PRESENT: Ian, Boris, Smith, Zhe, PFPS, Jie, Ivan, mschnei, markus, sandro, alanruttenberg
REMOTE: rees, evan, achille, uli, bijan, christine, deborah
hello
Jonathan Rees: hello ←
I can call in for the imports discussion - if that is appropriate
Jonathan Rees: I can call in for the imports discussion - if that is appropriate ←
Just sent email to the public-wg-comments list on the subject.
Jonathan Rees: Just sent email to the public-wg-comments list on the subject. ←
The meeting is starting in 1 minute, right? Am I on the right IRC channel?
Jonathan Rees: The meeting is starting in 1 minute, right? Am I on the right IRC channel? ←
0 minutes?
Jonathan Rees: 0 minutes? ←
Zakim, this will be owl
Boris Motik: Zakim, this will be owl ←
ok, bmotik; I see SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM scheduled to start 62 minutes ago
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, bmotik; I see SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM scheduled to start 62 minutes ago ←
hello? am I on the right irc channel?
Jonathan Rees: hello? am I on the right irc channel? ←
(for owlwg f2f)
Jonathan Rees: (for owlwg f2f) ←
SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM has now started ←
+jar
Zakim IRC Bot: +jar ←
-jar
Zakim IRC Bot: -jar ←
SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM has ended ←
Attendees were jar
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were jar ←
SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM has now started ←
+jar
Zakim IRC Bot: +jar ←
Eta 5 min
Alan Ruttenberg: Eta 5 min ←
ok, so it's IRC owl, but zakim owlwg.
Jonathan Rees: ok, so it's IRC owl, but zakim owlwg. ←
I'm the only one on the call now - could someone dial in from the polycom please?
Jonathan Rees: I'm the only one on the call now - could someone dial in from the polycom please? ←
Anyone elseon yet ?
Alan Ruttenberg: Anyone elseon yet ? ←
scribenick: pfps
(Scribe set to Peter Patel-Schneider)
q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
On the phone I see jar
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see jar ←
On IRC I see jar, alanr, msmith, MarkusK_, Zakim, bmotik, pfps, IanH, bijan, uli, sandro, ewallace, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see jar, alanr, msmith, MarkusK_, Zakim, bmotik, pfps, IanH, bijan, uli, sandro, ewallace, trackbot ←
+MIT346
Zakim IRC Bot: +MIT346 ←
I'll primarily be ircing, but can, mostly, call in at key points at least until lunch
Bijan Parsia: I'll primarily be ircing, but can, mostly, call in at key points at least until lunch ←
Topic: OWL RL
ian: comment 61 and 15
Ian Horrocks: comment 61 and 15 ←
ian: approve response for 15?
Ian Horrocks: approve response for 15? ←
Proposed: send response for 15
PROPOSED: send response for 15 ←
+1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
pfps: +1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU ←
+1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
+1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
+1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
+1 ORACLE
+1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
RESOLVED: send response for 15
RESOLVED: send response for 15 ←
+1 (15)
Michael Schneider: +1 (15) ←
ian: lc comment 61 - why only RDF semantics for RL?
Ian Horrocks: lc comment 61 - why only RDF semantics for RL? ←
ivan: all profiles can be interpreted both ways
Ivan Herman: all profiles can be interpreted both ways ←
ian: yes, but conformance may be a bit off
Ian Horrocks: yes, but conformance may be a bit off ←
msmith: conformance needs to be changed
Mike Smith: conformance needs to be changed ←
ian: no disagreement - documents need to be clarified
Ian Horrocks: no disagreement - documents need to be clarified ←
boris: actual solution - what does an OWL 2 RL checker do
Boris Motik: actual solution - what does an OWL 2 RL checker do ←
msmith: EL and QL are DL semantics - RL and Full are RDF semantics
Mike Smith: EL and QL are DL semantics - RL and Full are RDF semantics ←
ian: so we parametrize on the semantics
Ian Horrocks: so we parametrize on the semantics ←
ian: we say that all conformance can use either semantics
Ian Horrocks: we say that all conformance can use either semantics ←
ian: RL needs a bit of work for RDF syntax RL entailment checkers
Ian Horrocks: RL needs a bit of work for RDF syntax RL entailment checkers ←
schneid: RDF semantics doesn't give any benefit for EL and QL
Michael Schneider: RDF semantics doesn't give any benefit for EL and QL ←
markus: can you notice a difference in EL and QL
Markus Krötzsch: can you notice a difference in EL and QL ←
msmith: yes
Mike Smith: yes ←
ian: no computational guarantees except for direct semantics
Ian Horrocks: no computational guarantees except for direct semantics ←
msmith: we define OWL 2 RL ontology document but then don't use it
Mike Smith: we define OWL 2 RL ontology document but then don't use it ←
ian: need editorial fixup in conformance document (only)
Ian Horrocks: need editorial fixup in conformance document (only) ←
ian: respond to Jos that he is right and we are fixing it in conformance
Ian Horrocks: respond to Jos that he is right and we are fixing it in conformance ←
action: ian to make fixes for 61 and craft response
ACTION: ian to make fixes for 61 and craft response ←
Created ACTION-298 - Make fixes for 61 and craft response [on Ian Horrocks - due 2009-03-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-298 - Make fixes for 61 and craft response [on Ian Horrocks - due 2009-03-03]. ←
ian: conformance is parametrized on semantics
Ian Horrocks: conformance is parametrized on semantics ←
topic: OWL QL
subtopic: Add reflexive, irreflexive, and asymmetric?
ian: uli sent a message on how the submitters of the comments feel about changes
Ian Horrocks: uli sent a message on how the submitters of the comments feel about changes ←
scribenick: jie
(Scribe set to Jie Bao)
ian: profiles needs to be clear that results are for direct semantics only
Ian Horrocks: profiles needs to be clear that results are for direct semantics only [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
markus: when allowing RDF semantics for profiles, we need to make sure that the Profiles document takes this into account
Markus Krötzsch: when allowing RDF semantics for profiles, we need to make sure that the Profiles document takes this into account [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ] ←
markus: especially the complexity part does not seem to mention this now
Markus Krötzsch: especially the complexity part does not seem to mention this now [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ] ←
zakim, who is here?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is here? ←
On the phone I see jar, MIT346
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see jar, MIT346 ←
On IRC I see Jie, sandro, alanr, schneid, ivan, zwu2, jar, msmith, MarkusK_, Zakim, bmotik, pfps, IanH, bijan, uli, ewallace, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Jie, sandro, alanr, schneid, ivan, zwu2, jar, msmith, MarkusK_, Zakim, bmotik, pfps, IanH, bijan, uli, ewallace, trackbot ←
Ian: Moving again to QL
Ian Horrocks: Moving again to QL ←
Ian: Uli is talking with the DL-Lite folks
Ian Horrocks: Uli is talking with the DL-Lite folks ←
... and people with different and incompatible extensions
... and people with different and incompatible extensions ←
... people agree we can't have reflexive, irreflexive and assymmetric all together
... people agree we can't have reflexive, irreflexive and assymmetric all together ←
... and we could come up with reasonably convincing use cases that why we need, as much as we can for the language as a whole, so, if it is useful, OWL in general. But we don't probably have, in the document, at this moment, any terribly convincing use case. Although, we did have some comments from some of the LC comments, said "OWL is really useful, I like to use X" as X actually points to these properties in particular.
... and we could come up with reasonably convincing use cases that why we need, as much as we can for the language as a whole, so, if it is useful, OWL in general. But we don't probably have, in the document, at this moment, any terribly convincing use case. Although, we did have some comments from some of the LC comments, said "OWL is really useful, I like to use X" as X actually points to these properties in particular. ←
+Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: +Evan_Wallace ←
Mike: we have implementation showing these three are relatively trivial things
Mike Smith: we have implementation showing these three are relatively trivial things ←
+[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
zakim, ibm is me
Achille Fokoue: zakim, ibm is me ←
+Achille; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Achille; got it ←
rrsagent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: rrsagent, pointer? ←
logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-owl-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-owl-irc ←
14:32:26RRSAgent has joined #owl
RRSAgent IRC Bot: RRSAgent has joined #owl ←
14:32:27logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-owl-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-owl-irc ←
14:32:58Ian: Healthcare and Life Science WG, and Semantic Web Deployment WG both commented on usefulness of reflexive, irreflexive, assymmetric and disjoint properties.
Ian Horrocks: Healthcare and Life Science WG, and Semantic Web Deployment WG both commented on usefulness of reflexive, irreflexive, assymmetric and disjoint properties. ←
14:33:48+??P15
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P15 ←
14:33:49Ivan: that is a different argument. It is one thing that these features are in OWL 2 -- i don' think there is any discussion on that -- the other things is that they certainly haven't commented to have them in QL.
Ivan Herman: that is a different argument. It is one thing that these features are in OWL 2 -- i don' think there is any discussion on that -- the other things is that they certainly haven't commented to have them in QL. ←
14:33:49Ian: but they are useful.
Ian Horrocks: but they are useful. ←
14:33:49Ivan: the problem is even if it is technically possible to add such features, I'm not sure we should
Ivan Herman: the problem is even if it is technically possible to add such features, I'm not sure we should ←
14:33:57zakim, ??P15 is me
Uli Sattler: zakim, ??P15 is me ←
14:33:57+uli; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +uli; got it ←
14:34:09zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
14:34:09uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
14:34:11... add a new feature to a profile without major justification may not be good
... add a new feature to a profile without major justification may not be good ←
14:34:18zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
14:34:18On the phone I see jar, MIT346, Evan_Wallace, Achille, uli (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see jar, MIT346, Evan_Wallace, Achille, uli (muted) ←
14:34:19On IRC I see RRSAgent, Achille, Jie, sandro, alanr, schneid, ivan, zwu2, jar, msmith, MarkusK_, Zakim, bmotik, pfps, IanH, bijan, uli, ewallace, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see RRSAgent, Achille, Jie, sandro, alanr, schneid, ivan, zwu2, jar, msmith, MarkusK_, Zakim, bmotik, pfps, IanH, bijan, uli, ewallace, trackbot ←
14:34:31... I'm worry about doing that.
... I'm worry about doing that. ←
14:34:31Ian: on the plus side, none of these people care about QL, so they won't care about features in it.
Ian Horrocks: on the plus side, none of these people care about QL, so they won't care about features in it. ←
14:34:44q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:34:56Ivan: I'm not clear, we get overall negative feedback on Profile all together.
Ivan Herman: I'm not clear, we get overall negative feedback on Profile all together. ←
14:36:05Mike: The implementation shows the three properties are easy to implement, and they allow more ontologies to be expressible in QL, which makes QL tools more useful to the community. I think we should push the language as much we can if it does not comprise the tractability -- and in this case it doesn't -- for me, I think a justification is that it is in OWL and we can add it without technical difficulty.
Mike Smith: The implementation shows the three properties are easy to implement, and they allow more ontologies to be expressible in QL, which makes QL tools more useful to the community. I think we should push the language as much we can if it does not comprise the tractability -- and in this case it doesn't -- for me, I think a justification is that it is in OWL and we can add it without technical difficulty. ←
14:36:05Ian: can you get use cases from your customers?
Ian Horrocks: can you get use cases from your customers? ←
14:36:23Mike: for QL, linked open data people would need it
Mike Smith: for QL, linked open data people would need it ←
14:36:43... even though I don't have a specific example now
... even though I don't have a specific example now ←
14:37:06Alan: Comments on RL says there is additional complexity of the language to learn because of the profile. Profile document needs to be more user understandable
Alan Ruttenberg: Comments on RL says there is additional complexity of the language to learn because of the profile. Profile document needs to be more user understandable ←
14:37:31... adding a feature to QL will not be going to impact that, and it is a new profile, we are offering a new functionality, we want to offer the best we can without adding extra trouble.
... adding a feature to QL will not be going to impact that, and it is a new profile, we are offering a new functionality, we want to offer the best we can without adding extra trouble. ←
14:37:42zakim, who is on the call?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call? ←
14:37:42On the phone I see jar, MIT346, Evan_Wallace, Achille, uli (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see jar, MIT346, Evan_Wallace, Achille, uli (muted) ←
14:38:00Zhe: I have a question, if QL implementers implement what is described in the document, plus some more, will that make the implementation not conformant?
Zhe Wu: I have a question, if QL implementers implement what is described in the document, plus some more, will that make the implementation not conformant? ←
14:38:00Ian: I believe the implementation is conformant. (Peter: add more?) Yeah, I can see Peter thinks it is not, because it will find entailment that is not justified by the document. If they use a document that contains things not in the QL, then it is outside the profile. The document is not the QL document. It doesn't matter.
Ian Horrocks: I believe the implementation is conformant. (Peter: add more?) Yeah, I can see Peter thinks it is not, because it will find entailment that is not justified by the document. If they use a document that contains things not in the QL, then it is outside the profile. The document is not the QL document. It doesn't matter. ←
14:38:23Zhe: we can define the core stuff, and vendors can add more they need
Zhe Wu: we can define the core stuff, and vendors can add more they need ←
14:38:28jar, ewallace, uli, Achille --- the webcam is active again -- http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/webcam
Sandro Hawke: jar, ewallace, uli, Achille --- the webcam is active again -- http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/webcam ←
14:38:41+1 to Markus
Uli Sattler: +1 to Markus ←
14:38:55and Mike, sorry!
Uli Sattler: and Mike, sorry! ←
14:39:26Markus: I agree with Mike, not because I have more use cases, but I think it is a general rule, to other 2 profiles as well, we add as many OWL 2 features as possible without compromising good computational property. It will be strange engineering if we do that for the two profiles but not to the last one -- and we know it could be done easily. In general I think it is good because, profile is aimed at making more ontology processing easier, not for having more implementation conformant. Out target should be adding more ontologies to the profile, not to having more implementation in supporting them.
Markus Krötzsch: I agree with Mike, not because I have more use cases, but I think it is a general rule, to other 2 profiles as well, we add as many OWL 2 features as possible without compromising good computational property. It will be strange engineering if we do that for the two profiles but not to the last one -- and we know it could be done easily. In general I think it is good because, profile is aimed at making more ontology processing easier, not for having more implementation conformant. Out target should be adding more ontologies to the profile, not to having more implementation in supporting them. ←
14:40:03Ivan: Answer to Zhe, the problem is interoperability. If I write down an ontology for a given profile, I want to be sure I can run on other engines. Of course you can implement more, but it should be such that I can rely on any implementation that is conformant.
Ivan Herman: Answer to Zhe, the problem is interoperability. If I write down an ontology for a given profile, I want to be sure I can run on other engines. Of course you can implement more, but it should be such that I can rely on any implementation that is conformant. ←
14:40:03... The other thing. If we don't know what community really uses this, and we do it because it can be done, then this is not right for standardization.
... The other thing. If we don't know what community really uses this, and we do it because it can be done, then this is not right for standardization. ←
14:40:48... This is the argument, and that is what we have to answer to. We sure can implement more, but that's not the point.
... This is the argument, and that is what we have to answer to. We sure can implement more, but that's not the point. ←
14:41:00Ian: I understand that, but I don't see how it applies to the profiles in particular. We have those features, it is not the argument that these features should be in the language. If those features are useful in general, we have a reason to have them in the language, then if they can be accommodated within this profile with good computational property, then surely they should be. If they are not justified in the language, then it is another story.
Ian Horrocks: I understand that, but I don't see how it applies to the profiles in particular. We have those features, it is not the argument that these features should be in the language. If those features are useful in general, we have a reason to have them in the language, then if they can be accommodated within this profile with good computational property, then surely they should be. If they are not justified in the language, then it is another story. ←
14:41:57Ivan: The target audience for profiles is different. QL and RL are "entry-level" things in OWL
Ivan Herman: The target audience for profiles is different. QL and RL are "entry-level" things in OWL ←
14:42:01... they should be easy.
... they should be easy. ←
14:42:19Mike: One of the audiences of QL is linked data
Mike Smith: One of the audiences of QL is linked data ←
14:42:47... also include people who want to access relational data in DL structure, for instance in distributed query system.
... also include people who want to access relational data in DL structure, for instance in distributed query system. ←
14:42:56... they are not new to OWL. So at least some targeted audience of QL wants as much as they can get from OWL.
... they are not new to OWL. So at least some targeted audience of QL wants as much as they can get from OWL. ←
14:43:22Alan: QL and RL are different.
Alan Ruttenberg: QL and RL are different. ←
14:43:49... QL is targeted at low complexity. The more expressivity we can have in QL the better, because it will allow more to be modeled.
... QL is targeted at low complexity. The more expressivity we can have in QL the better, because it will allow more to be modeled. ←
14:44:07... The second comment is, in terms introducing people to the language, we are not designing the language to be introductory, we are designing a language suitable to the community to make them introductory, and purpose of the document is to make the profiles more accessible.
... The second comment is, in terms introducing people to the language, we are not designing the language to be introductory, we are designing a language suitable to the community to make them introductory, and purpose of the document is to make the profiles more accessible. ←
14:44:30Markus: I agree with Ivan we have to take into account the community we target at. If we target linked data with QL, they are very well motivated.
Markus Krötzsch: I agree with Ivan we have to take into account the community we target at. If we target linked data with QL, they are very well motivated. ←
14:44:45Ivan: we are not talking about sameAs, we are talking about reflexive, irreflexive and assymmetric properties.
Ivan Herman: we are not talking about sameAs, we are talking about reflexive, irreflexive and assymmetric properties. ←
14:44:54Boris: we have some general misunderstanding why we come to profile.
Boris Motik: we have some general misunderstanding why we come to profile. ←
14:45:05... My understanding is that the profiles are technologically driven, which means you set yourself a goal,
... My understanding is that the profiles are technologically driven, which means you set yourself a goal, ←
14:45:36... such as on processing database data, or low complexity or rule reasoning. Those are objective goals, then the natural thing is to have the most expressive languages to meet these goals. I think it's a misunderstanding to have profile simplified for users. I believe it is a design issue. There are different ways to present simpler versions of OWL, but that does not need to be the profile. If you take the technology driven view, these things should be here. It is not user demand driven, it is technology thing.
... such as on processing database data, or low complexity or rule reasoning. Those are objective goals, then the natural thing is to have the most expressive languages to meet these goals. I think it's a misunderstanding to have profile simplified for users. I believe it is a design issue. There are different ways to present simpler versions of OWL, but that does not need to be the profile. If you take the technology driven view, these things should be here. It is not user demand driven, it is technology thing. ←
14:46:25+1 to Boris -- this distinction makes "space" for vendor's PR and for teaching/KT
Uli Sattler: +1 to Boris -- this distinction makes "space" for vendor's PR and for teaching/KT ←
14:46:25Sandro: it reminds me of OWL Lite, which is designed to be easier to use.
Sandro Hawke: it reminds me of OWL Lite, which is designed to be easier to use. ←
14:46:34This is the same discussion around OWL Lite
Evan Wallace: This is the same discussion around OWL Lite ←
14:46:39as Sandro says
Evan Wallace: as Sandro says ←
14:46:59Zhe: from vendor point of view. If the WG has a specification, no matter how complex it is
Zhe Wu: from vendor point of view. If the WG has a specification, no matter how complex it is ←
14:47:08... vendors are like to add more. Interoperability does truly matter. Profile, not just QL or RL, should be lean, just the core stuff that is easy.
... vendors are like to add more. Interoperability does truly matter. Profile, not just QL or RL, should be lean, just the core stuff that is easy. ←
14:48:12... I don't think it is necessary to add these features.
... I don't think it is necessary to add these features. ←
14:49:16Peter: Profiles are technical things. If people don't understand, they should look at primer, not profile.
Peter Patel-Schneider: Profiles are technical things. If people don't understand, they should look at primer, not profile. ←
14:49:35Ivan: Profile is not technology driven
Ivan Herman: Profile is not technology driven ←
14:49:43... it is user community and requirement driven.
... it is user community and requirement driven. ←
14:49:54q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
14:50:07... it should not be the case that we do it because it is doable. I agree with Zhe to keep it as simple as possible. It does not contradict to what Peter said, profile remains a technical document, there has to be primer etc. But adding features just because it can be done is not a good argument for it.
... it should not be the case that we do it because it is doable. I agree with Zhe to keep it as simple as possible. It does not contradict to what Peter said, profile remains a technical document, there has to be primer etc. But adding features just because it can be done is not a good argument for it. ←
14:51:00Ian: But we are throwing out features. The design is suppose to have all the features that can fit into the computational constraints. We will make a mistake not having them in.
Ian Horrocks: But we are throwing out features. The design is suppose to have all the features that can fit into the computational constraints. We will make a mistake not having them in. ←
14:51:17Ivan: in QL, the major disagreement is on sameAs
Ivan Herman: in QL, the major disagreement is on sameAs ←
14:52:00Markus: we don't get simpler to move a feature from non-allowed list to the allowed list, especially when the features are supported by 2 of the 3 profiles anyway.
Markus Krötzsch: we don't get simpler to move a feature from non-allowed list to the allowed list, especially when the features are supported by 2 of the 3 profiles anyway. ←
14:52:13q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:52:18ack schneid
Ian Horrocks: ack schneid ←
14:53:06schneid: requirement for QL for processing database data IS a technical requirement. It is not for education of OWL -- that should be from a text book starting with some "smaller' OWL.
Michael Schneider: requirement for QL for processing database data IS a technical requirement. It is not for education of OWL -- that should be from a text book starting with some "smaller' OWL. ←
14:53:36... features we should avoid are
... features we should avoid are ←
14:53:57... the ones need further understanding of other additional features
... the ones need further understanding of other additional features ←
14:54:08... or the ones may be misleading
... or the ones may be misleading ←
14:54:21... I think that's not the case here
... I think that's not the case here ←
14:54:23was owl lite easy to understand for new users?
Michael Schneider: was owl lite easy to understand for new users? ←
14:54:40Alan: I don't think profile should be a strictly technically driven presentation. It should be more accessible. We can do it with good editors. Reducing the language does not help anybody. We should focus on how to make the document understandable.
Alan Ruttenberg: I don't think profile should be a strictly technically driven presentation. It should be more accessible. We can do it with good editors. Reducing the language does not help anybody. We should focus on how to make the document understandable. ←
14:55:14Boris: I didn't say the document should be dry, I said the design of the profile should be driven by technology. Obviously the document should be readable.
