There are some format problems with the chatlog. Please correct them and reload this page. They are labeled on this page in a red box, like this message.
<sandro> PRESENT: Ian, Boris, Smith, Zhe, PFPS, Jie, Ivan, mschnei, markus, sandro, alanruttenberg
<sandro> REMOTE: christine, achille, ewallace, bijan, rinke, uli
14:05:14 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/02/23-owl-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/02/23-owl-irc ←
14:06:11 <IanH> Zakim, this will be owlwg
Ian Horrocks: Zakim, this will be owlwg ←
14:06:11 <Zakim> ok, IanH; I see SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM scheduled to start 66 minutes ago
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, IanH; I see SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM scheduled to start 66 minutes ago ←
14:07:07 <IanH> ScribeNick: pfps
(Scribe set to Peter Patel-Schneider)
14:07:24 <IanH> RRSAgent, make records public
Ian Horrocks: RRSAgent, make records public ←
14:07:54 <baojie> baojie has joined #OWL
Jie Bao: baojie has joined #OWL ←
14:09:30 <MarkusK_> Editing wiki tables made easy: http://simile.mit.edu/wiki/Wiki_Table_Editor
Markus Krötzsch: Editing wiki tables made easy: http://simile.mit.edu/wiki/Wiki_Table_Editor ←
14:11:18 <pfps> Topic: Admin
14:11:35 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
14:11:35 <Zakim> SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM has not yet started, IanH
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM has not yet started, IanH ←
14:11:36 <Zakim> On IRC I see sandro, baojie, msmith, pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, bmotik, MarkusK_, ivan, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see sandro, baojie, msmith, pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, bmotik, MarkusK_, ivan, trackbot ←
14:11:46 <bmotik> ZAkim, this will be owl
Boris Motik: ZAkim, this will be owl ←
14:11:46 <Zakim> ok, bmotik, I see SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM already started
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, bmotik, I see SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM already started ←
14:11:59 <pfps> SubTopic: Roll Call
14:12:00 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
14:12:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see MIT346
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MIT346 ←
14:12:01 <Zakim> On IRC I see sandro, baojie, msmith, pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, bmotik, MarkusK_, ivan, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see sandro, baojie, msmith, pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, bmotik, MarkusK_, ivan, trackbot ←
14:12:21 <pfps> SubTopic: Agenda (and amendments)
14:12:47 <pfps> ian: is the agenda OK?
Ian Horrocks: is the agenda OK? ←
14:13:03 <pfps> ivan: wait while I project the agenda on the screen
Ivan Herman: wait while I project the agenda on the screen ←
14:14:38 <pfps> ian: sessions are carved up by topic
Ian Horrocks: sessions are carved up by topic ←
14:14:56 <pfps> ian: we put in a special session to fill the time until everyone arrives
Ian Horrocks: we put in a special session to fill the time until everyone arrives ←
14:15:53 <pfps> ian: sessions - today - intro, presentation (intro, naming), datatypes, profiles
Ian Horrocks: sessions - today - intro, presentation (intro, naming), datatypes, profiles ←
14:16:31 <pfps> ivan: we should do contentious things here
Ivan Herman: we should do contentious things here ←
14:17:03 <pfps> ian: ok
Ian Horrocks: ok ←
14:17:19 <pfps> ian: extra comments - 62,63,64 will be slotted in as appropriate
Ian Horrocks: extra comments - 62,63,64 will be slotted in as appropriate ←
14:17:38 <pfps> ivan: tq comments?
Ivan Herman: tq comments? ←
14:17:52 <pfps> ian: split into technical and non-technical
Ian Horrocks: split into technical and non-technical ←
14:18:07 <pfps> ivan: but still needs to be considered as required
Ivan Herman: but still needs to be considered as required ←
14:18:12 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
14:18:12 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/02/23-owl-irc#T14-18-12
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2009/02/23-owl-irc#T14-18-12 ←
14:18:25 <pfps> ian: ok, we'll look at them as appropriate
Ian Horrocks: ok, we'll look at them as appropriate ←
14:19:01 <pfps> sandro: what if we get ahead?
Sandro Hawke: what if we get ahead? ←
14:19:22 <pfps> ian: then we can move forward (and start early as well)
Ian Horrocks: then we can move forward (and start early as well) ←
14:19:35 <Zakim> +??P3
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3 ←
14:19:38 <Zakim> -MIT346
Zakim IRC Bot: -MIT346 ←
14:19:39 <Zakim> +MIT346
Zakim IRC Bot: +MIT346 ←
14:19:48 <pfps> Subtopic: Roadmap and Schedule Review
14:19:51 <MarkusK_> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Timeline
Markus Krötzsch: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Timeline ←
14:20:21 <Christine> zakim, ??P3 is Christine
Christine Golbreich: zakim, ??P3 is Christine ←
14:20:21 <Zakim> +Christine; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Christine; got it ←
14:20:28 <pfps> Ian: we are running behind the schedule from charter
Ian Horrocks: we are running behind the schedule from charter ←
14:20:35 <pfps> ivan: as expected
Ivan Herman: as expected ←
14:20:45 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: +Evan_Wallace ←
14:21:26 <pfps> ian: we will need a charter extension
Ian Horrocks: we will need a charter extension ←
14:21:36 <pfps> sandro: we will need a new timeline
Sandro Hawke: we will need a new timeline ←
14:21:42 <pfps> ian: do it now?
Ian Horrocks: do it now? ←
14:22:02 <pfps> ivan: wait until we know more, like whether we need a new LC
Ivan Herman: wait until we know more, like whether we need a new LC ←
14:22:17 <pfps> ian: we probably need a new LC
Ian Horrocks: we probably need a new LC ←
14:22:28 <pfps> sandro: maybe not
Sandro Hawke: maybe not ←
14:22:55 <pfps> boris: will we need a changes since LC section
Boris Motik: will we need a changes since LC section ←
14:23:17 <pfps> ian: we'll think about it
Ian Horrocks: we'll think about it ←
14:23:22 <pfps> ian: hi Alan
Ian Horrocks: hi Alan ←
14:24:14 <pfps> sandro: a new LC is needed particularly if previously happy people might become unhappy
Sandro Hawke: a new LC is needed particularly if previously happy people might become unhappy ←
14:24:52 <pfps> sandro: let's do a quick schedule review
Sandro Hawke: let's do a quick schedule review ←
14:25:39 <pfps> sandro: an optimistic schedule would end up in September
Sandro Hawke: an optimistic schedule would end up in September ←
14:25:52 <pfps> ivan: ask for December
Ivan Herman: ask for December ←
14:26:24 <pfps> ian: timeline for September, ask for December
Ian Horrocks: timeline for September, ask for December ←
14:27:41 <pfps> alan: what problems? implementation
Alan Ruttenberg: what problems? implementation ←
14:27:50 <pfps> pfps: Oxford implementation?
Peter Patel-Schneider: Oxford implementation? ←
14:27:53 <pfps> ian: complete
Ian Horrocks: complete ←
14:28:07 <pfps> ivan: how long should CR be
Ivan Herman: how long should CR be ←
14:28:22 <pfps> ian: we should have multiple implementations soon
Ian Horrocks: we should have multiple implementations soon ←
14:28:50 <pfps> alan: let's have a poll to see if could be problems
Alan Ruttenberg: let's have a poll to see if could be problems ←
14:29:38 <pfps> sandro: we can be done by December
Sandro Hawke: we can be done by December ←
14:29:56 <pfps> ian: the work will expand to fill the time
Ian Horrocks: the work will expand to fill the time ←
14:30:52 <pfps> schneid: if we address all possible comments we will be here till 20xx
Michael Schneider: if we address all possible comments we will be here till 20xx ←
14:30:55 <sandro> zakim, who is on the phone?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
14:30:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see MIT346, Christine, Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MIT346, Christine, Evan_Wallace ←
14:31:15 <pfps> ian: we need to set a reasonable time line to keep people on board
Ian Horrocks: we need to set a reasonable time line to keep people on board ←
14:31:58 <Zakim> +[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
14:32:02 <pfps> alan: still worry about cutting too soon
Alan Ruttenberg: still worry about cutting too soon ←
14:32:12 <Achille> Zakim, IBM is me
Achille Fokoue: Zakim, IBM is me ←
14:32:12 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Achille; got it ←
14:32:54 <pfps> sandro: who is willing to continue till December
Sandro Hawke: who is willing to continue till December ←
14:33:05 <pfps> ian: I'm ok with december, but I want earlier
Ian Horrocks: I'm ok with december, but I want earlier ←
14:33:31 <pfps> ian: September is OK
Ian Horrocks: September is OK ←
14:33:39 <pfps> boris: I prefer earlier
Boris Motik: I prefer earlier ←
14:33:52 <pfps> pfps: September is good, but December is OK
Peter Patel-Schneider: September is good, but December is OK ←
14:34:03 <pfps> general agreement in the room
general agreement in the room ←
14:34:12 <sandro> PROPOSED: Let's PLEASE be done in September, but we can hang in through December if really necessary.
PROPOSED: Let's PLEASE be done in September, but we can hang in through December if really necessary. ←
14:34:27 <pfps> pfps: +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
14:34:32 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:34:34 <schneid> +1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
14:34:35 <Zhe> +1
14:34:36 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
14:34:37 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM) ←
14:34:38 <sandro> PROPOSED: Let's PLEASE be done in September, but we can hang in through December if really necessary. Let's ask for a charter extenstion through 31 December.
PROPOSED: Let's PLEASE be done in September, but we can hang in through December if really necessary. Let's ask for a charter extenstion through 31 December. ←
14:34:45 <sandro> Alan: +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:34:45 <ewallace> +1 (NIST)
Evan Wallace: +1 (NIST) ←
14:34:48 <msmith> +1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
14:34:51 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
14:35:12 <baojie> +1
14:35:21 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
14:35:22 <pfps> zakim, who is on the phone?
zakim, who is on the phone? ←
14:35:22 <Zakim> On the phone I see MIT346, Christine, Evan_Wallace, Achille
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MIT346, Christine, Evan_Wallace, Achille ←
14:35:54 <Christine> don't see a proposal on irc
Christine Golbreich: don't see a proposal on irc ←
14:36:04 <Christine> don't see a proposal on irc
Christine Golbreich: don't see a proposal on irc ←
14:36:07 <sandro> repeating
Sandro Hawke: repeating ←
14:36:09 <sandro> PROPOSED: Let's PLEASE be done in September, but we can hang in through December if really necessary. Let's ask for a charter extenstion through 31 December.
PROPOSED: Let's PLEASE be done in September, but we can hang in through December if really necessary. Let's ask for a charter extenstion through 31 December. ←
14:36:46 <sandro> RESOLVED: Let's PLEASE be done in September, but we can hang in through December if really necessary. Let's ask for a charter extension through 31 December.
RESOLVED: Let's PLEASE be done in September, but we can hang in through December if really necessary. Let's ask for a charter extension through 31 December. ←
14:36:53 <Christine> irc stopped at <pfps> ian: September is OK
Christine Golbreich: irc stopped at <pfps> ian: September is OK ←
14:37:27 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
14:37:27 <Zakim> On the phone I see MIT346, Christine, Evan_Wallace, Achille
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MIT346, Christine, Evan_Wallace, Achille ←
14:37:29 <Zakim> On IRC I see Zhe, Achille, ewallace, schneid, Christine, sandro, baojie, msmith, pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, bmotik, MarkusK_, ivan, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Zhe, Achille, ewallace, schneid, Christine, sandro, baojie, msmith, pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, bmotik, MarkusK_, ivan, trackbot ←
14:38:42 <pfps> Christine: +1
Christine Golbreich: +1 ←
14:39:12 <pfps> pfps: scribes for other sessions
Peter Patel-Schneider: scribes for other sessions ←
14:40:05 <pfps> schneid: I'll do datatypes
Michael Schneider: I'll do datatypes ←
14:40:15 <pfps> boris: I'll do philosophy
Boris Motik: I'll do philosophy ←
14:40:20 <msmith> I will scribe today LC Comments: presentation
Mike Smith: I will scribe today LC Comments: presentation ←
14:41:57 <pfps> zhe: I'll do test cases
14:42:28 <pfps> ian: all sessions have scribes - see updated agenda
Ian Horrocks: all sessions have scribes - see updated agenda ←
14:42:52 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/webcam
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/webcam ←
14:43:46 <pfps> Topic: Presentation
14:44:03 <pfps> ian and alan arrange for a trade - alan's Mac dongle for Ian's CV
ian and alan arrange for a trade - alan's Mac dongle for Ian's CV ←
14:45:25 <pfps> SubTopic: Introduction/Roadmap
14:45:45 <pfps> ian: we have a candidate introduction document
Ian Horrocks: we have a candidate introduction document ←
14:46:41 <pfps> see http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Introduction
see http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Introduction ←
14:47:43 <Zhe> I will scribe the last session tomorrow
Zhe Wu: I will scribe the last session tomorrow ←
14:47:50 <pfps> Ian: this is an introduction for a single document containing the core normative stuff
Ian Horrocks: this is an introduction for a single document containing the core normative stuff ←
14:47:52 <bmotik> I'll scribe tomorrow 11:15 - 11:45
Boris Motik: I'll scribe tomorrow 11:15 - 11:45 ←
14:48:09 <baojie> Jie on Day 2 09:00 - 10:45 LC Comments: Technical
Jie Bao: Jie on Day 2 09:00 - 10:45 LC Comments: Technical ←
14:48:43 <pfps> ian: i.e., syntax, semantics times 2, rdf mapping, profiles, conformance
Ian Horrocks: i.e., syntax, semantics times 2, rdf mapping, profiles, conformance ←
14:49:26 <pfps> ian: presentation documents - primer, NFR, QRG
Ian Horrocks: presentation documents - primer, NFR, QRG ←
14:49:48 <pfps> Ian: other syntaxes- XML, Manchester
Ian Horrocks: other syntaxes- XML, Manchester ←
14:50:34 <pfps> Alan: this came from Ivan's suggestion - except core didn't include profiles
Alan Ruttenberg: this came from Ivan's suggestion - except core didn't include profiles ←
14:51:12 <pfps> Alan: profiles isn't quite as central, and has garnered debate
Alan Ruttenberg: profiles isn't quite as central, and has garnered debate ←
14:51:50 <schneid> Question, who is scribing "Remaining Issues" section (tomorrow, 14:00) ?
Michael Schneider: Question, who is scribing "Remaining Issues" section (tomorrow, 14:00) ? ←
14:52:18 <pfps> Ivan: the core doc is related to A&AS
Ivan Herman: the core doc is related to A&AS ←
14:52:56 <pfps> msmith: wasn't OWL Lite defined in S&AS
Mike Smith: wasn't OWL Lite defined in S&AS ←
14:53:16 <pfps> Ivan: yes, but profiles is bigger than just the DL/Lite distinction
Ivan Herman: yes, but profiles is bigger than just the DL/Lite distinction ←
14:53:43 <pfps> Boris: OWL 1 core doc had different editors
Boris Motik: OWL 1 core doc had different editors ←
14:54:12 <ewallace> Sandro memory is consistent with mine
Evan Wallace: Sandro memory is consistent with mine ←
14:54:36 <pfps> Sandro: OWL 1 had 6 documents - one recommendation
Sandro Hawke: OWL 1 had 6 documents - one recommendation ←
14:54:39 <ewallace> Two normative documents S & AS and Test
Evan Wallace: Two normative documents S & AS and Test ←
14:54:50 <pfps> Ivan: one of these documents had the core spec
Ivan Herman: one of these documents had the core spec ←
14:55:03 <pfps> Ian: let's not get sidetracked by what was done
Ian Horrocks: let's not get sidetracked by what was done ←
14:55:30 <pfps> Boris: I see the need for some glue document, I like the introduction just produced
Boris Motik: I see the need for some glue document, I like the introduction just produced ←
14:55:45 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
14:56:25 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:56:26 <pfps> Boris: I like the document roadmap
Boris Motik: I like the document roadmap ←
14:56:36 <pfps> Ivan: do we keep together or split?
Ivan Herman: do we keep together or split? ←
14:57:01 <sandro> q-
Sandro Hawke: q- ←
14:57:55 <pfps> pfps: OWL 1 document set caused problems - ref was non-normative but is often treated as if it is
Peter Patel-Schneider: OWL 1 document set caused problems - ref was non-normative but is often treated as if it is ←
14:58:03 <sandro> Peter: I don't think we should do what OWL 1 did. It caused too many problems. People treated Reference as normative, when it wasn't meant to be.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I don't think we should do what OWL 1 did. It caused too many problems. People treated Reference as normative, when it wasn't meant to be. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:58:17 <pfps> ian: what can we do
Ian Horrocks: what can we do ←
14:58:21 <sandro> Peter: The document should state explicitely at the beginning that they are non normative.
Peter Patel-Schneider: The document should state explicitely at the beginning that they are non normative. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:58:24 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
14:58:29 <pfps> pfps: documents should state that they are non-normative
Peter Patel-Schneider: documents should state that they are non-normative ←
14:58:50 <pfps> sandro: I like this, but we should number the parts
Sandro Hawke: I like this, but we should number the parts ←
14:59:05 <pfps> sandro: use optional
Sandro Hawke: use optional ←
14:59:29 <pfps> ian: this doesn't capture the distinction - people used guide and ref as normative
Ian Horrocks: this doesn't capture the distinction - people used guide and ref as normative ←
14:59:49 <pfps> sandro: our titles are better - i.e., not "reference"
Sandro Hawke: our titles are better - i.e., not "reference" ←
14:59:52 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:59:58 <pfps> boris: I don't care about one document
Boris Motik: I don't care about one document ←
15:00:19 <pfps> boris: I care about the structure of the documents
Boris Motik: I care about the structure of the documents ←
15:00:26 <pfps> ivan: call them parts
Ivan Herman: call them parts ←
15:00:48 <pfps> ian: we need to figure out how to do this
Ian Horrocks: we need to figure out how to do this ←
15:01:30 <pfps> alan: address normative vs non-normative in the introduction and signal in other places
Alan Ruttenberg: address normative vs non-normative in the introduction and signal in other places ←
15:02:29 <pfps> jie: RPI is interested in removing profiles from rec track to remove potential problems
Jie Bao: RPI is interested in removing profiles from rec track to remove potential problems ←
15:03:03 <pfps> ian: let's do general principles first
Ian Horrocks: let's do general principles first ←
15:03:15 <pfps> ian: the book is the core stuff other docs are separate
Ian Horrocks: the book is the core stuff other docs are separate ←
15:03:46 <pfps> alan: goal of the book is that there is a core part of OWL other docs are not core
Alan Ruttenberg: goal of the book is that there is a core part of OWL other docs are not core ←
15:03:59 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:04:19 <pfps> alan: core reorganization might also help with complaints about profiles
Alan Ruttenberg: core reorganization might also help with complaints about profiles ←
15:05:23 <pfps> ivan: my idea was three recommendations - core book, profiles, test cases
Ivan Herman: my idea was three recommendations - core book, profiles, test cases ←
15:05:48 <pfps> ivan: perhaps put conformance (and test cases?) into book
Ivan Herman: perhaps put conformance (and test cases?) into book ←
15:05:55 <alanr> ian, boris, sandro, peter
Alan Ruttenberg: ian, boris, sandro, peter ←
15:06:13 <alanr> peter, sandro, boris, michael
Alan Ruttenberg: peter, sandro, boris, michael ←
15:07:13 <pfps> pfps: the core is structure (not syntax, just like RDF) plus semantics
Peter Patel-Schneider: the core is structure (not syntax, just like RDF) plus semantics ←
15:07:43 <pfps> sandro: recommendation and normative is misleading
Sandro Hawke: recommendation and normative is misleading ←
15:08:20 <pfps> sandro: there are core parts, other parts, presentation stuff
Sandro Hawke: there are core parts, other parts, presentation stuff ←
15:08:28 <pfps> sandro: conformance then is in the core
Sandro Hawke: conformance then is in the core ←
15:08:29 <alanr> Alan thinks optionality isn't clearly defined, in Sandro's discussion.
Alan Ruttenberg: Alan thinks optionality isn't clearly defined, in Sandro's discussion. ←
15:08:44 <alanr> michael, ivan, zhe
Alan Ruttenberg: michael, ivan, zhe ←
15:09:43 <pfps> boris: I prefer introduction plus document set - not book - i.e., status quo (more or less)
Boris Motik: I prefer introduction plus document set - not book - i.e., status quo (more or less) ←
15:09:52 <cgolbrei> +q
Christine Golbreich: +q ←
15:10:46 <pfps> schneid: conformance has lots of references to profiles so it would have to be split up in a core
Michael Schneider: conformance has lots of references to profiles so it would have to be split up in a core ←
15:10:52 <alanr> mike, ivan, zhe, christine
Alan Ruttenberg: mike, ivan, zhe, christine ←
15:11:04 <pfps> msmith: I agree with boris - introduction plus document set
Mike Smith: I agree with boris - introduction plus document set ←
15:11:21 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:11:38 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
15:11:45 <pfps> ivan: I'm OK with separate document set
Ivan Herman: I'm OK with separate document set ←
15:12:13 <pfps> ivan: we might have to split conformance and test cases
Ivan Herman: we might have to split conformance and test cases ←
15:12:22 <pfps> boris: test cases are also important
Boris Motik: test cases are also important ←
15:12:52 <pfps> zhe: oracle wants profiles on rec track
Zhe Wu: oracle wants profiles on rec track ←
15:13:04 <sandro> (Dropped webcam size, to reduce lag.)
