ruttenberg: I'm not sorry yet ←
19:05:18 <Rinke> bmotik: there is also a practical reason, non-disjointness really difficult to implement.
Boris Motik: there is also a practical reason, non-disjointness really difficult to implement. ←
19:05:19 <sandro> rofl
Sandro Hawke: rofl ←
19:05:26 <Rinke> bmotik: I'm sorry
Boris Motik: I'm sorry ←
19:05:40 <ewallace> Why are disjoint types now acceptable?
Evan Wallace: Why are disjoint types now acceptable? ←
19:05:51 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:05:53 <msmith> q+
Mike Smith: q+ ←
19:05:55 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
19:05:56 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
19:05:57 <Rinke> IanH: Boris proposes that we change our decision on disjointness because of conformance with XML, and implementation issues
Ian Horrocks: Boris proposes that we change our decision on disjointness because of conformance with XML, and implementation issues ←
19:06:05 <msmith> q-
Mike Smith: q- ←
19:06:15 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:06:15 <Rinke> bijan: I am happy to have disjointness as well (we should throw stones at Rob as well)
Bijan Parsia: I am happy to have disjointness as well (we should throw stones at Rob as well) ←
19:06:23 <Rinke> msmith: would this require another last call?
Mike Smith: would this require another last call? ←
19:06:38 <Rinke> IanH: I'm just not wanting to talk about whether or not that requires another last call
Ian Horrocks: I'm just not wanting to talk about whether or not that requires another last call ←
19:06:53 <Rinke> IanH: deal with each comment, then look at the totality of changes.
Ian Horrocks: deal with each comment, then look at the totality of changes. ←
19:07:01 <Rinke> IanH: welcome to have comments from sandro, ivan
Ian Horrocks: welcome to have comments from sandro, ivan ←
19:07:06 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:07:24 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
19:07:30 <Rinke> sandro: I agree. And: not another LC, it's a corner issue that people just haven't thought about enough.
Sandro Hawke: I agree. And: not another LC, it's a corner issue that people just haven't thought about enough. ←
19:07:31 <msmith> q+ to request more detail from Boris
Mike Smith: q+ to request more detail from Boris ←
19:07:39 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
19:07:57 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
19:08:10 <Rinke> alanr: Im not ready to cave on this yet. We do have a meeting with RIF on this, next week. I want to discuss this with Jonathan (my colleague).
Alan Ruttenberg: Im not ready to cave on this yet. We do have a meeting with RIF on this, next week. I want to discuss this with Jonathan (my colleague). ←
19:08:14 <alanr> understood. just chiming in.
Alan Ruttenberg: understood. just chiming in. ←
19:08:23 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:08:25 <Rinke> IanH: we don't have a unanimous plan on this
Ian Horrocks: we don't have a unanimous plan on this ←
19:08:27 <bijan> q-
Bijan Parsia: q- ←
19:08:28 <alanr> yes. more than that even :)
Alan Ruttenberg: yes. more than that even :) ←
19:08:37 <Rinke> IanH: we;ll ask you again after the RIF meeting
Ian Horrocks: we;ll ask you again after the RIF meeting ←
19:08:37 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
19:08:40 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:08:58 <bijan> Given all the feedback, I think Manchester (pace Uli) might formally object to non-disjoint double
Bijan Parsia: Given all the feedback, I think Manchester (pace Uli) might formally object to non-disjoint double ←
19:09:08 <bijan> So it's not just to satisfy rif
Bijan Parsia: So it's not just to satisfy rif ←
19:09:14 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:09:17 <Rinke> ivan: wrt. the LC or non-LC issue. We have a number of documents that are not LC. A second LC is not the end of the world. I agree we should not spend time on this issue. It is not a huge issue.