Boris Motik: I didn't say the document should be dry, I said the design of the profile should be driven by technology. Obviously the document should be readable. ←
14:55:25q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:55:53... To answer Ivan, I agree things should be simple.
... To answer Ivan, I agree things should be simple. ←
14:56:10... but it may exclude some people who wants certain things. The community is so varied, I don't think we have a good definition of what is simple. That's why we have objective criteria: technology. I do agree it is a different issue, if, for example, a particular feature is absolutely necessary, then we should say with respect to these criteria, we can't achieve that. But we should be guided by technology criteria.
... but it may exclude some people who wants certain things. The community is so varied, I don't think we have a good definition of what is simple. That's why we have objective criteria: technology. I do agree it is a different issue, if, for example, a particular feature is absolutely necessary, then we should say with respect to these criteria, we can't achieve that. But we should be guided by technology criteria. ←
14:57:00Ian: I agree with that. Profiles are restrictions from everything in OWL, but we need to restrict iy as little as possible.
Ian Horrocks: I agree with that. Profiles are restrictions from everything in OWL, but we need to restrict iy as little as possible. ←
14:57:41Ian: In answer to Alan, of course the document should be improved a little
Ian Horrocks: In answer to Alan, of course the document should be improved a little ←
14:57:49... but this document is not user facing, which should be a guide.
... but this document is not user facing, which should be a guide. ←
14:58:20... the specification documents are for people who build systems
... the specification documents are for people who build systems ←
14:59:21... if they run into things they can't understand, there is primer, overview and (there will be) other books
... if they run into things they can't understand, there is primer, overview and (there will be) other books ←
15:00:00Alan: The problem is to reduce redundancy across documents. The syntax is a good example that tries to consolidate more than one point of view, tries to be more accessible by inclusion of examples. We should do so in profile as well.
Alan Ruttenberg: The problem is to reduce redundancy across documents. The syntax is a good example that tries to consolidate more than one point of view, tries to be more accessible by inclusion of examples. We should do so in profile as well. ←
15:00:39Ian: User focusing documents tell uses which profile to use, not the technical spec document like Profile.
Ian Horrocks: User focusing documents tell uses which profile to use, not the technical spec document like Profile. ←
15:01:00Alan: there should be at least a compact but understandable introduction.
Alan Ruttenberg: there should be at least a compact but understandable introduction. ←
15:01:20Ian: I agree. But there is limit. This document is mainly intended for implementers. We should void the mistake that pointing people to the wrong document.
Ian Horrocks: I agree. But there is limit. This document is mainly intended for implementers. We should void the mistake that pointing people to the wrong document. ←
15:01:40Alan: I think the stronger we put on that line, the harder it will be to meaningfully address people's concern about profile. Let's think about how to make the document more accessible. There should be a section on how to select a profile to use; there should be more examples, in particular negative examples: what does not fit into a profile; and some graphic things. There are something to do to make it more pleasant to approach. It will not turn it into Primer.
Alan Ruttenberg: I think the stronger we put on that line, the harder it will be to meaningfully address people's concern about profile. Let's think about how to make the document more accessible. There should be a section on how to select a profile to use; there should be more examples, in particular negative examples: what does not fit into a profile; and some graphic things. There are something to do to make it more pleasant to approach. It will not turn it into Primer. ←
15:02:07Boris: why we need profile, it is contentious, for example QL. That's why we don't include it in the document. I really think the document is a technical definition.
Boris Motik: why we need profile, it is contentious, for example QL. That's why we don't include it in the document. I really think the document is a technical definition. ←
15:02:50... there would be extension to introduction, but it will be painful.
... there would be extension to introduction, but it will be painful. ←
15:03:23Zhe: I agree with Alan that a good introduction will be useful. We need better explanation on choice of profiles. We should focus on accessibility.
Zhe Wu: I agree with Alan that a good introduction will be useful. We need better explanation on choice of profiles. We should focus on accessibility. ←
15:03:56... for a regular users without good OWL knowledge, which one to choose?
... for a regular users without good OWL knowledge, which one to choose? ←
15:04:04... we should make it clear to them.
... we should make it clear to them. ←
15:04:12zakim, who is on the call
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call ←
15:04:14I don't understand 'who is on the call', sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'who is on the call', sandro ←
15:04:17zakim, who is on the call?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call? ←
15:04:17On the phone I see jar, MIT346, Evan_Wallace, Achille, uli (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see jar, MIT346, Evan_Wallace, Achille, uli (muted) ←
15:04:30Alan: on how to explain database profiles. We don't have to say that is for database, we can explain the consequences that taking one ontologies into one profile than the other, and extending one to get other features and what happens about complexity. We can do it in neutral way.
Alan Ruttenberg: on how to explain database profiles. We don't have to say that is for database, we can explain the consequences that taking one ontologies into one profile than the other, and extending one to get other features and what happens about complexity. We can do it in neutral way. ←
15:05:23Ian's suggestion sounds good.
Evan Wallace: Ian's suggestion sounds good. ←
15:05:45Ian: profile can have some discussion and point to the user facing document, but the major explanation should be in the primer.
Ian Horrocks: profile can have some discussion and point to the user facing document, but the major explanation should be in the primer. ←
15:05:51Explain in detail in Primer, summarize in Profile doc.
Evan Wallace: Explain in detail in Primer, summarize in Profile doc. ←
15:06:38Ivan: I propose that Sandro puts 2 or 3 paragraphs on high level ways of using profiles. Second, some examples in Profile will help, explaining things such as what can't be done in profiles, in the same way in the syntax document.
Ivan Herman: I propose that Sandro puts 2 or 3 paragraphs on high level ways of using profiles. Second, some examples in Profile will help, explaining things such as what can't be done in profiles, in the same way in the syntax document. ←
15:06:46Boris: I agree
Boris Motik: I agree ←
15:07:38Ian: we should go back and focus on decision
Ian Horrocks: we should go back and focus on decision ←
15:07:55and
Uli Sattler: and ←
15:07:55and symmetric
Uli Sattler: and symmetric ←
15:08:45PROPOSED: reflexive, symetric, and assymetric should be added to the QL profile.
PROPOSED: reflexive, symetric, and assymetric should be added to the QL profile. ←
15:08:47+1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
15:08:49+1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
15:08:49+1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
15:08:50+1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
15:08:51+1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:08:52+1
+1 ←
15:08:52+1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
15:08:52+1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
15:08:55+0
Evan Wallace: +0 ←
15:09:000
Ivan Herman: 0 ←
15:09:01-0
15:09:03+1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
15:09:080
Bijan Parsia: 0 ←
15:09:180
Achille Fokoue: 0 ←
15:09:22+1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
15:09:47RESOLVED: reflexive, symetric, and assymetric should be added to the QL profile.
RESOLVED: reflexive, symetric, and assymetric should be added to the QL profile. ←
15:10:04An example that I've recently dealt with on the profiles was a snomed inspired (approximate) workaround for the lack of union in EL. There are benefits and tradeoffs and this might serve as an informative example.
Alan Ruttenberg: An example that I've recently dealt with on the profiles was a snomed inspired (approximate) workaround for the lack of union in EL. There are benefits and tradeoffs and this might serve as an informative example. ←
15:10:29q+ to explain
Uli Sattler: q+ to explain ←
15:10:37i don't mind
Uli Sattler: i don't mind ←
15:10:41ack uli
Ivan Herman: ack uli ←
15:10:42zakim, unmute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, unmute me ←
15:10:42uli, you wanted to explain
Zakim IRC Bot: uli, you wanted to explain ←
15:10:44uli was not muted, uli
Zakim IRC Bot: uli was not muted, uli ←
15:10:50ack uli
Ian Horrocks: ack uli ←
subtopic: Add sameAs
15:12:14q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
15:12:42zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
15:12:42uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
15:12:52q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:12:55ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
15:12:57Uli: I want to explain the technical consequence on adding sameAs, and to propose a compromise. QL is to use RDBMS to create your data, and query it using an ontology, such as by a query rewriter. You won't touch your data, just leave the tables as they are. If we add sameAs, that is not longer possible. You can, if you have sameAs, still use a rewriter, in case your RDBMS supports recursive query. Alternatively, you can have materialized view to have sameAs tuples in the view, but that will change the database.
Uli Sattler: I want to explain the technical consequence on adding sameAs, and to propose a compromise. QL is to use RDBMS to create your data, and query it using an ontology, such as by a query rewriter. You won't touch your data, just leave the tables as they are. If we add sameAs, that is not longer possible. You can, if you have sameAs, still use a rewriter, in case your RDBMS supports recursive query. Alternatively, you can have materialized view to have sameAs tuples in the view, but that will change the database. ←
15:13:02... I suggest to add a note in QL about it: you can add sameAs to QL, then you have to do either one or the other: materialized view or the use of recursive query.
... I suggest to add a note in QL about it: you can add sameAs to QL, then you have to do either one or the other: materialized view or the use of recursive query. ←
15:13:31q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:13:43Alan: I don't think not touching the database to be a requirement for QL. (schneid, Ian: it is a core requirement). For many users, having an extra table is not an issue. I would suggest to have them in the language, and add a note saying, it requires extra table if you use it.
Alan Ruttenberg: I don't think not touching the database to be a requirement for QL. (schneid, Ian: it is a core requirement). For many users, having an extra table is not an issue. I would suggest to have them in the language, and add a note saying, it requires extra table if you use it. ←
15:13:45no Jie, I said that, if we don't use sameAs, we can use a standard RDBMs system without touching the data.
Uli Sattler: no Jie, I said that, if we don't use sameAs, we can use a standard RDBMs system without touching the data. ←
15:14:08...and if we have sameAs, we need a system..
Uli Sattler: ...and if we have sameAs, we need a system.. ←
15:14:10Zhe: Uli, I have a question: in argument for sameAs, is that also applicable for transitive properties?
Zhe Wu: Uli, I have a question: in argument for sameAs, is that also applicable for transitive properties? ←
15:14:12zakim, unmute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, unmute me ←
15:14:12uli should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should no longer be muted ←
15:14:19q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:14:47no
Mike Smith: no ←
15:14:51but what about using materialization for transitive
Alan Ruttenberg: but what about using materialization for transitive ←
15:15:00Uli: your rules only need to be recursive if you want to compute sameAs, because it is a transitive relation.
Uli Sattler: your rules only need to be recursive if you want to compute sameAs, because it is a transitive relation. ←
15:15:17q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
15:15:22zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
15:15:22uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
15:15:28Ian: the question is if we have sameAs, could we also have transitive property?
Ian Horrocks: the question is if we have sameAs, could we also have transitive property? ←
15:15:30Uli: I can only guess, it can be materialized in the same way.
Uli Sattler: I can only guess, it can be materialized in the same way. ←
15:15:50Mike: sameAs reduces to reachability in undirected graph, which is provable in LOGSPACE. Transitive property is not in LOGSPACE
Mike Smith: sameAs reduces to reachability in undirected graph, which is provable in LOGSPACE. Transitive property is not in LOGSPACE ←
15:15:59... it changes the complexity.
... it changes the complexity. ←
15:16:00Markus: In answer to Zhe: adding an extra table is not a little requirement, such as for updating. Even it is in LOGSPACE in principle, you have to do it in a smart way for updating in LOGSPACE. So having extra table doable in database is not sufficient to have it in QL. It is also true for other profiles. For RL and EL, you can also do everything in database just adding some extra tables and recursive queries. So with recursive queries you also have higher complexity with transitivity etc.
Markus Krötzsch: In answer to Zhe: adding an extra table is not a little requirement, such as for updating. Even it is in LOGSPACE in principle, you have to do it in a smart way for updating in LOGSPACE. So having extra table doable in database is not sufficient to have it in QL. It is also true for other profiles. For RL and EL, you can also do everything in database just adding some extra tables and recursive queries. So with recursive queries you also have higher complexity with transitivity etc. ←
15:16:33+1 to Markus
Uli Sattler: +1 to Markus ←
15:16:40Alan: do you really need recursive query once you get the table set up?
Alan Ruttenberg: do you really need recursive query once you get the table set up? ←
15:17:00Markus: No, initially it is recursive to fill the table, but then you can do the updating incrementally using LOGSPACE.
Markus Krötzsch: No, initially it is recursive to fill the table, but then you can do the updating incrementally using LOGSPACE. ←
15:17:01(the point about QL is "by querying only")
Uli Sattler: (the point about QL is "by querying only") ←
15:17:00Zhe: recursive query is supported in modern databases anyway.
Zhe Wu: recursive query is supported in modern databases anyway. ←
15:17:10Markus: Yes, but it is supported with bag semantics, not set semantics.
Markus Krötzsch: Yes, but it is supported with bag semantics, not set semantics. ←
15:18:33markus: replying to allen, I do not think that it is enough to state that QL can still be implemented in DBs using "some extra tables"
Markus Krötzsch: replying to allen, I do not think that it is enough to state that QL can still be implemented in DBs using "some extra tables" [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ] ←
15:19:28markus: maintaining these tables may not be trivial, and recursive queries and "some extra tables" are sufficient for all OWL 2 profiles, so it is not a specific feature of QL
Markus Krötzsch: maintaining these tables may not be trivial, and recursive queries and "some extra tables" are sufficient for all OWL 2 profiles, so it is not a specific feature of QL [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ] ←
15:20:17markus: moreover, many RDBMS may have recursive queries that implement a bag (multiset) semantics only, so termination may not be easy to achieve when relying on these queries
Markus Krötzsch: moreover, many RDBMS may have recursive queries that implement a bag (multiset) semantics only, so termination may not be easy to achieve when relying on these queries [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ] ←
15:18:06Boris: adding transitivity is not only about recursive query, because transitive properties could have existential qualification on them. It is not about materializing some extension first using a recursive query, then querying it, because there could be some interaction through the other axioms.
Boris Motik: adding transitivity is not only about recursive query, because transitive properties could have existential qualification on them. It is not about materializing some extension first using a recursive query, then querying it, because there could be some interaction through the other axioms. ←
15:18:36... sameAs is the only thing that can introduce equivalency.
... sameAs is the only thing that can introduce equivalency. ←
15:18:46zhe asked. We're done now.
Alan Ruttenberg: zhe asked. We're done now. ←
15:18:47... and it can be precomputed. Transitivity is much more complicated. I don't want to go into this.
... and it can be precomputed. Transitivity is much more complicated. I don't want to go into this. ←
15:19:00Ian: Transitivity is a side issue.
Ian Horrocks: Transitivity is a side issue. ←
15:20:57Ivan: I feel get reinforced to know that many modern databases do actually have recursive query. My favorite approach would be that we have sameAs in QL, but make it clear for some implementations it may lead to slower response. For many users, not having sameAs will almost make this profile not useable.
Ivan Herman: I feel get reinforced to know that many modern databases do actually have recursive query. My favorite approach would be that we have sameAs in QL, but make it clear for some implementations it may lead to slower response. For many users, not having sameAs will almost make this profile not useable. ←
15:21:30Zhe: I'm not arguing for or against sameAs, I'm commenting on the comment on not touching database. It is a nice thing to have, but in practice it is not always doable. For example, you have to rebuild index for better performance. Not touching everything is not that simple.
Zhe Wu: I'm not arguing for or against sameAs, I'm commenting on the comment on not touching database. It is a nice thing to have, but in practice it is not always doable. For example, you have to rebuild index for better performance. Not touching everything is not that simple. ←
15:21:54Ian: That's efficiency issue. We have QL is for accessing database that may not even in your control, but just via a query interface. It's quite common.
Ian Horrocks: That's efficiency issue. We have QL is for accessing database that may not even in your control, but just via a query interface. It's quite common. ←
15:22:51... if we add sameas, we lose the ability to access db just from a query interface.
... if we add sameas, we lose the ability to access db just from a query interface. ←
15:23:31Ivan, you *do* care as a person who wants to query data through an ontology
Uli Sattler: Ivan, you *do* care as a person who wants to query data through an ontology ←
15:23:47Ivan: if I'm a user, I will not care about how things are technically done. If we have sameAs, some implementation maybe slower than others that have recursive queries, as a user I don't want to know about the details.
Ivan Herman: if I'm a user, I will not care about how things are technically done. If we have sameAs, some implementation maybe slower than others that have recursive queries, as a user I don't want to know about the details. ←
15:25:08Michael, it's not only related to scalability (and the index issue mentioned by Zhe might hit you), but about "what you can/want to do" before you can start querying
Uli Sattler: Michael, it's not only related to scalability (and the index issue mentioned by Zhe might hit you), but about "what you can/want to do" before you can start querying ←
15:25:27Schneid: QL is designed for scalability, sameas may kill it.
Michael Schneider: QL is designed for scalability, sameas may kill it. ←
15:26:53Mike: from user perspective, if we add sameAs, user may lose some access from databases that have no recursive query.
Mike Smith: from user perspective, if we add sameAs, user may lose some access from databases that have no recursive query. ←
15:27:53Markus: QL is not a subset of EL because of inverse and symmetric properties
Markus Krötzsch: QL is not a subset of EL because of inverse and symmetric properties ←
15:27:05...and existentials in the head
Uli Sattler: ...and existentials in the head ←
15:27:05Boris: and existentials on the LHS, and conjunctions on the RHS.
Boris Motik: and existentials on the LHS, and conjunctions on the RHS. ←
15:28:30Markus: The problem is, would it be a valid statement that a user of QL who wants to have sameAs, s/he might also consider switching to EL, as long as there is no inverse and symmetric properties.
Markus Krötzsch: The problem is, would it be a valid statement that a user of QL who wants to have sameAs, s/he might also consider switching to EL, as long as there is no inverse and symmetric properties. ←
15:29:14Ivan: The difference between QL and EL is very small.
Ivan Herman: The difference between QL and EL is very small. ←
15:29:20Ian: Not really, they may be close on the set of constructs, but not on language structure.
Ian Horrocks: Not really, they may be close on the set of constructs, but not on language structure. ←
15:29:36Markus: Intersection of QL and RL is small. What I suggest is, instead of adding this feature, one can also switch to EL.
Markus Krötzsch: Intersection of QL and RL is small. What I suggest is, instead of adding this feature, one can also switch to EL. ←
15:30:19Zhe: people need QL, not EL because they want to access database data, how can they do it with EL?
Zhe Wu: people need QL, not EL because they want to access database data, how can they do it with EL? ←
15:30:30Markus: I agree.
Markus Krötzsch: I agree. ←
15:30:36Ian: I believe we should do what Uli suggested. We need to cut the discussion.
Ian Horrocks: I believe we should do what Uli suggested. We need to cut the discussion. ←
15:31:15Uli, do you have a handy text for your proposal?
Sandro Hawke: Uli, do you have a handy text for your proposal? ←
15:32:06yes
Uli Sattler: yes ←
15:32:11will send in a second
Uli Sattler: will send in a second ←
15:32:49schneid: I want to avoid to add stuff that brings a bad dilemma to implementers: if they don't support it, then they are non-conformant, and if they implement it, then their main performance advantages will break down
Michael Schneider: I want to avoid to add stuff that brings a bad dilemma to implementers: if they don't support it, then they are non-conformant, and if they implement it, then their main performance advantages will break down [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
15:32:54Mike: on conformance, if a feature is not in the language, and the tool supports it, does not make the tool not conformant.
Mike Smith: on conformance, if a feature is not in the language, and the tool supports it, does not make the tool not conformant. ←
15:33:14We propose to not add sameAs to QL, but a paragraph to its introduction that says, roughly, "hey, if you add sameAs to QL, you can't answer queries anymore using an off-the-shelf RDBMS plus a little query rewriter *without* modifying the data...but you could still answer queries by either materializing a view for the "sameAs" closure or using an RDBMS that supports recursive queries."
Uli Sattler: We propose to not add sameAs to QL, but a paragraph to its introduction that says, roughly, "hey, if you add sameAs to QL, you can't answer queries anymore using an off-the-shelf RDBMS plus a little query rewriter *without* modifying the data...but you could still answer queries by either materializing a view for the "sameAs" closure or using an RDBMS that supports recursive queries." ←
15:33:30and this dilemma would be delegated to users, of course
Michael Schneider: and this dilemma would be delegated to users, of course ←
15:33:34pfps has joined #owl
Peter Patel-Schneider: pfps has joined #owl ←
15:33:45yes
Uli Sattler: yes ←
15:33:52PROPOSED: not add sameAs to QL, but a paragraph to its introduction that says, roughly, "hey, if you add sameAs to QL, you can't answer queries anymore using an off-the-shelf RDBMS plus a little query rewriter *without* modifying the data...but you could still answer queries by either materializing a view for the "sameAs" closure or using an RDBMS that supports recursive queries."
PROPOSED: not add sameAs to QL, but a paragraph to its introduction that says, roughly, "hey, if you add sameAs to QL, you can't answer queries anymore using an off-the-shelf RDBMS plus a little query rewriter *without* modifying the data...but you could still answer queries by either materializing a view for the "sameAs" closure or using an RDBMS that supports recursive queries." ←
15:33:55PROPOSED: Keep sameAs out of OWL QL, in order to keep the properties of QL, with a note about QL such Uli proposes.
PROPOSED: Keep sameAs out of OWL QL, in order to keep the properties of QL, with a note about QL such Uli proposes. ←
15:34:20chair adjusting wording
Mike Smith: chair adjusting wording ←
15:34:36PROPOSED: We will add sameas to the QL profile.
PROPOSED: We will add sameas to the QL profile. ←
15:34:44-1
Markus Krötzsch: -1 ←
15:34:44-1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: -1 ALU ←
15:34:46-1
Ian Horrocks: -1 ←
15:34:46-1
Boris Motik: -1 ←
15:34:470
0 ←
15:34:470
Alan Ruttenberg: 0 ←
15:34:48-1
Uli Sattler: -1 ←
15:34:49-100 (IBM)
Achille Fokoue: -100 (IBM) ←
15:34:51-0.9
Michael Schneider: -0.9 ←
15:35:01q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:35:04PROPOSED: Add SameAs to OWL-QL
PROPOSED: Add SameAs to OWL-QL ←
15:35:04-1
Sandro Hawke: -1 ←
15:35:06ack ivan
Ivan Herman: ack ivan ←
15:35:080
Mike Smith: 0 ←
15:35:140
15:35:21yes, bijan, following without the audio isn't really practical.
Sandro Hawke: yes, bijan, following without the audio isn't really practical. ←
15:35:37RESOLVED: We will not add sameas to the QL profile.