Sandro Hawke: (Dropped webcam size, to reduce lag.) ←
15:13:08 <alanr> ack christine
Alan Ruttenberg: ack christine ←
15:13:09 <Achille> q+
Achille Fokoue: q+ ←
15:13:16 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:13:16 <sandro> (refresh might be necessary)
Sandro Hawke: (refresh might be necessary) ←
15:13:18 <alanr> ack cgolbrei
Alan Ruttenberg: ack cgolbrei ←
15:13:29 <pfps> christine: I don't like the book idea
Christine Golbreich: I don't like the book idea ←
15:13:43 <pfps> christine: we do need to determine core documents
Christine Golbreich: we do need to determine core documents ←
15:13:55 <pfps> christine: we need to worry about where profiles goes
Christine Golbreich: we need to worry about where profiles goes ←
15:14:08 <pfps> christine: we need to worry about normative / non-normative
Christine Golbreich: we need to worry about normative / non-normative ←
15:14:30 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:14:39 <pfps> christine: I don't like stress on normative / non-normative in introduction
Christine Golbreich: I don't like stress on normative / non-normative in introduction ←
15:14:53 <pfps> christine: why are we talking about rec-track status
Christine Golbreich: why are we talking about rec-track status ←
15:15:23 <pfps> ivan: we need to rediscuss rec-track status because of LC comments
Ivan Herman: we need to rediscuss rec-track status because of LC comments ←
15:15:56 <pfps> ivan: we need to be clear on how things fit together to help people determine how OWL fits into SW
Ivan Herman: we need to be clear on how things fit together to help people determine how OWL fits into SW ←
15:16:17 <cgolbrei> +q
Christine Golbreich: +q ←
15:16:18 <pfps> ian: this session addresses LC comments on this point
Ian Horrocks: this session addresses LC comments on this point ←
15:16:59 <pfps> alan: i like the book idea - we have too many documents - some people don't read them
Alan Ruttenberg: i like the book idea - we have too many documents - some people don't read them ←
15:17:12 <pfps> alan: fewer documents are easier to read
Alan Ruttenberg: fewer documents are easier to read ←
15:17:22 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:17:36 <pfps> alan: I would like three documents (or four)
Alan Ruttenberg: I would like three documents (or four) ←
15:17:37 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
15:17:45 <alanr> q+ sandro
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ sandro ←
15:18:10 <pfps> Achille: the introduction will help a lot on how to read
Achille Fokoue: the introduction will help a lot on how to read ←
15:18:21 <pfps> Achille: profiles is important to IBM
Achille Fokoue: profiles is important to IBM ←
15:18:52 <pfps> Achille: we want SW to scale - profiles shows how
Achille Fokoue: we want SW to scale - profiles shows how ←
15:19:10 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:19:10 <pfps> Achille: profiles should thus be rec track
Achille Fokoue: profiles should thus be rec track ←
15:19:16 <alanr> ack Achille
Alan Ruttenberg: ack Achille ←
15:19:17 <ivan> ack Achille
Ivan Herman: ack Achille ←
15:19:45 <pfps> Christine: we have to clarify and respond to issues
Christine Golbreich: we have to clarify and respond to issues ←
15:19:57 <pfps> Christine: but I don't see a connection to rec-track status
Christine Golbreich: but I don't see a connection to rec-track status ←
15:20:10 <pfps> Christine: profiles should be in core
Christine Golbreich: profiles should be in core ←
15:20:15 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
15:20:19 <alanr> ack cgolbrei
Alan Ruttenberg: ack cgolbrei ←
15:20:21 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:20:22 <alanr> ack sandro
Alan Ruttenberg: ack sandro ←
15:20:31 <IanH> q+schneid
Ian Horrocks: q+schneid ←
15:20:39 <pfps> Sandro: I'm opposed to the core idea
Sandro Hawke: I'm opposed to the core idea ←
15:20:48 <alanr> q+ boris
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ boris ←
15:21:12 <pfps> Sandro: grouping into three would be an improvement but the core doc will be very big and bring in lots of stuff
Sandro Hawke: grouping into three would be an improvement but the core doc will be very big and bring in lots of stuff ←
15:21:24 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:21:26 <pfps> ian: core would be about 150 pages
Ian Horrocks: core would be about 150 pages ←
15:21:28 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:21:43 <Zhe> we can use smaller font
Zhe Wu: we can use smaller font ←
15:21:49 <alanr> q+ to respond to sandro ("too hard in book")
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ to respond to sandro ("too hard in book") ←
15:22:13 <alanr> q+ peter
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ peter ←
15:22:15 <pfps> sandro: our best bet is to make a good roadmap so that people only need to read the stuff they need
Sandro Hawke: our best bet is to make a good roadmap so that people only need to read the stuff they need ←
15:22:20 <ivan> ack schneid
Ivan Herman: ack schneid ←
15:22:49 <pfps> schneid: I don't see how collecting into one book helps - the roadmap is sufficient
Michael Schneider: I don't see how collecting into one book helps - the roadmap is sufficient ←
15:23:05 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:23:06 <pfps> ian: what does "the book" mean
Ian Horrocks: what does "the book" mean ←
15:23:09 <cgolbrei> proposed reading guide at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/IH2#Set_of_Documents
Christine Golbreich: proposed reading guide at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/IH2#Set_of_Documents ←
15:23:18 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:23:37 <alanr> q+ mike
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ mike ←
15:23:43 <alanr> q+ ivan
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ivan ←
15:24:06 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:24:39 <pfps> the scribe is confused as to what recommendation means
the scribe is confused as to what recommendation means ←
15:24:40 <ivan> ivan-
Ivan Herman: ivan- ←
15:24:57 <sandro> ivan: 1 rec == 1 entry on TR page, one URI for the whole thing.
Ivan Herman: 1 rec == 1 entry on TR page, one URI for the whole thing. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:25:07 <pfps> Ivan: recommendation = TR
Ivan Herman: recommendation = TR ←
15:25:42 <sandro> ivan: in OWL 1, each CHAPTER has it's own URI, because there's a table of contents. that's the model I have in mind.
Ivan Herman: in OWL 1, each CHAPTER has it's own URI, because there's a table of contents. that's the model I have in mind. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:25:43 <pfps> ivan: OWL S&AS = 1 recommendation = one TR, but chapters each have separate URIs
Ivan Herman: OWL S&AS = 1 recommendation = one TR, but chapters each have separate URIs ←
15:26:10 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:26:15 <sandro> ivan: I want one URI for OWL 2, which people can use as the reference for the whole thing.
Ivan Herman: I want one URI for OWL 2, which people can use as the reference for the whole thing. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:26:31 <ewallace> I always disliked the compound structure of the OWL1 S & AS
Evan Wallace: I always disliked the compound structure of the OWL1 S & AS ←
15:26:46 <IanH> ack boris
Ian Horrocks: ack boris ←
15:26:59 <pfps> boris: we need one document as an entry point
Boris Motik: we need one document as an entry point ←
15:27:26 <alanr> alan: liked smaller numbers of TRs - feel it is more appealing to new people coming in
Alan Ruttenberg: liked smaller numbers of TRs - feel it is more appealing to new people coming in [ Scribe Assist by Alan Ruttenberg ] ←
15:27:30 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:27:35 <pfps> boris: I would much be able to cite individual parts as separate documents
Boris Motik: I would much be able to cite individual parts as separate documents ←
15:27:37 <pfps> q-
q- ←
15:27:45 <pfps> ack peter
ack peter ←
15:27:48 <ivan> q-
Ivan Herman: q- ←
15:28:12 <pfps> ian: let's start to move forward
Ian Horrocks: let's start to move forward ←
15:28:18 <pfps> msmith: I agree with Boris
Mike Smith: I agree with Boris ←
15:28:36 <sandro> mike: two axes: normativity and core-vs-optional
Mike Smith: two axes: normativity and core-vs-optional [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:28:49 <pfps> msmith: keep straight: normative vs optional
Mike Smith: keep straight: normative vs optional ←
15:28:53 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:28:54 <alanr> q- alan
Alan Ruttenberg: q- alan ←
15:28:58 <pfps> msmith: there can be an optional normative document
Mike Smith: there can be an optional normative document ←
15:28:58 <sandro> mike: "normative description of how to support optional component"
Mike Smith: "normative description of how to support optional component" [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:28:58 <alanr> ack mike
Alan Ruttenberg: ack mike ←
15:29:51 <pfps> ian: what is the book - the book could be an intro TR that points to the other documents?
Ian Horrocks: what is the book - the book could be an intro TR that points to the other documents? ←
15:30:05 <pfps> ian: would the other documents be separate TRs
Ian Horrocks: would the other documents be separate TRs ←
15:30:21 <MarkusK_> q+
Markus Krötzsch: q+ ←
15:30:22 <pfps> sandro: only one TR - the intro
Sandro Hawke: only one TR - the intro ←
15:30:40 <pfps> ivan: yes, the other documents are real things
Ivan Herman: yes, the other documents are real things ←
15:30:42 <sandro> sandro: Ah! I get it now. This (introduction) might be the ONLY thing on the TR page.
Sandro Hawke: Ah! I get it now. This (introduction) might be the ONLY thing on the TR page. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:31:09 <pfps> ian: it would be good to have the intro document first in searching
Ian Horrocks: it would be good to have the intro document first in searching ←
15:31:39 <pfps> alan: three documents?
Alan Ruttenberg: three documents? ←
15:32:10 <pfps> ivan: originally, yes - book was the core - others were separate TRs
Ivan Herman: originally, yes - book was the core - others were separate TRs ←
15:32:41 <pfps> alan: one TR puts everything in one basket
Alan Ruttenberg: one TR puts everything in one basket ←
15:33:00 <pfps> ian: if we make this be one recommendation then a vote against profiles is a vote against the whole
Ian Horrocks: if we make this be one recommendation then a vote against profiles is a vote against the whole ←
15:33:27 <pfps> sandro: we could revise (take out profiles) and redo
Sandro Hawke: we could revise (take out profiles) and redo ←
15:33:53 <pfps> markus: I like one TR - what about the other documents
Markus Krötzsch: I like one TR - what about the other documents ←
15:34:11 <sandro> sandro: it's like papers collected into a volume -- you can cite the whole thing, or the parts.
Sandro Hawke: it's like papers collected into a volume -- you can cite the whole thing, or the parts. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:34:23 <cgolbrei> what about UF doc ? in that basket ?
Christine Golbreich: what about UF doc ? in that basket ? ←
15:34:27 <pfps> ivan: they still would be citable
Ivan Herman: they still would be citable ←
15:34:31 <alanr> yes
Alan Ruttenberg: yes ←
15:34:35 <alanr> to christine
Alan Ruttenberg: to christine ←
15:34:54 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
15:34:57 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:34:59 <pfps> msmith: what about deciding what goes in a small book and what doesn't
Mike Smith: what about deciding what goes in a small book and what doesn't ←
15:35:00 <alanr> ack Markus_K
Alan Ruttenberg: ack Markus_K ←
15:35:12 <alanr> ack MarkusK_
Alan Ruttenberg: ack MarkusK_ ←
15:35:31 <pfps> msmith: what about the OWL page at W3C? doesn't this serve the same purpose
Mike Smith: what about the OWL page at W3C? doesn't this serve the same purpose ←
15:35:39 <msmith> this page: http://www.w3.org/2004/OWL/
Mike Smith: this page: http://www.w3.org/2004/OWL/ ←
15:35:48 <pfps> markus: an entry point isn't really normative
Markus Krötzsch: an entry point isn't really normative ←
15:36:22 <pfps> ian: where is the fight about profiles translate into the 1 TR setting
Ian Horrocks: where is the fight about profiles translate into the 1 TR setting ←
15:36:42 <pfps> ivan: if it is part of the book then it is rec-track
Ivan Herman: if it is part of the book then it is rec-track ←
15:36:50 <alanr> q+ zhe
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ zhe ←
15:37:09 <alanr> q+ alan (to mention that some of these are not recs and so this would be a change)
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ alan (to mention that some of these are not recs and so this would be a change) ←
15:37:12 <pfps> sandro: one TR is somewhat orthogonal to the rest of the discussion
Sandro Hawke: one TR is somewhat orthogonal to the rest of the discussion ←
15:37:18 <schneid> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
15:37:24 <pfps> sandro: small editorial change (but large process change)
Sandro Hawke: small editorial change (but large process change) ←
15:37:27 <alanr> q+ alanr to mention that some of these are not recs and so this would be a change
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ alanr to mention that some of these are not recs and so this would be a change ←
15:37:41 <pfps> sandro: everything becomes part of the REC (or off in some odd corner)
Sandro Hawke: everything becomes part of the REC (or off in some odd corner) ←
15:38:08 <alanr> q+ pfps
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ pfps ←
15:38:09 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:38:14 <ivan> ack Zhe
Ivan Herman: ack Zhe ←
15:38:25 <pfps> sandro: if the roadmap is good enough then everything should be OK
Sandro Hawke: if the roadmap is good enough then everything should be OK ←
15:38:37 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:38:39 <pfps> zhe: what does it take to kick profiles out
Zhe Wu: what does it take to kick profiles out ←
15:39:20 <alanr> q+ jie
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ jie ←
15:39:26 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:39:27 <pfps> ivan: one vote against that isn't overcome
Ivan Herman: one vote against that isn't overcome ←
15:39:52 <pfps> sandro: but votes against are overcome fairly often
Sandro Hawke: but votes against are overcome fairly often ←
15:40:18 <pfps> ivan: we don't want votes against anyway, as it complicates the process
Ivan Herman: we don't want votes against anyway, as it complicates the process ←
15:40:19 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:40:30 <IanH> ack schneid
Ian Horrocks: ack schneid ←
15:40:37 <sandro> Ian: Yes, Sandro, then the "Profiles" status debate turns into a debate over how Profiles is presented in the Roadmap
Ian Horrocks: Yes, Sandro, then the "Profiles" status debate turns into a debate over how Profiles is presented in the Roadmap [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:41:05 <pfps> schneid: there were several LC comments asking for an introduction, but they didn't ask for a single TR
Michael Schneider: there were several LC comments asking for an introduction, but they didn't ask for a single TR ←
15:41:25 <pfps> ian: there was considerable confusion as to what OWL 2 was
Ian Horrocks: there was considerable confusion as to what OWL 2 was ←
15:41:31 <pfps> ian: we need to address that
Ian Horrocks: we need to address that ←
15:41:33 <sandro> Ian: it's not just the people who said the spec was confused; it's that some people were clearly confused by the spec.
Ian Horrocks: it's not just the people who said the spec was confused; it's that some people were clearly confused by the spec. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:41:35 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:41:55 <msmith> +1 to schneid
Mike Smith: +1 to schneid ←
15:41:58 <pfps> schneid: can we then ask the WG if just an introduction is OK
Michael Schneider: can we then ask the WG if just an introduction is OK ←
15:42:05 <pfps> q-
q- ←
15:42:13 <pfps> q+
q+ ←
15:42:28 <pfps> alan: I'm concerned that this makes everything a REC
Alan Ruttenberg: I'm concerned that this makes everything a REC ←
15:42:39 <schneid> schneid: proposes to straw poll on question whether WG believes that roadmap is sufficient to satisfy the existing LC comments
Michael Schneider: proposes to straw poll on question whether WG believes that roadmap is sufficient to satisfy the existing LC comments [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
15:42:50 <pfps> alan: e.g., Manchester syntax
Alan Ruttenberg: e.g., Manchester syntax ←
15:42:58 <pfps> ivan: who said that
Ivan Herman: who said that ←
15:43:07 <pfps> sandro: it falls out of the proposal
Sandro Hawke: it falls out of the proposal ←
15:43:18 <sandro> sandro: Right -- if there's ONE TR then mter, etc, become Rec Track,
Sandro Hawke: Right -- if there's ONE TR then mter, etc, become Rec Track, [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:43:34 <pfps> alan: if we have a core document then we can still point to the other parts
Alan Ruttenberg: if we have a core document then we can still point to the other parts ←
15:43:46 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:43:46 <sandro> w+
Sandro Hawke: w+ ←
15:43:47 <pfps> alan: this would help with the comments
Alan Ruttenberg: this would help with the comments ←
15:43:48 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
15:43:52 <alanr> ack alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: ack alanr ←
15:43:53 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to mention that some of these are not recs and so this would be a change
Zakim IRC Bot: alanr, you wanted to mention that some of these are not recs and so this would be a change ←
15:43:55 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
15:43:58 <ivan> ack alanr
Ivan Herman: ack alanr ←
15:44:05 <ivan> ack jie
Ivan Herman: ack jie ←
15:45:05 <pfps> jie: what would be the titles of the documents
Jie Bao: what would be the titles of the documents ←
15:45:15 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:45:21 <pfps> ivan: the core would be "OWL 2 Language"; the others stay the same
Ivan Herman: the core would be "OWL 2 Language"; the others stay the same ←
15:45:33 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
15:45:33 <ivan> ack pfps
Ivan Herman: ack pfps ←
15:45:48 <cgolbrei> and NF&R as well etc.
Christine Golbreich: and NF&R as well etc. ←
15:45:50 <baojie> q+
15:45:53 <pfps> pfps: if we have a single TR then Manchester should be part of it
Peter Patel-Schneider: if we have a single TR then Manchester should be part of it ←
15:46:16 <pfps> sandro: one TR for the rec-track parts
Sandro Hawke: one TR for the rec-track parts ←
15:46:19 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:46:29 <pfps> sandro: intro points to everything
Sandro Hawke: intro points to everything ←
15:46:45 <pfps> msmith: what are the advantages to a single TR
Mike Smith: what are the advantages to a single TR ←
15:47:20 <schneid> I think a single TR would be an OWL Too Full ;-)
Michael Schneider: I think a single TR would be an OWL Too Full ;-) ←
15:47:28 <pfps> ivan: single TR is not essential - essential is good roadmap
Ivan Herman: single TR is not essential - essential is good roadmap ←
15:47:41 <pfps> ivan: only the core stuff should be REC, others not
Ivan Herman: only the core stuff should be REC, others not ←
15:47:44 <pfps> pfps: +1
15:48:22 <pfps> ivan: there is some dissention on what should be REC
Ivan Herman: there is some dissention on what should be REC ←
15:48:32 <pfps> Topic: Coffee Break
15:48:45 <cgolbrei> remind objections not having others as rec
Christine Golbreich: remind objections not having others as rec ←
15:49:47 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: -Evan_Wallace ←
15:51:45 <Zakim> -Christine
Zakim IRC Bot: -Christine ←
16:07:00 <msmith> scribenick: msmith
(No events recorded for 15 minutes)
(Scribe set to Mike Smith)
16:07:17 <msmith> Topic: Presentation
16:07:36 <IanH> Remote participants: we are starting again
Ian Horrocks: Remote participants: we are starting again ←
16:08:07 <pfps> Subtopic: Introduction/Roadmap
16:08:16 <msmith> alanr: seems that people like the idea of a roadmap. correct?
Alan Ruttenberg: seems that people like the idea of a roadmap. correct? ←
16:08:43 <msmith> ivan: we did not look at all of the introduction document
Ivan Herman: we did not look at all of the introduction document ←
16:08:44 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
16:08:52 <IanH> ack sandro
Ian Horrocks: ack sandro ←
16:08:57 <IanH> ack baojie
Ian Horrocks: ack baojie ←
16:09:00 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
16:09:11 <msmith> alanr: can we agree that it is a good entrypoint
Alan Ruttenberg: can we agree that it is a good entrypoint ←
16:09:21 <msmith> ... I'm hearing that it does well.
... I'm hearing that it does well. ←
16:10:03 <msmith> alanr: I suggest a strawpoll as in ... "leave the same number of TRs as now"
Alan Ruttenberg: I suggest a strawpoll as in ... "leave the same number of TRs as now" ←
16:10:19 <msmith> schneid: is this in every document
Michael Schneider: is this in every document ←
16:10:24 <msmith> alanr: yes.
Alan Ruttenberg: yes. ←
16:10:33 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
16:10:43 <msmith> ivan: I had not considered it in every document, until now
Ivan Herman: I had not considered it in every document, until now ←
16:11:02 <msmith> pfps: I intended it to be in the preamble of every document
Peter Patel-Schneider: I intended it to be in the preamble of every document ←
16:11:18 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
16:11:18 <msmith> alanr: ok, we can agree we like the text somewhere
Alan Ruttenberg: ok, we can agree we like the text somewhere ←
16:11:46 <msmith> pfps: we could have another doc called introduction
Peter Patel-Schneider: we could have another doc called introduction ←
16:12:01 <msmith> alanr: so, consolidating vs. many TRs?
Alan Ruttenberg: so, consolidating vs. many TRs? ←
16:12:21 <Zakim> +??P12
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P12 ←
16:12:33 <pfps> option 1: OWL 2 S&AS plus other documents
Peter Patel-Schneider: option 1: OWL 2 S&AS plus other documents ←
16:12:41 <pfps> option 2: one TR to rule them all
Peter Patel-Schneider: option 2: one TR to rule them all ←
16:12:44 <msmith> alanr: there were different options, one TR, several, with different groupings, many (as now)
Alan Ruttenberg: there were different options, one TR, several, with different groupings, many (as now) ←
16:12:46 <christine> zakim, ??P12 is christine
Christine Golbreich: zakim, ??P12 is christine ←
16:12:46 <Zakim> +christine; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +christine; got it ←
16:13:10 <pfps> option 3: eleven+ TRs (plus maybe introduction)
Peter Patel-Schneider: option 3: eleven+ TRs (plus maybe introduction) ←
16:13:40 <msmith> pfps: option 2 is a single TR with multiple sections
Peter Patel-Schneider: option 2 is a single TR with multiple sections ←
16:14:04 <msmith> alanr: some consolidation vs. separate documents
Alan Ruttenberg: some consolidation vs. separate documents ←
16:14:36 <msmith> pfps: the alternatives are not fined enough for me to express a preference
Peter Patel-Schneider: the alternatives are not fined enough for me to express a preference ←
16:15:55 <alanr> 1) Some sort of consolidation in the number of technical reports is appealing
Alan Ruttenberg: 1) Some sort of consolidation in the number of technical reports is appealing ←
16:16:06 <alanr> 2) I want to leave all the documents as separate TRs as they are now
Alan Ruttenberg: 2) I want to leave all the documents as separate TRs as they are now ←
16:16:11 <alanr> STRAW POLL
Alan Ruttenberg: STRAW POLL ←
16:16:19 <bmotik> 0
Boris Motik: 0 ←
16:16:20 <msmith> msmith: 2
Mike Smith: 2 ←
16:16:21 <schneid> 2
16:16:21 <pfps> 2
16:16:22 <ivan> 1
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
16:16:25 <alanr> 1
Alan Ruttenberg: 1 ←
16:16:26 <christine> one ambiguous please clarify
Christine Golbreich: one ambiguous please clarify ←
16:16:29 <baojie> 0
16:16:29 <sandro> 1
Sandro Hawke: 1 ←
16:16:31 <Zhe> 1
16:16:32 <MarkusK_> 0
Markus Krötzsch: 0 ←
16:16:37 <Rinke> 0
Rinke Hoekstra: 0 ←
16:16:50 <IanH> 2
Ian Horrocks: 2 ←
16:16:50 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: +Evan_Wallace ←
16:17:21 <Achille> 0
Achille Fokoue: 0 ←
16:18:23 <msmith> alanr: we will attempt to provide finer grained alternatives
Alan Ruttenberg: we will attempt to provide finer grained alternatives ←
16:18:58 <ewallace> core + <what>?
Evan Wallace: core + <what>? ←
16:20:07 <christine> numbered list at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/IH2#Set_of_Documents
Christine Golbreich: numbered list at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/IH2#Set_of_Documents ←
16:20:59 <christine> could you write the poll using the numbers please ?
Christine Golbreich: could you write the poll using the numbers please ? ←
16:25:20 <msmith> alanr: criteria, political considerations, user manageability, and sensibility
Alan Ruttenberg: criteria, political considerations, user manageability, and sensibility ←
16:25:21 <IanH> 1) Leave all documents separate as they are, but add introduction
Ian Horrocks: 1) Leave all documents separate as they are, but add introduction ←
16:25:21 <IanH> 2) Single TR with at least syntax, semantics (2), mapping, conformance, profiles(?), test(?); rest of the documents stay as is
Ian Horrocks: 2) Single TR with at least syntax, semantics (2), mapping, conformance, profiles(?), test(?); rest of the documents stay as is ←
16:25:21 <IanH> 3) One TR for everything
Ian Horrocks: 3) One TR for everything ←
16:25:21 <IanH> 4) Single TR with syntax and semantics (2)
Ian Horrocks: 4) Single TR with syntax and semantics (2) ←
16:25:22 <IanH> 5) Three TRs as per roadmap (core, user facing, optional)
Ian Horrocks: 5) Three TRs as per roadmap (core, user facing, optional) ←
16:26:02 <msmith> ivan: (with others) can we express preferences?