Ivan Herman: wrt. the LC or non-LC issue. We have a number of documents that are not LC. A second LC is not the end of the world. I agree we should not spend time on this issue. It is not a huge issue. ←
19:09:18 <Zakim> +Tony
Zakim IRC Bot: +Tony ←
19:09:25 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:09:28 <IanH> ack msmith
Ian Horrocks: ack msmith ←
19:09:28 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to request more detail from Boris
Zakim IRC Bot: msmith, you wanted to request more detail from Boris ←
19:09:35 <bmotik> +q
Boris Motik: +q ←
19:09:35 <ewallace> +1 to Mike suggestions
Evan Wallace: +1 to Mike suggestions ←
19:09:37 <Rinke> msmith: If boris could write an email that more explicitly specifies the change he's proposing to make
Mike Smith: If boris could write an email that more explicitly specifies the change he's proposing to make ←
19:09:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:09:41 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me ←
19:09:41 <alanr> uli is ready to drop rational too?
Alan Ruttenberg: uli is ready to drop rational too? ←
19:09:42 <Zakim> bmotik was not muted, bmotik
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik was not muted, bmotik ←
19:09:42 <Rinke> msmith: that would be helpful
Mike Smith: that would be helpful ←
19:09:46 <Rinke> sandro: test cases test cases
Sandro Hawke: test cases test cases ←
19:09:49 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
19:09:51 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:09:53 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
19:09:57 <schneid> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
19:10:01 <Rinke> bmotik: this is already specified in the 1.1 XML schema. It's very precise on this.
Boris Motik: this is already specified in the 1.1 XML schema. It's very precise on this. ←
19:10:14 <msmith> q+
Mike Smith: q+ ←
19:10:18 <bijan> +1 to what boris just said
Bijan Parsia: +1 to what boris just said ←
19:10:24 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:10:27 <Rinke> bmotik: float disjoint from double would be disjoint from decimal, but integer and all that crap wouldn't be
Boris Motik: float disjoint from double would be disjoint from decimal, but integer and all that crap wouldn't be ←
19:10:28 <uli> alanr, I am not sure...
Uli Sattler: alanr, I am not sure... ←
19:10:38 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:10:42 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
19:10:42 <msmith> but where does that leave owl:realPlus?
Mike Smith: but where does that leave owl:realPlus? ←
19:10:43 <ivan> ack alanr
Ivan Herman: ack alanr ←
19:10:52 <msmith> q-
Mike Smith: q- ←
19:11:03 <Rinke> alanr: how would that impact ...
Alan Ruttenberg: how would that impact ... ←
19:11:05 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:11:05 <alanr> thanks
Alan Ruttenberg: thanks ←
19:11:09 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
19:11:09 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should no longer be muted ←
19:11:13 <IanH> ack schneid
Ian Horrocks: ack schneid ←
19:11:17 <Rinke> IanH: that's a different issue, because those are new datatypes
Ian Horrocks: that's a different issue, because those are new datatypes ←
19:11:52 <Rinke> schneid: there was months of discussion about this. Would like the ramifications of this change. There were reasons for not having this disjointness.
Michael Schneider: there was months of discussion about this. Would like the ramifications of this change. There were reasons for not having this disjointness. ←
19:11:55 <alanr> the ramifications are bad :)
Alan Ruttenberg: the ramifications are bad :) ←
19:11:58 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:11:59 <Rinke> schneid: would it be very bad?
Michael Schneider: would it be very bad? ←
19:12:11 <Rinke> schneid: would like to see the non-obvious ramifications
Michael Schneider: would like to see the non-obvious ramifications ←
19:12:24 <bijan> I note again, Pellet (and Jena) have supported disjointness here
Bijan Parsia: I note again, Pellet (and Jena) have supported disjointness here ←
19:12:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:12:44 <Rinke> IanH: would be the kind of ones that when you have integers and doubles in an inference, you would have different answers for your inferences.
Ian Horrocks: would be the kind of ones that when you have integers and doubles in an inference, you would have different answers for your inferences. ←
19:12:51 <alanr> instance classification issues as well
Alan Ruttenberg: instance classification issues as well ←
19:12:56 <uli> Michael, I see (1) less tricky to implement (2) possibly strange inferences (3) comformance to Schema
Uli Sattler: Michael, I see (1) less tricky to implement (2) possibly strange inferences (3) comformance to Schema ←
19:12:58 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:13:07 <Rinke> IanH: all those guys are overlapping and derived from decimal
Ian Horrocks: all those guys are overlapping and derived from decimal ←
19:13:30 <Rinke> schneid: there was this idea to have overlapping value spaces, and this must have a good reason.