RESOLVED: We will not add sameas to the QL profile. ←
15:36:24PROPOSED: add some Uli's text to profile document
PROPOSED: add some Uli's text to profile document ←
15:36:28+1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU ←
15:36:28+1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
15:36:28+1
Achille Fokoue: +1 ←
15:36:29+1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
15:36:29+1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:36:29+1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
15:36:29+1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
15:36:311
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
15:36:32+1
+1 ←
15:36:35+1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
15:36:35+1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
15:36:36+1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
15:36:42+1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
15:36:51+1
15:37:02RESOLVED: add some uli's text to profile document
RESOLVED: add some uli's text to profile document ←
15:37:13I wonder whether if all OWL QL implementations at CR support sameAs that that would be sufficient new information
Bijan Parsia: I wonder whether if all OWL QL implementations at CR support sameAs that that would be sufficient new information ←
15:37:20PROPOSED: reflexive, irreflexive, & asymmetric properties will be added to the QL profile
PROPOSED: reflexive, irreflexive, & asymmetric properties will be added to the QL profile ←
15:37:34+1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU ←
15:37:35+1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
15:37:35+1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
15:37:36+1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
15:37:370
Ivan Herman: 0 ←
15:37:380
Achille Fokoue: 0 ←
15:37:38+1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
15:37:38++1
Alan Ruttenberg: ++1 ←
15:37:41+1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
15:37:41+1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
15:37:41+1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:37:420
Bijan Parsia: 0 ←
15:37:46+1
15:37:54(this is correcting the previous proposal)
Sandro Hawke: (this is correcting the previous proposal) ←
15:37:59+1
+1 ←
15:38:03RESOLVED: reflexive, irreflexive, & asymmetric properties will be added to the QL profile
RESOLVED: reflexive, irreflexive, & asymmetric properties will be added to the QL profile ←
15:38:16ian: (just tidying up)
Ian Horrocks: (just tidying up) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:38:20-uli
Zakim IRC Bot: -uli ←
15:39:15break
break ←
15:39:16Bijan, can you dial in about 3:30 boston time?
Sandro Hawke: Bijan, can you dial in about 3:30 boston time? ←
15:39:36-Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: -Evan_Wallace ←
15:39:37So 8:30 here, yes?
Bijan Parsia: So 8:30 here, yes? ←
15:39:38Probably
Bijan Parsia: Probably ←
15:46:59-Achille
(No events recorded for 7 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: -Achille ←
15:54:49no updated agenda - we are still finishing yesterday's agenda
(No events recorded for 7 minutes)
Peter Patel-Schneider: no updated agenda - we are still finishing yesterday's agenda ←
15:55:28oh my. so you will all have to extend your stay so you can finish today's tomorrow :-)
Jonathan Rees: oh my. so you will all have to extend your stay so you can finish today's tomorrow :-) ←
16:01:09scribe: Boris
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
(Scribe set to Boris Motik)
16:01:36+[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
16:01:39topic: TQ comments
16:01:54ianh: I've drafted a response
Ian Horrocks: I've drafted a response ←
16:02:01http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JC1b
Ian Horrocks: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JC1b ←
16:02:35ianh: I've tried to tease out each of the individual comments that had technical content
Ian Horrocks: I've tried to tease out each of the individual comments that had technical content ←
16:04:48(everyone's reading Ian's response)
(everyone's reading Ian's response) ←
16:07:49editorial comment: s/IEFT/IETF/g (Internet Engineering Task Force)
Mike Smith: editorial comment: s/IEFT/IETF/g (Internet Engineering Task Force) ←
16:08:55ianh: Let's go through the comment
Ian Horrocks: Let's go through the comment ←
16:09:23ivan: There were specific comments by TQ that we should stop the OWL 2 effort altogether
Ivan Herman: There were specific comments by TQ that we should stop the OWL 2 effort altogether ←
16:09:36ianh: My response does not address this
Ian Horrocks: My response does not address this ←
16:09:55ianh: We are currently disucssing only the technical comments from Jeremy's e-mail
Ian Horrocks: We are currently disucssing only the technical comments from Jeremy's e-mail ←
16:10:33ianh: My response should say that there will be another response about the philosophical objections
Ian Horrocks: My response should say that there will be another response about the philosophical objections ←
16:10:47ianh: Thanks -- I'll add this to my response
Ian Horrocks: Thanks -- I'll add this to my response ←
16:11:50ianh: Links to Wiki's should be the links to TR
Ian Horrocks: Links to Wiki's should be the links to TR ←
16:12:02sandro: I can't find these links, but I'll ask Jeremy
Sandro Hawke: I can't find these links, but I'll ask Jeremy ←
16:12:27action: sandro find and fix the to-wiki-links Jeremy complains about
ACTION: sandro find and fix the to-wiki-links Jeremy complains about ←
16:12:27Created ACTION-299 - Find and fix the to-wiki-links Jeremy complains about [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-03-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-299 - Find and fix the to-wiki-links Jeremy complains about [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-03-03]. ←
16:12:56ianh: I'll make the comment about syntax examples more precise w.r.t. what we decided at this F2F
Ian Horrocks: I'll make the comment about syntax examples more precise w.r.t. what we decided at this F2F ←
16:15:33schneid: Jeremy says that various disjointness axioms would make implementation more difficult
Michael Schneider: Jeremy says that various disjointness axioms would make implementation more difficult ←
16:16:35ianh: Rather than just making statements "It's easy to implement", can we point to implementations?
Ian Horrocks: Rather than just making statements "It's easy to implement", can we point to implementations? ←
16:16:47ianh: Zhe, does your implementation support disjoint union?
Ian Horrocks: Zhe, does your implementation support disjoint union? ←
16:16:49Zhe: No
16:17:35bmotik: OWL 2 RL does not have disjoint union, but does have disjoint properties
Boris Motik: OWL 2 RL does not have disjoint union, but does have disjoint properties ←
16:18:21ivan: We can just say that we don''t understand why disjoint union would be difficult to implement
Ivan Herman: We can just say that we don''t understand why disjoint union would be difficult to implement ←
16:18:30ivan: We could ask for more explanation
Ivan Herman: We could ask for more explanation ←
16:19:09alanr: We already said that disjoint classes have benefits, but what to say aout the disjoint union?
Alan Ruttenberg: We already said that disjoint classes have benefits, but what to say aout the disjoint union? ←
16:19:58ianh: We'll tweak the proposal to say that this does not address all the points and say that we don't see the difficulty in implementations
Ian Horrocks: We'll tweak the proposal to say that this does not address all the points and say that we don't see the difficulty in implementations ←
16:20:37ianh: In OWL 1, there was some OWL file that was used to capture bits of RDF
Ian Horrocks: In OWL 1, there was some OWL file that was used to capture bits of RDF ←
16:21:09schneid: There is no technical need to add this: (1) no sense on the DL side and (2) it is entailed by the full side
Michael Schneider: There is no technical need to add this: (1) no sense on the DL side and (2) it is entailed by the full side ←
16:21:16ianh: We'll add this
Ian Horrocks: We'll add this ←
16:21:39ianh: Jeremy suggested changing the serialization of property chains
Ian Horrocks: Jeremy suggested changing the serialization of property chains ←
16:22:18pfps: No, they are suggesting something else
Peter Patel-Schneider: No, they are suggesting something else ←
16:22:39pfps: RDF allows blank nodes in properties
Peter Patel-Schneider: RDF allows blank nodes in properties ←
16:23:01RDF doesn't allow blank nodes in properties.
Bijan Parsia: RDF doesn't allow blank nodes in properties. ←
16:23:41alanr: Jeremy is worried about a blank node being used as subject or object that will then get turned into a property by some rule
Alan Ruttenberg: Jeremy is worried about a blank node being used as subject or object that will then get turned into a property by some rule ←
16:24:21markus: the fact that predicates in RDF cannot be bnodes is not a bug but a feature:
Markus Krötzsch: the fact that predicates in RDF cannot be bnodes is not a bug but a feature: [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ] ←
16:24:24msmith: Jeremy doesn't point this out, but does not this also imply that bnodes are not good for inverse properties
Mike Smith: Jeremy doesn't point this out, but does not this also imply that bnodes are not good for inverse properties ←
16:24:25RDF does not allow bnodes for predicates - it allows bnodes for properties
Peter Patel-Schneider: RDF does not allow bnodes for predicates - it allows bnodes for properties ←
16:24:44markus: we explicitly do not want anybody to use the bnode property of some OWL 2 property chain in a triple
Markus Krötzsch: we explicitly do not want anybody to use the bnode property of some OWL 2 property chain in a triple [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ] ←
16:24:53Oh, right. Yes. Carry on. _:x rdf:type rdf:Property
Bijan Parsia: Oh, right. Yes. Carry on. _:x rdf:type rdf:Property ←
16:25:06markus: since this would be a statement about the property chain that is not supported by OWL 2 anyway
Markus Krötzsch: since this would be a statement about the property chain that is not supported by OWL 2 anyway [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ] ←
16:25:26schneid: I was careful on the Full side to avoid the bnode to become a property chain
Michael Schneider: I was careful on the Full side to avoid the bnode to become a property chain ←
16:25:29markus: effectively, it would be similar to allowing inverted property chain inclusions
Markus Krötzsch: effectively, it would be similar to allowing inverted property chain inclusions [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ] ←
16:25:41schneid: The full semantics does not make this LHS property into a property chain
Michael Schneider: The full semantics does not make this LHS property into a property chain ←
16:26:01schneid: The bnode does not represent a property chain
Michael Schneider: The bnode does not represent a property chain ←
16:26:19schneid: I believe that people will be confused by this
Michael Schneider: I believe that people will be confused by this ←
16:27:07schneid: We overloaded the rdfs:subPropertyOf to do something that it wasn't designed for
Michael Schneider: We overloaded the rdfs:subPropertyOf to do something that it wasn't designed for ←
16:27:14schneid: I couldn't find a real problem
Michael Schneider: I couldn't find a real problem ←
16:27:46schneid: I'd like to have a single triple encoding
Michael Schneider: I'd like to have a single triple encoding ←
16:28:23schneid: On the LHS would be a superproperty, and on the RHS would be a list with the chain
Michael Schneider: On the LHS would be a superproperty, and on the RHS would be a list with the chain ←
16:28:38ianh: What do we think of this?
Ian Horrocks: What do we think of this? ←
16:28:42bmotik: I don't care
Boris Motik: I don't care ←
16:29:02ianh: Didn't we have an issue about this?
Ian Horrocks: Didn't we have an issue about this? ←
16:29:13schneid: I had it on my agenda, but didn't want to bring it up
Michael Schneider: I had it on my agenda, but didn't want to bring it up ←
16:30:07ivan: I remember that, when I needed to familiarize myself with the property chains, the current encoding was complicated
Ivan Herman: I remember that, when I needed to familiarize myself with the property chains, the current encoding was complicated ←
16:31:31PROPOSED: Change the encoding of the property chains to a single-triple encoding (LHS is the superproperty and RHS is the list of properties)
PROPOSED: Change the encoding of the property chains to a single-triple encoding (LHS is the superproperty and RHS is the list of properties) ←
16:31:47+1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
16:31:50+1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
16:31:51bmotik: +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
16:31:52-0
16:31:52+1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
16:31:580
Evan Wallace: 0 ←
16:32:080
Bijan Parsia: 0 ←
16:33:31(Addendum: it will be called owl:propertyChainAxiom)
(Addendum: it will be called owl:propertyChainAxiom) ←
16:34:030
16:34:04+1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
16:34:07+1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
16:34:11+1 on owl:propertyChainAxiom name
Evan Wallace: +1 on owl:propertyChainAxiom name ←
16:34:12+1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
16:34:160
Mike Smith: 0 ←
16:34:160
Achille Fokoue: 0 ←
16:34:18+1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
16:34:200
Ian Horrocks: 0 ←
16:34:210
Sandro Hawke: 0 ←
16:34:30+1
16:34:32+0.2 for chaining the property axiom
Peter Patel-Schneider: +0.2 for chaining the property axiom ←
16:34:330
Bijan Parsia: 0 ←
16:34:34RESOLVED: Change the encoding of the property chains to a single-triple encoding (LHS is the superproperty and RHS is the list of properties) -- with the addendum
RESOLVED: Change the encoding of the property chains to a single-triple encoding (LHS is the superproperty and RHS is the list of properties) -- with the addendum ←
16:35:23schneid: Note that owl:propertyChain gets ditched
Michael Schneider: Note that owl:propertyChain gets ditched ←
16:35:41ianh: TQ complained about negative property assertions
Ian Horrocks: TQ complained about negative property assertions ←
16:35:50alanr: Nobody compained about them
Alan Ruttenberg: Nobody compained about them ←
16:36:00ianh: Some people found them useful
Ian Horrocks: Some people found them useful ←
16:36:17schneid: He had a problem with the encoding and with the negative tiples
Michael Schneider: He had a problem with the encoding and with the negative tiples ←
16:36:30ianh: What about my response?
Ian Horrocks: What about my response? ←
16:36:40alanr: I'm good with this
Alan Ruttenberg: I'm good with this ←
16:36:48ianh: So that covers it?
Ian Horrocks: So that covers it? ←
16:37:00ianh: OK, so let's move on to SelfRestrictions
Ian Horrocks: OK, so let's move on to SelfRestrictions ←
16:37:44alanr: Local reflexivity is more useful than the global reflexivity
Alan Ruttenberg: Local reflexivity is more useful than the global reflexivity ←
16:37:59schneid: In the past, there was a problem with certain semantics
Michael Schneider: In the past, there was a problem with certain semantics ←
16:38:33schneid: Now, however, the paradox is no longer pertinent
Michael Schneider: Now, however, the paradox is no longer pertinent ←
16:38:55ianh: So we can strenghten the response by saying that local reflexivity is more useful than the global one
Ian Horrocks: So we can strenghten the response by saying that local reflexivity is more useful than the global one ←
16:39:21schneid: THis is particular in RDF
Michael Schneider: THis is particular in RDF ←
16:39:32ianh: And we say that there is no problem now as paradoxes do not arise
Ian Horrocks: And we say that there is no problem now as paradoxes do not arise ←
16:40:34ianh: Jeremy doesn't like reflexive, irreflexive, asymmetric, and disjoint properties in general
Ian Horrocks: Jeremy doesn't like reflexive, irreflexive, asymmetric, and disjoint properties in general ←
16:41:00alanr: Can't we add a line to the response saying that we'll extend NF&R?
Alan Ruttenberg: Can't we add a line to the response saying that we'll extend NF&R? ←
16:41:08Holger had this same position before Jeremy joined TopQuadrant
Evan Wallace: Holger had this same position before Jeremy joined TopQuadrant ←
16:41:19markusk: Have we got any use-cases for globally reflexive properties?
Markus Krötzsch: Have we got any use-cases for globally reflexive properties? ←
16:41:58ianh: So global reflexivity approximates local reflexivity, particularly in the profiles that don't have local reflexivity
Ian Horrocks: So global reflexivity approximates local reflexivity, particularly in the profiles that don't have local reflexivity ←
16:42:23this point should be added to NF&R
Alan Ruttenberg: this point should be added to NF&R ←
16:42:31schneid: global reflexivity can be used for local reflexivity in profiles which do not have local reflexivity (QL): e.g. to approximate locatedIn property to be "locally" reflexive" on class "Location"
Michael Schneider: global reflexivity can be used for local reflexivity in profiles which do not have local reflexivity (QL): e.g. to approximate locatedIn property to be "locally" reflexive" on class "Location" [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
16:42:56ianh: We'll say that we'll clarify this in NF&R
Ian Horrocks: We'll say that we'll clarify this in NF&R ←
16:43:14ivan: We should add this to the introductory text
Ivan Herman: We should add this to the introductory text ←
16:43:59ianh: I'll say that we'll extended NF&R
Ian Horrocks: I'll say that we'll extended NF&R ←
16:44:01ianh: Let's move to OWL/XML
Ian Horrocks: Let's move to OWL/XML ←
16:44:26ivan: When you say that OWL/XML is not a new feature -- Jeremy probably knows that it is not a new feature
Ivan Herman: When you say that OWL/XML is not a new feature -- Jeremy probably knows that it is not a new feature ←
16:44:39ivan: Jeremy is not satisfied with the recommendation status
Ivan Herman: Jeremy is not satisfied with the recommendation status ←
16:45:11alanr: Can we have a small section in NF&R explaining why we want OWL/XML?
Alan Ruttenberg: Can we have a small section in NF&R explaining why we want OWL/XML? ←
16:45:18alanr: Bijan has a coherent story
Alan Ruttenberg: Bijan has a coherent story ←
16:45:39ianh: Good, we'll add this and mention this addition in the response
Ian Horrocks: Good, we'll add this and mention this addition in the response ←
16:46:01pfps: We can say "There is rational for it and wil lbe (has been?) added"
Peter Patel-Schneider: We can say "There is rational for it and wil lbe (has been?) added" ←
16:46:21ivan: The sentence about "not a new feature" should go
Ivan Herman: The sentence about "not a new feature" should go ←
16:46:42ianh: The next thing is Manchester Syntax
Ian Horrocks: The next thing is Manchester Syntax ←
16:46:51For NF&F or whatever, here's my earlier bit:
Bijan Parsia: For NF&F or whatever, here's my earlier bit: <http://www.w3.org/mid/9926856B-8AF7-4F74-89DC-6C3AEE607EC9@cs.man.ac.uk> ←
16:46:59on OWL/XML
Bijan Parsia: on OWL/XML ←
16:47:13(everyone): ship it
(everyone): ship it ←
16:47:34ianh: Jeremy doesn't like using reification in annotations
Ian Horrocks: Jeremy doesn't like using reification in annotations ←
16:48:10bijan: I don't recall any explicit feedback about reification
Bijan Parsia: I don't recall any explicit feedback about reification ←
16:48:39bijan: We used our own vocabulary to avoid overloading the meaning of the RDF vocabulary
Bijan Parsia: We used our own vocabulary to avoid overloading the meaning of the RDF vocabulary ←
16:49:21ianh: Jeremy is worried about reification at all
Ian Horrocks: Jeremy is worried about reification at all ←
16:49:40ianh: But this doesn't handle annotation on axioms
Ian Horrocks: But this doesn't handle annotation on axioms ←
16:49:57We considered *many* alternative encodings, e.g., Literals
Bijan Parsia: We considered *many* alternative encodings, e.g., Literals ←
16:50:24ianh: The response says that, if a single axiom is annotated, there is nothing to hang the annotation off of
Ian Horrocks: The response says that, if a single axiom is annotated, there is nothing to hang the annotation off of ←
16:50:32ianh: Therefore, we *must* reify
Ian Horrocks: Therefore, we *must* reify ←
16:50:49ianh: I pointed to our discussion about the usage of RDF reification
Ian Horrocks: I pointed to our discussion about the usage of RDF reification ←
16:51:04schneid: Raised by Jeremy!
Michael Schneider: Raised by Jeremy! ←
16:51:22ianh: So we're happy with the response as is?
Ian Horrocks: So we're happy with the response as is? ←
16:51:30alanr: I hear no objections
Alan Ruttenberg: I hear no objections ←
16:51:58ianh: I could only make it clearer that we do hang annotations off of blank nodes whenever there is one
Ian Horrocks: I could only make it clearer that we do hang annotations off of blank nodes whenever there is one ←
16:52:07ianh: Other than that, we are good with it
Ian Horrocks: Other than that, we are good with it ←
16:52:28ianH: Moving on to n-ary datatypes
Ian Horrocks: Moving on to n-ary datatypes ←
16:52:36alanr: I have a problem with how this is stated
Alan Ruttenberg: I have a problem with how this is stated ←
16:53:19alanr: We should say that we introduced hooks because there was a reasonably thought out extension that will be presented as a note, but not say too much what you can do with it?
Alan Ruttenberg: We should say that we introduced hooks because there was a reasonably thought out extension that will be presented as a note, but not say too much what you can do with it? ←
16:53:35ianh: Let's skip on the next one while Alan is generating text
Ian Horrocks: Let's skip on the next one while Alan is generating text ←
16:53:49ianh: Moving on to RDF interoperability
Ian Horrocks: Moving on to RDF interoperability ←
16:54:52ivan: Looking at the comment itself, my feeling is that it falls in the same caterogy of general misunderstanding regarding the role of RDF
Ivan Herman: Looking at the comment itself, my feeling is that it falls in the same caterogy of general misunderstanding regarding the role of RDF ←
16:55:00ivan: We have already addressed that
Ivan Herman: We have already addressed that ←
16:55:23ivan: We should say that the overall structure has not changed a bit compared to OWL 1
Ivan Herman: We should say that the overall structure has not changed a bit compared to OWL 1 ←
16:55:31ivan: I would simply say "Nothing has changed"
Ivan Herman: I would simply say "Nothing has changed" ←
16:55:55ianh: I can strengten the second sentence in my proposed response
Ian Horrocks: I can strengten the second sentence in my proposed response ←
16:56:09ivan: I see that you are referring to some other responses
Ivan Herman: I see that you are referring to some other responses ←
16:57:02ivan: Sorry, not important
Ivan Herman: Sorry, not important ←
16:57:20alanr: Why are we saying that the role of RDF is better than it was?
Alan Ruttenberg: Why are we saying that the role of RDF is better than it was? ←
16:57:33ivan: It is the same, not better, not worse
Ivan Herman: It is the same, not better, not worse ←
16:58:01Tactically, it's better not to say "better" because that gets us into a debate about whether it's *really* better
Bijan Parsia: Tactically, it's better not to say "better" because that gets us into a debate about whether it's *really* better ←
16:58:03ianh: Alan is saying that we could improve interoperability (by taking up more graphs), but we don't go there
Ian Horrocks: Alan is saying that we could improve interoperability (by taking up more graphs), but we don't go there ←
16:58:07"not changed" is less arguable
Bijan Parsia: "not changed" is less arguable ←
16:58:37ianh: Appendix and dependcies on life sciences
Ian Horrocks: Appendix and dependcies on life sciences ←
16:58:45alanr: We should response a bit more actively
Alan Ruttenberg: We should response a bit more actively ←
16:59:14alanr: We should say that we'll explore the possibilities for diversifying the examples in NF&R
Alan Ruttenberg: We should say that we'll explore the possibilities for diversifying the examples in NF&R ←
16:59:21zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
16:59:21bijan was already muted, bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was already muted, bijan ←
16:59:30alanr: We should also say that we welcome examples from his user base
Alan Ruttenberg: We should also say that we welcome examples from his user base ←
16:59:44ianh: He complained about some trivial typos
Ian Horrocks: He complained about some trivial typos ←
17:00:52ianh: Another complaint was that NF&R motivated features that are not in OWL 2
Ian Horrocks: Another complaint was that NF&R motivated features that are not in OWL 2 ←
17:01:01ianh: It is similar to OWL 1
Ian Horrocks: It is similar to OWL 1 ←
17:01:19ianh: We motivated certain features, but not included all of them
Ian Horrocks: We motivated certain features, but not included all of them ←
17:01:26alanr: Why don't we get rid of them?