Ivan Herman: (with others) can we express preferences? ←
16:26:29 <alanr> STRAW POLL
Alan Ruttenberg: STRAW POLL ←
16:26:37 <alanr> Allocate 3 points to vote with
Alan Ruttenberg: Allocate 3 points to vote with ←
16:27:12 <alanr> e.g. 2 points for proposal 1, 1 point for proposal 2 => 1,1,2
Alan Ruttenberg: e.g. 2 points for proposal 1, 1 point for proposal 2 => 1,1,2 ←
16:27:13 <christine> does 3 means one TR each or one single TR with all within?
Christine Golbreich: does 3 means one TR each or one single TR with all within? ←
16:27:26 <bmotik> 1,1, 3
Boris Motik: 1,1, 3 ←
16:27:28 <baojie> 1, 1, 5
16:27:30 <msmith> msmith: 1,1,1
Mike Smith: 1,1,1 ←
16:27:33 <Achille> 1, 1, 1
Achille Fokoue: 1, 1, 1 ←
16:27:35 <pfps> 1,1,3
Peter Patel-Schneider: 1,1,3 ←
16:27:35 <schneid> 1) 1) 1)
Michael Schneider: 1) 1) 1) ←
16:27:36 <Zhe> 1,1,1
16:27:51 <alanr> 2,2,2
Alan Ruttenberg: 2,2,2 ←
16:27:53 <MarkusK_> 1,1,1
Markus Krötzsch: 1,1,1 ←
16:27:59 <ewallace> 1,1,1
Evan Wallace: 1,1,1 ←
16:28:18 <ivan> 1,2
Ivan Herman: 1,2 ←
16:28:25 <IanH> 1,2,5
Ian Horrocks: 1,2,5 ←
16:28:32 <sandro> 1,3,3
Sandro Hawke: 1,3,3 ←
16:29:07 <christine> 1,1,1
Christine Golbreich: 1,1,1 ←
16:29:27 <alanr> 1 wins
Alan Ruttenberg: 1 wins ←
16:29:33 <alanr> straw poll
Alan Ruttenberg: straw poll ←
16:30:36 <msmith> alanr: so, moving forward with this result, how do we organize the introduction and roadmap text?
Alan Ruttenberg: so, moving forward with this result, how do we organize the introduction and roadmap text? ←
16:31:48 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
16:32:26 <msmith> ivan: I would like a person to come to this document and see how things fit together
Ivan Herman: I would like a person to come to this document and see how things fit together ←
16:32:50 <msmith> alanr: suggestion to include a section on how to read normativity vs non-normative
Alan Ruttenberg: suggestion to include a section on how to read normativity vs non-normative ←
16:33:14 <msmith> msmith: non-normative == informative in many contexts, I think of it that way
Mike Smith: non-normative == informative in many contexts, I think of it that way ←
16:33:42 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Roadmap
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Roadmap ←
16:33:42 <msmith> alanr: the roadmap should exist in each of the documents
Alan Ruttenberg: the roadmap should exist in each of the documents ←
16:34:35 <msmith> sandro: this is an alternative presentation that is more visually obvious
Sandro Hawke: this is an alternative presentation that is more visually obvious ←
16:35:38 <sandro> sandro: Part numbers are very important for some of us, eg me.
Sandro Hawke: Part numbers are very important for some of us, eg me. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:35:42 <msmith> alanr: this is orthogonal to rec track status
Alan Ruttenberg: this is orthogonal to rec track status ←
16:36:33 <msmith> alanr: we agree on an intro tr with the roadmap and other content. we agree to have some form of roadmap in each document.
Alan Ruttenberg: we agree on an intro tr with the roadmap and other content. we agree to have some form of roadmap in each document. ←
16:36:50 <msmith> ianh: i'd like pointer to intro in each document
Ian Horrocks: i'd like pointer to intro in each document ←
16:37:17 <msmith> alanr: can we agree to take to list for the rest?
Alan Ruttenberg: can we agree to take to list for the rest? ←
16:38:35 <msmith> msmith: required/optional is dependent on context. e.g., to a ql reasoner implementator, profiles is not optional
Mike Smith: required/optional is dependent on context. e.g., to a ql reasoner implementator, profiles is not optional ←
16:39:01 <msmith> pfps: I suggest core and *nothing*
Peter Patel-Schneider: I suggest core and *nothing* ←
16:39:41 <msmith> there appears to be general agreement
there appears to be general agreement ←
16:40:20 <msmith> alanr: what about conformance? I think it is core
Alan Ruttenberg: what about conformance? I think it is core ←
16:40:41 <msmith> ivan: we should change the name of C&T
Ivan Herman: we should change the name of C&T ←
16:41:40 <msmith> ianh: can we call it just "Conformance"?
Ian Horrocks: can we call it just "Conformance"? ←
16:41:46 <schneid> schneid: the test cases are actually about conformance, so "conformance" is fine by me
Michael Schneider: the test cases are actually about conformance, so "conformance" is fine by me [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
16:41:48 <msmith> sandro: reload, changes made
Sandro Hawke: reload, changes made ←
16:43:16 <msmith> ivan: we need to decide status of introduction document
Ivan Herman: we need to decide status of introduction document ←
16:43:47 <msmith> pfps: I believe we need to discuss status of other documents as well
Peter Patel-Schneider: I believe we need to discuss status of other documents as well ←
16:43:58 <msmith> alanr: we will take that later
Alan Ruttenberg: we will take that later ←
16:44:42 <alanr> Proposed: 1) We will add an introduction as TR. 2) We will repeat set of documents in each of the other documents 3) Documents are specified according to categories in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Roadmap
PROPOSED: 1) We will add an introduction as TR. 2) We will repeat set of documents in each of the other documents 3) Documents are specified according to categories in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Roadmap ←
16:45:23 <pfps> s/set of documents/document roadmap/
Peter Patel-Schneider: s/set of documents/document roadmap/ ←
16:46:13 <alanr> + We will respond to LC comments (at least) 10, 42, 49, 56(partial) 54, 29, 34a, 27, 26a, 37 explaining this.
Alan Ruttenberg: + We will respond to LC comments (at least) 10, 42, 49, 56(partial) 54, 29, 34a, 27, 26a, 37 explaining this. ←
16:47:36 <alanr> + We will respond to LC comments (at least) 10, 42, 49, 56(partial), 29 (partial) , 34a , 27 explaining this.
Alan Ruttenberg: + We will respond to LC comments (at least) 10, 42, 49, 56(partial), 29 (partial) , 34a , 27 explaining this. ←
16:47:39 <msmith> there is discussion about which LC comments this addresses
there is discussion about which LC comments this addresses ←
16:48:53 <alanr> PROPOSED: 1) We will add an introduction as TR. 2) We will repeat set of documents(as listed in Roadmap) in each of the other documents 3) Documents are specified according to categories in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Roadmap. We will respond to LC comments (at least) 10, 42, 49, 56(partial), 29 (partial) , 34a , 27 explaining this.
PROPOSED: 1) We will add an introduction as TR. 2) We will repeat set of documents(as listed in Roadmap) in each of the other documents 3) Documents are specified according to categories in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Roadmap. We will respond to LC comments (at least) 10, 42, 49, 56(partial), 29 (partial) , 34a , 27 explaining this. ←
16:49:25 <christine> +q
Christine Golbreich: +q ←
16:49:30 <alanr> ack alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: ack alanr ←
16:49:32 <alanr> ack christine
Alan Ruttenberg: ack christine ←
16:49:41 <alanr> go ahead christine
Alan Ruttenberg: go ahead christine ←
16:50:09 <msmith> msmith: I want it to be clear that the introduction is in-progress and will be treated as such in any LC comments
Mike Smith: I want it to be clear that the introduction is in-progress and will be treated as such in any LC comments ←
16:50:22 <msmith> christine: I would like to add some content to introduction
Christine Golbreich: I would like to add some content to introduction ←
16:50:30 <schneid> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
16:50:47 <alanr> ack schneid
Alan Ruttenberg: ack schneid ←
16:51:01 <msmith> ... so we're voting without the text being fixed
... so we're voting without the text being fixed ←
16:51:05 <msmith> alanr: yes
Alan Ruttenberg: yes ←
16:51:14 <pfps> +1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU ←
16:51:15 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
16:51:17 <msmith> schneid: rec status of introduction is unresolved
Michael Schneider: rec status of introduction is unresolved ←
16:51:17 <alanr> +1 SC
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 SC ←
16:51:20 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
16:51:21 <Zhe> +1
16:51:22 <schneid> +1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
16:51:22 <MarkusK_> +1 FZI
Markus Krötzsch: +1 FZI ←
16:51:24 <Achille> +1
Achille Fokoue: +1 ←
16:51:30 <msmith> msmith: +1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
16:51:32 <ivan> 1
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
16:51:43 <ewallace> +1 NIST
Evan Wallace: +1 NIST ←
16:51:45 <baojie> +1
16:52:20 <christine> 0
16:52:25 <alanr> RESOLVED:1) We will add an introduction as TR. 2) We will repeat set of documents(as listed in Roadmap) in each of the other documents 3) Documents are specified according to categories in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Roadmap. We will respond to LC comments (at least) 10, 42, 49, 56(partial), 29 (partial) , 34a , 27 explaining this.
RESOLVED: 1) We will add an introduction as TR. 2) We will repeat set of documents(as listed in Roadmap) in each of the other documents 3) Documents are specified according to categories in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Roadmap. We will respond to LC comments (at least) 10, 42, 49, 56(partial), 29 (partial) , 34a , 27 explaining this. ←
16:52:52 <msmith> Subtopic: Status of Introduction Document
16:53:18 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-12-10#resolution_1
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-12-10#resolution_1 ←
16:54:15 <msmith> alanr: the only one pending is the new Introduction
Alan Ruttenberg: the only one pending is the new Introduction ←
16:54:33 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-01-14#resolution_2 (manchester)
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-01-14#resolution_2 (manchester) ←
16:54:54 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
16:55:01 <msmith> schneid: I am concerned that there will be too much process for TR
Michael Schneider: I am concerned that there will be too much process for TR ←
16:56:06 <msmith> alanr: can we have a pointer to non-rec track document in a rec track doc?
Alan Ruttenberg: can we have a pointer to non-rec track document in a rec track doc? ←
16:56:10 <msmith> sandro: yes, that is fine
Sandro Hawke: yes, that is fine ←
16:56:12 <pfps> +1 to msmith
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to msmith ←
16:56:33 <msmith> msmith: it should be rec due to definitions it will contain and as indicator of amount of review
Mike Smith: it should be rec due to definitions it will contain and as indicator of amount of review ←
16:57:07 <msmith> sandro: it being rec track will help from a citation standpoint
Sandro Hawke: it being rec track will help from a citation standpoint ←
16:57:29 <sandro> "RESOLVED: Quick Reference Guide, New Features and Rationale, Primer will all be Recommendation Track. Not making any decision on Manchester Syntax or Data Range Extension at this point. ←"
Sandro Hawke: "RESOLVED: Quick Reference Guide, New Features and Rationale, Primer will all be Recommendation Track. Not making any decision on Manchester Syntax or Data Range Extension at this point. ←" ←
16:58:07 <msmith> schneid: I change my opinion based on compelling arguments
Michael Schneider: I change my opinion based on compelling arguments ←
16:58:10 <sandro> sandro: Yes, the whole WG is behind everything except Manchester Syntax.
Sandro Hawke: Yes, the whole WG is behind everything except Manchester Syntax. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:58:23 <alanr> PROPOSED: The "introduction document" will be a recommendation
PROPOSED: The "introduction document" will be a recommendation ←
16:58:25 <pfps> +1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU ←
16:58:28 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
16:58:31 <MarkusK_> +1 FZI
Markus Krötzsch: +1 FZI ←
16:58:31 <ivan> 0
Ivan Herman: 0 ←
16:58:33 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
16:58:33 <msmith> msmith: +1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
16:58:34 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
16:58:35 <schneid> +1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
16:58:39 <baojie> +1
16:58:41 <Zhe> +1
16:58:41 <ewallace> +1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
16:58:43 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM) ←
16:59:18 <alanr> RESOLVED: The "introduction document" will be a recommendation
RESOLVED: The "introduction document" will be a recommendation ←
16:59:55 <pfps> Subtopic: Naming
17:00:39 <pfps> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0006.html
Peter Patel-Schneider: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0006.html ←
17:00:52 <msmith> alanr: please review this link now
Alan Ruttenberg: please review this link now ←
17:02:49 <msmith> msmith: this, if adopted, will require changes in the test section of the conformance document
Mike Smith: this, if adopted, will require changes in the test section of the conformance document ←
17:03:23 <sandro> Ian: The intent here is to try to talk about "OWL 2" wherever possible, and only drop into "OWL 2 DL", etc, when absolutely necessary.
Ian Horrocks: The intent here is to try to talk about "OWL 2" wherever possible, and only drop into "OWL 2 DL", etc, when absolutely necessary. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:03:26 <msmith> ianh: yes, there are many areas not listed in the email that need change
Ian Horrocks: yes, there are many areas not listed in the email that need change ←
17:03:28 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
17:05:18 <msmith> alanr: I anticipate problems determining where we are talking about OWL 2 Full and where we are not. In particular, because any RDF graph is an OWL 2 Full document
Alan Ruttenberg: I anticipate problems determining where we are talking about OWL 2 Full and where we are not. In particular, because any RDF graph is an OWL 2 Full document ←
17:06:22 <msmith> pfps: the structural spec could represent every rdf graph by making them property assertions
Peter Patel-Schneider: the structural spec could represent every rdf graph by making them property assertions ←
17:06:57 <msmith> ivan: if I look at the functional syntax does it define OWL 2 DL or OWL?
Ivan Herman: if I look at the functional syntax does it define OWL 2 DL or OWL? ←
17:07:38 <msmith> bmotik is preparing to whiteboard
bmotik is preparing to whiteboard ←
17:08:18 <sandro> webcam restarted for watching Boris. http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/webcam
Sandro Hawke: webcam restarted for watching Boris. http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/webcam ←
17:08:33 <msmith> bmotik: we may be able to find a way to represent any graph in the structural specification
Boris Motik: we may be able to find a way to represent any graph in the structural specification ←
17:09:42 <msmith> ivan: if there is some way to characterize the RDF graphs that cannot be put into the structure, can we provide that characterization
Ivan Herman: if there is some way to characterize the RDF graphs that cannot be put into the structure, can we provide that characterization ←
17:10:55 <msmith> alanr: if we go this route, we will need to verify that we cover a usefully complete amount of graphs
Alan Ruttenberg: if we go this route, we will need to verify that we cover a usefully complete amount of graphs ←
17:11:16 <msmith> bmotik: at some point this is not possible
Boris Motik: at some point this is not possible ←
17:12:42 <msmith> schneid: if we drop global restrictions from syntax and go down to property assertions, then we could go to URI URI URI and could build RDF graphs
Michael Schneider: if we drop global restrictions from syntax and go down to property assertions, then we could go to URI URI URI and could build RDF graphs ←
17:13:52 <msmith> alanr: would we have a mapping problem here
Alan Ruttenberg: would we have a mapping problem here ←
17:14:03 <msmith> pfps: no.
Peter Patel-Schneider: no. ←
17:14:56 <msmith> bmotik: we could modify the structural spec to have only these 2 restrictions, (1) well formed literals (2) all datatypes are in the datatype map of the tool
Boris Motik: we could modify the structural spec to have only these 2 restrictions, (1) well formed literals (2) all datatypes are in the datatype map of the tool ←
17:16:00 <msmith> then, the forward RDF mapping would produce RDF graphs, to which RDF semantics could be applied
then, the forward RDF mapping would produce RDF graphs, to which RDF semantics could be applied ←
17:16:32 <msmith> schneid: how far to we get with just the forward mapping?
Michael Schneider: how far to we get with just the forward mapping? ←
17:17:13 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
17:17:18 <msmith> ivan: can one characterize the rdf graphs for which the rdf -> structural mapping fails?
Ivan Herman: can one characterize the rdf graphs for which the rdf -> structural mapping fails? ←
17:18:28 <msmith> ian: the reason we have the doc is that it is too difficult to produce a simple characterization
Ian Horrocks: the reason we have the doc is that it is too difficult to produce a simple characterization ←
17:19:19 <msmith> alanr: there are more than just sensible restrictions in the structural syntax, some a restrictions for reasoners. e.g., property chains must be object property only
Alan Ruttenberg: there are more than just sensible restrictions in the structural syntax, some a restrictions for reasoners. e.g., property chains must be object property only ←
17:19:36 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
17:19:39 <alanr> q+ ivan
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ivan ←
17:19:41 <alanr> q+ pfps
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ pfps ←
17:19:46 <alanr> q+ schneid
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ schneid ←
17:19:58 <msmith> schneid: it is very difficult to characterize. e.g., see the lc comment on naming data ranges
Michael Schneider: it is very difficult to characterize. e.g., see the lc comment on naming data ranges ←
17:20:06 <alanr> q+ ian
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ian ←
17:20:10 <alanr> ack schneid
Alan Ruttenberg: ack schneid ←
17:20:23 <msmith> ivan: we are talking about structural syntax, not dl.
Ivan Herman: we are talking about structural syntax, not dl. ←
17:20:27 <alanr> q+ mike
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ mike ←
17:20:46 <alanr> q+ alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ alanr ←
17:20:59 <msmith> ... whether or not the structural syntax can provide a useful amount of owl full.
... whether or not the structural syntax can provide a useful amount of owl full. ←
17:21:05 <alanr> ack ivan
Alan Ruttenberg: ack ivan ←
17:21:21 <alanr> ack pfps
Alan Ruttenberg: ack pfps ←
17:21:39 <msmith> pfps: I think Boris' approach (so far) can reasonably cover most RDF graphs.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I think Boris' approach (so far) can reasonably cover most RDF graphs. ←
17:22:15 <msmith> ... this works without a complete backwards mapping.
... this works without a complete backwards mapping. ←
17:22:36 <alanr> ack ian
Alan Ruttenberg: ack ian ←
17:22:55 <msmith> alanr: the proposal is that the forward mapping works for much more, the reverse mapping works just for graphs satisfying DL constraints
Alan Ruttenberg: the proposal is that the forward mapping works for much more, the reverse mapping works just for graphs satisfying DL constraints ←
17:23:12 <Zakim> -Achille
Zakim IRC Bot: -Achille ←
17:23:28 <msmith> ianh: I believe this started as a presentation proposal, not a technical proposal
Ian Horrocks: I believe this started as a presentation proposal, not a technical proposal ←
17:23:53 <msmith> q-
q- ←
17:23:57 <msmith> q- mike
q- mike ←
17:24:05 <sandro> Ian: The idea here was to say that The Structural Spec applies to OWL Full in so far as the OWL Full makes sense in the structural spec
Ian Horrocks: The idea here was to say that The Structural Spec applies to OWL Full in so far as the OWL Full makes sense in the structural spec [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:24:41 <msmith> ivan: if I take ontology that is almost DL, but isn't because I've used reserved keywords, will it work?
Ivan Herman: if I take ontology that is almost DL, but isn't because I've used reserved keywords, will it work? ←
17:24:54 <alanr> ack pfps
Alan Ruttenberg: ack pfps ←
17:24:57 <sandro> ian: We're trying to say the Structure Spec, as is, is relevant to both the DL and Full views.
Ian Horrocks: We're trying to say the Structure Spec, as is, is relevant to both the DL and Full views. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:25:05 <msmith> ianh: it may, but do you need a complete specification for this case?
Ian Horrocks: it may, but do you need a complete specification for this case? ←
17:25:48 <msmith> alanr: ian's description differs from my understanding. I'd like to say that we only say OWL 2 when it applies to OWL DL and OWL Full.
Alan Ruttenberg: ian's description differs from my understanding. I'd like to say that we only say OWL 2 when it applies to OWL DL and OWL Full. ←
17:26:00 <msmith> ianh: that's another thing
Ian Horrocks: that's another thing ←
17:26:10 <sandro> Alan: The alternative is to say that we never say OWL 2 unless what we're saying is absolutely and perfectly true for OWL 2 Full (and OWL 2 DL).
Alan Ruttenberg: The alternative is to say that we never say OWL 2 unless what we're saying is absolutely and perfectly true for OWL 2 Full (and OWL 2 DL). [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:26:19 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
17:26:22 <alanr> ack alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: ack alanr ←
17:26:53 <msmith> bmotik: there are multiple ontologies that might produce the same RDF graph.
Boris Motik: there are multiple ontologies that might produce the same RDF graph. ←
17:27:44 <msmith> ... if you impose the "dl" restrictions: role separation, declarations, class/datatype separation, (these are most important)
... if you impose the "dl" restrictions: role separation, declarations, class/datatype separation, (these are most important) ←
17:27:55 <msmith> ... (these do not include the global restrictions)
... (these do not include the global restrictions) ←
17:28:09 <msmith> ... restricted vocabulary can go in above group (important)
... restricted vocabulary can go in above group (important) ←
17:28:36 <msmith> ... then you can go through RDF mapping in both directions
... then you can go through RDF mapping in both directions ←
17:29:14 <alanr> q+ ivan
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ivan ←
17:29:48 <msmith> ... (aside) direct semantics can be applied without restrictions -- i.e., directly to the structural specification
... (aside) direct semantics can be applied without restrictions -- i.e., directly to the structural specification ←
17:30:20 <msmith> msmith: does this mean the current mapping?
Mike Smith: does this mean the current mapping? ←
17:30:35 <msmith> bmotik: yes. which is why the important restrictions are in place
Boris Motik: yes. which is why the important restrictions are in place ←
17:31:30 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
17:31:34 <alanr> ack ivan
Alan Ruttenberg: ack ivan ←
17:32:00 <msmith> ivan: the restrictions in the syntax doc can be categorized into 2 layers. 1 that ensures bi-directional mapping (put is less than constraints of DL), 2 that contains additional constraints
Ivan Herman: the restrictions in the syntax doc can be categorized into 2 layers. 1 that ensures bi-directional mapping (put is less than constraints of DL), 2 that contains additional constraints ←
17:32:17 <msmith> ivan: which level is vocab restriction on?
Ivan Herman: which level is vocab restriction on? ←
17:33:44 <Zakim> +[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
17:33:55 <Achille> Zakim. IBM is me
Achille Fokoue: Zakim. IBM is me ←
17:34:05 <msmith> alanr: this worries me. it is confusing. it seems simpler to just audit the current documents use of OWL
Alan Ruttenberg: this worries me. it is confusing. it seems simpler to just audit the current documents use of OWL ←
17:34:39 <msmith> bmotik: we can't do that because there is OWL structural spec which isn't necessarily DL or Full
Boris Motik: we can't do that because there is OWL structural spec which isn't necessarily DL or Full ←
17:34:54 <sandro> Alan: I don't think unifying DL and Full like this proposes will help anyone.