Michael Schneider: there was this idea to have overlapping value spaces, and this must have a good reason. ←
19:13:48 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
19:13:55 <Rinke> IanH: the good reason was that logicallly speaking the double 1 should be interpreted in the same way as the integer 1
Ian Horrocks: the good reason was that logicallly speaking the double 1 should be interpreted in the same way as the integer 1 ←
19:14:00 <alanr> or that the different 0's are different
Alan Ruttenberg: or that the different 0's are different ←
19:14:04 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:14:17 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
19:14:34 <Rinke> bmotik: because of that, there is no need for owl:realPlus .. just an umbrella for the doubles etc.
Boris Motik: because of that, there is no need for owl:realPlus .. just an umbrella for the doubles etc. ←
19:14:39 <schneid> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
19:14:39 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted ←
19:15:05 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:15:06 <Rinke> IanH: we can see how the meeting with RIF goes. It's possible to resolve this by doing what they asked us to do?
Ian Horrocks: we can see how the meeting with RIF goes. It's possible to resolve this by doing what they asked us to do? ←
19:15:10 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
19:15:18 <schneid> thanks, uli
Michael Schneider: thanks, uli ←
19:15:24 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:15:28 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
19:15:29 <Rinke> subtopic: RIF2
19:15:29 <Rinke> IanH: what to do with RIF2 (same set of supported datatypes). They don't support some of the derived string-types.
Ian Horrocks: what to do with RIF2 (same set of supported datatypes). They don't support some of the derived string-types. ←
19:15:37 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
19:15:39 <Rinke> bmotik: are they complaining about OWL 2 RL, or in general?
Boris Motik: are they complaining about OWL 2 RL, or in general? ←
19:15:52 <Zakim> -Achille
Zakim IRC Bot: -Achille ←
19:15:55 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:16:01 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
19:16:09 <Rinke> IanH: they wouldn't object to profiles to support only a subset of datatypes. I think they'd like both languages as a whole to support the same set of datatypes.
Ian Horrocks: they wouldn't object to profiles to support only a subset of datatypes. I think they'd like both languages as a whole to support the same set of datatypes. ←
19:16:14 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
19:16:18 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
19:16:43 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:17:12 <Rinke> bijan: we should resolve this to say that we're happy if they support all datatypes we have. I'm not convinced with the exhange argument...
Bijan Parsia: we should resolve this to say that we're happy if they support all datatypes we have. I'm not convinced with the exhange argument... ←
19:17:47 <Rinke> bijan: least-common denominator approach does not really match with the development of a language that allows people to express what they need to express.
Bijan Parsia: least-common denominator approach does not really match with the development of a language that allows people to express what they need to express. ←
19:17:51 <pfps> +1 to 1/3-full cups (+2 to 2/3-full cups)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to 1/3-full cups (+2 to 2/3-full cups) ←
19:18:05 <bijan> Sure
Bijan Parsia: Sure ←
19:18:07 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
19:18:11 <Rinke> IanH: I understood the argument and sympathise, will put your argument forward on the OWL/RIF meeting
Ian Horrocks: I understood the argument and sympathise, will put your argument forward on the OWL/RIF meeting ←
19:18:13 <alanr> is the cup 1/3 full or 2/3 empty?
Alan Ruttenberg: is the cup 1/3 full or 2/3 empty? ←
19:18:15 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:18:19 <sandro> do you think RIF should have built-ins for rational math?
Sandro Hawke: do you think RIF should have built-ins for rational math? ←
19:18:24 <bijan> I just think we need a better prima facie argument to budge
Bijan Parsia: I just think we need a better prima facie argument to budge ←
19:18:26 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:18:28 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
19:18:34 <bijan> sandro, I don't care. That's up to them
Bijan Parsia: sandro, I don't care. That's up to them ←
19:19:00 <Rinke> alanr: there are two cases we may consider. Wrt the string derived types, we don't have a lot of demand for them, we could drop some of them: some negotiating room for horse trading.