Alan Ruttenberg: Why don't we get rid of them? ←
17:01:37ianh: It could be useful to document them
Ian Horrocks: It could be useful to document them ←
17:01:46ianh: I'd be OK with deleting these
Ian Horrocks: I'd be OK with deleting these ←
17:02:02pfps: We were supposed to gather use cases and requirements
Peter Patel-Schneider: We were supposed to gather use cases and requirements ←
17:02:15pfps: This is what we did and should not be throwing away our work
Peter Patel-Schneider: This is what we did and should not be throwing away our work ←
17:02:18Throw it away!
Bijan Parsia: Throw it away! ←
17:02:27alanr: The document is called "New Features and Rationale"
Alan Ruttenberg: The document is called "New Features and Rationale" ←
17:02:34The use cases right? I'm strongly against them
Bijan Parsia: The use cases right? I'm strongly against them ←
17:02:34alanr: These are not new features
Alan Ruttenberg: These are not new features ←
17:02:56pfps: Given the abstract of the current document, Alan is correct
Peter Patel-Schneider: Given the abstract of the current document, Alan is correct ←
17:03:19ianh: The document wasn't supposed to be a general "Use Cases and Requirements" document
Ian Horrocks: The document wasn't supposed to be a general "Use Cases and Requirements" document ←
17:03:49PROPOSED: Remove UC10 and UC11 from NF&R
PROPOSED: Remove UC10 and UC11 from NF&R ←
17:04:19ewallace: I was just wondering we're still controversial about the n-ary hook
Evan Wallace: I was just wondering we're still controversial about the n-ary hook ←
17:04:38ewallace: This is a motivation for n-ary
Evan Wallace: This is a motivation for n-ary ←
17:04:47ianh: This is a good point
Ian Horrocks: This is a good point ←
17:05:13ianh: Evan is saying that motivating the hook for n-ary is not bad
Ian Horrocks: Evan is saying that motivating the hook for n-ary is not bad ←
17:05:37alanr: If it speaks to what we have in the n-ary note, I'm OK with that
Alan Ruttenberg: If it speaks to what we have in the n-ary note, I'm OK with that ←
17:05:49ianh: I believe that UC10 and UC11 will be covered by the note
Ian Horrocks: I believe that UC10 and UC11 will be covered by the note ←
17:06:00alanr: Then we can say that this is the motivation for the note
Alan Ruttenberg: Then we can say that this is the motivation for the note ←
17:06:48ianh: The response to Jeremy then becomes that these use cases motivate the hooks
Ian Horrocks: The response to Jeremy then becomes that these use cases motivate the hooks ←
17:06:57alanr: I'd say that they motivate what's in the note
Alan Ruttenberg: I'd say that they motivate what's in the note ←
17:07:06ianh: Alan should craft the text for that
Ian Horrocks: Alan should craft the text for that ←
17:07:55ianh: Some references to TQ composer were fixed
Ian Horrocks: Some references to TQ composer were fixed ←
17:08:15ianh: Jeremy doesn't like Manchester syntax
Ian Horrocks: Jeremy doesn't like Manchester syntax ←
17:08:55pfps: If the WG decides that there will not be MIME type for Man syntax, it will happen anyway
Peter Patel-Schneider: If the WG decides that there will not be MIME type for Man syntax, it will happen anyway ←
17:09:08bijan: I'm not sure whether one can comment on a note
Bijan Parsia: I'm not sure whether one can comment on a note ←
17:09:57zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
17:09:57bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
17:10:08bijan: We could say "This will not be a REC document. THanks for the comment, but we won't follow it"
Bijan Parsia: We could say "This will not be a REC document. THanks for the comment, but we won't follow it" ←
17:10:19ianh: Next is GRIDDL
Ian Horrocks: Next is GRIDDL ←
17:10:36I didn't hear that
Bijan Parsia: I didn't hear that ←
17:10:57ianh: My response says that the charter does not mandate GRIDDL
Ian Horrocks: My response says that the charter does not mandate GRIDDL ←
17:11:07alanr: This is not a general reading of the charter
Alan Ruttenberg: This is not a general reading of the charter ←
17:11:12ivan: I agree
Ivan Herman: I agree ←
17:11:23I'm happy with that response
Bijan Parsia: I'm happy with that response ←
17:11:29ivan: My proposal is to say that this is still a subject of an open issue
Ivan Herman: My proposal is to say that this is still a subject of an open issue ←
17:11:29(ivan's)
Bijan Parsia: (ivan's) ←
17:11:40I'm off again
Bijan Parsia: I'm off again ←
17:11:49bijan: I agree with Ivan's rpoposal
Bijan Parsia: I agree with Ivan's rpoposal ←
17:12:20ianh: OK. THe response will be "This is a subject of an open issue, and we'll take your opinion into consideration"
Ian Horrocks: OK. THe response will be "This is a subject of an open issue, and we'll take your opinion into consideration" ←
17:13:21ianh: The next comment is again about normativeness of OWL/XML
Ian Horrocks: The next comment is again about normativeness of OWL/XML ←
17:14:02msmith: IETF has it own notions about normative and informative and these are disconnected from MIME type registration
Mike Smith: IETF has it own notions about normative and informative and these are disconnected from MIME type registration ←
17:14:21msmith: I'll look up a reference
Mike Smith: I'll look up a reference ←
17:14:34MIME type registration is normative *for that type*, not that the W3C has made it noramtive. N3 has a mime type!
Bijan Parsia: MIME type registration is normative *for that type*, not that the W3C has made it noramtive. N3 has a mime type! ←
17:14:43ianh: The response to this will be to say "The XML syntax is optional"
Ian Horrocks: The response to this will be to say "The XML syntax is optional" ←
17:15:14pfps: He also appears to be complaining that the document is REC rather than a note
Peter Patel-Schneider: He also appears to be complaining that the document is REC rather than a note ←
17:15:33sandro: In my mind it is logically nonsense to have a specification which is nonnormative
Sandro Hawke: In my mind it is logically nonsense to have a specification which is nonnormative ←
17:15:46ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
17:15:46normative is not the same as rec-track
Peter Patel-Schneider: normative is not the same as rec-track ←
17:15:55bijan: Jeremy raised several points
Bijan Parsia: Jeremy raised several points ←
17:16:09bijan: I have plenty of motivation for XML syntax
Bijan Parsia: I have plenty of motivation for XML syntax ←
17:16:33bijan: We have also done our best not to be divisive
Bijan Parsia: We have also done our best not to be divisive ←
17:16:47bijan: We are reaching to the rest of the world (such as XML)
Bijan Parsia: We are reaching to the rest of the world (such as XML) ←
17:17:30bijan: We'd registed a MIME type even if XML syntax were a note
Bijan Parsia: We'd registed a MIME type even if XML syntax were a note ←
17:18:05bijan: We should say that we want to have a single XML-friendly exchange format
Bijan Parsia: We should say that we want to have a single XML-friendly exchange format ←
17:18:39ianh: Could you type into IRC some text about these points?
Ian Horrocks: Could you type into IRC some text about these points? ←
17:18:43bijan: I'll do it
Bijan Parsia: I'll do it ←
17:18:49I think this should be the response to JJC
Bijan Parsia: I think this should be the response to JJC ←
17:19:03ivan: There is already an entry on OWL/XML and we are repeating here a part of our reponse
Ivan Herman: There is already an entry on OWL/XML and we are repeating here a part of our reponse ←
17:19:101) Motivation: XML toolchain friendly owl foramt (e.g., SOAP, etc.)
Bijan Parsia: 1) Motivation: XML toolchain friendly owl foramt (e.g., SOAP, etc.) ←
17:19:16ivan: I don't see a need for repetition
Ivan Herman: I don't see a need for repetition ←
17:19:292) Divisive, it helps bridge the gap between the XML world and semantic web world
Bijan Parsia: 2) Divisive, it helps bridge the gap between the XML world and semantic web world ←
17:19:51ivan: I think we can simply refer to the Document Overview that will describe the place of OWL/XML in the grand scheme of things
Ivan Herman: I think we can simply refer to the Document Overview that will describe the place of OWL/XML in the grand scheme of things ←
17:19:513) Why recommendation? Because we want to standardize the XML toolchain friendly owl format
Bijan Parsia: 3) Why recommendation? Because we want to standardize the XML toolchain friendly owl format ←
17:20:02Fine
Bijan Parsia: Fine ←
17:20:28alanr: Less is more, Bijan. I don't agree with your particular arguments, but we don't need to include them
Alan Ruttenberg: Less is more, Bijan. I don't agree with your particular arguments, but we don't need to include them ←
17:21:14ianh: We'll have one oint response about XML. We've already decided on what that is.
Ian Horrocks: We'll have one oint response about XML. We've already decided on what that is. ←
17:21:25ivan: We can only refer to the Document Overview.
Ivan Herman: We can only refer to the Document Overview. ←
17:21:27baojie has joined #OWL
Jie Bao: baojie has joined #OWL ←
17:21:34ianh: Moving on to owl:real
Ian Horrocks: Moving on to owl:real ←
17:21:52the relevant reference to media type registration and the relationship to normativity from IETF's perspective is http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4288.txt section 4.10
Mike Smith: the relevant reference to media type registration and the relationship to normativity from IETF's perspective is http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4288.txt section 4.10 ←
17:21:56ivan: We can't do anything here because it is pending resolution of issues from yesterday
Ivan Herman: We can't do anything here because it is pending resolution of issues from yesterday ←
17:22:16ianh: We go back to the cases where Alan was asked to craft some text
Ian Horrocks: We go back to the cases where Alan was asked to craft some text ←
17:22:30UC#10 and UC#11 motivate a feature which the working group was not able to fully develop, but for which we have published a note [cite note].
Alan Ruttenberg: UC#10 and UC#11 motivate a feature which the working group was not able to fully develop, but for which we have published a note [cite note]. ←
17:22:36N-ary datatype: This specification currently does not define data ranges of arity more than one; however by allowing, syntactically, for n-ary data ranges, the syntax of OWL 2 provides a "hook" allowing the working group to introduce experimental extensions as will be published as in [cite note].
Alan Ruttenberg: N-ary datatype: This specification currently does not define data ranges of arity more than one; however by allowing, syntactically, for n-ary data ranges, the syntax of OWL 2 provides a "hook" allowing the working group to introduce experimental extensions as will be published as in [cite note]. ←
17:24:09ianh: Good, we're done with that
Ian Horrocks: Good, we're done with that ←
17:24:50ianh: There were a couple of comments that were between technical and motivational. I'd like to ask for some advice on that
Ian Horrocks: There were a couple of comments that were between technical and motivational. I'd like to ask for some advice on that ←
17:25:00ianh: One comment is regarding effactiveness
Ian Horrocks: One comment is regarding effactiveness ←
17:25:14Isn't the abstract going to change?
Bijan Parsia: Isn't the abstract going to change? ←
17:26:48ianh: Jeremy doesn't like the abstract of the document mentioning effective reasoning algorithms
Ian Horrocks: Jeremy doesn't like the abstract of the document mentioning effective reasoning algorithms ←
17:26:58ianh: The response is "We'll rewrite the abstract"
Ian Horrocks: The response is "We'll rewrite the abstract" ←
17:27:20I don't think we should get into a debate with him about the word "effective"
Bijan Parsia: I don't think we should get into a debate with him about the word "effective" ←
17:27:39pfps: We'll remove the offending word from all documents apart from the Profiles (where it has a particular meaning)
Peter Patel-Schneider: We'll remove the offending word from all documents apart from the Profiles (where it has a particular meaning) ←
17:27:41He supports OWL Full! :)
Bijan Parsia: He supports OWL Full! :) ←
17:27:48ivan: It is ducking his comments.
Ivan Herman: It is ducking his comments. ←
17:28:01ivan: I don't know what to asnwer regarding his non-belief
Ivan Herman: I don't know what to asnwer regarding his non-belief ←
17:28:39Isn't less still more?
Evan Wallace: Isn't less still more? ←
17:28:50Even less is way more
Bijan Parsia: Even less is way more ←
17:29:23alanr: The charter doesn't talk about "effective", but "reasonable" and "feasible"
Alan Ruttenberg: The charter doesn't talk about "effective", but "reasonable" and "feasible" ←
17:30:03+1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
17:30:11ianh: Our response is "The abstract has changed, and we no longer talk about 'effective'"
Ian Horrocks: Our response is "The abstract has changed, and we no longer talk about 'effective'" ←
17:30:15+1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
17:30:19ianh: His next comment is more philosophical
Ian Horrocks: His next comment is more philosophical ←
17:30:42ianh: We made a lot of mention of the OWL-ED workshop and that this didn't represent a broad spectrum of the OWL community
Ian Horrocks: We made a lot of mention of the OWL-ED workshop and that this didn't represent a broad spectrum of the OWL community ←
17:31:04It was in NF&R
Evan Wallace: It was in NF&R ←
17:31:05ivan: We should not mentioned OWL-ED anywhere, and I don't think we have any mention of it in our documents
Ivan Herman: We should not mentioned OWL-ED anywhere, and I don't think we have any mention of it in our documents ←
17:31:19alanr: I thinnk it is appropriate to mention OWL-ED in references, but nowhere else
Alan Ruttenberg: I thinnk it is appropriate to mention OWL-ED in references, but nowhere else ←
17:31:53(everyone looking at NF&R)
(everyone looking at NF&R) ←
17:31:58It is still there.
Evan Wallace: It is still there. ←
17:32:14pfps: It is in the overview but in a completely unobjetionalbe spot
Peter Patel-Schneider: It is in the overview but in a completely unobjetionalbe spot ←
17:32:21pfps: We could change "much" to "some"
Peter Patel-Schneider: We could change "much" to "some" ←
17:32:41alanr: In the intreset of less-is-more, I don't see a problem with removing it
Alan Ruttenberg: In the intreset of less-is-more, I don't see a problem with removing it ←
17:32:47pfps: I think it belongs in that paragraph
Peter Patel-Schneider: I think it belongs in that paragraph ←
17:32:52sandro: I agree
Sandro Hawke: I agree ←
17:33:06bijan: It is a comment about a non-LC document and it is a non-technical comment
Bijan Parsia: It is a comment about a non-LC document and it is a non-technical comment ←
17:33:25This one will go to Last Call.
Evan Wallace: This one will go to Last Call. ←
17:33:32+1 to bijan (in general for non-lc docs)
Michael Schneider: +1 to bijan (in general for non-lc docs) ←
17:33:41bijan: We could say "Thanks for the comment, but this is a manner of editorial discression; you can comment at LC"
Bijan Parsia: We could say "Thanks for the comment, but this is a manner of editorial discression; you can comment at LC" ←
17:33:52ivan: We are just postponing this issue. This doens't make much sense
Ivan Herman: We are just postponing this issue. This doens't make much sense ←
17:34:10ivan: Instead of "much" we say "some" and this seems quite good
Ivan Herman: Instead of "much" we say "some" and this seems quite good ←
17:34:26bijan: I'd be perfectly happy for them to raise a new LC comment and to give the same response
Bijan Parsia: I'd be perfectly happy for them to raise a new LC comment and to give the same response ←
17:35:13ianh: I think everything feels that changing "much" to "some" would be sufficient
Ian Horrocks: I think everything feels that changing "much" to "some" would be sufficient ←
17:35:26alanr: But what do we lose if we remove it?
Alan Ruttenberg: But what do we lose if we remove it? ←
17:35:26I think it's fair and helpful
Bijan Parsia: I think it's fair and helpful ←
17:35:44pfps: We remove the connection to our history! TQ wants to revision history!
Peter Patel-Schneider: We remove the connection to our history! TQ wants to revision history! ←
17:36:21I think it's a denial of service attack. I vote with the majoirty
Bijan Parsia: I think it's a denial of service attack. I vote with the majoirty ←
17:36:22alanr: I love OWL-ED. I just believe that the connections to the OWL-ED are reflected with references
Alan Ruttenberg: I love OWL-ED. I just believe that the connections to the OWL-ED are reflected with references ←
17:36:37PROPOSED: The reference to OWL-ED stays in the document but with a change of "much" to "some"
PROPOSED: The reference to OWL-ED stays in the document but with a change of "much" to "some" ←
17:36:39bmotik: +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
17:36:39+1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU ←
17:36:40+1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
17:36:43-1
Evan Wallace: -1 ←
17:36:45+1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
17:36:45+1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
17:36:47+1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
17:36:47-1 (but won't block)
Alan Ruttenberg: -1 (but won't block) ←
17:36:470
17:36:47+1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
17:36:500
17:36:58+1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
17:36:590
Bijan Parsia: 0 ←
17:37:100
Achille Fokoue: 0 ←
17:37:15q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:37:27ewallace: I would go with Bijan and Peter
Evan Wallace: I would go with Bijan and Peter ←
17:37:40ewallace: I voted against changing "much" to "some"
Evan Wallace: I voted against changing "much" to "some" ←
17:37:47ianh: Will you lie in the road?
Ian Horrocks: Will you lie in the road? ←
17:37:50ewallace: No
Evan Wallace: No ←
17:38:03RESOLVED: The reference to OWL-ED stays in the document but with a change of "much" to "some"
RESOLVED: The reference to OWL-ED stays in the document but with a change of "much" to "some" ←
17:38:17ewallace: Ask Christine to make the change
Evan Wallace: Ask Christine to make the change ←
17:39:34Who's changing it?
Bijan Parsia: Who's changing it? ←
17:40:17bmotik: I've changed "much" to "some"
Boris Motik: I've changed "much" to "some" ←
17:41:20Earlier for Bijan-issues would be appreciated
Bijan Parsia: Earlier for Bijan-issues would be appreciated ←
17:41:25+1 on replanning now
Evan Wallace: +1 on replanning now ←
17:47:01Don't worry about me, time wise.
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Evan Wallace: Don't worry about me, time wise. ←
17:47:47What time are we planning for the NF&R discussion?
Evan Wallace: What time are we planning for the NF&R discussion? ←
17:48:12Just want to know when to encourage Christine to join.
Evan Wallace: Just want to know when to encourage Christine to join. ←
17:53:40Ian just said "Other Documents" will be discussed
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Jie Bao: Ian just said "Other Documents" will be discussed ←
18:30:35christine, my (jokey) comment was directed at the use cases, not NF&R or n-ary
(No events recorded for 36 minutes)
Bijan Parsia: christine, my (jokey) comment was directed at the use cases, not NF&R or n-ary ←
18:30:37Sorry for the confusion
Bijan Parsia: Sorry for the confusion ←
18:34:21scribenick: Zhe
18:34:22zakim, who is here?
Ivan Herman: zakim, who is here? ←
18:34:22On the phone I see MIT346
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MIT346 ←
18:34:23On IRC I see schneid, alanr, msmith, pfps, christine, sandro, baojie, zwu21, RRSAgent, Achille, ivan, jar, MarkusK_, Zakim, bmotik, IanH, bijan, ewallace, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see schneid, alanr, msmith, pfps, christine, sandro, baojie, zwu21, RRSAgent, Achille, ivan, jar, MarkusK_, Zakim, bmotik, IanH, bijan, ewallace, trackbot ←
18:34:26scribenick zwu21
Peter Patel-Schneider: scribenick zwu21 ←
18:34:45scribe: Zhe
(Scribe set to Zhe Wu)
18:35:12...
... ←
18:35:13http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/TC1
Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/TC1 ←
18:35:23scribenick: Zhe
18:35:47Topic: philosophical
18:36:11alanr: goal is to look at responses that have been drafted
Alan Ruttenberg: goal is to look at responses that have been drafted ←
18:36:12+??P5
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P5 ←
18:36:17zakim, ??p5
Bijan Parsia: zakim, ??p5 ←
18:36:17I don't understand '??p5', bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand '??p5', bijan ←
18:36:22zakim, ??p5 is me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, ??p5 is me ←
18:36:24+bijan; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bijan; got it ←
18:36:26zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:36:26bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
18:36:30... looking at TC1
... looking at TC1 ←
18:36:42ivan: only one change made.
Ivan Herman: only one change made. ←
18:36:58... last sentence before the refences
... last sentence before the refences ←
18:37:08q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:37:18+Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: +Evan_Wallace ←
18:37:33we don't hear any noise
Ian Horrocks: we don't hear any noise ←
18:38:23Hearing nothing.
Evan Wallace: Hearing nothing. ←
18:38:45structural specification and functional-style syntax document
Alan Ruttenberg: structural specification and functional-style syntax document ←
18:38:57alanr: make a normal reference
Alan Ruttenberg: make a normal reference ←
18:39:14abstract structure changes to generic syntax
Peter Patel-Schneider: abstract structure changes to generic syntax ←
18:39:14drop
Alan Ruttenberg: drop ←
18:39:19drop "This was only a matter of timing; the plan is to have both semantics (and all other documents) published as Recommendations together."
Alan Ruttenberg: drop "This was only a matter of timing; the plan is to have both semantics (and all other documents) published as Recommendations together." ←
18:39:34was not _yet_ published changes to has not yet been published
Alan Ruttenberg: was not _yet_ published changes to has not yet been published ←
18:40:02OK by me
Peter Patel-Schneider: OK by me ←
18:40:12q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
18:41:16ivan: will send it out tommrrow
Ivan Herman: will send it out tommrrow ←
18:41:41http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/FH3
Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/FH3 ←
18:41:48ivan: regarding LC 29,
Ivan Herman: regarding LC 29, ←
18:42:23pfps: there are two responses. we are both stuck
Peter Patel-Schneider: there are two responses. we are both stuck ←
18:42:30... with Bijan's
... with Bijan's ←
18:42:48I give up mine without hesitation
Bijan Parsia: I give up mine without hesitation ←
18:43:03I didn't put it in there but sent it to the list
Bijan Parsia: I didn't put it in there but sent it to the list ←
18:43:27Mine is more on justifying xml syntax
Bijan Parsia: Mine is more on justifying xml syntax ←
18:43:36Peter's is more about the harmlessness of owl/xml
Bijan Parsia: Peter's is more about the harmlessness of owl/xml ←
18:44:17if still plan to discuss Documents, at what time please ?