Alan Ruttenberg: I don't think unifying DL and Full like this proposes will help anyone. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:36:01 <msmith> pfps: trouble with audit is the choice of what is OWL 2. I.e., how does one address statements just about the OWL 2 structure?
Peter Patel-Schneider: trouble with audit is the choice of what is OWL 2. I.e., how does one address statements just about the OWL 2 structure? ←
17:36:42 <msmith> ... a constrained reading means that any reference in OWL 2 Syntax to OWL 2 must be changed to OWL 2 DL
... a constrained reading means that any reference in OWL 2 Syntax to OWL 2 must be changed to OWL 2 DL ←
17:37:10 <msmith> my concern was about some that are overly global
my concern was about some that are overly global ←
17:38:45 <msmith> alanr: this can be addressed in a reasonable way on a case by case basis
Alan Ruttenberg: this can be addressed in a reasonable way on a case by case basis ←
17:38:59 <msmith> bmotik: the structures need to be OWL 2 in general, or remain DL specific
Boris Motik: the structures need to be OWL 2 in general, or remain DL specific ←
17:39:17 <schneid> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
17:39:55 <msmith> ianh provides an example of the problem from the syntax document
ianh provides an example of the problem from the syntax document ←
17:40:39 <sandro> alan: Option 1 -- make structure spec bigger, to include OWL FUll to some degree. This is risky
Alan Ruttenberg: Option 1 -- make structure spec bigger, to include OWL FUll to some degree. This is risky [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:40:55 <msmith> alanr: two issues exist. one approach makes the structural syntax much larger than originally intended, which adds risk. second approach is to take a case by case basis
Alan Ruttenberg: two issues exist. one approach makes the structural syntax much larger than originally intended, which adds risk. second approach is to take a case by case basis ←
17:41:05 <msmith> bmotik: I don't believe second approach is possible
Boris Motik: I don't believe second approach is possible ←
17:41:15 <sandro> alan: Option 2 -- just audit and edit the spec to change "OWL 2" to "OWL 2 DL" a lot.
Alan Ruttenberg: Option 2 -- just audit and edit the spec to change "OWL 2" to "OWL 2 DL" a lot. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:41:41 <msmith> pfps: from birth of OWL, defining characteristic was ability to specify useful semantics.
Peter Patel-Schneider: from birth of OWL, defining characteristic was ability to specify useful semantics. ←
17:42:00 <msmith> ... OWL 2 clarifies that more explicitly
... OWL 2 clarifies that more explicitly ←
17:42:42 <msmith> alanr: I recognize there is a large community for which DL constraints are not needed.
Alan Ruttenberg: I recognize there is a large community for which DL constraints are not needed. ←
17:43:06 <msmith> ... I don't want to argue with them about the sensibility of their cases
... I don't want to argue with them about the sensibility of their cases ←
17:43:29 <msmith> pfps: (with bmotik) we agree then, the structure is what's important
Peter Patel-Schneider: (with bmotik) we agree then, the structure is what's important ←
17:43:56 <msmith> sandro: I'm concerned that this is a big change. can you address that?
Sandro Hawke: I'm concerned that this is a big change. can you address that? ←
17:44:20 <msmith> pfps: alternative (close audit of terminology use) will not really address people's concern
Peter Patel-Schneider: alternative (close audit of terminology use) will not really address people's concern ←
17:44:39 <sandro> peter: "The structures defined here are what counts for OWL. That's what matters."
Peter Patel-Schneider: "The structures defined here are what counts for OWL. That's what matters." [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:44:41 <msmith> ... to really address we need to say that what really matters in OWL is the structural syntax
... to really address we need to say that what really matters in OWL is the structural syntax ←
17:45:54 <msmith> ... and OWL 2 Full can be defined using structural syntax with some slight constraints (well formed literals + datatypes in map + facets belong to dt)
... and OWL 2 Full can be defined using structural syntax with some slight constraints (well formed literals + datatypes in map + facets belong to dt) ←
17:46:15 <msmith> ianh: I don't think the proposed changes by bmotik are that complicated
Ian Horrocks: I don't think the proposed changes by bmotik are that complicated ←
17:46:39 <msmith> ... in principle, the restrictions now listed together in syntax 3 could be grouped
... in principle, the restrictions now listed together in syntax 3 could be grouped ←
17:47:18 <msmith> ... the first level would be needed to produce reasonable RDF graphs
... the first level would be needed to produce reasonable RDF graphs ←
17:47:35 <schneid> q-
Michael Schneider: q- ←
17:47:40 <msmith> ... the second level would be needed to map from RDF graphs
... the second level would be needed to map from RDF graphs ←
17:47:53 <msmith> ... the last level is needed for decidability
... the last level is needed for decidability ←
17:48:36 <schneid> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
17:48:56 <msmith> ... the proposal also requires and audit of restrictions as they appear in document, to clarify what "level" of restriction is present
... the proposal also requires and audit of restrictions as they appear in document, to clarify what "level" of restriction is present ←
17:49:33 <msmith> pfps: so, the proposal is what alanr wants, with additional characterization of what the restriction types are
Peter Patel-Schneider: so, the proposal is what alanr wants, with additional characterization of what the restriction types are ←
17:49:46 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:49:52 <IanH> ack alna
Ian Horrocks: ack alna ←
17:49:56 <IanH> ack an
Ian Horrocks: ack an ←
17:50:00 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
17:50:38 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
17:50:40 <sandro> Peter: say "These are the Semantically Interesting Constructs of OWL 2." and then Syntax applies to everyone
Peter Patel-Schneider: say "These are the Semantically Interesting Constructs of OWL 2." and then Syntax applies to everyone [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:50:41 <alanr> ack schneid
Alan Ruttenberg: ack schneid ←
17:50:42 <msmith> ... I'm willing to do this to placate concerns expressed in some LC comments about the OWL Full disposition in OWL 2
... I'm willing to do this to placate concerns expressed in some LC comments about the OWL Full disposition in OWL 2 ←
17:50:48 <sandro> Alan: That seems like dangerous wording.
Alan Ruttenberg: That seems like dangerous wording. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:50:51 <IanH> ack schneid
Ian Horrocks: ack schneid ←
17:50:54 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:53:01 <pfps> zakim, who is on the phone?
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
17:53:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see MIT346, christine, Evan_Wallace, [IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MIT346, christine, Evan_Wallace, [IBM] ←
17:53:19 <msmith> schneid: if someone from RDF field asks me what a cardinality restriction is, then I can't answer him because the RDF semantics doesn't have this concept structurally. so in this case, I would tell someone to look at the RDF mapping to see how it is represented in the Structural Syntax.
Michael Schneider: if someone from RDF field asks me what a cardinality restriction is, then I can't answer him because the RDF semantics doesn't have this concept structurally. so in this case, I would tell someone to look at the RDF mapping to see how it is represented in the Structural Syntax. ←
17:54:05 <msmith> alanr: the problem is if the reverse mapping is ambiguous
Alan Ruttenberg: the problem is if the reverse mapping is ambiguous ←
17:54:16 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
17:54:19 <schneid> schneid: and I would tell such a guy that this will "pretty well, but not quite perfectly" tell you the story
Michael Schneider: and I would tell such a guy that this will "pretty well, but not quite perfectly" tell you the story [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
17:54:24 <msmith> ... I'm not sure this approach works generally, but I'm willing to see
... I'm not sure this approach works generally, but I'm willing to see ←
17:55:38 <msmith> ianh: the original proposal was presentational, and addressed mschneid's question. the problem is that we get to the point where we argue about the corner cases where dl and rdf semantics are different
Ian Horrocks: the original proposal was presentational, and addressed mschneid's question. the problem is that we get to the point where we argue about the corner cases where dl and rdf semantics are different ←
17:56:20 <msmith> alanr: I'm concerned that there is a different level of specificity provided to dl and rdf communities
Alan Ruttenberg: I'm concerned that there is a different level of specificity provided to dl and rdf communities ←
17:56:22 <schneid> schneid: problem with RDF Semantics / OWL Full is: it does not really talk about structure, but says roughly: "If this set of assertions is semantically true, then that other thing is semanticaly true, too". This will hardly be understood by any RDF guy.
Michael Schneider: problem with RDF Semantics / OWL Full is: it does not really talk about structure, but says roughly: "If this set of assertions is semantically true, then that other thing is semanticaly true, too". This will hardly be understood by any RDF guy. [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
17:57:05 <msmith> pfps: this is not the case, because we're not talking about the nuance in semantics, we're talking about user facing level
Peter Patel-Schneider: this is not the case, because we're not talking about the nuance in semantics, we're talking about user facing level ←
17:57:30 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
17:58:09 <msmith> ianh: it may be that it makes sense to partition restrictions like this, but I don't think we need to worry about the exact specification of where this works and does not
Ian Horrocks: it may be that it makes sense to partition restrictions like this, but I don't think we need to worry about the exact specification of where this works and does not ←
17:58:50 <msmith> pfps: the worry is about making an explicit *claim* about the relationship.
Peter Patel-Schneider: the worry is about making an explicit *claim* about the relationship. ←
18:02:00 <msmith> ivan: an approach, in the syntax doc, we do what ian suggested -- clearly state which restrictions are needed for DL. second, in the rdf mapping document we introduce the constraints for mapping to/from RDF graphs. third, all examples in syntax doc should be available in RDF syntax.
Ivan Herman: an approach, in the syntax doc, we do what ian suggested -- clearly state which restrictions are needed for DL. second, in the rdf mapping document we introduce the constraints for mapping to/from RDF graphs. third, all examples in syntax doc should be available in RDF syntax. ←
18:02:37 <msmith> ianh: pt 3 in email includes an audit of references to OWL 2, etc.
Ian Horrocks: pt 3 in email includes an audit of references to OWL 2, etc. ←
18:02:52 <msmith> alanr: we just needed to clarify what audit was needed
Alan Ruttenberg: we just needed to clarify what audit was needed ←
18:03:09 <Zakim> -[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IBM] ←
18:03:12 <msmith> bmotik: we should discuss ivan's third bit later.
Boris Motik: we should discuss ivan's third bit later. ←
18:04:16 <msmith> bmotik: another issue is status of functional style syntax, since it does not correspond 1:1 with structural syntax
Boris Motik: another issue is status of functional style syntax, since it does not correspond 1:1 with structural syntax ←
18:04:43 <msmith> msmith: as pointed out in LC comment from Matthew Horridge
Mike Smith: as pointed out in LC comment from Matthew Horridge ←
18:05:33 <msmith> end of session, some discussion of dinner plans
end of session, some discussion of dinner plans ←
18:06:06 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: -Evan_Wallace ←
18:06:09 <msmith> re-convene for next session at 2PM
re-convene for next session at 2PM ←
18:06:31 <bijan> I'm sorry, but I won't be able to call in tonight...sick spouse
Bijan Parsia: I'm sorry, but I won't be able to call in tonight...sick spouse ←
18:06:49 <bijan> I'll try to be on irc from home and check in from time to time
Bijan Parsia: I'll try to be on irc from home and check in from time to time ←
18:07:20 <Zakim> -christine
Zakim IRC Bot: -christine ←
18:07:36 <bijan> I care about: 1) datatype disjointness, strongly (I want it), and 2) named datatypes, I think we should have 'em in.
Bijan Parsia: I care about: 1) datatype disjointness, strongly (I want it), and 2) named datatypes, I think we should have 'em in. ←
18:08:02 <bijan> 3) I'm against harmonizing the total set of datatypes with RIF if that means pruning
Bijan Parsia: 3) I'm against harmonizing the total set of datatypes with RIF if that means pruning ←
18:50:11 <Zakim> +[IBM]
(No events recorded for 42 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
18:50:41 <Achille> zakim, IBM is me
Achille Fokoue: zakim, IBM is me ←
18:50:41 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Achille; got it ←
19:00:35 <baojie> baojie has joined #OWL
(No events recorded for 9 minutes)
Jie Bao: baojie has joined #OWL ←
19:01:24 <MarkusK_> scribenick: schneid
(Scribe set to Michael Schneider)
19:01:47 <schneid> ivan: we interrupted boris before lunch w.r.t. functional syntax
Ivan Herman: we interrupted boris before lunch w.r.t. functional syntax ←
19:02:32 <schneid> boris: in Structural Spec, speparate between "core" structural aspects and additional constraints leading to OWL 2 DL
Boris Motik: in Structural Spec, speparate between "core" structural aspects and additional constraints leading to OWL 2 DL ←
19:02:58 <schneid> boris: we can concentrate on section 3, because restrictions are listed there
Boris Motik: we can concentrate on section 3, because restrictions are listed there ←
19:03:30 <schneid> boris: structural spec allows to go to functional syntax, but there's no way back
Boris Motik: structural spec allows to go to functional syntax, but there's no way back ←
19:03:37 <schneid> borsk
borsk ←
19:03:41 <msmith> lc comment http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/0005.html
Mike Smith: lc comment http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/0005.html ←
19:04:36 <schneid> boris: proposal is to go back to what we had earlier (typed syntax), but only to functional syntax
Boris Motik: proposal is to go back to what we had earlier (typed syntax), but only to functional syntax ←
19:04:53 <schneid> boris: would be restricted to the terminals of the grammar of the language
Boris Motik: would be restricted to the terminals of the grammar of the language ←
19:05:10 <schneid> ian: would be completely equivalent to the structural spec
Ian Horrocks: would be completely equivalent to the structural spec ←
19:05:18 <schneid> alanr: why do we care
Alan Ruttenberg: why do we care ←
19:05:39 <bijan> Point of info: I'm told by Matthew that he won't implement a parser in the OWL API for the untyped functional syntax (though probably still a serializer).
Bijan Parsia: Point of info: I'm told by Matthew that he won't implement a parser in the OWL API for the untyped functional syntax (though probably still a serializer). ←
19:05:44 <bijan> FWIW
Bijan Parsia: FWIW ←
19:05:57 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: +Evan_Wallace ←
19:06:12 <bijan> That point only matters if you want the OWL API to parse FS and don't want to write the parser yourself.
Bijan Parsia: That point only matters if you want the OWL API to parse FS and don't want to write the parser yourself. ←
19:06:12 <schneid> alanr: we can import type declarations from other files
Alan Ruttenberg: we can import type declarations from other files ←
19:06:46 <schneid> boris: nothing changes in the structure
Boris Motik: nothing changes in the structure ←
19:07:22 <schneid> ian: if you have untyped stuff in RDF graph, what will happen?
Ian Horrocks: if you have untyped stuff in RDF graph, what will happen? ←
19:07:59 <schneid> boris: still not allowed, reverse mapping keeps untouched
Boris Motik: still not allowed, reverse mapping keeps untouched ←
19:09:06 <schneid> ivan: this is only for using the functional syntax that is not DL
Ivan Herman: this is only for using the functional syntax that is not DL ←
19:09:36 <schneid> ivan: difference is that I currently have to follow all the restrictions
Ivan Herman: difference is that I currently have to follow all the restrictions ←
19:11:11 <schneid> alanr: what happens with an untyped subclassing triple in RDF?
Alan Ruttenberg: what happens with an untyped subclassing triple in RDF? ←
19:11:21 <schneid> pfps: will not be reverse mapped
Peter Patel-Schneider: will not be reverse mapped ←
19:12:29 <schneid> ivan: understands boris, if i can represent something in functional syntax (without additional restrictions), then it adheres to the structural spec of OWL 2
Ivan Herman: understands boris, if i can represent something in functional syntax (without additional restrictions), then it adheres to the structural spec of OWL 2 ←
19:13:19 <schneid> ivan: this makes functional syntax into just a complete serialization of the structural spec (UML)
Ivan Herman: this makes functional syntax into just a complete serialization of the structural spec (UML) ←
19:14:00 <schneid> alanr: still concerns with importing of files
Alan Ruttenberg: still concerns with importing of files ←
19:15:46 <schneid> alanr: asks people whether they feel that it is a good idea
Alan Ruttenberg: asks people whether they feel that it is a good idea ←
19:15:58 <bijan> Feel what?
Bijan Parsia: Feel what? ←
19:16:05 <schneid> MarkusK_: ok
Markus Krötzsch: ok ←
19:16:22 <bijan> I'm sorry, I can't call in without disturbing my (very ill) spouse, so I have to be consulted via IRC
Bijan Parsia: I'm sorry, I can't call in without disturbing my (very ill) spouse, so I have to be consulted via IRC ←
19:16:29 <schneid> schneid: not quite clear on the details, but sounds like a progress compared to current situation
Michael Schneider: not quite clear on the details, but sounds like a progress compared to current situation ←
19:16:35 <bijan> What?
Bijan Parsia: What? ←
19:17:38 <bijan> What's the potentially good idea we're discussing?
Bijan Parsia: What's the potentially good idea we're discussing? ←
19:17:48 <IanH> Full typing
Ian Horrocks: Full typing ←
19:18:26 <bijan> I think it's a very good idea :)
Bijan Parsia: I think it's a very good idea :) ←
19:19:52 <schneid> ivan: is it a problem that a property chain ends with a data property?
Ivan Herman: is it a problem that a property chain ends with a data property? ←
19:20:16 <alanr> Alan is concerned with restrictions that are built in to the syntax, and that such cases will be listed along with the rest of the restrictions or fixes so that they are removed.
Alan Ruttenberg: Alan is concerned with restrictions that are built in to the syntax, and that such cases will be listed along with the rest of the restrictions or fixes so that they are removed. ←
19:20:31 <schneid> boris: we need to extend the structural spec for this
Boris Motik: we need to extend the structural spec for this ←
19:20:48 <Zakim> +??P9
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P9 ←
19:20:50 <bijan> Property chains ending...whugah?
Bijan Parsia: Property chains ending...whugah? ←
19:20:59 <schneid> boris: I can in a first step put in EdNotes about this, and then we can see how we treat this
Boris Motik: I can in a first step put in EdNotes about this, and then we can see how we treat this ←
19:21:08 <ivan> bijan, ending with a datatype property
Ivan Herman: bijan, ending with a datatype property ←
19:21:31 <bijan> I understand that, I just don't understand the relevance
Bijan Parsia: I understand that, I just don't understand the relevance ←
19:21:31 <christine> zakim, +??P9 is christine
Christine Golbreich: zakim, +??P9 is christine ←
19:21:31 <Zakim> sorry, christine, I do not recognize a party named '+??P9'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, christine, I do not recognize a party named '+??P9' ←
19:21:46 <christine> zakim, ??P9 is christine
Christine Golbreich: zakim, ??P9 is christine ←
19:21:46 <Zakim> +christine; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +christine; got it ←
19:21:50 <schneid> ian: prefers to add informal notes of the form: "this restriction is needed for DL, but this can be relaxed in Full"
Ian Horrocks: prefers to add informal notes of the form: "this restriction is needed for DL, but this can be relaxed in Full" ←
19:22:07 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
19:22:26 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:22:30 <schneid> msmith: would change a lot in the functional syntax, may be problem for current users
Mike Smith: would change a lot in the functional syntax, may be problem for current users ←
19:22:39 <christine> is the topics DL or full typing ?
Christine Golbreich: is the topics DL or full typing ? ←
19:22:52 <bijan> full typing, it seems
Bijan Parsia: full typing, it seems ←
19:23:03 <schneid> boris: probably few people use it currently, and big stake holder Mathew would love to see the change
Boris Motik: probably few people use it currently, and big stake holder Mathew would love to see the change ←
19:23:53 <bijan> I reiterate: FS parsing will not happen by Manchester in the OWL API with the current untypedness
Bijan Parsia: I reiterate: FS parsing will not happen by Manchester in the OWL API with the current untypedness ←
19:24:04 <christine> any comment to my email reply to Boris ?
Christine Golbreich: any comment to my email reply to Boris ? ←
19:24:39 <schneid> schneid: sees a lot of parallel discussion on the IRC
Michael Schneider: sees a lot of parallel discussion on the IRC ←
19:25:22 <alanr> PROPOSED: We will basically follow Ian and Ivan's proposal, with the approach that Boris has discussed, including at least noting of cases where the syntax adds restrictions that are effectively DL.
PROPOSED: We will basically follow Ian and Ivan's proposal, with the approach that Boris has discussed, including at least noting of cases where the syntax adds restrictions that are effectively DL. ←
19:25:43 <alanr> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0006.html
Alan Ruttenberg: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0006.html ←
19:26:33 <bijan> Are we voting?
Bijan Parsia: Are we voting? ←
19:26:37 <uli> ?
Uli Sattler: ? ←
19:26:41 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
19:26:47 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
19:26:47 <alanr> still working on the wording
Alan Ruttenberg: still working on the wording ←
19:26:51 <ewallace> 0
Evan Wallace: 0 ←
19:27:45 <christine> 0 (not explicit remotely)
Christine Golbreich: 0 (not explicit remotely) ←
19:27:49 <ivan> 1
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
19:28:38 <pfps> LC comment 58 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/0005.html
Peter Patel-Schneider: LC comment 58 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/0005.html ←
19:28:40 <alanr> soon to be PROPOSED: We will basically follow Ian and Ivan's proposal, with the approach that Boris has discussed, including at least noting of cases where the syntax adds restrictions that are effectively DL. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0006.html. To address LC comment 58, Functional syntax will have terminals strongly typed but such changes will not effect parsing or semantics.
Alan Ruttenberg: soon to be PROPOSED: We will basically follow Ian and Ivan's proposal, with the approach that Boris has discussed, including at least noting of cases where the syntax adds restrictions that are effectively DL. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0006.html. To address LC comment 58, Functional syntax will have terminals strongly typed but such changes will not effect parsing or semantics. ←
19:28:57 <Achille> 0 (not explicit remotely, and did not attend the whole presentation)
Achille Fokoue: 0 (not explicit remotely, and did not attend the whole presentation) ←
19:29:12 <alanr> still waiting for approval of wording.
Alan Ruttenberg: still waiting for approval of wording. ←
19:29:44 <alanr> PROPOSED: We will basically follow Ian and Ivan's proposal, with the approach that Boris has discussed, including at least noting of cases where the syntax adds restrictions that are effectively DL. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0006.html. To address LC comment 58, Functional syntax will have terminals strongly typed but such changes will not effect parsing or semantics.
PROPOSED: We will basically follow Ian and Ivan's proposal, with the approach that Boris has discussed, including at least noting of cases where the syntax adds restrictions that are effectively DL. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0006.html. To address LC comment 58, Functional syntax will have terminals strongly typed but such changes will not effect parsing or semantics. ←
19:29:47 <alanr> vote now
Alan Ruttenberg: vote now ←
19:29:47 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
19:29:49 <ivan> 1
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
19:29:55 <Zhe1> +1
19:29:55 <alanr> 0
Alan Ruttenberg: 0 ←
19:29:55 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
19:29:56 <pfps> +1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU ←
19:29:56 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
19:29:58 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
19:29:58 <baojie> 0
19:30:09 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
19:30:10 <msmith> +1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
19:30:16 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
19:30:17 <schneid> >0 (but still unclear about all the ramifications)
>0 (but still unclear about all the ramifications) ←
19:30:26 <ewallace> 0
Evan Wallace: 0 ←
19:30:43 <alanr> RESOLVED: We will basically follow Ian and Ivan's proposal, with the approach that Boris has discussed, including at least noting of cases where the syntax adds restrictions that are effectively DL. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0006.html. To address LC comment 58, Functional syntax will have terminals strongly typed but such changes will not effect parsing or semantics.