Alan Ruttenberg: there are two cases we may consider. Wrt the string derived types, we don't have a lot of demand for them, we could drop some of them: some negotiating room for horse trading. ←
19:19:11 <bijan> Why give up what can be defined? What's the harm of having names for types that are expressively available?
Bijan Parsia: Why give up what can be defined? What's the harm of having names for types that are expressively available? ←
19:19:11 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
19:19:19 <Rinke> IanH: that supports the notion that we need the same set
Ian Horrocks: that supports the notion that we need the same set ←
19:19:37 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
19:19:44 <Rinke> alanr: I understand bijan's point.. i have sympathy for harmonisation, see how far we can go.
Alan Ruttenberg: I understand bijan's point.. i have sympathy for harmonisation, see how far we can go. ←
19:20:04 <Rinke> bmotik: but we would need to extend our set of datatypes as well (e.g. from XQuery, and one that has to do with datetime).
Boris Motik: but we would need to extend our set of datatypes as well (e.g. from XQuery, and one that has to do with datetime). ←
19:20:10 <Rinke> bmotik: we would both need to change
Boris Motik: we would both need to change ←
19:20:17 <Rinke> IanH: would they be difficult to support
Ian Horrocks: would they be difficult to support ←
19:20:21 <Rinke> bmotik: I don't think so.
Boris Motik: I don't think so. ←
19:20:29 <Rinke> IanH: what about the issue with time zones
Ian Horrocks: what about the issue with time zones ←
19:20:55 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
19:20:56 <Rinke> bmotik: there is a diversion with datetime as well. We are interpreting timezones in OWL in a different way as well
Boris Motik: there is a diversion with datetime as well. We are interpreting timezones in OWL in a different way as well ←
19:21:08 <ewallace> I think there is some confusion in RIF wg about dateTime
Evan Wallace: I think there is some confusion in RIF wg about dateTime ←
19:21:09 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
19:21:24 <Rinke> IanH: we don't support XML datetime, but have a subtype with an explicit timezone.
Ian Horrocks: we don't support XML datetime, but have a subtype with an explicit timezone. ←
19:22:06 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:22:06 <Rinke> ivan: we should stop the discussion now, and see where we can go from the RIF/OWL meeting. What I don't see is the issue with the rdf:text on the LC page. I haven't seen any move on this over the past few weeks.
Ivan Herman: we should stop the discussion now, and see where we can go from the RIF/OWL meeting. What I don't see is the issue with the rdf:text on the LC page. I haven't seen any move on this over the past few weeks. ←
19:22:10 <Rinke> IanH: what do you suggest?
Ian Horrocks: what do you suggest? ←
19:22:17 <Rinke> ivan: we should have it on the LC comments page.
Ivan Herman: we should have it on the LC comments page. ←
19:22:24 <Rinke> sandro: but rdf:text is not in last call.
Sandro Hawke: but rdf:text is not in last call. ←
19:22:35 <Rinke> ivan: oh, ok. but it may come up on the meeting with RIF
Ivan Herman: oh, ok. but it may come up on the meeting with RIF ←
19:22:42 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:22:45 <Rinke> IanH: it seems to be a completely separate issue
Ian Horrocks: it seems to be a completely separate issue ←
19:22:55 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
19:23:05 <Rinke> bijan: What does RIF require conformant systems to support in terms of the datatypes
Bijan Parsia: What does RIF require conformant systems to support in terms of the datatypes ←
19:23:12 <Rinke> bmotik: do you want a list? I can recite it...
Boris Motik: do you want a list? I can recite it... ←
19:23:27 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-bld/#Conformance_Clauses
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-bld/#Conformance_Clauses ←
19:23:27 <Rinke> bijan: I'm not clear that you have to support them all (i'm looking at conformance clauses)
Bijan Parsia: I'm not clear that you have to support them all (i'm looking at conformance clauses) ←
19:23:35 <Rinke> IanH: take this to email?