Christine Golbreich: if still plan to discuss Documents, at what time please ? ←
18:44:18IanH: we agreed on a bare minimal response to TopQuadrant's comments
Ian Horrocks: we agreed on a bare minimal response to TopQuadrant's comments ←
18:44:35+1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
18:45:04OWL/XML: XML syntax is not a new feature -- see [8]. It should also be noted that RDF/XML is the only syntax that MUST be supported by implementations; support for the XML syntax is not required (see also FH3).
Peter Patel-Schneider: OWL/XML: XML syntax is not a new feature -- see [8]. It should also be noted that RDF/XML is the only syntax that MUST be supported by implementations; support for the XML syntax is not required (see also FH3). ←
18:45:10pfps: ... jc1b
Peter Patel-Schneider: ... jc1b ←
18:45:34alanr: add a note that we will add something in NF&R
Alan Ruttenberg: add a note that we will add something in NF&R ←
18:45:49amended to (1) remove the XML syntax is not a new feature, and (2) link to NF&R
Sandro Hawke: amended to (1) remove the XML syntax is not a new feature, and (2) link to NF&R ←
18:46:16ivan: the reason I think short resposne is ok
Ivan Herman: the reason I think short resposne is ok ←
18:46:58Cool!
Bijan Parsia: Cool! ←
18:47:06Then I'm all for microshort
Bijan Parsia: Then I'm all for microshort ←
18:47:09PROPOSED: Respond to FH3 as in JC1b
PROPOSED: Respond to FH3 as in JC1b ←
18:47:29I'mhappy to be out of the loop here
Bijan Parsia: I'mhappy to be out of the loop here ←
18:47:39+1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
18:47:43+[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
18:47:45pfps: delegate to IanH for response
Peter Patel-Schneider: delegate to IanH for response ←
18:47:46+1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
18:47:47+1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
18:47:48+1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
18:47:49+1
+1 ←
18:47:56zakim, ibm is me
Achille Fokoue: zakim, ibm is me ←
18:47:56+Achille; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Achille; got it ←
18:47:59+1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
18:48:13RESOLVED: Respond to FH3 as in JC1b
RESOLVED: Respond to FH3 as in JC1b ←
18:48:26+1
18:48:28subtopic: LC 34A
18:48:37http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JC1a
Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JC1a ←
18:48:38+1
18:48:54alanr: I hope we can have something shorter
Alan Ruttenberg: I hope we can have something shorter ←
18:49:01http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/att-0051/index.html
Alan Ruttenberg: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/att-0051/index.html ←
18:49:05pfps: fine by me
Peter Patel-Schneider: fine by me ←
18:49:06Second paragraph only?
Bijan Parsia: Second paragraph only? ←
18:49:12First and second paragraph only?
Bijan Parsia: First and second paragraph only? ←
18:49:32Me
Bijan Parsia: Me ←
18:49:51IanH: bijan wrote the initial version.
Ian Horrocks: bijan wrote the initial version. ←
18:49:58... some of it is used here
... some of it is used here ←
18:51:01ivan: this is the answer to his comment to stop the work?
Ivan Herman: this is the answer to his comment to stop the work? ←
18:51:16q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
18:51:25... can we add something more formal?
... can we add something more formal? ←
18:51:33q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:51:49... for example, a few WG members want to move forward
... for example, a few WG members want to move forward ←
18:51:52zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
18:51:52bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
18:51:54ack Bijan
Alan Ruttenberg: ack Bijan ←
18:52:02ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
18:52:12q+ sandro
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ sandro ←
18:52:36bijan: I don't see that TopQuardrant wants us to stop work
Bijan Parsia: I don't see that TopQuardrant wants us to stop work ←
18:52:41q+ ianh
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ianh ←
18:52:48... he asked that we redo all the work we have done
... he asked that we redo all the work we have done ←
18:53:00... according to the process he think is more appropriate
... according to the process he think is more appropriate ←
18:53:16q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
18:53:19... We can safely ignore it
... We can safely ignore it ←
18:54:09... given the strong support from lots of WG members, we can just let it go
... given the strong support from lots of WG members, we can just let it go ←
18:54:09ack sandro
Alan Ruttenberg: ack sandro ←
18:54:14zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:54:14bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
18:54:27sandro: I am for short responses
Sandro Hawke: I am for short responses ←
18:54:40... not sure what we can do differently here
... not sure what we can do differently here ←
18:54:45ack ian
Alan Ruttenberg: ack ian ←
18:54:46pfps: you can just point to NF&R
Peter Patel-Schneider: you can just point to NF&R ←
18:54:50q+ ivan
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ivan ←
18:54:54q+ alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ alanr ←
18:55:06ianH: a) one of the option is to stop working on OWL and start working on something else
Ian Horrocks: a) one of the option is to stop working on OWL and start working on something else ←
18:55:10Oh, WebSHROIQ
Bijan Parsia: Oh, WebSHROIQ ←
18:55:11I see
Bijan Parsia: I see ←
18:55:14... and don't call it OWL
... and don't call it OWL ←
18:55:37zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
18:55:37bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
18:55:40q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
18:56:08ack ivan
Alan Ruttenberg: ack ivan ←
18:56:13zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:56:13bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
18:56:20bijan: Put third paragraph of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JC1a into Positive Last Call Responses web page
Bijan Parsia: Put third paragraph of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JC1a into Positive Last Call Responses web page [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:56:23I like that -- put positive responses on a wiki page
Ian Horrocks: I like that -- put positive responses on a wiki page ←
18:56:41ivan: what I would do to the last paragraph is to list the references (positive comments about the features)
Ivan Herman: what I would do to the last paragraph is to list the references (positive comments about the features) ←
18:56:45That way we could even be more expansive
Ian Horrocks: That way we could even be more expansive ←
18:56:51... and they can read/check it
... and they can read/check it ←
18:56:55"blurbs"
Sandro Hawke: "blurbs" ←
18:56:56I'd like the testimonal page anyway
Bijan Parsia: I'd like the testimonal page anyway ←
18:56:59+1 to putting positive comments on a page and including a pointer to that
Evan Wallace: +1 to putting positive comments on a page and including a pointer to that ←
18:57:11+1 to a testimonial/blurbs page
Sandro Hawke: +1 to a testimonial/blurbs page ←
18:57:18q+
Ian Horrocks: q+ ←
18:57:22... I still believe that some kind of statement says that based on these positive comments, WG should move forward
... I still believe that some kind of statement says that based on these positive comments, WG should move forward ←
18:57:24(W3C usually does it during PR, but we can start now.)
Sandro Hawke: (W3C usually does it during PR, but we can start now.) ←
18:57:33... according to the charter
... according to the charter ←
18:57:36ack alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: ack alanr ←
18:58:37ack ianh
Alan Ruttenberg: ack ianh ←
18:58:38alanr: suggest 1) chaning course is not an option; 2) point out positive comments
Alan Ruttenberg: suggest 1) chaning course is not an option; 2) point out positive comments ←
18:58:46s/chaning/changing/
s/chaning/changing/ ←
18:58:52q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:59:26q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
18:59:42q-
Bijan Parsia: q- ←
18:59:51q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
18:59:52IanH: first thing is to align with JC1B response, we would improve the motivation. make it more constructive
Ian Horrocks: first thing is to align with JC1B response, we would improve the motivation. make it more constructive ←
19:00:05... for the rest, point to a web page
... for the rest, point to a web page ←
19:00:10q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:02:05pfps crafted FH1 response
pfps crafted FH1 response ←
19:02:31Topic: document schedule
19:02:34q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
19:02:47zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
19:02:47bijan was already muted, bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was already muted, bijan ←
19:02:52ivan: what I believe is in the next roudn of publications, we
Ivan Herman: what I believe is in the next roudn of publications, we ←
19:03:01... do a complete publication of all our documents,
... do a complete publication of all our documents, ←
19:03:25... the current LC documents to be re-issued as LC
... the current LC documents to be re-issued as LC ←
19:03:25q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
19:03:50... for the current working drafts, we should republish them as working drafts
... for the current working drafts, we should republish them as working drafts ←
19:04:04... hope that RDF semantics could be LC, quick reference be LC
... hope that RDF semantics could be LC, quick reference be LC ←
19:04:25... ok with re-issue another draft of Primer
... ok with re-issue another draft of Primer ←
19:04:35... not sure about NF&R,
... not sure about NF&R, ←
19:04:45q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
19:05:09... politically, re-issue everything as a package, without implying a priority, is the right thing to do
... politically, re-issue everything as a package, without implying a priority, is the right thing to do ←
19:05:18q+ ianh
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ianh ←
19:05:30... regarding timing, RDf semantics is not clear to me
... regarding timing, RDf semantics is not clear to me ←
19:05:50+??P8
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P8 ←
19:05:51Michael: when do you think is the earliest date for publishing?
Michael Schneider: when do you think is the earliest date for publishing? ←
19:05:57q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:06:06zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
19:06:06On the phone I see MIT346, bijan (muted), Evan_Wallace, Achille, ??P8
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MIT346, bijan (muted), Evan_Wallace, Achille, ??P8 ←
19:06:07On IRC I see schneid, alanr, msmith, christine, sandro, baojie, zwu21, RRSAgent, Achille, ivan, MarkusK_, Zakim, bmotik, IanH, bijan, ewallace, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see schneid, alanr, msmith, christine, sandro, baojie, zwu21, RRSAgent, Achille, ivan, MarkusK_, Zakim, bmotik, IanH, bijan, ewallace, trackbot ←
19:06:15zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
19:06:15bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
19:06:16alanr: do we agree to a simultaneous publication of all docs?
Alan Ruttenberg: do we agree to a simultaneous publication of all docs? ←
19:06:20ack bijan
Alan Ruttenberg: ack bijan ←
19:06:21zakim, ??P8 is christine
Christine Golbreich: zakim, ??P8 is christine ←
19:06:22+christine; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +christine; got it ←
19:06:23q+ mike
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ mike ←
19:06:50q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
19:07:02Bijan: In a Second-Last-Call, you ask for comments on specifically what has changed.
Bijan Parsia: In a Second-Last-Call, you ask for comments on specifically what has changed. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:07:08bijan: my only concern is we need to be careful about second LC is a new round of major comments...
Bijan Parsia: my only concern is we need to be careful about second LC is a new round of major comments... ←
19:07:31... otherwise, I am ok with it
... otherwise, I am ok with it ←
19:07:37zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
19:07:37bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
19:08:03q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
19:08:06ack ianh
Alan Ruttenberg: ack ianh ←
19:08:15Er...I won't agree to simultaneous unless this is resolved...so I don't see how we can get agreement of simultaneous without the resolution
Bijan Parsia: Er...I won't agree to simultaneous unless this is resolved...so I don't see how we can get agreement of simultaneous without the resolution ←
19:08:16IanH: I have the same worry as bijan, a second LC gives people chance more comments that may slow down WG progress
Ian Horrocks: I have the same worry as bijan, a second LC gives people chance more comments that may slow down WG progress ←
19:08:18q+ alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ alanr ←
19:09:11ack mike
Alan Ruttenberg: ack mike ←
19:09:46Ivan: by CR, all should be in sync
Ivan Herman: by CR, all should be in sync ←
19:10:01Mike: want to clarify the consequences
Mike Smith: want to clarify the consequences ←
19:10:02q+ sandro
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ sandro ←
19:10:05ack alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: ack alanr ←
19:10:31alanr: not so worried by TopQuadrant, don't think WG has spent too much time on reponses
Alan Ruttenberg: not so worried by TopQuadrant, don't think WG has spent too much time on reponses ←
19:10:50... we can do the same thing if they come back
... we can do the same thing if they come back ←
19:11:01q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
19:12:10sandro: your concern about Profiles is editorial, so it can be post LC
Sandro Hawke: your concern about Profiles is editorial, so it can be post LC ←
19:12:15q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
19:12:18ack sandro
Alan Ruttenberg: ack sandro ←
19:12:22ack sandro
Ivan Herman: ack sandro ←
19:12:45... main point of second LC is the whole package
... main point of second LC is the whole package ←
19:13:05... all the rec track spec will be LC,
... all the rec track spec will be LC, ←
19:13:25zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
19:13:25bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
19:13:26ack bijan
Alan Ruttenberg: ack bijan ←
19:13:26... ok with this strategy
... ok with this strategy ←
19:13:43bijan: I did not understand Sandro's story
Bijan Parsia: I did not understand Sandro's story ←
19:13:48sandro: story of LC2 would be "now you get to see the whole package together"
Sandro Hawke: story of LC2 would be "now you get to see the whole package together" [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:14:18q+ sandro
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ sandro ←
19:14:50zakim, who is here?
Ivan Herman: zakim, who is here? ←
19:14:50On the phone I see MIT346, bijan, Evan_Wallace, Achille, christine
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MIT346, bijan, Evan_Wallace, Achille, christine ←
19:14:51On IRC I see schneid, alanr, msmith, christine, sandro, baojie, zwu21, RRSAgent, Achille, ivan, MarkusK_, Zakim, bmotik, IanH, bijan, ewallace, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see schneid, alanr, msmith, christine, sandro, baojie, zwu21, RRSAgent, Achille, ivan, MarkusK_, Zakim, bmotik, IanH, bijan, ewallace, trackbot ←
19:14:54q+ schneid
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ schneid ←
19:14:57ack sandro
Alan Ruttenberg: ack sandro ←
19:15:17sandro: one of the reason is publilsing document review without other documents is strange
Sandro Hawke: one of the reason is publilsing document review without other documents is strange ←
19:15:37... the story is not perfect, but good enough
... the story is not perfect, but good enough ←
19:15:37q+ alanr to ask if there are editor drafts between lc and cr
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ alanr to ask if there are editor drafts between lc and cr ←
19:15:37no
Bijan Parsia: no ←
19:15:46q+ boris
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ boris ←
19:15:53... the roadmap will look really odd without other documents
... the roadmap will look really odd without other documents ←
19:15:54ack schneid
Ivan Herman: ack schneid ←
19:16:02sandro: the roadmap is screwey if it's linking to 4-months old documents.
Sandro Hawke: the roadmap is screwey if it's linking to 4-months old documents. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:16:12q+ sandro
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ sandro ←
19:16:21q+ mike
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ mike ←
19:16:22schneid: we make editorial, we also make design changes.
Michael Schneider: we make editorial, we also make design changes. ←
19:16:55If there's no change to the design?
Bijan Parsia: If there's no change to the design? ←
19:17:09schneid: I don't know whether, e.g., the changes to to the functional syntax and the effects on other documents will /necessarily/ demand a new LC
Michael Schneider: I don't know whether, e.g., the changes to to the functional syntax and the effects on other documents will /necessarily/ demand a new LC [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
19:17:12ack alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: ack alanr ←
19:17:12alanr, you wanted to ask if there are editor drafts between lc and cr
Zakim IRC Bot: alanr, you wanted to ask if there are editor drafts between lc and cr ←
19:17:24ack boris
Alan Ruttenberg: ack boris ←
19:17:31bmotik: I think changes are significant
Boris Motik: I think changes are significant ←
19:17:34They change implementations :(
Bijan Parsia: They change implementations :( ←
19:17:39q+ ianh
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ianh ←
19:18:00q+ schneid
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ schneid ←
19:18:08ack sandro
Alan Ruttenberg: ack sandro ←
19:18:55ack mike
Alan Ruttenberg: ack mike ←
19:18:58sandro: second-last-call is required if the positive-reviews would be invalidated
Sandro Hawke: second-last-call is required if the positive-reviews would be invalidated [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:18:59ack mike
Ivan Herman: ack mike ←
19:19:08zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
19:19:08bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
19:19:14q+ alanr to mention some substantive changes, e.g. to property chains
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ alanr to mention some substantive changes, e.g. to property chains ←
19:19:17q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
19:19:24ack ianh
Alan Ruttenberg: ack ianh ←
19:19:24ack ianh
Ivan Herman: ack ianh ←
19:19:31Mike: if we think we need comments on the changes we make, 2nd LC is in order
Mike Smith: if we think we need comments on the changes we make, 2nd LC is in order ←
19:19:47ack schneid
Ivan Herman: ack schneid ←
19:19:47ack schneid
Alan Ruttenberg: ack schneid ←
19:20:36ack alanr
Ivan Herman: ack alanr ←
19:20:36alanr, you wanted to mention some substantive changes, e.g. to property chains
Zakim IRC Bot: alanr, you wanted to mention some substantive changes, e.g. to property chains ←
19:20:36schneid: to Boris, for 2nd LC, if there is a comment already made,
Michael Schneider: to Boris, for 2nd LC, if there is a comment already made, ←
19:20:52... in 1st LC, then we can do minimal
... in 1st LC, then we can do minimal ←
19:21:03ack ivan
Alan Ruttenberg: ack ivan ←
19:21:32ivan: getting beyond LC does not mean it is over
Ivan Herman: getting beyond LC does not mean it is over ←
19:21:54... in some way, I prefer to have comments now instead of at PR phase
... in some way, I prefer to have comments now instead of at PR phase ←
19:22:11There's some advantage to having comments after CR, since we have implementation valdiation
Bijan Parsia: There's some advantage to having comments after CR, since we have implementation valdiation ←
19:22:18alanr: publish date 3/31/09...
Alan Ruttenberg: publish date 3/31/09... ←
19:23:09q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
19:23:13q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:23:14schneid: end of march should be enough for RDF semantics
Michael Schneider: end of march should be enough for RDF semantics ←
19:23:193/31/09 for UF docs as well ?
Christine Golbreich: 3/31/09 for UF docs as well ? ←
19:23:24ivan: what about Primer, NF&R
Ivan Herman: what about Primer, NF&R ←
19:23:33Primer is fine for another draft by then
Bijan Parsia: Primer is fine for another draft by then ←
19:23:46schneid: end of march will be clearly enough for RDF-Based Semantics
Michael Schneider: end of march will be clearly enough for RDF-Based Semantics [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
19:23:59jar has joined #owl
Jonathan Rees: jar has joined #owl ←
19:24:14ack ianh
Alan Ruttenberg: ack ianh ←
19:24:21q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:24:24q+
Ian Horrocks: q+ ←
19:24:31can you write what said about NF&R
Christine Golbreich: can you write what said about NF&R ←
19:24:51jie: 1 month is enough for quick reference
Jie Bao: 1 month is enough for quick reference ←
19:25:14... the missing links are primer and syntax,
... the missing links are primer and syntax, ←
19:25:53Who will be working on the Primer?
Evan Wallace: Who will be working on the Primer? ←
19:26:00+q
Christine Golbreich: +q ←
19:26:01Markus: end of March is too tight
Markus Krötzsch: end of March is too tight ←
19:26:03-bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: -bijan ←
19:26:09q+ pfps
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ pfps ←
19:26:13q+ ivan
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ivan ←
19:26:22q-
Ivan Herman: q- ←
19:26:32ack IanH
Alan Ruttenberg: ack IanH ←
19:26:58q+ sandro
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ sandro ←
19:26:58IanH: if LC is April, Aug will be CR, Oct will be PR, Nov/Dec will be rec
Ian Horrocks: if LC is April, Aug will be CR, Oct will be PR, Nov/Dec will be rec ←
19:27:24... and we already said that we want to finish by Dec
... and we already said that we want to finish by Dec ←
19:27:36... I want to whole timeline be examined
... I want to whole timeline be examined ←
19:27:39q+ schneid
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ schneid ←
19:27:42... for feasibility
... for feasibility ←
19:27:43q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
19:27:51ack christine
Alan Ruttenberg: ack christine ←
19:28:01pfps has joined #owl
Peter Patel-Schneider: pfps has joined #owl ←
19:29:35Ah, now it is clear.
Evan Wallace: Ah, now it is clear. ←
19:29:37ivan: the NF&R can move directly from LC to PR
Ivan Herman: the NF&R can move directly from LC to PR ←
19:29:53christine: is there lots of work to do?
Christine Golbreich: is there lots of work to do? ←
19:30:20... maybe NF&R can finish in 1 month as well?
... maybe NF&R can finish in 1 month as well? ←
19:30:23ack pfps
Alan Ruttenberg: ack pfps ←
19:30:31q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:30:33alanr: we will review it and see what needs to be done
Alan Ruttenberg: we will review it and see what needs to be done ←
19:30:35ack sandro
Alan Ruttenberg: ack sandro ←
19:30:43Editors Done - March 17; begin WG review
Sandro Hawke: Editors Done - March 17; begin WG review ←
19:30:43LC2 published March 1, comment deadline march 29
Sandro Hawke: LC2 published March 1, comment deadline march 29 ←
19:30:434-8 weeks handling LC2 comments
Sandro Hawke: 4-8 weeks handling LC2 comments ←
19:30:43CR (LC for User Docs), in May
Sandro Hawke: CR (LC for User Docs), in May ←
19:30:43PR for everything (but Notes) in July
Sandro Hawke: PR for everything (but Notes) in July ←
19:30:44Rec in September
Sandro Hawke: Rec in September ←
19:31:04+q
Christine Golbreich: +q ←
19:31:29s/March 1/April 1/g
s/March 1/April 1/g ←
19:31:36q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:31:42ack schneid
Ivan Herman: ack schneid ←
19:31:50dlm has joined #owl
Deborah McGuinness: dlm has joined #owl ←
19:31:55schneid: I can finish in the first half of march
Michael Schneider: I can finish in the first half of march ←
19:32:04ack schneid
Alan Ruttenberg: ack schneid ←
19:32:15... however, what does 2 weeks buy us?