RESOLVED: We will basically follow Ian and Ivan's proposal, with the approach that Boris has discussed, including at least noting of cases where the syntax adds restrictions that are effectively DL. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0006.html. To address LC comment 58, Functional syntax will have terminals strongly typed but such changes will not effect parsing or semantics. ←
19:31:23 <schneid> ian: notes that we did not yet treated LC 48, 29
Ian Horrocks: notes that we did not yet treated LC 48, 29 ←
19:31:49 <schneid> ... in the "Presentation" section of the Agenda
... in the "Presentation" section of the Agenda ←
19:34:15 <schneid> alanr: 48 is is also about having more RDF/XML in documents (Structural Spec?)
Alan Ruttenberg: 48 is is also about having more RDF/XML in documents (Structural Spec?) ←
19:34:30 <schneid> ivan: no need to have triples in the Direct Semantics, for example
Ivan Herman: no need to have triples in the Direct Semantics, for example ←
19:34:42 <bijan> I hope we aren't too keen on RDF/XML
Bijan Parsia: I hope we aren't too keen on RDF/XML ←
19:34:51 <bijan> I guess I don't necessarily mind it
Bijan Parsia: I guess I don't necessarily mind it ←
19:35:08 <bijan> But it is rather cumbersome to say the least
Bijan Parsia: But it is rather cumbersome to say the least ←
19:35:08 <schneid> boris: not opposed to have it in the structural spec, but will perhaps become a mess
Boris Motik: not opposed to have it in the structural spec, but will perhaps become a mess ←
19:35:43 <bijan> I mean, not all the RDF documents use RDF/XML!
Bijan Parsia: I mean, not all the RDF documents use RDF/XML! ←
19:36:10 <schneid> sandro: maybe button for examples which optionally gives RDF
Sandro Hawke: maybe button for examples which optionally gives RDF ←
19:36:30 <schneid> sandro: may be in different window
Sandro Hawke: may be in different window ←
19:37:01 <bijan> I'm working on some layouts
Bijan Parsia: I'm working on some layouts ←
19:37:01 <schneid> pfps: ecstatic with popups
Peter Patel-Schneider: ecstatic with popups ←
19:39:05 <schneid> boris: should these syntaxes be switchable
Boris Motik: should these syntaxes be switchable ←
19:39:23 <schneid> ivan: prefers approach in primer: global switching on/off of syntaxes
Ivan Herman: prefers approach in primer: global switching on/off of syntaxes ←
19:40:30 <schneid> boris: would prefer ntriples over RDF/XML
Boris Motik: would prefer ntriples over RDF/XML ←
19:40:43 <schneid> ivan: would be happy with turtle
Ivan Herman: would be happy with turtle ←
19:42:36 <schneid> schneid: special handling of lists, proposes to follow RDF Mapping
Michael Schneider: special handling of lists, proposes to follow RDF Mapping ←
19:42:56 <schneid> boris: yes, lets have it the same as in Mapping
Boris Motik: yes, lets have it the same as in Mapping ←
19:43:21 <bijan> I wonder if we should get too fine grained here
Bijan Parsia: I wonder if we should get too fine grained here ←
19:43:28 <bijan> There's some experimentation that must be done
Bijan Parsia: There's some experimentation that must be done ←
19:43:32 <schneid> ivan: makes sense to follow RDF mapping
Ivan Herman: makes sense to follow RDF mapping ←
19:45:07 <alanr> soon to be PROPOSED: Include RDF syntax for examples in Syntax using the same syntax in Mapping, in order to respond to syntax presentation issues in 29 and 48
Alan Ruttenberg: soon to be PROPOSED: Include RDF syntax for examples in Syntax using the same syntax in Mapping, in order to respond to syntax presentation issues in 29 and 48 ←
19:46:16 <alanr> PROPOSED: Include RDF syntax for examples in Syntax using the same syntax in Mapping, in order to respond to syntax presentation issues in 29 and 48
PROPOSED: Include RDF syntax for examples in Syntax using the same syntax in Mapping, in order to respond to syntax presentation issues in 29 and 48 ←
19:46:16 <bijan> I might oppose this
Bijan Parsia: I might oppose this ←
19:46:21 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
19:46:22 <bijan> -1
Bijan Parsia: -1 ←
19:46:30 <alanr> bijan, please explain
Alan Ruttenberg: bijan, please explain ←
19:46:47 <bijan> I'm a bit concerned about being too specific in the editing
Bijan Parsia: I'm a bit concerned about being too specific in the editing ←
19:46:59 <bijan> What if that syntax turns to be less owrable than turtle?
Bijan Parsia: What if that syntax turns to be less owrable than turtle? ←
19:47:12 <bijan> Can we make that advisory?
Bijan Parsia: Can we make that advisory? ←
19:47:30 <alanr> we discussed making it editor choice and this is what Boris chose...
Alan Ruttenberg: we discussed making it editor choice and this is what Boris chose... ←
19:47:45 <bijan> I'm actually an editor of that document as well :)
Bijan Parsia: I'm actually an editor of that document as well :) ←
19:48:06 <alanr> one moment please
Alan Ruttenberg: one moment please ←
19:48:25 <bijan> (If it's editors choice, why must we spec it in the proposal?)
Bijan Parsia: (If it's editors choice, why must we spec it in the proposal?) ←
19:48:33 <alanr> we're talking about it now
Alan Ruttenberg: we're talking about it now ←
19:49:04 <schneid> schneid: RDF-Based Semantics document also has triples, at least in examples, so I would like to have it consistent with the rest of the documents
Michael Schneider: RDF-Based Semantics document also has triples, at least in examples, so I would like to have it consistent with the rest of the documents ←
19:49:35 <schneid> ivan: syntax in Mapping is very close to turtle
Ivan Herman: syntax in Mapping is very close to turtle ←
19:49:48 <alanr> PROPOSED: Include RDF syntax for examples in Syntax n order to respond to syntax presentation issues in 29 and 48
PROPOSED: Include RDF syntax for examples in Syntax n order to respond to syntax presentation issues in 29 and 48 ←
19:49:54 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
19:49:57 <schneid> ivan: do we use turtle
Ivan Herman: do we use turtle ←
19:49:57 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
19:50:00 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
19:50:01 <msmith> +1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
19:50:02 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
19:50:05 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
19:50:07 <Zhe1> +1
19:50:08 <schneid> +1
+1 ←
19:50:08 <baojie> 0 (+1)
19:50:14 <baojie> +1
19:50:20 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
19:50:25 <pfps> -0.epsilon
Peter Patel-Schneider: -0.epsilon ←
19:50:32 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
19:50:33 <alanr> +1 .
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 . ←
19:51:17 <Achille> +1
Achille Fokoue: +1 ←
19:51:24 <schneid> ian: these were tricky things, and I think that we did a pretty good job
Ian Horrocks: these were tricky things, and I think that we did a pretty good job ←
19:51:38 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Chatlog_2009-02-23
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Chatlog_2009-02-23 ←
19:52:05 <schneid> Topic: Datatypes
19:53:04 <schneid> ian: we are starting with what was in the context of RIF coordination
Ian Horrocks: we are starting with what was in the context of RIF coordination ←
19:53:31 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:53:32 <schneid> SubTopic: Disjointness
19:53:48 <schneid> ivan: we have two different issues with disjointness
Ivan Herman: we have two different issues with disjointness ←
19:54:32 <schneid> ivan: we have already feedback from implementers saying what we have today is an implementation nightmare (independent of RIF discussion)
Ivan Herman: we have already feedback from implementers saying what we have today is an implementation nightmare (independent of RIF discussion) ←
19:54:47 <schneid> ivan: this alone is a reason to go with disjointness
Ivan Herman: this alone is a reason to go with disjointness ←
19:55:03 <bijan> +1 to ivan
Bijan Parsia: +1 to ivan ←
19:55:18 <schneid> ivan: boris and c&p say this
Ivan Herman: boris and c&p say this ←
19:55:27 <schneid> msmith: no, we did not really say this
Mike Smith: no, we did not really say this ←
19:55:34 <bijan> I say it!
Bijan Parsia: I say it! ←
19:55:35 <schneid> ivan: at least bijan says
Ivan Herman: at least bijan says ←
19:56:14 <bijan> I'll add as well that we have some evidence that infinite character sets are bad (from Birte)
Bijan Parsia: I'll add as well that we have some evidence that infinite character sets are bad (from Birte) ←
19:56:48 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:56:56 <schneid> alanr: refers to RIF argument that they need disjointness because of RIF operators
Alan Ruttenberg: refers to RIF argument that they need disjointness because of RIF operators ←
19:57:20 <schneid> ian: can we leave rif aside , and decide as a WG what we want?
Ian Horrocks: can we leave rif aside , and decide as a WG what we want? ←
19:57:57 <schneid> ian: whatever we hear as CR feedback will be feedback from an implementer
Ian Horrocks: whatever we hear as CR feedback will be feedback from an implementer ←
19:58:25 <schneid> ian: there are people in the wg who changed their view on disjointness
Ian Horrocks: there are people in the wg who changed their view on disjointness ←
19:58:28 <msmith> msmith: (clarifying previous scribe) we didn't say anything about implementation experience with Pellet, since we haven't done it.
Mike Smith: (clarifying previous scribe) we didn't say anything about implementation experience with Pellet, since we haven't done it. [ Scribe Assist by Mike Smith ] ←
19:58:37 <bijan> I'll point to to past work by SWBP: http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-xsch-datatypes/#sec-values-differ
Bijan Parsia: I'll point to to past work by SWBP: http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-xsch-datatypes/#sec-values-differ ←
19:58:41 <schneid> alanr: would like to learn about the details on the technical problems
Alan Ruttenberg: would like to learn about the details on the technical problems ←
19:58:45 <bijan> (Past pellet had disjointness.)
Bijan Parsia: (Past pellet had disjointness.) ←
19:59:02 <msmith> yes, yes, and still does
Mike Smith: yes, yes, and still does ←
19:59:28 <schneid> boris: comparing of float and decimal is sort of hard
Boris Motik: comparing of float and decimal is sort of hard ←
19:59:29 <MarkusK_> q+
Markus Krötzsch: q+ ←
19:59:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:59:51 <IanH> ack MarkusK_
Ian Horrocks: ack MarkusK_ ←
19:59:54 <ewallace> and double
Evan Wallace: and double ←
19:59:57 <schneid> boris: inefficient, nightmare, (many other negative words)
Boris Motik: inefficient, nightmare, (many other negative words) ←
20:00:10 <IanH> zakim, MarkusK_ is Markus
Ian Horrocks: zakim, MarkusK_ is Markus ←
20:00:11 <Zakim> sorry, IanH, I do not recognize a party named 'MarkusK_'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, IanH, I do not recognize a party named 'MarkusK_' ←
20:00:20 <schneid> markus: is this a problem with double and float?
Markus Krötzsch: is this a problem with double and float? ←
20:00:25 <IanH> zakim, Markus is MarkusK_
Ian Horrocks: zakim, Markus is MarkusK_ ←
20:00:25 <Zakim> sorry, IanH, I do not recognize a party named 'Markus'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, IanH, I do not recognize a party named 'Markus' ←
20:00:38 <schneid> boris: double/float is not such a big problem probably
Boris Motik: double/float is not such a big problem probably ←
20:01:02 <schneid> boris: but trouble pops up with rationals
Boris Motik: but trouble pops up with rationals ←
20:01:34 <schneid> alanr: what about comparing rationals to decimals?
Alan Ruttenberg: what about comparing rationals to decimals? ←
20:02:05 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:02:08 <schneid> boris: marginally easier, but not really easy
Boris Motik: marginally easier, but not really easy ←
20:02:18 <schneid> ian: confused where we are standing
Ian Horrocks: confused where we are standing ←
20:02:31 <ewallace> I thought we had a sense of the group at last telecon to have disjointness
Evan Wallace: I thought we had a sense of the group at last telecon to have disjointness ←
20:02:34 <bijan> I also think making them disjoint makes the whole picture cleaner and more inline with common expectation. It's what people expect from XML Schema, and it's justifiable. Float and Double are very specific types and it's reasonable to view them this way
Bijan Parsia: I also think making them disjoint makes the whole picture cleaner and more inline with common expectation. It's what people expect from XML Schema, and it's justifiable. Float and Double are very specific types and it's reasonable to view them this way ←
20:02:35 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:03:06 <schneid> ian: looks like that most of the group is not against the change to disjointness
Ian Horrocks: looks like that most of the group is not against the change to disjointness ←
20:04:01 <schneid> zhe: we are normalizing into a common datatype, would like to /not/ having them disjoint
Zhe Wu: we are normalizing into a common datatype, would like to /not/ having them disjoint ←
20:04:26 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:05:09 <schneid> boris: floats can become very large, and it would take a lot of memory to normalize it into a number
Boris Motik: floats can become very large, and it would take a lot of memory to normalize it into a number ←
20:05:44 <schneid> scribe is uncertain about validity about his scribing
scribe is uncertain about validity about his scribing ←
20:06:28 <MarkusK_> q+
Markus Krötzsch: q+ ←
20:06:29 <schneid> ian: different people think that is difficult, other think not difficult, does not take us anywhere
Ian Horrocks: different people think that is difficult, other think not difficult, does not take us anywhere ←
20:06:33 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:06:57 <IanH> ack MarkusK_
Ian Horrocks: ack MarkusK_ ←
20:07:26 <schneid> markus: would it just be possible to make non-disjointness optional?
Markus Krötzsch: would it just be possible to make non-disjointness optional? ←
20:07:50 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:07:56 <schneid> markus: (correction) about optionality of problematic datatypes (float, etc)
Markus Krötzsch: (correction) about optionality of problematic datatypes (float, etc) ←
20:08:08 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:08:44 <MarkusK_> markus: would it be possible ot keep common value spaces, but make support for floa, double optional for implementations
Markus Krötzsch: would it be possible ot keep common value spaces, but make support for floa, double optional for implementations [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ] ←
20:08:55 <MarkusK_> s /floa/float/
Markus Krötzsch: s /floa/float/ ←
20:09:09 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:09:41 <schneid> zhe: we have a database, we have to support this, and to handle this
Zhe Wu: we have a database, we have to support this, and to handle this ←
20:09:53 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:10:43 <schneid> ivan: question, what would it mean for oracle implementation if we change to disjointness
Ivan Herman: question, what would it mean for oracle implementation if we change to disjointness ←
20:10:54 <alanr> http://www.cygnus-software.com/papers/comparingfloats/comparingfloats.htm
Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.cygnus-software.com/papers/comparingfloats/comparingfloats.htm ←
20:10:54 <schneid> zhe: would be lot of work
Zhe Wu: would be lot of work ←
20:11:10 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:11:36 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:12:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:13:00 <bijan> btw, I believe jena supports the disjointness: http://jena.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/jena/jena2/src/com/hp/hpl/jena/datatypes/xsd/impl/
Bijan Parsia: btw, I believe jena supports the disjointness: http://jena.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/jena/jena2/src/com/hp/hpl/jena/datatypes/xsd/impl/ ←
20:13:10 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:13:35 <bijan> I'm havign some time locating the precise code
Bijan Parsia: I'm havign some time locating the precise code ←
20:13:44 <schneid> schneid: we have different stakes, we should really consider to decide about optionality
Michael Schneider: we have different stakes, we should really consider to decide about optionality ←
20:13:48 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:14:16 <schneid> ivan: we had float in OWL 1
Ivan Herman: we had float in OWL 1 ←
20:14:18 <msmith> @bijan, yes. jena is disjoint. jeremy authored the note that suggested disjointness
Mike Smith: @bijan, yes. jena is disjoint. jeremy authored the note that suggested disjointness ←
20:14:24 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:14:26 <schneid> ian: no, not mandatory
Ian Horrocks: no, not mandatory ←
20:14:30 <bijan> That was my suspicion
Bijan Parsia: That was my suspicion ←
20:15:06 <alanr> XML schema speaks both ways: The ·value space· of float contains the non-zero numbers m × 2e
Alan Ruttenberg: XML schema speaks both ways: The ·value space· of float contains the non-zero numbers m × 2e ←
20:15:14 <alanr> The ·value space· of decimal is the set of numbers that can be
Alan Ruttenberg: The ·value space· of decimal is the set of numbers that can be ←
20:15:15 <alanr> obtained by dividing an integer by a non-negative power of ten, i.e.,
Alan Ruttenberg: obtained by dividing an integer by a non-negative power of ten, i.e., ←
20:15:15 <alanr> expressible as i / 10n where i and n are integers and n ≥ 0
Alan Ruttenberg: expressible as i / 10n where i and n are integers and n ≥ 0 ←
20:15:20 <alanr> "set of numbers"
Alan Ruttenberg: "set of numbers" ←
20:15:27 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:15:33 <alanr> not disjoint by the english descriptions
Alan Ruttenberg: not disjoint by the english descriptions ←
20:16:03 <bijan> the ·value space·s of all ·primitive· datatypes are disjoint (they do not share any values)
Bijan Parsia: the ·value space·s of all ·primitive· datatypes are disjoint (they do not share any values) ←
20:16:12 <bijan> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#equal
Bijan Parsia: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#equal ←
20:16:24 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:16:42 <bijan> float, double, and decimal are all primitive datatypes
Bijan Parsia: float, double, and decimal are all primitive datatypes ←
20:16:43 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators/#func-numeric-equal
Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators/#func-numeric-equal ←
20:16:50 <alanr> they are all comparable
Alan Ruttenberg: they are all comparable ←
20:16:58 <schneid> schneid: what are ramifications if people simply ignore disjointness
Michael Schneider: what are ramifications if people simply ignore disjointness ←
20:17:07 <bijan> Higher level functions are no relevant
Bijan Parsia: Higher level functions are no relevant ←
20:17:08 <bijan> not
Bijan Parsia: not ←
20:17:13 <schneid> boris: non-conformance, test cases will be answered wrongly
Boris Motik: non-conformance, test cases will be answered wrongly ←
20:17:13 <bijan> I can always wrap a coercion
Bijan Parsia: I can always wrap a coercion ←
20:17:22 <bijan> compare("1.0",1)
Bijan Parsia: compare("1.0",1) ←
20:17:32 <bijan> If my compare function parses the first, it can compare them
Bijan Parsia: If my compare function parses the first, it can compare them ←
20:17:45 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:17:56 <msmith> the test case http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/Datatype-Float-Discrete-002 will change from consistent to inconsistent
Mike Smith: the test case http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/Datatype-Float-Discrete-002 will change from consistent to inconsistent ←
20:18:02 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:18:11 <bijan> It's hard to see how the schema document is ambiguous about the disjointness of the value spaces
Bijan Parsia: It's hard to see how the schema document is ambiguous about the disjointness of the value spaces ←
20:18:32 <schneid> ian: would WG people positively object to optionality
Ian Horrocks: would WG people positively object to optionality ←
20:18:43 <bijan> It's hard to evaluate an argument that starts by appealing to the definition in the schema spec then jumps to a different operator in a different spec
Bijan Parsia: It's hard to evaluate an argument that starts by appealing to the definition in the schema spec then jumps to a different operator in a different spec ←
20:19:00 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:19:04 <schneid> zhe: would be ok
20:19:11 <bijan> How does optionality solve anything?
Bijan Parsia: How does optionality solve anything? ←
20:19:19 <bijan> Are they going to be, in optional, disjoint or not?
Bijan Parsia: Are they going to be, in optional, disjoint or not? ←
20:19:20 <schneid> pfps: i don't think wouldn't get a away with this
Peter Patel-Schneider: i don't think wouldn't get a away with this ←
20:19:24 <bijan> We still have to answer that question
Bijan Parsia: We still have to answer that question ←
20:19:32 <bijan> Or we'll have conflicting implemetnations
Bijan Parsia: Or we'll have conflicting implemetnations ←
20:19:43 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:20:10 <schneid> ivan: what do we know about owl 1?
Ivan Herman: what do we know about owl 1? ←
20:20:38 <bijan> The SWBP document said disjointness
Bijan Parsia: The SWBP document said disjointness ←
20:20:46 <bijan> Pellet implemented disjointness, as did Jena
Bijan Parsia: Pellet implemented disjointness, as did Jena ←
20:20:51 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:20:53 <schneid> msmith: old pellet used disjointness
Mike Smith: old pellet used disjointness ←
20:21:02 <schneid> ivan: any example for non-disjointness?
Ivan Herman: any example for non-disjointness? ←
20:21:05 <bijan> FaCT++ did not, neither did Cerebra (on feedback from users)
Bijan Parsia: FaCT++ did not, neither did Cerebra (on feedback from users) ←
20:21:33 <schneid> pfps: would be non-conformant, since owl 1 says, /if/ xsd datatypes are used, /then/ disjoint
Peter Patel-Schneider: would be non-conformant, since owl 1 says, /if/ xsd datatypes are used, /then/ disjoint ←
20:21:51 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:22:19 <bijan> OWL 2 would be, to my knowledge, the first w3c semantic web rec or note that made them non-disjoint (fwiw)
Bijan Parsia: OWL 2 would be, to my knowledge, the first w3c semantic web rec or note that made them non-disjoint (fwiw) ←
20:22:32 <ewallace> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/ in not a Recommendation?
Evan Wallace: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/ in not a Recommendation? ←
20:22:44 <schneid> boris: this is a guess work now, we don't know
Boris Motik: this is a guess work now, we don't know ←
20:23:03 <bijan> ewallace: that says they are disjoint
Evan Wallace: that says they are disjoint [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
20:23:06 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:24:19 <schneid> ivan: rif people tell me that for their implementations they need disjointness, but I don't want to solve rif's problems
Ivan Herman: rif people tell me that for their implementations they need disjointness, but I don't want to solve rif's problems ←
20:24:31 <schneid> ian: we should really leaf rif out of this
Ian Horrocks: we should really leaf rif out of this ←
20:24:52 <bijan> (And what if we intend to combine RIF like rules, a la dl safe swrl rules and owl?)
Bijan Parsia: (And what if we intend to combine RIF like rules, a la dl safe swrl rules and owl?) ←
20:25:01 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:25:37 <schneid> markus: i'm not clear wheter we discussion general disjointness (all datatypes), or only about certain datatypes
Markus Krötzsch: i'm not clear wheter we discussion general disjointness (all datatypes), or only about certain datatypes ←
20:25:47 <schneid> alanr: it's about following XSD
Alan Ruttenberg: it's about following XSD ←
20:25:52 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:26:10 <MarkusK_> I think it fits into that picture http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#built-in-datatypes
Markus Krötzsch: I think it fits into that picture http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#built-in-datatypes ←
20:26:36 <MarkusK_> (owl:real simply being above the xsd:decimal-stack)
Markus Krötzsch: (owl:real simply being above the xsd:decimal-stack) ←
20:26:42 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:27:08 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:27:18 <baojie> q+
20:28:06 <ivan> ack baojie
Ivan Herman: ack baojie ←
20:28:08 <MarkusK_> markus: So is it true to say that we are in any case intending to keep xsd:decimal below owl_rational and owl:real, so that only the disjointness of float and double from owl:real is discussed?