Ian Horrocks: take this to email? ←
19:23:38 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:23:43 <Rinke> bijan: i concede
Bijan Parsia: i concede ←
19:23:54 <Rinke> IanH: discuss this by email before the meeting with RIF
Ian Horrocks: discuss this by email before the meeting with RIF ←
19:24:18 <Rinke> subtopic: FH4
19:24:18 <Rinke> IanH: close to running out of time. Try to tackle one more of these: anonymous individuals (FH4)
Ian Horrocks: close to running out of time. Try to tackle one more of these: anonymous individuals (FH4) ←
19:24:25 <bijan> Clarify rationale and reject the change
Bijan Parsia: Clarify rationale and reject the change ←
19:24:31 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:24:32 <bmotik> +q
Boris Motik: +q ←
19:24:36 <pfps> +1 to bijan
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to bijan ←
19:24:44 <Rinke> IanH: Frank didn't like the new way in which we deal with anonymous individuals?
Ian Horrocks: Frank didn't like the new way in which we deal with anonymous individuals? ←
19:24:51 <msmith> +1 to bmotik, I didn't understand the comment
Mike Smith: +1 to bmotik, I didn't understand the comment ←
19:24:53 <uli> I don't
Uli Sattler: I don't ←
19:24:56 <Rinke> IanH: yes, bijan is right....
Ian Horrocks: yes, bijan is right.... ←
19:25:00 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:25:06 <Rinke> bmotik: did anyone understand the comment?
Boris Motik: did anyone understand the comment? ←
19:25:06 <bmotik> -q
Boris Motik: -q ←
19:25:09 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
19:25:10 <schneid> Frank talks about "deviation" of OWL 1, I believe
Michael Schneider: Frank talks about "deviation" of OWL 1, I believe ←
19:25:13 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:25:20 <Rinke> IanH: that's my feeling as well, we should clarify
Ian Horrocks: that's my feeling as well, we should clarify ←
19:25:35 <bmotik> +q
Boris Motik: +q ←
19:25:45 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:25:49 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
19:26:00 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
19:26:01 <Rinke> alanr: I was wondering whether the anon individuals in OWL 1 had different syntax where the name wasn't mentioned. perhaps boris could think of a way to deal with this with minimal impact (Syntactic change)
Alan Ruttenberg: I was wondering whether the anon individuals in OWL 1 had different syntax where the name wasn't mentioned. perhaps boris could think of a way to deal with this with minimal impact (Syntactic change) ←
19:26:20 <bijan> +1 to Boris
Bijan Parsia: +1 to Boris ←
19:26:26 <Rinke> bmotik: there is no way to do this. I thought long and hard. This didn't play along well with the axiom based view on OWL.
Boris Motik: there is no way to do this. I thought long and hard. This didn't play along well with the axiom based view on OWL. ←
19:26:26 <schneid> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
19:26:32 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
19:26:36 <pfps> +1 to Boris, as well, the RDF form hasn't changed
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to Boris, as well, the RDF form hasn't changed ←
19:26:36 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:26:44 <Rinke> IanH: we do have backwards compatibility don't we?
Ian Horrocks: we do have backwards compatibility don't we? ←
19:26:53 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
19:26:56 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
19:26:56 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should no longer be muted ←
19:27:00 <bijan> q-
Bijan Parsia: q- ←
19:27:01 <IanH> ack schneid
Ian Horrocks: ack schneid ←
19:27:10 <Rinke> bmotik: we do. It is only the problem with the Abstract syntax vs. the functional syntax.
Boris Motik: we do. It is only the problem with the Abstract syntax vs. the functional syntax. ←
19:27:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:27:42 <Rinke> schneid: I think that if he is coming more from the RDF/web view... working with anonymous individuals is very common (e.g. in foaf).