... however, what does 2 weeks buy us? ←
19:32:43ack ivan
Alan Ruttenberg: ack ivan ←
19:33:07+ +1.518.276.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.518.276.aaaa ←
19:33:25q+ ianh
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ianh ←
19:33:26q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
19:33:35ack christine
Alan Ruttenberg: ack christine ←
19:34:25ack ianh
Alan Ruttenberg: ack ianh ←
19:34:33ack IanH
Ivan Herman: ack IanH ←
19:34:54q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
19:35:05IanH: I appreciate that RDF semantics has to go through LC,
Ian Horrocks: I appreciate that RDF semantics has to go through LC, ←
19:35:13ivan: to the question of Christine, the plan is to publish _all_ documents (ie, including quick ref and features) on the same day
Ivan Herman: to the question of Christine, the plan is to publish _all_ documents (ie, including quick ref and features) on the same day [ Scribe Assist by Ivan Herman ] ←
19:35:15+??P14
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14 ←
19:35:24... it seems to me that because schedule is tight,
... it seems to me that because schedule is tight, ←
19:35:26zakim, ??p14 is me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, ??p14 is me ←
19:35:26+bijan; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bijan; got it ←
19:35:34... we may want to avoid 2nd LC
... we may want to avoid 2nd LC ←
19:35:4809 March - FPWD Document Overview
Sandro Hawke: 09 March - FPWD Document Overview ←
19:35:4830 March - Editors Done, begin WG review
Sandro Hawke: 30 March - Editors Done, begin WG review ←
19:35:4813 April - Publish Round 5 (LC2)
Sandro Hawke: 13 April - Publish Round 5 (LC2) ←
19:35:4801 June - CR
Sandro Hawke: 01 June - CR ←
19:35:4801 Aug - PR
Sandro Hawke: 01 Aug - PR ←
19:35:4901 Oct - Rec
Sandro Hawke: 01 Oct - Rec ←
19:36:10When would CR end?
Bijan Parsia: When would CR end? ←
19:36:18zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
19:36:18bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
19:36:27CR ends 15 July
Sandro Hawke: CR ends 15 July ←
19:37:02q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
19:37:05ivan: how long does implenters need for CR to do implementation
Ivan Herman: how long does implenters need for CR to do implementation ←
19:37:13zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
19:37:13bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
19:37:15IanH: Pellet and HermiT are very close
Ian Horrocks: Pellet and HermiT are very close ←
19:37:20+q
Christine Golbreich: +q ←
19:37:28... HermiT is more or less complete
... HermiT is more or less complete ←
19:37:43bijan: Pellet is tracking OWL 2
Bijan Parsia: Pellet is tracking OWL 2 ←
19:37:56q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
19:38:03q+ alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ alanr ←
19:38:12zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
19:38:12bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
19:38:52FPWD, publish early and often
Bijan Parsia: FPWD, publish early and often ←
19:38:53ack christine
Alan Ruttenberg: ack christine ←
19:38:56ack ivan
Alan Ruttenberg: ack ivan ←
19:39:04christine: can we set is to Mar 9?
Christine Golbreich: can we set is to Mar 9? ←
19:39:12pfps has joined #owl
Peter Patel-Schneider: pfps has joined #owl ←
19:39:25q+ pfps
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ pfps ←
19:39:37scan we set is to Mar 9?/ 15
Christine Golbreich: scan we set is to Mar 9?/ 15 ←
19:39:57ack alanr
Ivan Herman: ack alanr ←
19:39:59ivan: the LC version can have your current comments
Ivan Herman: the LC version can have your current comments ←
19:40:14I have more answers
Bijan Parsia: I have more answers ←
19:40:23... question of Profiles implementation
... question of Profiles implementation ←
19:40:27q+ pfps
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ pfps ←
19:40:32q+ mike
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ mike ←
19:40:36ack pfps
Alan Ruttenberg: ack pfps ←
19:40:52pfps: HermiT is an implementation complete for everything except for syntax checking
Peter Patel-Schneider: HermiT is an implementation complete for everything except for syntax checking ←
19:41:10for scribe : christine asked : can we set is to Mar 15 not 9
Christine Golbreich: for scribe : christine asked : can we set is to Mar 15 not 9 ←
19:41:17... given a RL document, it will do RL reasoning
... given a RL document, it will do RL reasoning ←
19:41:54ack mike
Alan Ruttenberg: ack mike ←
19:41:56q+ pfps
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ pfps ←
19:41:59q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
19:42:13Mike: if we have Pellet and Hermit, then we have 2 implementations
Mike Smith: if we have Pellet and Hermit, then we have 2 implementations ←
19:42:21q+ alanr to ask whether hermit is an "spirit of the law" implementation of RL
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ alanr to ask whether hermit is an "spirit of the law" implementation of RL ←
19:42:35... Pellet RC can support RL and QL
... Pellet RC can support RL and QL ←
19:42:59ack pfps
Alan Ruttenberg: ack pfps ←
19:43:02ivan: no RL implementation
Ivan Herman: no RL implementation ←
19:43:13pfps: what do we need for CR exit status
Peter Patel-Schneider: what do we need for CR exit status ←
19:43:18q+ schneid
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ schneid ←
19:43:22... I don't think we need a product
... I don't think we need a product ←
19:43:37sandro: two interoperable implementations
Sandro Hawke: two interoperable implementations ←
19:43:38q+ boris
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ boris ←
19:43:59q+ ianh
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ianh ←
19:44:04ack bijan
Alan Ruttenberg: ack bijan ←
19:44:04zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
19:44:06ack bijan
Sandro Hawke: ack bijan ←
19:44:07bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
19:44:54bijan: regarding profiles, for QL, there are 3
Bijan Parsia: regarding profiles, for QL, there are 3 ←
19:45:04Bijan: QL implementations: C&P, Aberdeen, Rome
Bijan Parsia: QL implementations: C&P, Aberdeen, Rome [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:45:07... for EL, IBM has one
... for EL, IBM has one ←
19:45:08q+ pfps
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ pfps ←
19:45:12q+
Achille Fokoue: q+ ←
19:45:13q+
19:45:18q-
19:45:37... for profile checkers, there will be one from Machnester
... for profile checkers, there will be one from Machnester ←
19:45:44... one from Aberdeen
... one from Aberdeen ←
19:46:11ack alanr
Ivan Herman: ack alanr ←
19:46:11alanr, you wanted to ask whether hermit is an "spirit of the law" implementation of RL
Zakim IRC Bot: alanr, you wanted to ask whether hermit is an "spirit of the law" implementation of RL ←
19:46:18ack schneid
Alan Ruttenberg: ack schneid ←
19:46:22ack boris
Alan Ruttenberg: ack boris ←
19:46:43bmotik: regarding profiles, if it is about an implementation that pass the tests, then do we can about implementation details?
Boris Motik: regarding profiles, if it is about an implementation that pass the tests, then do we can about implementation details? ←
19:46:51s/can/care
s/can/care ←
19:46:54q+ pfps
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ pfps ←
19:46:59q-
19:47:13ack ianh
Alan Ruttenberg: ack ianh ←
19:47:18IanH: I think we already have enough implementations,
Ian Horrocks: I think we already have enough implementations, ←
19:47:21q+ schneid
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ schneid ←
19:47:37ack Achille
Alan Ruttenberg: ack Achille ←
19:47:50Achille: want to clarify IBM's implementation of EL++,
Achille Fokoue: want to clarify IBM's implementation of EL++, ←
19:47:59... is a simplfied version
... is a simplfied version ←
19:47:59ack baojie
Alan Ruttenberg: ack baojie ←
19:48:30+q
Christine Golbreich: +q ←
19:48:32ack schneid
Alan Ruttenberg: ack schneid ←
19:48:42q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
19:48:47schneid: CR's purpose is to find bugs and implementation difficulty,
Michael Schneider: CR's purpose is to find bugs and implementation difficulty, ←
19:48:54... now, we already have enough
... now, we already have enough ←
19:49:14q+ ianh
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ianh ←
19:49:20ack christine
Alan Ruttenberg: ack christine ←
19:49:21ack christine
Ivan Herman: ack christine ←
19:49:46alanr: it is not necessary to delay because we want to keep an schedule
Alan Ruttenberg: it is not necessary to delay because we want to keep an schedule ←
19:50:05... you know what, let us communicate in emails
... you know what, let us communicate in emails ←
19:50:40+1 to ivan, publishing wds *should be cheap*
Bijan Parsia: +1 to ivan, publishing wds *should be cheap* ←
19:50:57What's the question?
Bijan Parsia: What's the question? ←
19:51:01What is the question?
Evan Wallace: What is the question? ←
19:51:32q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
19:52:03christine: want to understand why it is hard to set the date 15th
Christine Golbreich: want to understand why it is hard to set the date 15th ←
19:52:05There's a schedule and there's no real benefit. FPWD is a low bar
Bijan Parsia: There's a schedule and there's no real benefit. FPWD is a low bar ←
19:52:15alanr: happy to discuss offlien
Alan Ruttenberg: happy to discuss offlien ←
19:52:22s/offlien/offline/g
s/offlien/offline/g ←
19:53:04ivan: from CR to PR, we come up with a report on implementations
Ivan Herman: from CR to PR, we come up with a report on implementations ←
19:53:40alanr: do we expect comments on PR?
Alan Ruttenberg: do we expect comments on PR? ←
19:54:17ivan: it is possible, that is why I want comments now
Ivan Herman: it is possible, that is why I want comments now ←
19:54:33... not on PR documents
... not on PR documents ←
19:55:04IanH: if schedule slips, then it is going to be tight for dec 2009
Ian Horrocks: if schedule slips, then it is going to be tight for dec 2009 ←
19:55:29?
Alan Ruttenberg: ? ←
19:55:31q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
19:55:35ack alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: ack alanr ←
19:55:38ack inah
Alan Ruttenberg: ack inah ←
19:55:43ack ianh
Alan Ruttenberg: ack ianh ←
19:56:01I'm not happy with the schedule, but it is about as good as it could be
Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm not happy with the schedule, but it is about as good as it could be ←
19:56:02sandro: we chould consider skip CR
Sandro Hawke: we chould consider skip CR ←
19:56:16However, we should use the schedule as a cloture mechanism
Peter Patel-Schneider: However, we should use the schedule as a cloture mechanism ←
19:56:49ivan: let us not skip CR
Ivan Herman: let us not skip CR ←
19:57:37... what we called user facing documents do not go through CR
... what we called user facing documents do not go through CR ←
19:57:3809 March - Publich Round 5: FPWD Document Overview
Sandro Hawke: 09 March - Publich Round 5: FPWD Document Overview ←
19:57:3830 March - Editors Done, begin WG review
Sandro Hawke: 30 March - Editors Done, begin WG review ←
19:57:3815 April - Publish Round 6: All documents, specs in Last Call (LC1 or LC2)
Sandro Hawke: 15 April - Publish Round 6: All documents, specs in Last Call (LC1 or LC2) ←
19:57:3801 June - Publish Round 7: All docs; rec-track specs to CR
Sandro Hawke: 01 June - Publish Round 7: All docs; rec-track specs to CR ←
19:57:3815 July - CR comments due
Sandro Hawke: 15 July - CR comments due ←
19:57:3901 Aug - Publish Round 8: All docs; rec-track documents to PR
Sandro Hawke: 01 Aug - Publish Round 8: All docs; rec-track documents to PR ←
19:57:4201 Oct - Publish Round 9: All documents to final state (Rec / Note)
Sandro Hawke: 01 Oct - Publish Round 9: All documents to final state (Rec / Note) ←
19:57:43... that gives up more time
... that gives up more time ←
19:57:57... Manchester syntax does not go through CR because it is not rec track
... Manchester syntax does not go through CR because it is not rec track ←
19:58:10... if it is final, we can publish it as a note anytime
... if it is final, we can publish it as a note anytime ←
19:58:19We shouldn't solicit comments on a note
Bijan Parsia: We shouldn't solicit comments on a note ←
19:58:29http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Timeline
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Timeline ←
19:58:48The only reason to go not go final on MS now is to track any changes we make in the rest of the langauge
Bijan Parsia: The only reason to go not go final on MS now is to track any changes we make in the rest of the langauge ←
20:00:13ivan: at PR, we may get formal objections
Ivan Herman: at PR, we may get formal objections ←
20:00:28... which will be a very tough thing
... which will be a very tough thing ←
20:00:48Mike: it is indepenent of our timeline though
Mike Smith: it is indepenent of our timeline though ←
20:00:52PROPOSED: the WG will use its best endeavours to complete its work according to the schedule proposed by Sandro above.
PROPOSED: the WG will use its best endeavours to complete its work according to the schedule proposed by Sandro above. ←
20:01:02+q
Christine Golbreich: +q ←
20:01:17q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:01:20ack christine
Alan Ruttenberg: ack christine ←
20:02:02christine: don't see the impact of either 9th of 15th
Christine Golbreich: don't see the impact of either 9th of 15th ←
20:02:07alanr: we will address that
Alan Ruttenberg: we will address that ←
20:02:25+1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU ←
20:02:31+1 SC
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 SC ←
20:02:32+1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
20:02:32+1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
20:02:32+1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
20:02:33+1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
20:02:33+1 FZI
Markus Krötzsch: +1 FZI ←
20:02:33+1
+1 ←
20:02:34+1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
20:02:36+1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
20:02:37+1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
20:02:38+1
Achille Fokoue: +1 ←
20:02:40+1
20:02:59+1 (except 09 march)
Christine Golbreich: +1 (except 09 march) ←
20:03:00alanr: we need to note that which documents will go to LC2
Alan Ruttenberg: we need to note that which documents will go to LC2 ←
20:03:06+1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
20:03:26RESOLVED: the WG will use its best endeavours to complete its work according to the schedule proposed by Sandro above.
RESOLVED: the WG will use its best endeavours to complete its work according to the schedule proposed by Sandro above. ←
20:03:42Is all that's left editorial?
Bijan Parsia: Is all that's left editorial? ←
20:03:50I have a course to prepare for and to go to sleep :(
Bijan Parsia: I have a course to prepare for and to go to sleep :( ←
20:04:04no, after break is imports and griddle
Peter Patel-Schneider: no, after break is imports and griddle ←
20:04:28-christine
Zakim IRC Bot: -christine ←
20:08:22- +1.518.276.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.518.276.aaaa ←
20:08:28-Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: -Evan_Wallace ←
20:17:51zakim, mute me
(No events recorded for 9 minutes)
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
20:17:51bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
20:19:30jar has joined #owl
Jonathan Rees: jar has joined #owl ←
20:20:26IanH: going to imports
Ian Horrocks: going to imports ←
20:20:58scribenick: ivan
(Scribe set to Ivan Herman)
20:21:08it should be one
Peter Patel-Schneider: it should be one ←
20:21:25Topic: imports
20:21:37IanH: 2 comments, both with drafts
Ian Horrocks: 2 comments, both with drafts ←
20:21:41... #53
... #53 ←
20:22:22http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/0000.html
Ian Horrocks: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/0000.html ←
20:22:36draft response is http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JR7
Peter Patel-Schneider: draft response is http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JR7 ←
20:22:55IanH: proposed draft:
Ian Horrocks: proposed draft: ←
20:23:35sorry, my IP address changed on me. webcam restarted....
Sandro Hawke: sorry, my IP address changed on me. webcam restarted.... ←
20:23:39q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:23:53q+ jar
Jonathan Rees: q+ jar ←
20:23:57schneid: there are confusions due to sloppiness of myself
Michael Schneider: there are confusions due to sloppiness of myself ←
20:24:12... in the old owl 1 full ther ehas been a definition of import closure
... in the old owl 1 full ther ehas been a definition of import closure ←
20:24:36q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:24:48... i kept that in in the 2nd draft
... i kept that in in the 2nd draft ←
20:24:58q+
20:24:59... there was also a note that was very clever;
... there was also a note that was very clever; ←
20:25:09... ie, i did not plan to have this in the final version of the document
... ie, i did not plan to have this in the final version of the document ←
20:25:26... in the owl 1 the definition was only used in two theorems
... in the owl 1 the definition was only used in two theorems ←
20:25:47... on of them was the old correspondence theorem, and there is a new one for owl 2 that does not use this any more
... on of them was the old correspondence theorem, and there is a new one for owl 2 that does not use this any more ←
20:25:52q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:25:53s/on/one/
s/on/one/ ←
20:26:01.... my current draft does not have it any more
.... my current draft does not have it any more ←
20:26:22IanH: ie,, the current version of the owl full semantics does not have this feature in
Ian Horrocks: ie,, the current version of the owl full semantics does not have this feature in ←
20:26:29schneid: indeed
Michael Schneider: indeed ←
20:26:46... importing has nothing to do with logic, treating it in a semantics is not correct
... importing has nothing to do with logic, treating it in a semantics is not correct ←
20:27:12+Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: +Evan_Wallace ←
20:27:16q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:27:25ack jar
Ian Horrocks: ack jar ←
20:27:34http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF-Based_Semantics#Content_of_Ontologies_.28Informative.29
Michael Schneider: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF-Based_Semantics#Content_of_Ontologies_.28Informative.29 ←
20:27:34jar: since i submitted that I was thinking about it.
Jonathan Rees: since i submitted that I was thinking about it. ←
20:27:40... this is a borderline editorial
... this is a borderline editorial ←
20:27:49... i am not sure what the goal for today
... i am not sure what the goal for today ←
20:27:58... i guess it is the lc comments
... i guess it is the lc comments ←
20:28:18... i did sent another public comment today on how to present this whole comment idea
... i did sent another public comment today on how to present this whole comment idea ←
20:28:37... i am happy to contribute and work with whoever works on this
... i am happy to contribute and work with whoever works on this ←
20:28:57IanH: you should send a mail to the wg list targeted at michael, and then discuss this
Ian Horrocks: you should send a mail to the wg list targeted at michael, and then discuss this ←
20:29:01... is that o.k?
... is that o.k? ←
20:29:07jar: yes, that sounds fine
Jonathan Rees: yes, that sounds fine ←
20:29:10q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:29:19my email (today): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/0033.html
Jonathan Rees: my email (today): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/0033.html ←
20:29:35... I feel there is a lot of room for improvement
... I feel there is a lot of room for improvement ←
20:29:52IanH: but if the response to you was along the line that this document is chaning
Ian Horrocks: but if the response to you was along the line that this document is chaning ←
20:29:55q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:29:55... is that ok
... is that ok ←
20:29:59jar: yes
Jonathan Rees: yes ←
20:30:38baojie: about the semantics of incompatibility with in owl 1 we do not have that, so we have a backward incompatibility problem
Jie Bao: about the semantics of incompatibility with in owl 1 we do not have that, so we have a backward incompatibility problem ←
20:30:50any clarification is fine I think. just wanted to make sure someone had thought about it, and that the next reader was clear on the intent (full different from / same as dl in this way)
Jonathan Rees: any clarification is fine I think. just wanted to make sure someone had thought about it, and that the next reader was clear on the intent (full different from / same as dl in this way) ←
20:30:58q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:31:01IanH: i am reluctant to reopen this
Ian Horrocks: i am reluctant to reopen this ←
20:31:05ack baojie
Ian Horrocks: ack baojie ←
20:31:17boris: michael you defer to the syntax document?
Boris Motik: michael you defer to the syntax document? ←
20:31:44schneid: i have either an own part that treats this stuff or not, i decided to point to the syntax document
Michael Schneider: i have either an own part that treats this stuff or not, i decided to point to the syntax document ←
20:31:57bmotik: I agree
Boris Motik: I agree ←
20:32:12IanH: we are done on this one, aren't we?
Ian Horrocks: we are done on this one, aren't we? ←
20:32:22... do we have a response draft?
... do we have a response draft? ←
20:32:48pfps: (reads up the response)
Peter Patel-Schneider: (reads up the response) ←
20:33:09IanH: the response is that this is not last call, the document has changed, the import is not a semantics operation
Ian Horrocks: the response is that this is not last call, the document has changed, the import is not a semantics operation ←
20:33:24... further efforts will be made to improve the presentation
... further efforts will be made to improve the presentation ←
20:34:21q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
20:34:22Topic: import by location
20:34:27zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
20:34:27bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
20:34:29q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:34:32ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
20:35:13bijan: we had an extensive discussion with Tim ???, Peter has a very long and involved response and we trim that
Bijan Parsia: we had an extensive discussion with Tim ???, Peter has a very long and involved response and we trim that ←
20:35:21zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
20:35:21bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
20:35:23q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:35:27I happy to
Bijan Parsia: I happy to ←
20:35:29pfps: I volunteer bijan to write it:-)
Peter Patel-Schneider: I volunteer bijan to write it:-) ←
20:35:58I head to the page
Bijan Parsia: I head to the page ←
20:36:09Topic: 2 comments on axiom annotation
20:36:26IanH: they are from bijan, asking for axiom hiding and for naming
Ian Horrocks: they are from bijan, asking for axiom hiding and for naming ←
20:36:29zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
20:36:29bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
20:36:32... i though we agreed
... i though we agreed ←
20:36:38... and the commenter agreed, too
... and the commenter agreed, too ←
20:36:57bijan: i think we decided to reject that and i had the action to answer to myself
Bijan Parsia: i think we decided to reject that and i had the action to answer to myself ←
20:37:04pfps: i can do it
Peter Patel-Schneider: i can do it ←
20:37:10... i know how to abuse you nicely
... i know how to abuse you nicely ←
20:37:52Topic: number 30, frank's objection
20:38:18Ivan: discussed this to death
Ivan Herman: discussed this to death [ Scribe Assist by Ian Horrocks ] ←
20:38:26ship it!
Bijan Parsia: ship it! ←
20:38:28Ivan: version on the web agrees with discussion
Ivan Herman: version on the web agrees with discussion [ Scribe Assist by Ian Horrocks ] ←
20:38:40http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/FH4
Mike Smith: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/FH4 ←
20:39:19I just reread it and it's great!