Markus Krötzsch: So is it true to say that we are in any case intending to keep xsd:decimal below owl_rational and owl:real, so that only the disjointness of float and double from owl:real is discussed? [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ] ←
20:28:13 <MarkusK_> boris: yes
Boris Motik: yes [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ] ←
20:28:18 <bijan> yes
Bijan Parsia: yes ←
20:29:31 <schneid> zhe: conversion between datatypes in RDB section is well developed
Zhe Wu: conversion between datatypes in RDB section is well developed ←
20:30:17 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:31:02 <schneid> zhe: I'm not saying that its impossible to make them disjoint, my concerns are about much effort
Zhe Wu: I'm not saying that its impossible to make them disjoint, my concerns are about much effort ←
20:31:19 <schneid> pfps: how many people are using floats in ontologies?
Peter Patel-Schneider: how many people are using floats in ontologies? ←
20:31:52 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:32:31 <MarkusK_> q+
Markus Krötzsch: q+ ←
20:32:33 <schneid> alanr: science community use floats regularly
Alan Ruttenberg: science community use floats regularly ←
20:33:04 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:33:33 <ewallace> decimal better than float!
Evan Wallace: decimal better than float! ←
20:33:35 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:33:43 <schneid> pfps: in programming languages, there are problems with floats
Peter Patel-Schneider: in programming languages, there are problems with floats ←
20:34:01 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:34:07 <IanH> ack MarkusK_
Ian Horrocks: ack MarkusK_ ←
20:34:26 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:35:00 <schneid> markus: i wonder why the fact that many people use floats should be an argument for non-disjointness
Markus Krötzsch: i wonder why the fact that many people use floats should be an argument for non-disjointness ←
20:35:30 <schneid> markus: what about facets?
Markus Krötzsch: what about facets? ←
20:36:09 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:36:25 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:36:30 <MarkusK_> alan: facets could not use comparisons to decimals for floats
Alan Ruttenberg: facets could not use comparisons to decimals for floats [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ] ←
20:36:58 <MarkusK_> markus: but you still could use facets by using floats exclusively
Markus Krötzsch: but you still could use facets by using floats exclusively [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ] ←
20:37:19 <MarkusK_> alan: yes, but I think it is conceptually less clean to have disjoint number value spaces
Alan Ruttenberg: yes, but I think it is conceptually less clean to have disjoint number value spaces [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ] ←
20:38:05 <schneid> ian: it's strawpoll time on the question whether to have disjointness or not
Ian Horrocks: it's strawpoll time on the question whether to have disjointness or not ←
20:39:08 <IanH> STRAWPOLL: double, float and owl:real should be pairwise disjoint
STRAWPOLL: double, float and owl:real should be pairwise disjoint ←
20:39:14 <bmotik> +0.7
Boris Motik: +0.7 ←
20:39:18 <alanr> -1
Alan Ruttenberg: -1 ←
20:39:22 <baojie> +1
20:39:26 <MarkusK_> +0.5e0
Markus Krötzsch: +0.5e0 ←
20:39:26 <pfps> +0.7E0
Peter Patel-Schneider: +0.7E0 ←
20:39:28 <sandro> +0.333333
Sandro Hawke: +0.333333 ←
20:39:29 <msmith> +1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
20:39:29 <ewallace> +1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
20:39:37 <Achille> +1
Achille Fokoue: +1 ←
20:39:39 <schneid> +epsilon
+epsilon ←
20:39:40 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
20:39:44 <Zhe1> -1
20:40:43 <ewallace> Should we consider this with required/optional?
Evan Wallace: Should we consider this with required/optional? ←
20:40:49 <schneid> ian: ask alanr and zhe whether they will object
Ian Horrocks: ask alanr and zhe whether they will object ←
20:41:08 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
20:41:58 <IanH> STRAWPOLL: double, float and owl:real should be share a single value space as per current spec
STRAWPOLL: double, float and owl:real should be share a single value space as per current spec ←
20:42:01 <schneid> alanr: has to consult with his institutes
Alan Ruttenberg: has to consult with his institutes ←
20:42:03 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
20:42:06 <bmotik> -0.7
Boris Motik: -0.7 ←
20:42:08 <bijan> -1
Bijan Parsia: -1 ←
20:42:12 <MarkusK_> -0.5
Markus Krötzsch: -0.5 ←
20:42:13 <sandro> -0
Sandro Hawke: -0 ←
20:42:14 <ivan> -1
Ivan Herman: -1 ←
20:42:19 <pfps> -1
20:42:20 <Achille> -0.5
Achille Fokoue: -0.5 ←
20:42:21 <ewallace> -.5
Evan Wallace: -.5 ←
20:42:24 <baojie> -1
20:42:28 <msmith> -1
Mike Smith: -1 ←
20:42:33 <schneid> zhe: will consult within oracle
Zhe Wu: will consult within oracle ←
20:42:39 <Zhe1> +1
20:43:08 <schneid> 0 - (my original answer)
0 - (my original answer) ←
20:43:58 <schneid> boris: would not object to non-disjointness
Boris Motik: would not object to non-disjointness ←
20:44:08 <schneid> pfps: would not object
Peter Patel-Schneider: would not object ←
20:44:24 <schneid> ivan: compatibility with rif is important for ivan
Ivan Herman: compatibility with rif is important for ivan ←
20:44:27 <IanH> The people who just voted -1 (i.e., against single value space), would you "lie in the road" if we decide on single value space?
Ian Horrocks: The people who just voted -1 (i.e., against single value space), would you "lie in the road" if we decide on single value space? ←
20:44:37 <bijan> It's possible
Bijan Parsia: It's possible ←
20:44:49 <bmotik> I wouldn't lie in the road
Boris Motik: I wouldn't lie in the road ←
20:44:54 <bijan> Obviously, as with everyone, I would have to consult
Bijan Parsia: Obviously, as with everyone, I would have to consult ←
20:45:13 <schneid> ivan: it's my job to help on compatibility
Ivan Herman: it's my job to help on compatibility ←
20:45:38 <schneid> ivan: needs to see what RIF is saying about this
Ivan Herman: needs to see what RIF is saying about this ←
20:45:58 <bijan> I think it's an easy thing to do that 1) adds compatibility with the past, 2) adds compatibile or perceived compatibility with RIF
Bijan Parsia: I think it's an easy thing to do that 1) adds compatibility with the past, 2) adds compatibile or perceived compatibility with RIF ←
20:46:07 <bijan> and 3) has merit on its own
Bijan Parsia: and 3) has merit on its own ←
20:46:17 <bijan> (disjointness that is)
Bijan Parsia: (disjointness that is) ←
20:46:44 <bijan> Non-disjointness may have independent merit, but it doesn't ahve the other two
Bijan Parsia: Non-disjointness may have independent merit, but it doesn't ahve the other two ←
20:47:06 <schneid> ian: we now have to wait for people to consult with their organizations and working groups
Ian Horrocks: we now have to wait for people to consult with their organizations and working groups ←
20:47:38 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:47:45 <bijan> The primary merit for either disjointness and non-disjointnes doesn't seem overwhelming, esp. to the other side. I've heard (pro disjointness) "concpetually cleaner" and "easier for our implementation"
Bijan Parsia: The primary merit for either disjointness and non-disjointnes doesn't seem overwhelming, esp. to the other side. I've heard (pro disjointness) "concpetually cleaner" and "easier for our implementation" ←
20:47:49 <msmith> ivan: (and alanr) it is possible that RIF will change their mind and prefer non-disjointness
Ivan Herman: (and alanr) it is possible that RIF will change their mind and prefer non-disjointness [ Scribe Assist by Mike Smith ] ←
20:48:27 <schneid> alanr: there will also problems with rif on n-ary datatypes
Alan Ruttenberg: there will also problems with rif on n-ary datatypes ←
20:48:50 <bijan> I would argue that disjointness is at least equiclean and has the advantage of ensure that people *don't* just use it as a funny syntax for decimals and rather easy to implement
Bijan Parsia: I would argue that disjointness is at least equiclean and has the advantage of ensure that people *don't* just use it as a funny syntax for decimals and rather easy to implement ←
20:49:44 <schneid> ian: can people please go and consult, so that we can have a formal vote in some time from now
Ian Horrocks: can people please go and consult, so that we can have a formal vote in some time from now ←
20:50:16 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:50:31 <schneid> ivan: some technical issues from jos and alan have to be resolved
Ivan Herman: some technical issues from jos and alan have to be resolved ←
20:51:05 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:51:27 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:51:30 <schneid> ivan: we should give rif group the the chance to think about our current position
Ivan Herman: we should give rif group the the chance to think about our current position ←
20:53:01 <schneid> msmith: it's unclear whether there are ramifications for the profiles
Mike Smith: it's unclear whether there are ramifications for the profiles ←
20:53:34 <schneid> ian: realizes that we are already deep in coffee break time
Ian Horrocks: realizes that we are already deep in coffee break time ←
20:54:55 <schneid> ian: we settle on that we will have formal vote on this disjointness issue at 11th of March
Ian Horrocks: we settle on that we will have formal vote on this disjointness issue at 11th of March ←
20:55:12 <schneid> ian: resolved: we will have formal vote on this disjointness issue at 11th of March
Ian Horrocks: resolved: we will have formal vote on this disjointness issue at 11th of March ←
20:55:32 <schneid> RESOLVED: we will have formal vote on this disjointness issue at 11th of March
RESOLVED: we will have formal vote on this disjointness issue at 11th of March ←
21:08:24 <sandro> ...test...
(No events recorded for 12 minutes)
Sandro Hawke: ...test... ←
21:13:38 <alanr> "0.20000000298023223876953125000000000000000000000000000"
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Alan Ruttenberg: "0.20000000298023223876953125000000000000000000000000000" ←
21:16:17 <MarkusK_> scribenick: MarkusK_
(Scribe set to Markus Krötzsch)
21:16:37 <MarkusK_> topic: OWL/RIF datatypes
21:17:03 <MarkusK_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0027.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0032.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0027.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0032.html ←
21:18:01 <MarkusK_> alanr: what the comments say is that owl:real and owl:rational should not be supported
Alan Ruttenberg: what the comments say is that owl:real and owl:rational should not be supported ←
21:18:08 <MarkusK_> ian: is that an option for us?
Ian Horrocks: is that an option for us? ←
21:18:13 <bijan> -1
Bijan Parsia: -1 ←
21:18:17 <MarkusK_> ivan: rational was still pending
Ivan Herman: rational was still pending ←
21:18:28 <MarkusK_> pfps: there are many use cases, including recipes
Peter Patel-Schneider: there are many use cases, including recipes ←
21:18:42 <MarkusK_> ... US people use "1/3 cups" of flour
... US people use "1/3 cups" of flour ←
21:18:52 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:19:05 <MarkusK_> ivan: I understodd that the RIF group is looking at rational numbers
Ivan Herman: I understodd that the RIF group is looking at rational numbers ←
21:19:24 <MarkusK_> mike: is it a problem for us if they do not support reals and rationals?
Mike Smith: is it a problem for us if they do not support reals and rationals? ←
21:19:37 <bijan> I'll note that a surprising number of calculators, both web based and downloadable support rationals (internally
Bijan Parsia: I'll note that a surprising number of calculators, both web based and downloadable support rationals (internally ←
21:19:41 <MarkusK_> ian: well, we would then accept some incompatibility
Ian Horrocks: well, we would then accept some incompatibility ←
21:19:59 <MarkusK_> boris: they have other datatypes as well, which we do not have
Boris Motik: they have other datatypes as well, which we do not have ←
21:19:59 <bijan> E.g., http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%281%2F3%29*3&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
Bijan Parsia: E.g., http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%281%2F3%29*3&btnG=Google+Search&meta= ←
21:20:08 <MarkusK_> ... for example, there is xsd:duration
... for example, there is xsd:duration ←
21:20:31 <MarkusK_> alanr: so we do not mention these types in our table of incompatibilities yet?
Alan Ruttenberg: so we do not mention these types in our table of incompatibilities yet? ←
21:20:37 <MarkusK_> boris: no
Boris Motik: no ←
21:21:01 <MarkusK_> ian: we could fall back to fudging
Ian Horrocks: we could fall back to fudging ←
21:21:09 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:21:17 <MarkusK_> ... stating that we support "essentially the same datatypes"
... stating that we support "essentially the same datatypes" ←
21:21:29 <MarkusK_> ian: what are we going to do hten?
Ian Horrocks: what are we going to do hten? ←
21:21:31 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:21:43 <MarkusK_> ... shall we wait for RIF?
... shall we wait for RIF? ←
21:21:46 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:21:48 <pfps> alan: just say no
Alan Ruttenberg: just say no [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
21:21:50 <bijan> I still don't understand the argument pro supporting the same datatypes...aligning datatypes as far as reasonable, yes, same set..whahaugh?
Bijan Parsia: I still don't understand the argument pro supporting the same datatypes...aligning datatypes as far as reasonable, yes, same set..whahaugh? ←
21:21:52 <pfps> +1 to alan
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to alan ←
21:22:01 <MarkusK_> ivan: who is currently taking care of this issue?
Ivan Herman: who is currently taking care of this issue? ←
21:22:22 <bijan> I mean, I don't see the prima facie case...and I spent some time with Chris Welty on the rif list
Bijan Parsia: I mean, I don't see the prima facie case...and I spent some time with Chris Welty on the rif list ←
21:22:43 <MarkusK_> boris: there are arguments for the datatypes we support
Boris Motik: there are arguments for the datatypes we support ←
21:22:48 <bijan> AFAICT, it's just "it would be ridiculous not to make them the same", but that didn't seem very plausible to me
Bijan Parsia: AFAICT, it's just "it would be ridiculous not to make them the same", but that didn't seem very plausible to me ←
21:22:51 <MarkusK_> ... they are used in ontologies
... they are used in ontologies ←
21:23:19 <MarkusK_> ... our list is based on what I considered to be implementable in a reasonable way
... our list is based on what I considered to be implementable in a reasonable way ←
21:23:26 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:23:34 <MarkusK_> ... our additional datatypes are generally easy to implement, hence they were included
... our additional datatypes are generally easy to implement, hence they were included ←
21:23:46 <MarkusK_> ... e.g. xsd:NCName and xsd:NMTOKEN
... e.g. xsd:NCName and xsd:NMTOKEN ←
21:24:03 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:24:31 <schneid> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
21:24:40 <bijan> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc34old/repository/0392.htm
Bijan Parsia: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc34old/repository/0392.htm ←
21:25:23 <MarkusK_> ivan: could we just state than that we keep the current restrictions of supported datatypes, and leave it to RIF to make a decision on what to do?
Ivan Herman: could we just state than that we keep the current restrictions of supported datatypes, and leave it to RIF to make a decision on what to do? ←
21:25:56 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:26:00 <IanH> ack schneid
Ian Horrocks: ack schneid ←
21:26:32 <MarkusK_> boris: our current set of datatypes comprises the XSD types we understand plus some additional OWL types, and the XSD types are partly interpreted in a specific way (disjointness)
Boris Motik: our current set of datatypes comprises the XSD types we understand plus some additional OWL types, and the XSD types are partly interpreted in a specific way (disjointness) ←
21:26:42 <bijan> http://www.xml.com/lpt/a/1006
Bijan Parsia: http://www.xml.com/lpt/a/1006 ←
21:26:52 <MarkusK_> schneid: any mandatory datatype is a burden to implementors
Michael Schneider: any mandatory datatype is a burden to implementors ←
21:27:01 <bijan> (these are pro-rational screeds :))
Bijan Parsia: (these are pro-rational screeds :)) ←
21:27:07 <MarkusK_> ... so we should rather require less than more
... so we should rather require less than more ←
21:27:24 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:27:42 <MarkusK_> mike: as an implementor, I don't think the burden is very big
Mike Smith: as an implementor, I don't think the burden is very big ←
21:27:46 <Zakim> -christine
Zakim IRC Bot: -christine ←
21:27:48 <msmith> msmith: many of the mandatory types become syntactic shorthand. See http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#built-in-datatypes
Mike Smith: many of the mandatory types become syntactic shorthand. See http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#built-in-datatypes [ Scribe Assist by Mike Smith ] ←
21:28:15 <MarkusK_> sandro: do we agree that OWL supports all of XSD except the "ill-defined" ones
Sandro Hawke: do we agree that OWL supports all of XSD except the "ill-defined" ones ←
21:28:23 <bijan> I think naming types deriveable from the core ones with facets is a minimal burden
Bijan Parsia: I think naming types deriveable from the core ones with facets is a minimal burden ←
21:28:49 <bijan> (Over supporting the core ones with facets alone)
Bijan Parsia: (Over supporting the core ones with facets alone) ←
21:28:49 <MarkusK_> pfps: well, the datatypes must be suitable for OWL
Peter Patel-Schneider: well, the datatypes must be suitable for OWL ←
21:29:06 <MarkusK_> boris: the problem is also related to some facets
Boris Motik: the problem is also related to some facets ←
21:29:07 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:29:20 <MarkusK_> ... some of those must be adjusted to be manageable in OWL implementations
... some of those must be adjusted to be manageable in OWL implementations ←
21:29:37 <MarkusK_> ian: the question now is what our answer is going to be
Ian Horrocks: the question now is what our answer is going to be ←
21:29:58 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:29:59 <MarkusK_> sandro: I think it would be rational to state that we support and why
Sandro Hawke: I think it would be rational to state that we support and why ←
21:30:17 <MarkusK_> ... we should just find some more objective criteria to explain what we support
... we should just find some more objective criteria to explain what we support ←
21:30:36 <MarkusK_> alanr: some datatypes could indeed be supported, but are just very hard to implement
Alan Ruttenberg: some datatypes could indeed be supported, but are just very hard to implement ←
21:30:56 <MarkusK_> ... so referring to use cases and our judgement of what is reasonable might be the best we can do
... so referring to use cases and our judgement of what is reasonable might be the best we can do ←
21:31:17 <MarkusK_> boris: I think our selection of the sensible types is rather valid
Boris Motik: I think our selection of the sensible types is rather valid ←
21:31:36 <MarkusK_> ... the issue is rather that there are so many types, and people are not familiar with all of them
... the issue is rather that there are so many types, and people are not familiar with all of them ←
21:32:19 <MarkusK_> mike: the SemWeb Best Practices WG has produced notes regarding the datatypes that should be supported
Mike Smith: the SemWeb Best Practices WG has produced notes regarding the datatypes that should be supported ←
21:32:25 <MarkusK_> ... is that relevant for us?
... is that relevant for us? ←
21:32:33 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:32:39 <MarkusK_> ivan: well, there are published notes, but the group does not exist anymore
Ivan Herman: well, there are published notes, but the group does not exist anymore ←
21:32:56 <MarkusK_> ... we may or may not refer to the result of that group to strengthen our case
... we may or may not refer to the result of that group to strengthen our case ←
21:33:06 <MarkusK_> ... this might be a clear and polite thing to say to RIF
... this might be a clear and polite thing to say to RIF ←
21:33:19 <MarkusK_> ... but I do not know what datatypes the group actually suggests
... but I do not know what datatypes the group actually suggests ←
21:33:34 <MarkusK_> mike: I have no idea, I was thinking about some future list
Mike Smith: I have no idea, I was thinking about some future list ←
21:33:47 <MarkusK_> ... but apparently we are the only ones currently dealing with the problem
... but apparently we are the only ones currently dealing with the problem ←
21:34:30 <MarkusK_> boris: there are some further datatypes that RIF has and we do not, e.g. octets and anyURI
Boris Motik: there are some further datatypes that RIF has and we do not, e.g. octets and anyURI ←
21:34:44 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:35:15 <MarkusK_> ... I looked at all datatypes in 1.0 spec and took all datatypes where I could make sense of
... I looked at all datatypes in 1.0 spec and took all datatypes where I could make sense of ←
21:35:43 <MarkusK_> ... one could have another look at the 1.1 spec, but otherwise I think my selection is pretty maximal
... one could have another look at the 1.1 spec, but otherwise I think my selection is pretty maximal ←
21:35:57 <MarkusK_> sandro: did we not recently remove a datatype because of RIF input?
Sandro Hawke: did we not recently remove a datatype because of RIF input? ←
21:36:05 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:36:12 <MarkusK_> boris: this was because I misinterpreted the value space there
Boris Motik: this was because I misinterpreted the value space there ←
21:36:31 <MarkusK_> ivan: who is the Boris of the RIF group, i.e. the person who selected the types?
Ivan Herman: who is the Boris of the RIF group, i.e. the person who selected the types? ←
21:36:37 <MarkusK_> sandro: it was pretty ad hoc
Sandro Hawke: it was pretty ad hoc ←
21:36:56 <MarkusK_> ... the suppoted types emerged in discussions, initial lists were pretty short
... the suppoted types emerged in discussions, initial lists were pretty short ←
21:37:01 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:37:14 <MarkusK_> ivan: is it true that we are a superset of RIF regarding the XSD types?
Ivan Herman: is it true that we are a superset of RIF regarding the XSD types? ←
21:37:29 <MarkusK_> boris: RIF also supports types from XQuery
Boris Motik: RIF also supports types from XQuery ←
21:37:36 <MarkusK_> ... the duration types are an example
... the duration types are an example ←
21:38:33 <MarkusK_> ivan: if we say that we currently support a superset of what RIF has, plus rational etc, then there is no reason for us to reduce this if we have good arguments
Ivan Herman: if we say that we currently support a superset of what RIF has, plus rational etc, then there is no reason for us to reduce this if we have good arguments ←
21:39:08 <MarkusK_> schneid: our reason for having a special version of dataTime was to require a single point on the time line, right?
Michael Schneider: our reason for having a special version of dataTime was to require a single point on the time line, right? ←
21:39:11 <MarkusK_> ian: yes
Ian Horrocks: yes ←
21:39:44 <MarkusK_> ian: it seems we have a fairly clear story for the choices we made regarding the types we support
Ian Horrocks: it seems we have a fairly clear story for the choices we made regarding the types we support ←
21:39:53 <MarkusK_> ... we could refine this via email to create a response
... we could refine this via email to create a response ←
21:40:32 <msmith> the duration dts in question: http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#duration-subtypes
Mike Smith: the duration dts in question: http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#duration-subtypes ←
21:40:43 <MarkusK_> ivan: it would be good ta argue that we do essentially have a superset
Ivan Herman: it would be good ta argue that we do essentially have a superset ←
21:40:53 <MarkusK_> ... of datatypes
... of datatypes ←
21:41:09 <MarkusK_> boris: types like date, which RIF supports and OWL does not, are interval types
Boris Motik: types like date, which RIF supports and OWL does not, are interval types ←
21:41:19 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:41:26 <MarkusK_> ... these are less problematic in RIF, but potentially very hard in OWL
... these are less problematic in RIF, but potentially very hard in OWL ←
21:42:24 <MarkusK_> ... One possible solution would be to look at the XSD spec (incl. XQuery) together with RIF, and deciced which datatypes both of us can support
... One possible solution would be to look at the XSD spec (incl. XQuery) together with RIF, and deciced which datatypes both of us can support ←
21:42:28 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:42:33 <MarkusK_> ... and then stick strictly to the spec in what we support
... and then stick strictly to the spec in what we support ←
21:42:41 <MarkusK_> ... including things like disjointness
... including things like disjointness ←
21:43:08 <MarkusK_> ... this is something that I think could indeed be useful: a common list that is aligned with XML Schema
... this is something that I think could indeed be useful: a common list that is aligned with XML Schema ←
21:43:16 <MarkusK_> ian: so you suggest to negotiate with RIF?