Michael Schneider: I think that if he is coming more from the RDF/web view... working with anonymous individuals is very common (e.g. in foaf). ←
19:27:42 <alanr> on the motivation issue we can certainly response coherently
Alan Ruttenberg: on the motivation issue we can certainly response coherently ←
19:27:47 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
19:27:48 <alanr> s/response/respond/
Alan Ruttenberg: s/response/respond/ ←
19:27:58 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
19:28:00 <Rinke> ivan: I am lost actually, can somebody explain in one minute what the problem is?
Ivan Herman: I am lost actually, can somebody explain in one minute what the problem is? ←
19:28:01 <IanH> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0037.html
Ian Horrocks: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0037.html ←
19:28:09 <Rinke> IanH: it's not that easy, his email is very short.
Ian Horrocks: it's not that easy, his email is very short. ←
19:28:14 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:28:21 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
19:28:26 <Rinke> ivan: I don't understand what problem he's responding to
Ivan Herman: I don't understand what problem he's responding to ←
19:28:32 <bmotik> In OWL 1 you had Individual( value(p "bla") )
Boris Motik: In OWL 1 you had Individual( value(p "bla") ) ←
19:28:43 <schneid> ClassAssertion(foaf:Agent _:x)
Michael Schneider: ClassAssertion(foaf:Agent _:x) ←
19:28:45 <schneid> PropertyAssertion(foaf:knows _:x Alice)
Michael Schneider: PropertyAssertion(foaf:knows _:x Alice) ←
19:28:50 <bmotik> In OWL 2 you have PropertyAssertion( p _:1 "bla" )
Boris Motik: In OWL 2 you have PropertyAssertion( p _:1 "bla" ) ←
19:29:03 <bmotik> It is the same from the expressivity point of view, but the syntax is different.
Boris Motik: It is the same from the expressivity point of view, but the syntax is different. ←
19:29:09 <alanr> there is also more expressivity in owl 2, no?
Alan Ruttenberg: there is also more expressivity in owl 2, no? ←
19:29:11 <Rinke> bijan: in OWL 1 AS anon individuals were represented using blank nodes (no node id's). We have to use node id's because of the syntax. Frank is confused by this.
Bijan Parsia: in OWL 1 AS anon individuals were represented using blank nodes (no node id's). We have to use node id's because of the syntax. Frank is confused by this. ←
19:29:15 <alanr> that's what I thought, ian
Alan Ruttenberg: that's what I thought, ian ←
19:29:20 <schneid> We can now share
Michael Schneider: We can now share ←
19:29:33 <schneid> the same anon in different axioms
Michael Schneider: the same anon in different axioms ←
19:29:34 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:29:35 <Rinke> IanH: isn't it so that we could deal with more RDF with this change
Ian Horrocks: isn't it so that we could deal with more RDF with this change ←
19:29:45 <Rinke> ivan: seems to be syntactic sugar only in the functional syntax.
Ivan Herman: seems to be syntactic sugar only in the functional syntax. ←
19:29:57 <Rinke> bijan: seems to be about presentation, not a technical comment.
Bijan Parsia: seems to be about presentation, not a technical comment. ←
19:29:58 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
19:30:00 <bijan> I can write a draft
Bijan Parsia: I can write a draft ←
19:30:03 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:30:06 <Rinke> IanH: probably isn't a big deal
Ian Horrocks: probably isn't a big deal ←
19:30:06 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
19:30:10 <msmith> @schneid, we can only share in careful ways (see the global restrictions)
Mike Smith: @schneid, we can only share in careful ways (see the global restrictions) ←
19:30:14 <Rinke> alanr: I didn't understand that last comment
Alan Ruttenberg: I didn't understand that last comment ←
19:30:27 <Rinke> bijan: it's not a substantive change, change in the presentation, not technical.
Bijan Parsia: it's not a substantive change, change in the presentation, not technical. ←
19:30:27 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:30:30 <schneid> ah, there was this fine print again ;-)
Michael Schneider: ah, there was this fine print again ;-) ←
19:30:53 <Rinke> bijan: I explain why we make the change, it's an editorial manner.