Bijan Parsia: I just reread it and it's great! ←
20:39:31PROPOSED: send drafted response to comment 30
PROPOSED: send drafted response to comment 30 ←
20:39:34+1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
20:39:36+1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
20:39:36+1
+1 ←
20:39:38+1
20:39:40+1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU ←
20:39:52+1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
20:39:540
20:39:59+1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
20:40:01+1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
20:40:04+1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
20:40:06+1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
20:40:09+1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
20:40:11RESOLVED: send drafted response to comment 30
RESOLVED: send drafted response to comment 30 ←
20:40:14+1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
20:40:29http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/0005.html
Peter Patel-Schneider: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/0005.html ←
20:40:36Topic: number 58, strong typing
20:40:47pfps: the answer is yes, was part of the discussion yesterday
Peter Patel-Schneider: the answer is yes, was part of the discussion yesterday ←
20:41:03IanH: it brings the fs and the structure aligned
Ian Horrocks: it brings the fs and the structure aligned ←
20:41:20bmotik: I will do it, 'thank you, we will do it'
Boris Motik: I will do it, 'thank you, we will do it' ←
20:41:42We discussed this yesterday
Bijan Parsia: We discussed this yesterday ←
20:41:57I have and action to send the schema (nearly done :()
Bijan Parsia: I have and action to send the schema (nearly done :() ←
20:42:20Topic: number 47, disallow multiple key values
20:42:31IanH: no multiple key values
Ian Horrocks: no multiple key values ←
20:42:38http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0062.html
Peter Patel-Schneider: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0062.html ←
20:43:14q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
20:43:20pfps: I suggest to say no to this
Peter Patel-Schneider: I suggest to say no to this ←
20:43:22q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:43:39schneid: talking to database people they say this is plainly wrong
Michael Schneider: talking to database people they say this is plainly wrong ←
20:43:42zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
20:43:42bijan was not muted, bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was not muted, bijan ←
20:43:44ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
20:44:02bijan: i agree with schneid and peter
Bijan Parsia: i agree with schneid and peter ←
20:44:10... you can get that if you wanted
... you can get that if you wanted ←
20:44:15zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
20:44:15bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
20:44:30pfps: i will take it
Peter Patel-Schneider: i will take it ←
20:44:51http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0048.html
Ian Horrocks: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0048.html ←
20:44:53Topic: automatic testing in the owl link interface (45)
20:45:15"Thanks for the comment."
Bijan Parsia: "Thanks for the comment." ←
20:45:26IanH: i think our response is that it is out of scope
Ian Horrocks: i think our response is that it is out of scope ←
20:45:47q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
20:45:58pfps: uli is on the hook for that one
Peter Patel-Schneider: uli is on the hook for that one ←
20:46:32pfps: ship it!
Peter Patel-Schneider: ship it! ←
20:46:37q-
Bijan Parsia: q- ←
20:46:42q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:47:04PROPOSED: send response as drafted to comment 45
PROPOSED: send response as drafted to comment 45 ←
20:47:06+1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU ←
20:47:080
0 ←
20:47:12+1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
20:47:13+1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
20:47:17Achille has joined #owl
Achille Fokoue: Achille has joined #owl ←
20:47:55+1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
20:48:05msmith: one problem, the text says that we will publish document and test cases, but that is not exactly true
Mike Smith: one problem, the text says that we will publish document and test cases, but that is not exactly true ←
20:48:14... we will produce a test collection
... we will produce a test collection ←
20:48:52+1
20:49:03+1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
20:49:050
Markus Krötzsch: 0 ←
20:49:13+1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
20:49:16RESOLVED: send response as drafted to comment 45
RESOLVED: send response as drafted to comment 45 ←
20:49:21I meant +1
Markus Krötzsch: I meant +1 ←
20:49:28+1
Achille Fokoue: +1 ←
20:49:45Topic: number 23, extending annotation
20:49:57http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0028.html
Ian Horrocks: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0028.html ←
20:50:02pfps: after a long discussion with jeremy roger he and i approved a response
Peter Patel-Schneider: after a long discussion with jeremy roger he and i approved a response ←
20:50:10http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JR1
Ian Horrocks: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JR1 ←
20:50:26pfps: "we would love to do, but nobody knows how@
Peter Patel-Schneider: "we would love to do, but nobody knows how@ ←
20:50:31s/@/"/
s/@/"/ ←
20:50:34I've drafted a response to TR1: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/TR1
Bijan Parsia: I've drafted a response to TR1: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/TR1 ←
20:50:45Q?
Ian Horrocks: Q? ←
20:50:47sorry, jsut reporting
Bijan Parsia: sorry, jsut reporting ←
20:50:48not relevant
Bijan Parsia: not relevant ←
20:51:13PROPOSED: send draft response http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/TR1
PROPOSED: send draft response http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/TR1 ←
20:51:26Not tr1
Bijan Parsia: Not tr1 ←
20:51:30+1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
20:51:31+1
20:51:320
0 ←
20:51:33+1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
20:51:34+1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
20:51:35+1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
20:51:36no nono
Bijan Parsia: no nono ←
20:51:36+1
20:51:39+1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
20:51:40zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
20:51:40bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
20:51:48+1
20:52:22PROPOSED: send draft response http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JR1
PROPOSED: send draft response http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JR1 ←
20:52:24+1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
20:52:27+1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
20:52:28+1 alu
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 alu ←
20:52:30zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
20:52:30bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
20:52:32+1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
20:52:32+1
20:52:50RESOLVED: send draft response http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JR1
RESOLVED: send draft response http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JR1 ←
20:52:520
Evan Wallace: 0 ←
20:53:05zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
20:53:05bijan was already muted, bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was already muted, bijan ←
20:53:19zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
20:53:19bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
20:53:25Topic: number 7, import via
20:53:41PROPOSED: send draft response http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/TR1
PROPOSED: send draft response http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/TR1 ←
20:53:42bijan: just put up a response
Bijan Parsia: just put up a response ←
20:54:07+1
20:54:10+1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
20:54:14+1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
20:54:18+1
20:54:25+1
+1 ←
20:54:27+1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
20:54:31+1
20:54:31+1
Achille Fokoue: +1 ←
20:54:32+1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
20:54:36+1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
20:54:40+1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
20:54:45+1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
20:54:45RESOLVED: send draft response http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/TR1
RESOLVED: send draft response http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/TR1 ←
20:57:24http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JC1a says GRDDL
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JC1a says GRDDL ←
20:57:24Our understanding of the WG charter is that a GRDDL transform, in XSLT1, will be provided. We will raise this issue again at PR review if necessary. Our preferred fix to the lack of a GRDDL transform, is to drop the OWL/XML serialization.
Sandro Hawke: Our understanding of the WG charter is that a GRDDL transform, in XSLT1, will be provided. We will raise this issue again at PR review if necessary. Our preferred fix to the lack of a GRDDL transform, is to drop the OWL/XML serialization. ←
20:57:45Have to go for an hour. I will be back at 5, if you are still meeting.
Evan Wallace: Have to go for an hour. I will be back at 5, if you are still meeting. ←
20:57:48-Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: -Evan_Wallace ←
20:58:05Topic: number 17, 34 plus a bunch together, GRDDL
20:58:49IanH: 17 says that there is an open issue, will that be resolved?
Ian Horrocks: 17 says that there is an open issue, will that be resolved? ←
20:58:51I am
Bijan Parsia: I am ←
20:58:52q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
20:58:54-Achille
Zakim IRC Bot: -Achille ←
20:58:58zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
20:58:58bijan was not muted, bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was not muted, bijan ←
20:59:15bijan: i have seen no change, nobody has talked to me,
Bijan Parsia: i have seen no change, nobody has talked to me, ←
20:59:47sandro: last i remember (last f2f) we might move forward with a plan with a grddl that would get to a transform
Sandro Hawke: last i remember (last f2f) we might move forward with a plan with a grddl that would get to a transform ←
21:00:00bijan: we got a push back from jonathan
Bijan Parsia: we got a push back from jonathan ←
21:00:52ivan: I am unsure whether it is doable in XSLT.
Ivan Herman: I am unsure whether it is doable in XSLT. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:00:54It doesn't seem that TQ would be happy with it either
Bijan Parsia: It doesn't seem that TQ would be happy with it either ←
21:00:58AchilleF has joined #owl
Achille Fokoue: AchilleF has joined #owl ←
21:01:08q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
21:01:15jar: i think it is clear you can do it in xslt, so it is a question of service
Jonathan Rees: i think it is clear you can do it in xslt, so it is a question of service ←
21:01:16dlm has joined #owl
Deborah McGuinness: dlm has joined #owl ←
21:01:25... doing it relying on service is a bit fragile
... doing it relying on service is a bit fragile ←
21:01:27jar: I think you CAN do it in XSLT. It's a question of judgement. I think relying on a service is really quite fragile, as opposed to relying on a program.
Jonathan Rees: I think you CAN do it in XSLT. It's a question of judgement. I think relying on a service is really quite fragile, as opposed to relying on a program. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:01:34... the argument is that it is the same sort of thing
... the argument is that it is the same sort of thing ←
21:01:39+[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
21:01:45Not catchign everything
Bijan Parsia: Not catchign everything ←
21:01:45q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:01:49Could he move closer to the phone
Bijan Parsia: Could he move closer to the phone ←
21:01:51... and it relies on a service
... and it relies on a service ←
21:01:51zakim, ibm is me
Achille Fokoue: zakim, ibm is me ←
21:01:51+AchilleF; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AchilleF; got it ←
21:01:52q+
q+ ←
21:02:11q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:02:25... i think it can be done in many different ways, one way is a service, i am advocating for a proof of something more robust
... i think it can be done in many different ways, one way is a service, i am advocating for a proof of something more robust ←
21:02:34q+ sandro
Ian Horrocks: q+ sandro ←
21:02:39... how hard is it to replicate this transform, can I copy the software, etc
... how hard is it to replicate this transform, can I copy the software, etc ←
21:02:41zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
21:02:41bijan was not muted, bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was not muted, bijan ←
21:02:43q+ peter
Ian Horrocks: q+ peter ←
21:02:56ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
21:03:12bijan: associating a URI with a mapping is sufficient, I believe.
Bijan Parsia: associating a URI with a mapping is sufficient, I believe. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:03:26bijan: my original point was that a URI pointing at a generic thing is enough
Bijan Parsia: my original point was that a URI pointing at a generic thing is enough ←
21:03:38q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:03:56q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
21:04:01bijan: then we were asked for an XSLT, and that proves you're really asking for a program, not a spec.
Bijan Parsia: then we were asked for an XSLT, and that proves you're really asking for a program, not a spec. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:04:04bijan: we are heading down the slippery slope to implementation
Bijan Parsia: we are heading down the slippery slope to implementation [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
21:04:05scribe gave up scribing bijan
scribe gave up scribing bijan ←
21:04:12q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:04:18bijan: let's do something minimal
Bijan Parsia: let's do something minimal [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
21:04:19zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
21:04:19bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
21:04:26ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
21:04:44q-
Alan Ruttenberg: q- ←
21:04:44q- alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: q- alanr ←
21:05:18q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:05:22ivan: I don't want to reopen this. We agree to disagree. The problem (cf JAR) -- we have no one producing that XSLT that converts OWL/XML to RDF/XML. If so, then we could talk to Bijan about it. But we don't have it.
Ivan Herman: I don't want to reopen this. We agree to disagree. The problem (cf JAR) -- we have no one producing that XSLT that converts OWL/XML to RDF/XML. If so, then we could talk to Bijan about it. But we don't have it. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:05:24dlm has joined #owl
Deborah McGuinness: dlm has joined #owl ←
21:05:53ivan: Will you make the implementation JAR?
Ivan Herman: Will you make the implementation JAR? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:06:04jar: No.
Jonathan Rees: No. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:06:11q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
21:06:19ack sandro
Ian Horrocks: ack sandro ←
21:06:20What? Quality? Huh?
Bijan Parsia: What? Quality? Huh? ←
21:06:57to reflect back what bijan said: the grddl uri 'identifies' not a script or program, but the transformation. any implementation of it that works is fine; and implementation is outside the scope of the spec.
Jonathan Rees: to reflect back what bijan said: the grddl uri 'identifies' not a script or program, but the transformation. any implementation of it that works is fine; and implementation is outside the scope of the spec. ←
21:07:00sandro: bijan you talked about another possibility if the xslt were produced mechanically and if necessary i might volounteer to do taht
Sandro Hawke: bijan you talked about another possibility if the xslt were produced mechanically and if necessary i might volounteer to do taht ←
21:07:10zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
21:07:10bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
21:07:10q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:07:11q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
21:07:14q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
21:07:15... i hear bijan say that he is against that
... i hear bijan say that he is against that ←
21:07:52pfps: in sympathy with bijan here, bijan's solution is to reuse another tool that will go through our cr tool,
Peter Patel-Schneider: in sympathy with bijan here, bijan's solution is to reuse another tool that will go through our cr tool, ←
21:07:56q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:08:01Example: http://owl.cs.manchester.ac.uk/converter/
Bijan Parsia: Example: http://owl.cs.manchester.ac.uk/converter/ ←
21:08:02... and plan it to be make it available
... and plan it to be make it available ←
21:08:04ack peter
Ian Horrocks: ack peter ←
21:08:13... it is code reuse, which is good
... it is code reuse, which is good ←
21:08:22... the only thing it does not have is normativity
... the only thing it does not have is normativity ←
21:08:32q+ sandro
Ian Horrocks: q+ sandro ←
21:08:35... if you wan normativity to point to our document
... if you wan normativity to point to our document ←
21:08:49... then there is no code, no viruses, no nothing...
... then there is no code, no viruses, no nothing... ←
21:08:55ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
21:09:19q+
Ian Horrocks: q+ ←
21:09:21alanr: i have already scraped the document once and that can be an input to sandro's script
Alan Ruttenberg: i have already scraped the document once and that can be an input to sandro's script ←
21:09:50... fair to say that publishing a spec without is a minority view
... fair to say that publishing a spec without is a minority view ←
21:09:59zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
21:09:59bijan was not muted, bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was not muted, bijan ←
21:10:01ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
21:10:05alan: It's a minority view that spec or on-line service is "grddl" per se.
Alan Ruttenberg: It's a minority view that spec or on-line service is "grddl" per se. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:10:13... we may have a formal objection that we have to consider, do the damn thing and let it done
... we may have a formal objection that we have to consider, do the damn thing and let it done ←
21:10:22alan: It's a minority view that spec is "grddl" per se.
Alan Ruttenberg: It's a minority view that spec is "grddl" per se. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:10:47bijan: My main objection is to on-line downloadability.
Bijan Parsia: My main objection is to on-line downloadability. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:11:13q?
21:11:16bijan: i disagree with what alan says, my main objection is a downloadable script, having a page with a set of transformation is fine, manchester might put an objection if we do thi
Bijan Parsia: i disagree with what alan says, my main objection is a downloadable script, having a page with a set of transformation is fine, manchester might put an objection if we do thi ←
21:11:17q+
21:11:35ack sandro
Ian Horrocks: ack sandro ←
21:11:49bijan: i have in principle objections the way grddl work
Bijan Parsia: i have in principle objections the way grddl work ←
21:11:56... maybe the mechanical would work
... maybe the mechanical would work ←
21:12:03... maybe we should just table this
... maybe we should just table this ←
21:12:05bijan: the mechanical-generation of the transform doesn't help.
Bijan Parsia: the mechanical-generation of the transform doesn't help. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:12:09... i cannot promise i will agree
... i cannot promise i will agree ←
21:12:09q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:12:10zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
21:12:11bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
21:12:25zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
21:12:25bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
21:12:25sandro: a few weeks i do not want to spend unless i need to
Sandro Hawke: a few weeks i do not want to spend unless i need to ←
21:12:27q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
21:12:49... i do not know whether we can judge the strength of the objections
... i do not know whether we can judge the strength of the objections ←
21:13:07q+ msmith
Ian Horrocks: q+ msmith ←
21:13:17bijan: proposal, if sandro produces such a thing and it pasts all the tests, then i have a strong bias to accept it
Bijan Parsia: proposal, if sandro produces such a thing and it pasts all the tests, then i have a strong bias to accept it ←
21:13:21bijan: if you produce such a thing, and it passes all the tests, I will have a strong bias in favor of supporting it, although I can't promise I'll accept it.
Bijan Parsia: if you produce such a thing, and it passes all the tests, I will have a strong bias in favor of supporting it, although I can't promise I'll accept it. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:13:26q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:13:35thanks, Bijan.
Sandro Hawke: thanks, Bijan. ←
21:13:45zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
21:13:45bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
21:14:22Or defaultly use
Bijan Parsia: Or defaultly use ←
21:14:24IanH: bijan seems to say that he has an in principle objection to specify a piece of software
Ian Horrocks: bijan seems to say that he has an in principle objection to specify a piece of software ←
21:14:41... to be honest i fully sympathize with that objection
... to be honest i fully sympathize with that objection ←
21:14:48sandro: no one is saying
Sandro Hawke: no one is saying ←
21:15:18q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:15:35ack IanH
Ian Horrocks: ack IanH ←
21:15:47It's de facto have to use otherwise this wouldn't matter
Bijan Parsia: It's de facto have to use otherwise this wouldn't matter ←
21:15:51It's defaultly used
Bijan Parsia: It's defaultly used ←
21:15:58there is no "have to" anywhere
Alan Ruttenberg: there is no "have to" anywhere ←
21:16:20sandro: all the spec says is "use this namespace". then it's up to the namespace owner (W3C, guided by the WG) to make sure the right (GRDDL) thing happens.
Sandro Hawke: all the spec says is "use this namespace". then it's up to the namespace owner (W3C, guided by the WG) to make sure the right (GRDDL) thing happens. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:16:33as a *Second* specification!
Bijan Parsia: as a *Second* specification! ←
21:17:11q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:17:18and if we simply put silently, without spec'ing it, a GRDDL transform at the OWL URL? :-)
Michael Schneider: and if we simply put silently, without spec'ing it, a GRDDL transform at the OWL URL? :-) ←
21:17:18q-
Bijan Parsia: q- ←
21:17:53we annoint the transform by using the namespace
Peter Patel-Schneider: we annoint the transform by using the namespace ←
21:18:14The editor, DanC, agreed with my interpretation
Bijan Parsia: The editor, DanC, agreed with my interpretation ←
21:18:16ivan: Whether we like it or not, there is GRDDL. It's done. That's not for us to discuss. Bijan and I disagree about what that spec means, but....
Ivan Herman: Whether we like it or not, there is GRDDL. It's done. That's not for us to discuss. Bijan and I disagree about what that spec means, but.... [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:18:20q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
21:18:55ivan: Bottom-Line: if this is not set up the way the community is set up, there will be formal objections to OWL/XML.
Ivan Herman: Bottom-Line: if this is not set up the way the community is set up, there will be formal objections to OWL/XML. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:18:56THat's why I caved
Bijan Parsia: THat's why I caved ←
21:19:02ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
21:19:08ivan: Bottom-Line: if this is not set up the way the community expects it, there will be formal objections to OWL/XML.
Ivan Herman: Bottom-Line: if this is not set up the way the community expects it, there will be formal objections to OWL/XML. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:19:19However, will the director not override the objection?
Bijan Parsia: However, will the director not override the objection? ←
21:19:21q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
21:19:43q+
Ian Horrocks: q+ ←
21:20:43Uhm, I have the editor telling me that my interpretation is correct
Bijan Parsia: Uhm, I have the editor telling me that my interpretation is correct ←
21:21:11peter: If you like to XSLT in GRDDL,you're annointing that XSTL as *the* *definition*
Peter Patel-Schneider: If you like to XSLT in GRDDL,you're annointing that XSTL as *the* *definition* [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:21:35sandro: no, that's ridiculous. The real spec is still obvious the Recommendation, which the XSLT implements.
Sandro Hawke: no, that's ridiculous. The real spec is still obvious the Recommendation, which the XSLT implements. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:21:43ian: if we create such an implementation, but explicitly say that it is not our spec, what happens then?
Ian Horrocks: if we create such an implementation, but explicitly say that it is not our spec, what happens then? [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:21:47q+
q+ ←
21:21:55ack msmith
Ian Horrocks: ack msmith ←
21:22:17http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#txforms
Bijan Parsia: http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#txforms ←
21:22:30As noted above, each GRDDL transformation specifies a transformation property, a function from XPath document nodes to RDF graphs. This function need not be total; it may have a domain smaller than all XML document nodes. For example, use of xsl:message with terminate="yes" may be used to signal that the input is outside the domain of the transformation.
Bijan Parsia: As noted above, each GRDDL transformation specifies a transformation property, a function from XPath document nodes to RDF graphs. This function need not be total; it may have a domain smaller than all XML document nodes. For example, use of xsl:message with terminate="yes" may be used to signal that the input is outside the domain of the transformation. ←
21:22:30Developers of transformations should make available representations in widely-supported formats. XSLT version 1[XSLT1] is the format most widely supported by GRDDL-aware agents as of this writing, though though XSLT2[XSLT2] deployment is increasing.
Bijan Parsia: Developers of transformations should make available representations in widely-supported formats. XSLT version 1[XSLT1] is the format most widely supported by GRDDL-aware agents as of this writing, though though XSLT2[XSLT2] deployment is increasing. ←
21:22:35msmith: asks, people, you want a single XSD that would be referenced?
Mike Smith: asks, people, you want a single XSD that would be referenced? [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:22:47Who uses GRDDL?
Bijan Parsia: Who uses GRDDL? ←
21:22:53alanr: people who use grddl, should have their expectations met
Alan Ruttenberg: people who use grddl, should have their expectations met [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:22:57I mean, what's the population?
Bijan Parsia: I mean, what's the population? ←
21:22:59alan: What I think is needed is the kind of thing GRDDL users want/expect.
Alan Ruttenberg: What I think is needed is the kind of thing GRDDL users want/expect. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:23:02q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:23:22zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
21:23:22bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
21:23:25ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
21:23:55q+ pfps
Ian Horrocks: q+ pfps ←
21:24:09bijan: grddl chair made assertion that conflicts with what sandro sais
Bijan Parsia: grddl chair made assertion that conflicts with what sandro sais [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:24:13from GRDDL abstract: Abstract
Peter Patel-Schneider: from GRDDL abstract: Abstract ←
21:24:15GRDDL is a mechanism for Gleaning Resource Descriptions from Dialects of Languages. This GRDDL specification introduces markup based on existing standards for declaring that an XML document includes data compatible with the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and for linking to algorithms (typically represented in XSLT), for extracting this data from the document.
Peter Patel-Schneider: GRDDL is a mechanism for Gleaning Resource Descriptions from Dialects of Languages. This GRDDL specification introduces markup based on existing standards for declaring that an XML document includes data compatible with the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and for linking to algorithms (typically represented in XSLT), for extracting this data from the document. ←
21:24:30bijan: our spec is the document
Bijan Parsia: our spec is the document [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:24:45bijan: understands positions of both parties
Bijan Parsia: understands positions of both parties [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:24:51q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:25:31bijan: asks, whether ivan suggests to not make the grddl transform a rec?
Bijan Parsia: asks, whether ivan suggests to not make the grddl transform a rec? [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:25:36ivan: Of course I can't know what will happen if there is a formal objection.