Ian Horrocks: so you suggest to negotiate with RIF? ←
21:43:40 <MarkusK_> boris: we agree on a set of formal criteria, which I think are not so different for both groups
Boris Motik: we agree on a set of formal criteria, which I think are not so different for both groups ←
21:43:49 <bijan> I don't want to forever align with RIF...RIF has different goals and needs
Bijan Parsia: I don't want to forever align with RIF...RIF has different goals and needs ←
21:43:58 <MarkusK_> ... this would be the only approaach that would make sense to me
... this would be the only approaach that would make sense to me ←
21:44:14 <MarkusK_> ... if we cannot achieve this, then we should not invest more time in discussing this
... if we cannot achieve this, then we should not invest more time in discussing this ←
21:44:34 <bijan> RIF and OWL have fundamentally different missions
Bijan Parsia: RIF and OWL have fundamentally different missions ←
21:44:37 <MarkusK_> ian: but this would require more time, and it is unclear if we can achieve consensus with RIF
Ian Horrocks: but this would require more time, and it is unclear if we can achieve consensus with RIF ←
21:44:45 <bijan> It's not clear to me that they would align
Bijan Parsia: It's not clear to me that they would align ←
21:44:53 <MarkusK_> ivan: but sandro said that RIF was rather ad hoc
Ivan Herman: but sandro said that RIF was rather ad hoc ←
21:45:02 <MarkusK_> sandro: yes, but very implementation specific
Sandro Hawke: yes, but very implementation specific ←
21:45:29 <bijan> For RIF I can see maximalist and minimalist arguments (maximalist: we do interchange so we should handle as much as possible; minimalist: we do interchange so we should go for widespread LCD)
Bijan Parsia: For RIF I can see maximalist and minimalist arguments (maximalist: we do interchange so we should handle as much as possible; minimalist: we do interchange so we should go for widespread LCD) ←
21:45:35 <MarkusK_> ian: in any case it would be a big negotiation that is needed there, and I do not see a large benefit in doing this
Ian Horrocks: in any case it would be a big negotiation that is needed there, and I do not see a large benefit in doing this ←
21:45:59 <MarkusK_> ... in particular since we can already claim, vaguely, that we support "essentially" the same datatypes
... in particular since we can already claim, vaguely, that we support "essentially" the same datatypes ←
21:46:30 <MarkusK_> boris lists the datatypes that OWL has and that we do not
boris lists the datatypes that OWL has and that we do not ←
21:47:18 <MarkusK_> boris lists the types that RIF supports and that we do not (mostly date and time related)
boris lists the types that RIF supports and that we do not (mostly date and time related) ←
21:47:47 <MarkusK_> ian: I will try to phrase a proposal
Ian Horrocks: I will try to phrase a proposal ←
21:49:58 <IanH> PROPOSED: in response to LC comments 22 & 25 we state our reasons for supporting the datatypes we support and offer to work with RIF to define a set of "Web compatible" datatypes supported by both OWL and RIF, i.e., the intersection of OWL and RIF supported datatypes
PROPOSED: in response to LC comments 22 & 25 we state our reasons for supporting the datatypes we support and offer to work with RIF to define a set of "Web compatible" datatypes supported by both OWL and RIF, i.e., the intersection of OWL and RIF supported datatypes ←
21:50:04 <pfps> +1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU ←
21:50:05 <sandro> +0
Sandro Hawke: +0 ←
21:50:05 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
21:50:08 <ivan> 0
Ivan Herman: 0 ←
21:50:14 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
21:50:18 <MarkusK_> markus: +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
21:50:19 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
21:50:19 <ewallace> +1 NIST
Evan Wallace: +1 NIST ←
21:50:20 <schneid> 0
21:50:24 <Achille> 0
Achille Fokoue: 0 ←
21:50:26 <bijan> +1 except for the "web compatible" stuff
Bijan Parsia: +1 except for the "web compatible" stuff ←
21:50:26 <baojie> +1
21:50:39 <msmith> +1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
21:50:56 <bijan> I don't understand the "offer" part
Bijan Parsia: I don't understand the "offer" part ←
21:51:17 <IanH> RESOLVED: in response to LC comments 22 & 25 we state our reasons for supporting the datatypes we support and offer to work with RIF to define a set of "Web compatible" datatypes supported by both OWL and RIF, i.e., the intersection of OWL and RIF supported datatypes
RESOLVED: in response to LC comments 22 & 25 we state our reasons for supporting the datatypes we support and offer to work with RIF to define a set of "Web compatible" datatypes supported by both OWL and RIF, i.e., the intersection of OWL and RIF supported datatypes ←
21:51:18 <Zhe1> +0
21:51:36 <MarkusK_> ian: great, so we are done, unfortunately, there is more on datatypes
Ian Horrocks: great, so we are done, unfortunately, there is more on datatypes ←
21:51:58 <MarkusK_> topic: supported OWL RL datatypes
21:52:59 <MarkusK_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0022.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0083.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0022.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0083.html ←
21:53:36 <MarkusK_> zhe: my comment (43) is that we do not want owl:rational
Zhe Wu: my comment (43) is that we do not want owl:rational ←
21:53:55 <MarkusK_> ian: and Jos (20) suggested to have all datatypes in RL
Ian Horrocks: and Jos (20) suggested to have all datatypes in RL ←
21:54:23 <MarkusK_> boris: from a reasoning point of view, there is indeed no good reason to exclude datatypes
Boris Motik: from a reasoning point of view, there is indeed no good reason to exclude datatypes ←
21:54:24 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:54:30 <MarkusK_> ... that was an error on my side
... that was an error on my side ←
21:54:48 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:54:49 <MarkusK_> pfps: so nobody argues against having all XSD datatypes in RL
Peter Patel-Schneider: so nobody argues against having all XSD datatypes in RL ←
21:55:03 <MarkusK_> ivan: in the case of RL, easy implementability was an important requirement
Ivan Herman: in the case of RL, easy implementability was an important requirement ←
21:55:07 <bijan> I'll note that the profile leaves out other things...why not this
Bijan Parsia: I'll note that the profile leaves out other things...why not this ←
21:55:20 <IanH> You can look at Ivan for a while!
Ian Horrocks: You can look at Ivan for a while! ←
21:55:25 <MarkusK_> ... hence adding new datatypes should be done with care, the argumentation should not just be that it is technically possible
... hence adding new datatypes should be done with care, the argumentation should not just be that it is technically possible ←
21:55:35 <MarkusK_> a+
a+ ←
21:55:38 <bijan> Implementatiosn can always support more (OWL RL+, we're studlier than oracle!!!)
Bijan Parsia: Implementatiosn can always support more (OWL RL+, we're studlier than oracle!!!) ←
21:55:38 <MarkusK_> q+
q+ ←
21:55:38 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:56:25 <MarkusK_> boris: what is currently out of RL is already only part of the OWL types, it appears that adding more datatypes might be easy in many cases
Boris Motik: what is currently out of RL is already only part of the OWL types, it appears that adding more datatypes might be easy in many cases ←
21:56:41 <MarkusK_> ... some of the missing types are very similar to the ones included already
... some of the missing types are very similar to the ones included already ←
21:56:56 <MarkusK_> ivan: but it might be that some are indeed hard to implement, esp. float and double
Ivan Herman: but it might be that some are indeed hard to implement, esp. float and double ←
21:57:05 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:58:03 <MarkusK_> boris: ok, let's put those aside, but boolean and language should not be specifically excluded
Boris Motik: ok, let's put those aside, but boolean and language should not be specifically excluded ←
21:58:24 <pfps> +1 to alan (if xsd:float is not in RL, then it is optional)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to alan (if xsd:float is not in RL, then it is optional) ←
21:58:40 <MarkusK_> markus: I agree with boris, but maybe some of the problematic datatypes could be optional for RL, esp. rational?
Markus Krötzsch: I agree with boris, but maybe some of the problematic datatypes could be optional for RL, esp. rational? ←
21:58:44 <bijan> I don't understand that
Bijan Parsia: I don't understand that ←
21:58:49 <bijan> What does that mean?
Bijan Parsia: What does that mean? ←
21:59:27 <alanr> Alan said: We allow xml schema types that we have in OWL DL, into RL, but not more
Alan Ruttenberg: Alan said: We allow xml schema types that we have in OWL DL, into RL, but not more ←
22:00:03 <MarkusK_> pfps: I agree with alan here
Peter Patel-Schneider: I agree with alan here ←
22:00:41 <MarkusK_> zhe: from Oracle's perspective, adding positiveInteger etc. is not hard at all, but owl:rational does not fit to the current architecture at all
Zhe Wu: from Oracle's perspective, adding positiveInteger etc. is not hard at all, but owl:rational does not fit to the current architecture at all ←
22:00:52 <MarkusK_> boris: how about xsd:boolena and xsd:language?
Boris Motik: how about xsd:boolena and xsd:language? ←
22:00:58 <MarkusK_> zhe: these should be ok
22:01:23 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
22:01:32 <IanH> ack MarkusK_
Ian Horrocks: ack MarkusK_ ←
22:01:39 <MarkusK_> pfps: so there is a rationale for removing owl:rational and putting in boolean and language
Peter Patel-Schneider: so there is a rationale for removing owl:rational and putting in boolean and language ←
22:01:49 <MarkusK_> ... so float and double remain the problematic types
... so float and double remain the problematic types ←
22:02:14 <MarkusK_> mike: it would be useful to find a common denominator for all forward chaing rule systems
Mike Smith: it would be useful to find a common denominator for all forward chaing rule systems ←
22:02:16 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
22:02:39 <msmith> mike: ... and the common demoninator is likely to be very small (e.g., integer and string)
Mike Smith: ... and the common demoninator is likely to be very small (e.g., integer and string) [ Scribe Assist by Mike Smith ] ←
22:03:20 <bijan> +1 to just integer and string
Bijan Parsia: +1 to just integer and string ←
22:03:27 <MarkusK_> ian: so if float and double are not disjoint, Oracle would like to support them in RL, and if they are disjoint you wold not want them in?
Ian Horrocks: so if float and double are not disjoint, Oracle would like to support them in RL, and if they are disjoint you wold not want them in? ←
22:03:29 <MarkusK_> zeh: yes
Scribe problem: the name 'zeh' does not match any of the 20 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Ian Horrocks Boris Motik Mike Smith Zhe Wu Peter Patel-Schneider Jie Bao Ivan Herman Michael Schneider Markus Krötzsch Sandro Hawke Alan Ruttenberg Christine Golbreich Achille Fokoue Evan Wallace Bijan Parsia Rinke Hoekstra Uli Sattler Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot
Unknown zeh: yes ←
22:03:37 <MarkusK_> s /zeh/zhe/
s /zeh/zhe/ ←
22:03:59 <MarkusK_> ian: would you still be concerned with those issues if float and double would not be mandated by RL?
Ian Horrocks: would you still be concerned with those issues if float and double would not be mandated by RL? ←
22:04:11 <MarkusK_> zhe: yes, because we still would like to support them anyway
Zhe Wu: yes, because we still would like to support them anyway ←
22:04:20 <bijan> Ok, that's a bit strange...I wouldn't have thought disjointness would be such a problem for the architecture...still have to track originating dataypes...
Bijan Parsia: Ok, that's a bit strange...I wouldn't have thought disjointness would be such a problem for the architecture...still have to track originating dataypes... ←
22:04:25 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
22:04:27 <MarkusK_> ian: ok, so this is not a way to solve the disjointness issue ...
Ian Horrocks: ok, so this is not a way to solve the disjointness issue ... ←
22:04:46 <pfps> implementing disjoint float/double should be possible with an integrated number system by tagging them specially (so they are different from untagged numbers)
Peter Patel-Schneider: implementing disjoint float/double should be possible with an integrated number system by tagging them specially (so they are different from untagged numbers) ←
22:04:58 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
22:05:03 <MarkusK_> ivan: my implementation of RL is not a forward chaining engine, I build upon an RDF environment
Ivan Herman: my implementation of RL is not a forward chaining engine, I build upon an RDF environment ←
22:05:17 <MarkusK_> ... so I have all datatypes supported by that RDF environment
... so I have all datatypes supported by that RDF environment ←
22:05:18 <Zhe1> test
22:05:41 <MarkusK_> sandro: the only datatype reasoning required in RL is comparison of values, right?
Sandro Hawke: the only datatype reasoning required in RL is comparison of values, right? ←
22:06:05 <MarkusK_> pfps: well, you also must support the canonical presentation of literals
Peter Patel-Schneider: well, you also must support the canonical presentation of literals ←
22:06:28 <MarkusK_> sandor: ah, so even strictly disjoint datatypes have some implementation burden
Scribe problem: the name 'sandor' does not match any of the 20 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Ian Horrocks Boris Motik Mike Smith Zhe Wu Peter Patel-Schneider Jie Bao Ivan Herman Michael Schneider Markus Krötzsch Sandro Hawke Alan Ruttenberg Christine Golbreich Achille Fokoue Evan Wallace Bijan Parsia Rinke Hoekstra Uli Sattler Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot
Unknown sandor: ah, so even strictly disjoint datatypes have some implementation burden ←
22:07:03 <bijan> qua user, I'd be a bit concerned if my implementation normalized away all my datatypes
Bijan Parsia: qua user, I'd be a bit concerned if my implementation normalized away all my datatypes ←
22:07:06 <MarkusK_> schneid: the datatypes in RDF are only a very restricted
Michael Schneider: the datatypes in RDF are only a very restricted ←
22:07:11 <msmith> from rdf, http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#dtype_interp
Mike Smith: from rdf, http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#dtype_interp ←
22:07:18 <MarkusK_> ... only XMLLiteral is required, others are just mentioned
... only XMLLiteral is required, others are just mentioned ←
22:07:30 <MarkusK_> ian: so just going for RDF datatypes would really be too little
Ian Horrocks: so just going for RDF datatypes would really be too little ←
22:07:56 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
22:08:28 <MarkusK_> boris: we are currently discussing the solution of adding boolean and language, removing rational, and maybe float and double?
Boris Motik: we are currently discussing the solution of adding boolean and language, removing rational, and maybe float and double? ←
22:08:39 <MarkusK_> ian: well some people thought that this could be too much already
Ian Horrocks: well some people thought that this could be too much already ←
22:08:51 <MarkusK_> ivan: I did not mean to say this really
Ivan Herman: I did not mean to say this really ←
22:09:00 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
22:09:12 <Zakim> -Achille
Zakim IRC Bot: -Achille ←
22:09:24 <MarkusK_> sandro: I guess we would not want RL to have any datatypes that RIF does not have
Sandro Hawke: I guess we would not want RL to have any datatypes that RIF does not have ←
22:09:38 <MarkusK_> ... since a forward chaining RIF implementation is desirable
... since a forward chaining RIF implementation is desirable ←
22:10:14 <MarkusK_> ... so maybe we should in this case ask RIF to supply us with a list of datatypes that RL should have
... so maybe we should in this case ask RIF to supply us with a list of datatypes that RL should have ←
22:10:39 <MarkusK_> boris: I think that this is again requiring us to wait for RIF
Boris Motik: I think that this is again requiring us to wait for RIF ←
22:10:48 <MarkusK_> ... then we might again need to negotiate with RIF
... then we might again need to negotiate with RIF ←
22:10:59 <MarkusK_> ... did we not already discuss this issue?
... did we not already discuss this issue? ←
22:11:28 <MarkusK_> sandro: well, I just suggested a process, we do not need to negotiate
Sandro Hawke: well, I just suggested a process, we do not need to negotiate ←
22:11:51 <MarkusK_> alanr: why do we not go for a real simple set of datatypes, like suggested by Mike?
Alan Ruttenberg: why do we not go for a real simple set of datatypes, like suggested by Mike? ←
22:12:04 <MarkusK_> ... and the rest could be optional
... and the rest could be optional ←
22:12:29 <bijan> (/me presumes for OWL RL only)
Bijan Parsia: (/me presumes for OWL RL only) ←
22:12:42 <MarkusK_> right
right ←
22:12:57 <bijan> Sounds ok to me
Bijan Parsia: Sounds ok to me ←
22:13:02 <sandro> sandro: (I suggest we simply defer to RIF for the expertise on which datatypes are easy to support on forward-chaining rule engines.)
Sandro Hawke: (I suggest we simply defer to RIF for the expertise on which datatypes are easy to support on forward-chaining rule engines.) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
22:13:28 <MarkusK_> michael: comparing the datatypes in the profiles, they seem to be the same
Michael Schneider: comparing the datatypes in the profiles, they seem to be the same ←
22:13:35 <MarkusK_> boris: yes, it is the same
Boris Motik: yes, it is the same ←
22:13:46 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
22:14:19 <MarkusK_> michael: then when restricting the types of RL, would we not create a strange situation?
Michael Schneider: then when restricting the types of RL, would we not create a strange situation? ←
22:14:23 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
22:14:35 <MarkusK_> ... we would need to argue why RL has only so few types
... we would need to argue why RL has only so few types ←
22:14:53 <MarkusK_> mike: it fits to the idea of having RL as a profile that is very easy to implement
Mike Smith: it fits to the idea of having RL as a profile that is very easy to implement ←
22:15:03 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
22:15:08 <bijan> And maximally compatible with RDF systems
Bijan Parsia: And maximally compatible with RDF systems ←
22:15:17 <MarkusK_> boris: I do not think that any of the types discussed now are very hard to implement, besides float and double
Boris Motik: I do not think that any of the types discussed now are very hard to implement, besides float and double ←
22:15:30 <bijan> RDF datatypes are minimal, so support across stores vary
Bijan Parsia: RDF datatypes are minimal, so support across stores vary ←
22:15:41 <bijan> OWL RL is both for rule engines *and* for RDF engines
Bijan Parsia: OWL RL is both for rule engines *and* for RDF engines ←
22:15:48 <bijan> So we pick maximal compat with rdf engines
Bijan Parsia: So we pick maximal compat with rdf engines ←
22:15:51 <MarkusK_> ... as Sandro said, RIF chose their types in a rather ad hoc way, so maybe it is not useful to base our types on their current list
... as Sandro said, RIF chose their types in a rather ad hoc way, so maybe it is not useful to base our types on their current list ←
22:15:54 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
22:16:06 <bijan> With a note saying the extra ones are relatively easy to implement in rule systems
Bijan Parsia: With a note saying the extra ones are relatively easy to implement in rule systems ←
22:16:10 <msmith> from the (out-of-date) rif draft http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-dtb/#Primitive_Datatypes
Mike Smith: from the (out-of-date) rif draft http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-dtb/#Primitive_Datatypes ←
22:16:56 <MarkusK_> ivan: Dave Reynolds did go through the issue of implementing RL in RIF
Ivan Herman: Dave Reynolds did go through the issue of implementing RL in RIF ←
22:17:09 <MarkusK_> ... he did do that on paper, and found some problems
... he did do that on paper, and found some problems ←
22:17:09 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
22:17:15 <MarkusK_> ... related to datatypes
... related to datatypes ←
22:18:14 <MarkusK_> ian: when wanting RIF to support RL, we would restrict RL to include at most the types supported by RIF, not at least those types
Ian Horrocks: when wanting RIF to support RL, we would restrict RL to include at most the types supported by RIF, not at least those types ←
22:18:31 <MarkusK_> ... this might be a question we can ask RIF
... this might be a question we can ask RIF ←
22:18:45 <MarkusK_> sandro: I can try to phrase the question
Sandro Hawke: I can try to phrase the question ←
22:19:11 <MarkusK_> ... essentially, the question would be: "Can you support equality comparisons for this type?"
... essentially, the question would be: "Can you support equality comparisons for this type?" ←
22:19:17 <sandro> "Do you have a compelling reason you can't implement an equality comparison on datatype literals of this type"
Sandro Hawke: "Do you have a compelling reason you can't implement an equality comparison on datatype literals of this type" ←
22:20:11 <bijan> I don't like this dynamic, myself. RIF is a different beast.
Bijan Parsia: I don't like this dynamic, myself. RIF is a different beast. ←
22:20:19 <bijan> What's the material harm in this variance?
Bijan Parsia: What's the material harm in this variance? ←
22:20:30 <MarkusK_> alan: so the response would be that we agree to take out of RL the datatypes that they do not support
Alan Ruttenberg: so the response would be that we agree to take out of RL the datatypes that they do not support ←
22:20:54 <sandro> Bijan, that RIF implementations don't get OWL-RL reasoning for free. That's the cost of OWL-RL having a datatype that's not mandated in RIF.
Sandro Hawke: Bijan, that RIF implementations don't get OWL-RL reasoning for free. That's the cost of OWL-RL having a datatype that's not mandated in RIF. ←
22:20:56 <MarkusK_> ian: but 20 asks for extension, so we should include at least the datatypes that both RIF and OWL support
Ian Horrocks: but 20 asks for extension, so we should include at least the datatypes that both RIF and OWL support ←
22:21:11 <MarkusK_> boris: then nothing is to do, we already have this
Boris Motik: then nothing is to do, we already have this ←
22:21:16 <bijan> They'll get a partial implementation for free
Bijan Parsia: They'll get a partial implementation for free ←
22:21:28 <MarkusK_> ... I note that neither comment 20 nor comment 43 came from the RIF group
... I note that neither comment 20 nor comment 43 came from the RIF group ←
22:21:34 <bijan> Such an implementation is almost certainly an inadqueate toy *anyway*
Bijan Parsia: Such an implementation is almost certainly an inadqueate toy *anyway* ←
22:21:41 <bijan> Not sure why we should optimize for that
Bijan Parsia: Not sure why we should optimize for that ←
22:21:53 <bijan> (And it's not for free if they have to implement stuff)
Bijan Parsia: (And it's not for free if they have to implement stuff) ←
22:22:09 <sandro> what would they have to implement, Bijan?
Sandro Hawke: what would they have to implement, Bijan? ←
22:22:20 <MarkusK_> pfps: so the answer to Jos (20) is that we do not increase the datatypes in RL for fear of not having those extra types supported in RIF
Peter Patel-Schneider: so the answer to Jos (20) is that we do not increase the datatypes in RL for fear of not having those extra types supported in RIF ←
22:22:35 <bijan> Well the choice is we trim back our types or force rifs to implement some
Bijan Parsia: Well the choice is we trim back our types or force rifs to implement some ←
22:22:47 <bijan> you "do you have a compelling reason..."