Bijan Parsia: I explain why we make the change, it's an editorial manner. ←
19:31:32 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: -Evan_Wallace ←
19:31:39 <Rinke> IanH: we have to carry on with the rest of this list next week. Alan and I will discuss on how to deal with carrying forward with responding to the comments
Ian Horrocks: we have to carry on with the rest of this list next week. Alan and I will discuss on how to deal with carrying forward with responding to the comments ←
19:31:41 <alanr> And pfps be earnest?
Alan Ruttenberg: And pfps be earnest? ←
19:31:50 <Rinke> topic: anny additional business?
19:31:57 <Rinke> IanH: no? ok, we're done
Ian Horrocks: no? ok, we're done ←
19:31:57 <bijan> yes please!
Bijan Parsia: yes please! ←
19:32:03 <msmith> thanks all. bye
Mike Smith: thanks all. bye ←
19:32:04 <Zakim> -msmith
Zakim IRC Bot: -msmith ←
19:32:08 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
Zakim IRC Bot: -bcuencagrau ←
19:32:11 <Zakim> -MarkusK_
Zakim IRC Bot: -MarkusK_ ←
19:32:14 <uli> bye
Uli Sattler: bye ←
19:32:17 <Zhe> bye
19:32:17 <alanr> thanks everyone! Particularly Ian. No thanks to my hosts.
Alan Ruttenberg: thanks everyone! Particularly Ian. No thanks to my hosts. ←
19:32:18 <Rinke> action: bijan to draft a response to FH1 (anonymous individuals) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0037.html
ACTION: bijan to draft a response to FH1 (anonymous individuals) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0037.html ←
19:32:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-280 - Draft a response to FH1 (anonymous individuals) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0037.html [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-11].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-280 - Draft a response to FH1 (anonymous individuals) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0037.html [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-11]. ←
19:32:19 <Zakim> -bmotik
Zakim IRC Bot: -bmotik ←
19:32:22 <Zakim> - +1.603.897.aaee
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.603.897.aaee ←
19:32:23 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
19:32:24 <Zakim> -uli
Zakim IRC Bot: -uli ←
19:32:25 <Zakim> -alanr
Zakim IRC Bot: -alanr ←
19:32:26 <Zakim> -christine
Zakim IRC Bot: -christine ←
19:32:27 <Zakim> -bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: -bijan ←
19:32:27 <Zakim> -baojie
Zakim IRC Bot: -baojie ←
19:32:28 <Zakim> -schneid
Zakim IRC Bot: -schneid ←
19:32:29 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: -Peter_Patel-Schneider ←
19:32:31 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
19:32:33 <Zakim> -Tony
Zakim IRC Bot: -Tony ←
19:32:35 <Zakim> -IanH
Zakim IRC Bot: -IanH ←
19:32:41 <Zakim> -Rinke
Zakim IRC Bot: -Rinke ←
19:32:42 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended ←
19:32:43 <Zakim> Attendees were bijan, Rinke, bmotik, Evan_Wallace, Sandro, Achille, IanH, MarkusK_, schneid, +0186528aabb, uli, bcuencagrau, Ivan, alanr, +1.202.408.aadd, msmith, +1.603.897.aaee,
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were bijan, Rinke, bmotik, Evan_Wallace, Sandro, Achille, IanH, MarkusK_, schneid, +0186528aabb, uli, bcuencagrau, Ivan, alanr, +1.202.408.aadd, msmith, +1.603.897.aaee, ←
19:32:46 <Zakim> ... christine, +1.518.276.aaff, baojie, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Tony
Zakim IRC Bot: ... christine, +1.518.276.aaff, baojie, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Tony ←
19:33:17 <Rinke> RRSAgent, pointer?
RRSAgent, pointer? ←
19:33:17 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/02/04-owl-irc#T19-33-17
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2009/02/04-owl-irc#T19-33-17 ←
19:55:22 <MartinD> MartinD has left #OWL
(No events recorded for 22 minutes)
Martin Dzbor: MartinD has left #OWL ←
This revision (#2) generated 2009-02-09 15:37:21 UTC by 'ihorrock2', comments: None