Ivan Herman: Of course I can't know what will happen if there is a formal objection. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:25:50q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:25:58ivan: if there is a formal objection, then this will probably kill owl/xml as a rec
Ivan Herman: if there is a formal objection, then this will probably kill owl/xml as a rec [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:26:40q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
21:26:44zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
21:26:44bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
21:26:46q-
q- ←
21:26:53ack IanH
Sandro Hawke: ack IanH ←
21:27:08users will never see those disclaimers
Bijan Parsia: users will never see those disclaimers ←
21:27:18IanH: maybe do the XSLT, and hedge around it with various warnings.
Ian Horrocks: maybe do the XSLT, and hedge around it with various warnings. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:27:20q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:27:24ianh: no one has commented on my suggestion: "this grddl transform is not a mandatory spec"
Ian Horrocks: no one has commented on my suggestion: "this grddl transform is not a mandatory spec" [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:27:29ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
21:28:39People don't pick it up...it's silent
Bijan Parsia: People don't pick it up...it's silent ←
21:28:39alanr: don't understand what the problem is with having bugs in the transform, then let's fix it; the normative thing is the document
Alan Ruttenberg: don't understand what the problem is with having bugs in the transform, then let's fix it; the normative thing is the document [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:28:40q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
21:29:17q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:29:19zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
21:29:19bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
21:29:19alanr: why not document this that we will fix all bugs
Alan Ruttenberg: why not document this that we will fix all bugs [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:29:21q+
21:29:22ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
21:29:38ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
21:29:54bijan: I am not going to accept this [FIXME!]
Bijan Parsia: I am not going to accept this [FIXME!] [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:30:11q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:30:12Yes
Bijan Parsia: Yes ←
21:30:26q+ to point out a service based example
Bijan Parsia: q+ to point out a service based example ←
21:30:48http://inamidst.com/sw/hturtle/
Bijan Parsia: http://inamidst.com/sw/hturtle/ ←
21:31:15q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:31:27ivan: in f2f4 we discussed that there should /exist/ some xslt transform as a service (somehow)
Ivan Herman: in f2f4 we discussed that there should /exist/ some xslt transform as a service (somehow) [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:31:56zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
21:31:57bijan was not muted, bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was not muted, bijan ←
21:32:03q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:32:18ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
21:32:18bijan, you wanted to point out a service based example
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan, you wanted to point out a service based example ←
21:32:22q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:32:27We did dicusss it
Bijan Parsia: We did dicusss it ←
21:32:37zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
21:32:37bijan was not muted, bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was not muted, bijan ←
21:32:40ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
21:32:45bijan: there is a conversion service (have put url into irc)
Bijan Parsia: there is a conversion service (have put url into irc) [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:33:05ivan: we can have such a service at w3c, too
Ivan Herman: we can have such a service at w3c, too [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:33:24q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:33:28alanr: what is the issue with this?
Alan Ruttenberg: what is the issue with this? [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:33:45q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:33:46alanr: how would this solve the problem?
Alan Ruttenberg: how would this solve the problem? [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:33:59q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:33:59ivan: does not resolve the principle problem
Ivan Herman: does not resolve the principle problem [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:34:11q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
21:34:21zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
21:34:21bijan was not muted, bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was not muted, bijan ←
21:34:29q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:34:46q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:34:49ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
21:35:37q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:35:53bijan: The service based one makes me a little happier (not ideal) because it makes it very clear that there is no specification going on with this implementation
Bijan Parsia: The service based one makes me a little happier (not ideal) because it makes it very clear that there is no specification going on with this implementation [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
21:36:10Like the RDF Mapping
Bijan Parsia: Like the RDF Mapping ←
21:36:35q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:36:39jar: for practical reasons, the grddl transform must resolve to code that will run.
Jonathan Rees: for practical reasons, the grddl transform must resolve to code that will run. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:37:08jonathan: issue for me is how to have the transform behind the firewall
Jonathan Rees: issue for me is how to have the transform behind the firewall [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:37:17Why is firewall replication a criterion?
Bijan Parsia: Why is firewall replication a criterion? ←
21:37:18q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:37:18jar: then the question is how hard will it be for me to implement the transform behind my firewall. (1) punch a hole, (2) copy the service, (3) re-implenet
Jonathan Rees: then the question is how hard will it be for me to implement the transform behind my firewall. (1) punch a hole, (2) copy the service, (3) re-implenet [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:37:28q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
21:37:29q-
Bijan Parsia: q- ←
21:37:30q-
Sandro Hawke: q- ←
21:38:31It is open source
Bijan Parsia: It is open source ←
21:38:43q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:39:13peter: grddl should selectiveally apply any/all trnasforms.
Peter Patel-Schneider: grddl should selectiveally apply any/all trnasforms. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:39:15q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:39:18Peter is wrong
Bijan Parsia: Peter is wrong ←
21:39:30q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
21:39:54q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:40:01zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
21:40:01bijan was not muted, bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was not muted, bijan ←
21:40:09ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
21:40:20http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/#sec_agt
Peter Patel-Schneider: http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/#sec_agt ←
21:40:30bijan: belives peter's reading of the grdll spec is invalid
Bijan Parsia: belives peter's reading of the grdll spec is invalid [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:40:52q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:40:54bijan: one can have several transforms for the same
Bijan Parsia: one can have several transforms for the same [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:41:02I agree!
Bijan Parsia: I agree! ←
21:41:04q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:41:15q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:41:40I proposed this way back and was rejected :(
Bijan Parsia: I proposed this way back and was rejected :( ←
21:41:42pfps: if we cannot understand the grddl spec, then it is not perfect
Peter Patel-Schneider: if we cannot understand the grddl spec, then it is not perfect [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:41:48q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:41:51peter is referencing the second normative (green) block at http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/#sec_agt
Mike Smith: peter is referencing the second normative (green) block at http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/#sec_agt ←
21:41:57alan: nice solution would be to have multiple transforms.
Alan Ruttenberg: nice solution would be to have multiple transforms. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:42:01The GRDDL chair suggested that this is nice idea
Bijan Parsia: The GRDDL chair suggested that this is nice idea ←
21:42:11what I need a story for: What happens 10 years from now after the service stops running (you look at the spec and reimplement it?); what do I do inside the firewall (same? or find the java code?)
Jonathan Rees: what I need a story for: What happens 10 years from now after the service stops running (you look at the spec and reimplement it?); what do I do inside the firewall (same? or find the java code?) ←
21:42:58q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:43:14ivan: service oriented solution works for me, and if it also works for jar and tq, then its ok?
Ivan Herman: service oriented solution works for me, and if it also works for jar and tq, then its ok? [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:43:17jar, what would happen if the w3c servers died and no longer served the XSLT?
Bijan Parsia: jar, what would happen if the w3c servers died and no longer served the XSLT? ←
21:43:41go to the time machine.
Jonathan Rees: go to the time machine. ←
21:43:52alanr: ivan, you would not object
Alan Ruttenberg: ivan, you would not object [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:43:54ivan: no
Ivan Herman: no [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:43:54So, same deal
Bijan Parsia: So, same deal ←
21:44:01PROPOSED: if we can have multiple GRDDL transforms, then we'll do (1) the spec, (2) on-line transform service, (3) download single xslt; if only one transform, then we'll do the on-line transform service only.
PROPOSED: if we can have multiple GRDDL transforms, then we'll do (1) the spec, (2) on-line transform service, (3) download single xslt; if only one transform, then we'll do the on-line transform service only. ←
21:44:49DanC: it's OK to have multiple XSLTs; the GRDDL test suite has an example, yes
Sandro Hawke: DanC: it's OK to have multiple XSLTs; the GRDDL test suite has an example, yes ←
21:44:49DanC: if you're willing to claim the spec is a representation of an algorithm, then yes, you can link the spec as a GRDDL transformation.
Sandro Hawke: DanC: if you're willing to claim the spec is a representation of an algorithm, then yes, you can link the spec as a GRDDL transformation. ←
21:44:52+1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU ←
21:45:021
1 ←
21:45:06?
Ian Horrocks: ? ←
21:45:35q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:45:35(I'm quoting what Dan just answered me.)
Sandro Hawke: (I'm quoting what Dan just answered me.) ←
21:46:41sandro: what will have happen, if I don't manage it?
Sandro Hawke: what will have happen, if I don't manage it? [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:46:450
0 ←
21:46:470
21:46:51PROPOSED: if we can have multiple GRDDL transforms, then we'll do (1) the spec, (2) on-line transform service (if a good one is produced), (3) download single xslt (if a good one is produced); if only one transform, then we'll do the on-line transform service only.
PROPOSED: if we can have multiple GRDDL transforms, then we'll do (1) the spec, (2) on-line transform service (if a good one is produced), (3) download single xslt (if a good one is produced); if only one transform, then we'll do the on-line transform service only. ←
21:47:05PROPOSED: if we can have multiple GRDDL transforms, then we'll do (1) the spec, (2) on-line transform service (if a good one is produced), AND (3) download single xslt (if a good one is produced); if only one transform, then we'll do the on-line transform service only.
PROPOSED: if we can have multiple GRDDL transforms, then we'll do (1) the spec, (2) on-line transform service (if a good one is produced), AND (3) download single xslt (if a good one is produced); if only one transform, then we'll do the on-line transform service only. ←
21:47:26WHy wouldn't we do the spec?
Bijan Parsia: WHy wouldn't we do the spec? ←
21:48:00Ivan: A GRDDL transform with do BOTH (2) and (3).
Ivan Herman: A GRDDL transform with do BOTH (2) and (3). [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:48:06+1
21:48:07Ivan: A GRDDL system with do BOTH (2) and (3).
Ivan Herman: A GRDDL system with do BOTH (2) and (3). [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:48:16ivan: if a grddl system sees several transforms, then it applies them all and merges the resulting RDF documents
Ivan Herman: if a grddl system sees several transforms, then it applies them all and merges the resulting RDF documents [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:48:43I think DanC is hinting at content negotiation. spec is one 'representation', xslt is another. don't know if that will work.
Jonathan Rees: I think DanC is hinting at content negotiation. spec is one 'representation', xslt is another. don't know if that will work. ←
21:48:50So what's wrong with that?
Bijan Parsia: So what's wrong with that? ←
21:48:56ianh: let's assume the grddl spec is the way ivan and bijan say
Ian Horrocks: let's assume the grddl spec is the way ivan and bijan say [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
21:49:02It can run them both, merge them, and it's fine ;)
Bijan Parsia: It can run them both, merge them, and it's fine ;) ←
21:49:13http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/#sec_agt , section 7
Mike Smith: http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/#sec_agt , section 7 ←
21:49:16+1 to bijan
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to bijan ←
21:49:35PROPOSED: if we can have multiple GRDDL transforms, and systems and systems will behave reasonably with them, then we'll do (1) the spec, (2) on-line transform service (if a good one is produced), AND (3) download single xslt (if a good one is produced); if only one transform, then we'll do the on-line transform service only.
PROPOSED: if we can have multiple GRDDL transforms, and systems and systems will behave reasonably with them, then we'll do (1) the spec, (2) on-line transform service (if a good one is produced), AND (3) download single xslt (if a good one is produced); if only one transform, then we'll do the on-line transform service only. ←
21:50:10+1
21:50:16+1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
21:50:17+1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
21:50:181
1 ←
21:50:18+1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
21:50:19+1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
21:50:20+1
21:50:22+1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
21:50:220
21:50:240
Achille Fokoue: 0 ←
21:50:27In general, that we cannot rely on the spec where it conflicts with the *assumptions* certain people have about the spec. In particular, the people objecting.
Bijan Parsia: In general, that we cannot rely on the spec where it conflicts with the *assumptions* certain people have about the spec. In particular, the people objecting. ←
21:50:35+1 (for the sake of group hugs)
Bijan Parsia: +1 (for the sake of group hugs) ←
21:50:40+0.5 (sounds good, at least...)
Michael Schneider: +0.5 (sounds good, at least...) ←
21:50:43*hugs* bjian
Sandro Hawke: *hugs* bjian ←
21:50:45+0.5
Markus Krötzsch: +0.5 ←
21:51:25even better alan *hugs* bijan
Alan Ruttenberg: even better alan *hugs* bijan ←
21:51:27RESOLVED: if we can have multiple GRDDL transforms, and systems will behave reasonably with them, then we'll do (1) the spec, (2) on-line transform service (if a good one is produced), AND (3) download single xslt (if a good one is produced); if only one transform, then we'll do the on-line transform service only.
RESOLVED: if we can have multiple GRDDL transforms, and systems will behave reasonably with them, then we'll do (1) the spec, (2) on-line transform service (if a good one is produced), AND (3) download single xslt (if a good one is produced); if only one transform, then we'll do the on-line transform service only. ←
21:51:53RESOLVED: if we can have multiple GRDDL transforms, and systems will behave reasonably with them, then we'll do (1) the spec, (2) on-line transform service (if a good one is produced), AND (3) download single xslt (if a good one is produced); ELSE: we'll do the on-line transform service only.
RESOLVED: if we can have multiple GRDDL transforms, and systems will behave reasonably with them, then we'll do (1) the spec, (2) on-line transform service (if a good one is produced), AND (3) download single xslt (if a good one is produced); ELSE: we'll do the on-line transform service only. ←
21:52:10RESOLVED: if we can have multiple GRDDL transforms, and systems will behave reasonably with them, then we'll do (1) the spec, (2) on-line transform service (if a good one is produced), AND (3) download single xslt (if a good one is produced); ELSE: we'll do the on-line transform service only. This closes ISSUE-97.
RESOLVED: if we can have multiple GRDDL transforms, and systems will behave reasonably with them, then we'll do (1) the spec, (2) on-line transform service (if a good one is produced), AND (3) download single xslt (if a good one is produced); ELSE: we'll do the on-line transform service only. This closes ISSUE-97. ←
21:52:32I wonder if we should send a bug report to the GRDDL list
Bijan Parsia: I wonder if we should send a bug report to the GRDDL list ←
21:54:47q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
21:54:52zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
21:54:52bijan was not muted, bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was not muted, bijan ←
21:54:55Q?
Ian Horrocks: Q? ←
21:54:58q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
21:55:02ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
21:56:22http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JH1
Bijan Parsia: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JH1 ←
21:56:30Pointer!
Bijan Parsia: Pointer! ←
21:56:36bijan: can I send it to Jim now?
Bijan Parsia: can I send it to Jim now? ←
21:58:25action: Alan to send wg apology to jim re: initial version of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JH1
ACTION: Alan to send wg apology to jim re: initial version of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JH1 ←
21:58:26Created ACTION-300 - Send wg apology to jim re: initial version of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JH1 [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2009-03-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-300 - Send wg apology to jim re: initial version of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JH1 [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2009-03-03]. ←
21:58:42PROPOSED: Bijan sends response http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JH1
PROPOSED: Bijan sends response http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JH1 ←
21:58:45+1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU ←
21:58:51+1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
21:58:59+1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
21:59:01+1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
21:59:050
21:59:06_1
Alan Ruttenberg: _1 ←
21:59:07+1
+1 ←
21:59:08+1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
21:59:09+1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
21:59:10+1
21:59:11+1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
21:59:18RESOLVED: Bijan sends response http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JH1
RESOLVED: Bijan sends response http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JH1 ←
22:00:10topic: number 8, facet space
22:00:16http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0006.html
Ian Horrocks: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0006.html ←
22:00:31http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS2
Ian Horrocks: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS2 ←
22:00:54schneid: there is some text in the struc spec where the topics is facet space of datatype maps
Michael Schneider: there is some text in the struc spec where the topics is facet space of datatype maps ←
22:01:09... (reads the content of the text)
... (reads the content of the text) ←
22:02:13after looking in the diret semantics a value space of some of the datatypes in the dataype map, for everything else the definitions are not specified
after looking in the diret semantics a value space of some of the datatypes in the dataype map, for everything else the definitions are not specified ←
22:02:27bmotik: i have a slight problem
Boris Motik: i have a slight problem ←
22:02:39... this makes the definition of one datatype dependent on the others
... this makes the definition of one datatype dependent on the others ←
22:02:51... you should be able to do them independently
... you should be able to do them independently ←
22:03:08... we do define by taking the definitions from somewhere
... we do define by taking the definitions from somewhere ←
22:03:25schneid: we are talking about datatypes
Michael Schneider: we are talking about datatypes ←
22:03:46... do we talk about datatypes and these arbtirary objects are in some value space
... do we talk about datatypes and these arbtirary objects are in some value space ←
22:04:03bmotik: it should be possible to define a datatype in isolation
Boris Motik: it should be possible to define a datatype in isolation ←
22:04:31schneid: if we do not talk about data values, then can we allow things without a value
Michael Schneider: if we do not talk about data values, then can we allow things without a value ←
22:04:40... there should be some data value for the facets
... there should be some data value for the facets ←
22:04:49... one point what do we want to have
... one point what do we want to have ←
22:04:50Q?
Ian Horrocks: Q? ←
22:04:56... other what is in the definition
... other what is in the definition ←
22:05:13zwu2 has joined #owl
Zhe Wu: zwu2 has joined #owl ←
22:05:18... The way things are defined is that the datatypes are also in the datatype maps
... The way things are defined is that the datatypes are also in the datatype maps ←
22:05:30... what you want to have does not match to what is written
... what you want to have does not match to what is written ←
22:05:44schneid: i would suggest to have an offline diiscussion
Michael Schneider: i would suggest to have an offline diiscussion ←
22:05:45zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
22:05:45bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
22:06:04msmith: you primary object is that an arbitrary object can come from another domain?
Mike Smith: you primary object is that an arbitrary object can come from another domain? ←
22:06:19s/diiscussion/discussion/
s/diiscussion/discussion/ ←
22:06:26In rdf, malformed literals get interpreted as an arbitrary element of the domain outside the datatype
Bijan Parsia: In rdf, malformed literals get interpreted as an arbitrary element of the domain outside the datatype ←
22:07:10http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/IH1
Ian Horrocks: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/IH1 ←
22:07:22Topic: number 9
22:07:29bmotik: i have it on my todo list
Boris Motik: i have it on my todo list ←
22:07:45Topic: editorials
22:08:01It was sent
Bijan Parsia: It was sent ←
22:08:04IanH: we have a couple here which are done and we should just decide whether we should just ship them
Ian Horrocks: we have a couple here which are done and we should just decide whether we should just ship them ←
22:08:11.. number 14 done
.. number 14 done ←
22:08:27... number 16: this is response draft, edits identified
... number 16: this is response draft, edits identified ←
22:08:30http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS6
Ian Horrocks: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS6 ←
22:10:53+Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: +Evan_Wallace ←
22:11:03Hi
Evan Wallace: Hi ←
22:11:10PROPOSED: In response to http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Responses_to_Last_Call_Comments we will use the term "lexical form" for datatypes
PROPOSED: In response to http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Responses_to_Last_Call_Comments we will use the term "lexical form" for datatypes ←
22:11:47+1
22:11:51+1
22:11:55+1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
22:12:18+1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
22:12:44+1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
22:13:23+1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
22:14:32http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0042.html
Jie Bao: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0042.html ←
22:14:33RESOLVED: In response to http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Responses_to_Last_Call_Comments we will use the term "lexical form" for datatypes
RESOLVED: In response to http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Responses_to_Last_Call_Comments we will use the term "lexical form" for datatypes ←
22:14:48http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Responses_to_Last_Call_Comments
Ian Horrocks: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Responses_to_Last_Call_Comments ←
22:17:48-AchilleF
Zakim IRC Bot: -AchilleF ←
22:24:24http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0042.html
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
Alan Ruttenberg: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0042.html ←
22:25:00I don't understand the meaning here - abbreviation is the process of transforming literals of datatype rdf:text isn't it? I assume in OWL that no literals of datatype xs:string would be present as they have a rdf:text form. Or can there be two representations?
Alan Ruttenberg: I don't understand the meaning here - abbreviation is the process of transforming literals of datatype rdf:text isn't it? I assume in OWL that no literals of datatype xs:string would be present as they have a rdf:text form. Or can there be two representations? ←
22:26:24jar has joined #owl
Jonathan Rees: jar has joined #owl ←
22:31:55bmotik_ has joined #owl
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Boris Motik: bmotik_ has joined #owl ←
22:32:30action: jie Contact Andy Seaborn and try to make sure he's happy with our work on rdf:text, and will talk to use about any remaining issues.
ACTION: jie Contact Andy Seaborn and try to make sure he's happy with our work on rdf:text, and will talk to use about any remaining issues. ←
22:32:30Created ACTION-301 - Contact Andy Seaborn and try to make sure he's happy with our work on rdf:text, and will talk to use about any remaining issues. [on Jie Bao - due 2009-03-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-301 - Contact Andy Seaborn and try to make sure he's happy with our work on rdf:text, and will talk to use about any remaining issues. [on Jie Bao - due 2009-03-03]. ←
22:32:45q+
Evan Wallace: q+ ←
22:33:14Q?
Ian Horrocks: Q? ←
22:33:20q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
22:33:47ack ewallace
Ian Horrocks: ack ewallace ←
22:33:56zakim, who is here?
zakim, who is here? ←
22:33:57On IRC I see jar, zwu2, dlm, AchilleF, schneid, msmith, christine, sandro, baojie, RRSAgent, ivan, MarkusK_, Zakim, bmotik, IanH, bijan, ewallace, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see jar, zwu2, dlm, AchilleF, schneid, msmith, christine, sandro, baojie, RRSAgent, ivan, MarkusK_, Zakim, bmotik, IanH, bijan, ewallace, trackbot ←
22:34:12zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
22:34:12bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
22:35:03adjurned
adjurned ←
22:35:06zwu2 has left #owl
22:35:07clap clap clap
clap clap clap ←
22:35:44Ivan has a huge range of facial expressions
Bijan Parsia: Ivan has a huge range of facial expressions ←
22:36:10-Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: -Evan_Wallace ←
22:36:24-bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: -bijan ←
22:42:51-MIT346
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: -MIT346 ←
22:42:52SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM has ended ←
22:42:54Attendees were jar, MIT346, Evan_Wallace, Achille, uli, bijan, christine, +1.518.276.aaaa, AchilleF
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were jar, MIT346, Evan_Wallace, Achille, uli, bijan, christine, +1.518.276.aaaa, AchilleF ←
Meeting in progress. New content inserted above this line.
Sandro Hawke: Meeting in progress. New content inserted above this line. ←
This revision (#6) generated 2009-03-03 13:46:07 UTC by 'ihorrock2', comments: None