Bijan Parsia: you "do you have a compelling reason..." ←
22:22:49 <bijan> your
Bijan Parsia: your ←
22:23:07 <MarkusK_> ian: right, we do not want to add any more since this might make implementation more difficult for rule engines
Ian Horrocks: right, we do not want to add any more since this might make implementation more difficult for rule engines ←
22:23:40 <MarkusK_> alan: yes, let us state that RIF does not include any additional datatypes that we could include into RL
Alan Ruttenberg: yes, let us state that RIF does not include any additional datatypes that we could include into RL ←
22:24:08 <MarkusK_> ian: we could then have Sandro probe whether there are any additional datatypes that RIF would be willing to support
Ian Horrocks: we could then have Sandro probe whether there are any additional datatypes that RIF would be willing to support ←
22:24:10 <bijan> I understand, but I don't like it :) I don't see great harm in keeping extra datatypes even if rif folks say, 'Our compelling reason is that we don't feel like it"
Bijan Parsia: I understand, but I don't like it :) I don't see great harm in keeping extra datatypes even if rif folks say, 'Our compelling reason is that we don't feel like it" ←
22:24:44 <MarkusK_> ... in particular, Sandro should find out which datatypes we should definitely not add to RL
... in particular, Sandro should find out which datatypes we should definitely not add to RL ←
22:25:04 <sandro> ACTION: sandro talk to RIF to see what datatypes in OWL must not be in OWL-RL.
ACTION: sandro talk to RIF to see what datatypes in OWL must not be in OWL-RL. ←
22:25:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-292 - Talk to RIF to see what datatypes in OWL must not be in OWL-RL. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-03-02].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-292 - Talk to RIF to see what datatypes in OWL must not be in OWL-RL. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-03-02]. ←
22:25:12 <MarkusK_> ... this would include datatypes currently in RL, and other OWL datatypes that we might decide on adding to RL later on
... this would include datatypes currently in RL, and other OWL datatypes that we might decide on adding to RL later on ←
22:25:46 <MarkusK_> alan: is there someone from Oracle on RIF?
Alan Ruttenberg: is there someone from Oracle on RIF? ←
22:25:54 <MarkusK_> zhe: yes, Gary Halmark is
Zhe Wu: yes, Gary Halmark is ←
22:26:19 <MarkusK_> alan: then we can say that we support positiveInteger in RL if RIF wants that
Alan Ruttenberg: then we can say that we support positiveInteger in RL if RIF wants that ←
22:26:54 <MarkusK_> boris: I object, we should not have positiveInteger when we do not have negativeInteger!
Boris Motik: I object, we should not have positiveInteger when we do not have negativeInteger! ←
22:27:12 <MarkusK_> ... it would be crazy to allow for that asymetry in our design
... it would be crazy to allow for that asymetry in our design ←
22:27:38 <MarkusK_> ... it is clear that we do not increase the implementation burden by many of the types that we could add
... it is clear that we do not increase the implementation burden by many of the types that we could add ←
22:27:52 <MarkusK_> ian: but we need to make a response to Jos now, first
Ian Horrocks: but we need to make a response to Jos now, first ←
22:28:35 <MarkusK_> boris: the only datatype that we would exclude in this case, besides float, double, rational, is xsd:boolean
Boris Motik: the only datatype that we would exclude in this case, besides float, double, rational, is xsd:boolean ←
22:28:48 <MarkusK_> ... there is no good reason to not support this
... there is no good reason to not support this ←
22:29:18 <MarkusK_> ... we should answer to Jos by answering all types that are clearly not problematic, and discuss RIF separately
... we should answer to Jos by answering all types that are clearly not problematic, and discuss RIF separately ←
22:29:30 <CGI507> Zakim, CGI507 is me
Scribe problem: the name 'CGI507' does not match any of the 20 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Ian Horrocks Boris Motik Mike Smith Zhe Wu Peter Patel-Schneider Jie Bao Ivan Herman Michael Schneider Markus Krötzsch Sandro Hawke Alan Ruttenberg Christine Golbreich Achille Fokoue Evan Wallace Bijan Parsia Rinke Hoekstra Uli Sattler Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot
Scribe problem: the name 'CGI507' does not match any of the 20 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Ian Horrocks Boris Motik Mike Smith Zhe Wu Peter Patel-Schneider Jie Bao Ivan Herman Michael Schneider Markus Krötzsch Sandro Hawke Alan Ruttenberg Christine Golbreich Achille Fokoue Evan Wallace Bijan Parsia Rinke Hoekstra Uli Sattler Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot
Unknown CGI507: Zakim, CGI507 is me ←
22:29:30 <Zakim> sorry, CGI507, I do not recognize a party named 'CGI507'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, CGI507, I do not recognize a party named 'CGI507' ←
22:29:56 <MarkusK_> ... let us just all of them -- everything that is currently not there -- and then discuss later which others should be removed
... let us just all of them -- everything that is currently not there -- and then discuss later which others should be removed ←
22:30:20 <MarkusK_> ian: but zhe objects to rational
Ian Horrocks: but zhe objects to rational ←
22:31:14 <MarkusK_> ian: we should not tell Jos that we include datatypes that we plan to remove soon later
Ian Horrocks: we should not tell Jos that we include datatypes that we plan to remove soon later ←
22:31:29 <MarkusK_> ... we can tell him that others are currently under discussion for other reasons
... we can tell him that others are currently under discussion for other reasons ←
22:31:51 <MarkusK_> ... thereafter, we can reply to Zhe by stating that we will not include rational
... thereafter, we can reply to Zhe by stating that we will not include rational ←
22:32:02 <MarkusK_> ... since it is not easy to implement
... since it is not easy to implement ←
22:32:17 <MarkusK_> boris: well, rather that it is not implemented in current implementaitons
Boris Motik: well, rather that it is not implemented in current implementaitons ←
22:32:46 <MarkusK_> ian: I will formulate a proposal ...
Ian Horrocks: I will formulate a proposal ... ←
22:34:05 <MarkusK_> s /let us just all/let us just add all/
s /let us just all/let us just add all/ ←
22:34:15 <IanH> PROPOSED: OWL RL datatypes will be all OWL datatypes except rational & real (due to lack of implementations). The decision on supporting double and float will be deferred pending the decision on disjointness of numeric datatypes.
PROPOSED: OWL RL datatypes will be all OWL datatypes except rational & real (due to lack of implementations). The decision on supporting double and float will be deferred pending the decision on disjointness of numeric datatypes. ←
22:34:18 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
22:34:21 <MarkusK_> +1
+1 ←
22:34:23 <pfps> +1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU ←
22:34:25 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
22:34:27 <msmith> +1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
22:34:28 <MarkusK_> markus: +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
22:34:32 <Zhe> +1
22:34:38 <pfps> this answers 20 and 43b
Peter Patel-Schneider: this answers 20 and 43b ←
22:34:38 <baojie> +1
22:34:44 <schneid> 0
22:34:51 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
22:34:56 <MarkusK_> ian: is there currently someone in charge of making the respoense?
Ian Horrocks: is there currently someone in charge of making the respoense? ←
22:35:12 <MarkusK_> boris: I cna take 20
Boris Motik: I cna take 20 ←
22:35:22 <MarkusK_> pfps: I will take 43
Peter Patel-Schneider: I will take 43 ←
22:35:24 <IanH> RESOLVED: OWL RL datatypes will be all OWL datatypes except rational & real (due to lack of implementations). The decision on supporting double and float will be deferred pending the decision on disjointness of numeric datatypes.
RESOLVED: OWL RL datatypes will be all OWL datatypes except rational & real (due to lack of implementations). The decision on supporting double and float will be deferred pending the decision on disjointness of numeric datatypes. ←
22:37:06 <MarkusK_> ian: I would like to check now that all responses decided on this morning are actually prepared by someone, we may need some actions
Ian Horrocks: I would like to check now that all responses decided on this morning are actually prepared by someone, we may need some actions ←
22:38:04 <MarkusK_> ian: response to 42?
Ian Horrocks: response to 42? ←
22:38:10 <MarkusK_> ivan: I will take it
Ivan Herman: I will take it ←
22:38:23 <MarkusK_> action: ivan to prepare a reply to comment 42
ACTION: ivan to prepare a reply to comment 42 ←
22:38:23 <trackbot> Created ACTION-293 - Prepare a reply to comment 42 [on Ivan Herman - due 2009-03-02].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-293 - Prepare a reply to comment 42 [on Ivan Herman - due 2009-03-02]. ←
22:38:40 <MarkusK_> ian: then you can also do 49; it is basically the same thing
Ian Horrocks: then you can also do 49; it is basically the same thing ←
22:38:45 <MarkusK_> action: ivan to prepare a reply to comment 49
ACTION: ivan to prepare a reply to comment 49 ←
22:38:45 <trackbot> Created ACTION-294 - Prepare a reply to comment 49 [on Ivan Herman - due 2009-03-02].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-294 - Prepare a reply to comment 49 [on Ivan Herman - due 2009-03-02]. ←
22:39:47 <MarkusK_> action: boris to prepare a reply to comment 20
ACTION: boris to prepare a reply to comment 20 ←
22:39:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-295 - Prepare a reply to comment 20 [on Boris Motik - due 2009-03-02].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-295 - Prepare a reply to comment 20 [on Boris Motik - due 2009-03-02]. ←
22:39:56 <MarkusK_> action: pfps to prepare a reply to comment 43b
ACTION: pfps to prepare a reply to comment 43b ←
22:39:56 <trackbot> Created ACTION-296 - Prepare a reply to comment 43b [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2009-03-02].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-296 - Prepare a reply to comment 43b [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2009-03-02]. ←
22:40:33 <MarkusK_> ian: for the naming-related comments, we should first implement the changes in the documents
Ian Horrocks: for the naming-related comments, we should first implement the changes in the documents ←
22:40:43 <MarkusK_> ... so we do not need an action there now
... so we do not need an action there now ←
22:40:54 <MarkusK_> ... who is taking 24?
... who is taking 24? ←
22:41:36 <MarkusK_> ivan: we are waiting for 2 weeks there to get feedback from RIF, so there is no action
Ivan Herman: we are waiting for 2 weeks there to get feedback from RIF, so there is no action ←
22:41:44 <MarkusK_> ian: 22 and 25 could be responded to
Ian Horrocks: 22 and 25 could be responded to ←
22:41:54 <MarkusK_> action: pfps to prepare a reply to comment 22 and 25
ACTION: pfps to prepare a reply to comment 22 and 25 ←
22:41:54 <trackbot> Created ACTION-297 - Prepare a reply to comment 22 and 25 [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2009-03-02].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-297 - Prepare a reply to comment 22 and 25 [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2009-03-02]. ←
22:42:32 <MarkusK_> sandro: it might be good to refer to the open discussion on RL there
Sandro Hawke: it might be good to refer to the open discussion on RL there ←
22:44:36 <MarkusK_> <The wiki table was edited, all numbers changed ... >
<The wiki table was edited, all numbers changed ... > ←
22:45:18 <MarkusK_> ivan: a purely administrative issue: we decided this afternoon to publish another recommendation
Ivan Herman: a purely administrative issue: we decided this afternoon to publish another recommendation ←
22:45:32 <MarkusK_> ... so it should probably be part o fthe next round of last calls
... so it should probably be part o fthe next round of last calls ←
22:45:49 <MarkusK_> ... but this may require us to publish some first public working draft soon
... but this may require us to publish some first public working draft soon ←
22:46:42 <MarkusK_> ... then we need to decide on a title for the document
... then we need to decide on a title for the document ←
22:46:55 <MarkusK_> ian: the proposal was to call it "Overview"
Ian Horrocks: the proposal was to call it "Overview" ←
22:48:04 <MarkusK_> ian: a potential problem is that there was an "Overview" in OWL 1, and what we plan is rather different
Ian Horrocks: a potential problem is that there was an "Overview" in OWL 1, and what we plan is rather different ←
22:48:15 <MarkusK_> ivan: yes, we should not call it like this then
Ivan Herman: yes, we should not call it like this then ←
22:48:37 <ewallace> Why not just call it Introduction?
Evan Wallace: Why not just call it Introduction? ←
22:49:17 <MarkusK_> mike: it might be good to not have any editor on the Overview document
Mike Smith: it might be good to not have any editor on the Overview document ←
22:49:27 <MarkusK_> ... since this will be a very prominent document
... since this will be a very prominent document ←
22:49:33 <MarkusK_> sandro: that might not be possible
Sandro Hawke: that might not be possible ←
22:50:01 <MarkusK_> boris: maybe the union of the editors of all other documents
Boris Motik: maybe the union of the editors of all other documents ←
22:50:22 <MarkusK_> pfps: the team, W3C contacts plusWG chairs could be editors there
Peter Patel-Schneider: the team, W3C contacts plusWG chairs could be editors there ←
22:50:33 <MarkusK_> michael: how about calling it "Roadmap"?
Michael Schneider: how about calling it "Roadmap"? ←
22:50:50 <MarkusK_> ian: it might be a little bit too long for a roadmap
Ian Horrocks: it might be a little bit too long for a roadmap ←
22:50:55 <MarkusK_> sandro: README
Sandro Hawke: README ←
22:50:59 <MarkusK_> pfps: I like this
Peter Patel-Schneider: I like this ←
22:51:06 <MarkusK_> sandro: no, nobody reads the readme
Sandro Hawke: no, nobody reads the readme ←
22:51:33 <MarkusK_> mike: "Guide" would also be problematic, since there is an OWL guide already
Mike Smith: "Guide" would also be problematic, since there is an OWL guide already ←
22:51:49 <MarkusK_> ian: the problem might not be the same as with overview
Ian Horrocks: the problem might not be the same as with overview ←
22:52:17 <MarkusK_> sandro: we should stickk with Overview
Sandro Hawke: we should stickk with Overview ←
22:52:32 <MarkusK_> ian: I agree that this is a good name as such
Ian Horrocks: I agree that this is a good name as such ←
22:52:48 <MarkusK_> ivan: I would not like to have this discussion started, because the name was already used
Ivan Herman: I would not like to have this discussion started, because the name was already used ←
22:53:17 <MarkusK_> sandro: "Document overview"
Sandro Hawke: "Document overview" ←
22:53:37 <MarkusK_> ... or "Overview of documents"
... or "Overview of documents" ←
22:53:48 <MarkusK_> ian: I prefer the former
Ian Horrocks: I prefer the former ←
22:54:02 <MarkusK_> pfps: I like Document Overview
Peter Patel-Schneider: I like Document Overview ←
22:54:45 <MarkusK_> <ian moves the Introduction page on the wiki>
<ian moves the Introduction page on the wiki> ←
22:55:12 <MarkusK_> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Document_Overview
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Document_Overview ←
22:55:40 <MarkusK_> alan: for now, let us be optimistic that we can use "OWL Working Group" as an editor
Alan Ruttenberg: for now, let us be optimistic that we can use "OWL Working Group" as an editor ←
22:56:03 <MarkusK_> ivan: I am not sure is this is possible, we will see
Ivan Herman: I am not sure is this is possible, we will see ←
22:56:45 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
22:56:47 <MarkusK_> sandro: we now can get a short name for the document in W3C space
Sandro Hawke: we now can get a short name for the document in W3C space ←
22:57:11 <MarkusK_> ... I note that we can use "overview" since the OWL 1 Overview used "features"
... I note that we can use "overview" since the OWL 1 Overview used "features" ←
22:57:31 <MarkusK_> topic: Other
22:57:42 <MarkusK_> ian: the first of those (50) was already killed
Ian Horrocks: the first of those (50) was already killed ←
22:57:59 <MarkusK_> s /50/51/
s /50/51/ ←
22:58:33 <MarkusK_> ian: for 46 we decided that there will be hook that implementations can use to extend on this feature
Ian Horrocks: for 46 we decided that there will be hook that implementations can use to extend on this feature ←
22:58:56 <MarkusK_> mike: yes, the response is that we will not have a rec track document on n-ary datatype predicates
Mike Smith: yes, the response is that we will not have a rec track document on n-ary datatype predicates ←
22:59:19 <MarkusK_> alan: but allowing arbitrary extensions would introduce incompatibilities
Alan Ruttenberg: but allowing arbitrary extensions would introduce incompatibilities ←
22:59:45 <MarkusK_> mike: but the note on predicates now does cover only a restricted set of predicates
Mike Smith: but the note on predicates now does cover only a restricted set of predicates ←
22:59:47 <ewallace> Where is the response to the Named User Defined Datatype issue?
Evan Wallace: Where is the response to the Named User Defined Datatype issue? ←
23:00:10 <MarkusK_> alan: I think we should not repond pointing to the hook and the related note, but simply by saying we run out of time
Alan Ruttenberg: I think we should not repond pointing to the hook and the related note, but simply by saying we run out of time ←
23:00:29 <MarkusK_> ian: yes, stating that we do not have the time to do it might be a good replay
Ian Horrocks: yes, stating that we do not have the time to do it might be a good replay ←
23:00:34 <MarkusK_> s /replay/reply/
s /replay/reply/ ←
23:00:55 <ewallace> LC 51 part 3
Evan Wallace: LC 51 part 3 ←
23:00:55 <MarkusK_> ian: but there was another comment regarding n-ary extensions, coming from TopQuadrant
Ian Horrocks: but there was another comment regarding n-ary extensions, coming from TopQuadrant ←
23:01:28 <MarkusK_> ... and our answer there was that the pointed out aspect of the documents was not a bug but a hook for n-ary predicates
... and our answer there was that the pointed out aspect of the documents was not a bug but a hook for n-ary predicates ←
23:01:44 <MarkusK_> ... it would be strange to not mention this in the response to 46 then
... it would be strange to not mention this in the response to 46 then ←
23:02:10 <MarkusK_> alan: but there could be problems pointing to the hook in this case
Alan Ruttenberg: but there could be problems pointing to the hook in this case ←
23:02:47 <MarkusK_> ian: I suggest to mention the hook in the response, but to explain that they are a feature at risk that could be removed in the final spec
Ian Horrocks: I suggest to mention the hook in the response, but to explain that they are a feature at risk that could be removed in the final spec ←
23:03:22 <MarkusK_> ... pointing out that it is at risk then should also be done in the reply to TopQuadrant
... pointing out that it is at risk then should also be done in the reply to TopQuadrant ←
23:03:25 <bijan> Why are they at risk?
Bijan Parsia: Why are they at risk? ←
23:03:31 <bijan> WHen were they made at risk?
Bijan Parsia: WHen were they made at risk? ←
23:03:58 <MarkusK_> ian: the "at risk" statement was from alan, I think
Ian Horrocks: the "at risk" statement was from alan, I think ←
23:04:01 <schneid> schneid: hooks have precedence in the rdf semantics: there is a framework for specifying datatype maps, but only a single datatype is specified mandatorily, and only due to historic reasons
Michael Schneider: hooks have precedence in the rdf semantics: there is a framework for specifying datatype maps, but only a single datatype is specified mandatorily, and only due to historic reasons [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
23:04:11 <MarkusK_> ... but there is indeed a note now
... but there is indeed a note now ←
23:04:18 <bijan> They are not currently listed as at risk
Bijan Parsia: They are not currently listed as at risk ←
23:04:20 <sandro> Bijan, where is the note?
Sandro Hawke: Bijan, where is the note? ←
23:04:21 <alanr> Bijan, where is the note about n-ary?
Alan Ruttenberg: Bijan, where is the note about n-ary? ←
23:04:21 <MarkusK_> ian: bijan, where is the note?
Ian Horrocks: bijan, where is the note? ←
23:04:24 <bijan> (the hooks)
Bijan Parsia: (the hooks) ←
23:04:27 <MarkusK_> (yes)
(yes) ←
23:04:35 <pfps> bijan - *where* is the note??
Peter Patel-Schneider: bijan - *where* is the note?? ←
23:04:38 <bijan> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Data_Range_Extension:_Linear_Equations
Bijan Parsia: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Data_Range_Extension:_Linear_Equations ←
23:04:53 <MarkusK_> ian: so it is fully fleshed out, waiting for us to be published as a note
Ian Horrocks: so it is fully fleshed out, waiting for us to be published as a note ←
23:05:03 <bijan> Not quite, few small bits
Bijan Parsia: Not quite, few small bits ←
23:05:07 <MarkusK_> ... so maybe it is not at risk after all
... so maybe it is not at risk after all ←
23:05:18 <bijan> A few days of work but yeah, we could go for a WD soon
Bijan Parsia: A few days of work but yeah, we could go for a WD soon ←
23:05:20 <bijan> THen a note
Bijan Parsia: THen a note ←
23:05:35 <bijan> WD tomorrow actually
Bijan Parsia: WD tomorrow actually ←
23:05:52 <MarkusK_> mike: the n-ary predicates then are similar to datatype maps: extension points ot the language
Mike Smith: the n-ary predicates then are similar to datatype maps: extension points ot the language ←
23:06:09 <MarkusK_> ian: in any case, it seems that this is not at risk
Ian Horrocks: in any case, it seems that this is not at risk ←
23:06:25 <MarkusK_> ... so the responses could be done as suggested, but without saying that it is at risk
... so the responses could be done as suggested, but without saying that it is at risk ←
23:06:51 <MarkusK_> ian: cutting off this discussion, can we go forward with the responses?
Ian Horrocks: cutting off this discussion, can we go forward with the responses? ←
23:06:56 <bijan> I would oppose saying that the hooks are at risk. They aren't, at the moment
Bijan Parsia: I would oppose saying that the hooks are at risk. They aren't, at the moment ←
23:07:08 <MarkusK_> alan: I do not agree to do the responses now
Alan Ruttenberg: I do not agree to do the responses now ←
23:07:25 <MarkusK_> ... the hook is not meant to be for arbitrary extensions!
... the hook is not meant to be for arbitrary extensions! ←
23:07:45 <bijan> ? Its not meant for adding dl safe rules, yes
Bijan Parsia: ? Its not meant for adding dl safe rules, yes ←
23:07:51 <bijan> But there are other nary predicates
Bijan Parsia: But there are other nary predicates ←
23:07:56 <bijan> e.g., non linear equations
Bijan Parsia: e.g., non linear equations ←
23:08:04 <MarkusK_> ian: but we can reply to TopQuadrand stating that it is not a bug but an extension point
Ian Horrocks: but we can reply to TopQuadrand stating that it is not a bug but an extension point ←
23:08:10 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
23:08:35 <MarkusK_> ian: we are out of time
Ian Horrocks: we are out of time ←
23:09:34 <bijan> I also note that we will, for certain, have new datatypes
Bijan Parsia: I also note that we will, for certain, have new datatypes ←
23:09:38 <MarkusK_> -- End of session --
-- End of session -- ←
23:09:40 <bijan> Quantities are coming
Bijan Parsia: Quantities are coming ←
23:12:43 <ewallace> Bye
Evan Wallace: Bye ←
23:12:56 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: -Evan_Wallace ←
23:14:00 <ewallace> Looking forward to Quantities
Evan Wallace: Looking forward to Quantities ←
23:17:57 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, MIT346, in SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: disconnecting the lone participant, MIT346, in SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM ←
23:17:59 <Zakim> SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM has ended ←
23:18:00 <Zakim> Attendees were MIT346, Christine, Evan_Wallace, Achille
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were MIT346, Christine, Evan_Wallace, Achille ←
This revision (#2) generated 2009-02-24 03:15:12 UTC by 'sandro', comments: None