<sandro> PRESENT: Ian, Boris, Smith, Zhe, PFPS, Jie, Ivan, mschnei, markus, sandro, alanruttenberg
<sandro> REMOTE: rees, evan, achille, uli, bijan
<jar> hello
Jonathan Rees: hello ←
<jar> 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 ←
<jar> 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. ←
<jar> 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? ←
<jar> 0 minutes?
Jonathan Rees: 0 minutes? ←
<bmotik> Zakim, this will be owl
Boris Motik: Zakim, this will be owl ←
<Zakim> 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 ←
<jar> hello? am I on the right irc channel?
Jonathan Rees: hello? am I on the right irc channel? ←
<jar> (for owlwg f2f)
Jonathan Rees: (for owlwg f2f) ←
<Zakim> SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM has now started ←
<Zakim> +jar
Zakim IRC Bot: +jar ←
<Zakim> -jar
Zakim IRC Bot: -jar ←
<Zakim> SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM has ended ←
<Zakim> Attendees were jar
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were jar ←
<Zakim> SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM has now started ←
<Zakim> +jar
Zakim IRC Bot: +jar ←
<alanr> Eta 5 min
Alan Ruttenberg: Eta 5 min ←
<jar> ok, so it's IRC owl, but zakim owlwg.
Jonathan Rees: ok, so it's IRC owl, but zakim owlwg. ←
<jar> 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? ←
<alanr> Anyone elseon yet ?
Alan Ruttenberg: Anyone elseon yet ? ←
<pfps> scribenick: pfps
(Scribe set to Peter Patel-Schneider)
<IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
<IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
<Zakim> On the phone I see jar
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see jar ←
<Zakim> 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 ←
<Zakim> +MIT346
Zakim IRC Bot: +MIT346 ←
<bijan> 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 ←
<pfps> Topic: OWL RL
<pfps> ian: comment 61 and 15
Ian Horrocks: comment 61 and 15 ←
<pfps> ian: approve response for 15?
Ian Horrocks: approve response for 15? ←
<pfps> Proposed: send response for 15
PROPOSED: send response for 15 ←
<IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
<pfps> pfps: +1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU ←
<MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
<bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
<bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
<zwu2> +1 ORACLE
<msmith> +1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
<pfps> RESOLVED: send response for 15
RESOLVED: send response for 15 ←
<schneid> +1 (15)
Michael Schneider: +1 (15) ←
<pfps> ian: lc comment 61 - why only RDF semantics for RL?
Ian Horrocks: lc comment 61 - why only RDF semantics for RL? ←
<pfps> ivan: all profiles can be interpreted both ways
Ivan Herman: all profiles can be interpreted both ways ←
<pfps> ian: yes, but conformance may be a bit off
Ian Horrocks: yes, but conformance may be a bit off ←
<pfps> msmith: conformance needs to be changed
Mike Smith: conformance needs to be changed ←
<pfps> ian: no disagreement - documents need to be clarified
Ian Horrocks: no disagreement - documents need to be clarified ←
<pfps> boris: actual solution - what does an OWL 2 RL checker do
Boris Motik: actual solution - what does an OWL 2 RL checker do ←
<pfps> 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 ←
<pfps> ian: so we parameterize on the semantics
Ian Horrocks: so we parameterize on the semantics ←
<pfps> ian: we say that all conformance can use either semantics
Ian Horrocks: we say that all conformance can use either semantics ←
<pfps> 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 ←
<pfps> 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 ←
<pfps> markus: can you notice a difference in EL and QL
Markus Krötzsch: can you notice a difference in EL and QL ←
<pfps> msmith: yes
Mike Smith: yes ←
<pfps> ian: no computational guarantees except for direct semantics
Ian Horrocks: no computational guarantees except for direct semantics ←
<pfps> 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 ←
<pfps> ian: need editorial fixup in conformance document (only)
Ian Horrocks: need editorial fixup in conformance document (only) ←
<pfps> 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 ←
<pfps> action: ian to make fixes for 61 and craft response
ACTION: ian to make fixes for 61 and craft response ←
<trackbot> 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]. ←
<pfps> ian: conformance is parameterized on semantics
Ian Horrocks: conformance is parameterized on semantics ←
<pfps> topic: OWL QL
<sandro> subtopic: Add reflexive, symmetric, and asymmetric?
<pfps> 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 ←
<pfps> scribenick: jie
(Scribe set to Jie Bao)
<pfps> 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 ] ←
<MarkusK_> 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 ] ←
<MarkusK_> 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 ] ←
<sandro> zakim, who is here?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is here? ←
<Zakim> On the phone I see jar, MIT346
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see jar, MIT346 ←
<Zakim> 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 ←
<Jie> Ian: Uli is talking the QL people
Ian Horrocks: Uli is talking the QL people ←
<Jie> s/talking/talking with
s/talking/talking with ←
<Jie> ... people agree we can't get convincing use cases
... people agree we can't get convincing use cases ←
<Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: +Evan_Wallace ←
<Jie> Mike: we have implementation showing they are trival things
Mike Smith: we have implementation showing they are trival things ←
<Zakim> +[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
<Achille> zakim, ibm is me
Achille Fokoue: zakim, ibm is me ←
<Zakim> +Achille; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Achille; got it ←
<sandro> rrsagent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: rrsagent, pointer? ←
<RRSAgent> 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 ←
14:32:27 <RRSAgent> 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 ←
14:32:58 <Jie> Ian: Health WG has good use case
Ian Horrocks: Health WG has good use case ←
14:33:48 <Zakim> +??P15
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P15 ←
14:33:49 <Jie> Ivan: 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 ←
14:33:57 <uli> zakim, ??P15 is me
Uli Sattler: zakim, ??P15 is me ←
14:33:57 <Zakim> +uli; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +uli; got it ←
14:34:09 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
14:34:09 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
14:34:11 <Jie> ... add a new feature without major justification may not be good
... add a new feature without major justification may not be good ←
14:34:18 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
14:34:18 <Zakim> On 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) ←
14:34:19 <Zakim> On 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 <Jie> ... I'm worry about for doing it lately
... I'm worry about for doing it lately ←
14:34:44 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:34:56 <Jie> ... We get overall negative feedback on RL all together]
... We get overall negative feedback on RL all together] ←
14:36:05 <Jie> Mike: I think a justification is that it is in OWL and we can add it without technical difficult.
Mike Smith: I think a justification is that it is in OWL and we can add it without technical difficult. ←
14:36:23 <Jie> ... open linked data people would need it
... open linked data people would need it ←
14:36:43 <Jie> ... even through I don't have a specific example now
... even through I don't have a specific example now ←
14:37:06 <Jie> Alan: Profile document needs to be more user understandable
Alan Ruttenberg: Profile document needs to be more user understandable ←
14:37:31 <Jie> ... adding a new functionality will increase its complexity
... adding a new functionality will increase its complexity ←
14:37:42 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call? ←
14:37:42 <Zakim> On 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) ←
14:38:23 <Jie> Zhe: we can define the core stuff, and user add their need
Zhe Wu: we can define the core stuff, and user add their need ←
14:38:28 <sandro> jar, 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 <uli> +1 to Markus
Uli Sattler: +1 to Markus ←
14:38:55 <uli> and Mike, sorry!
Uli Sattler: and Mike, sorry! ←
14:39:26 <Jie> Markus: Profile is target at making ontology processing easier
Markus Krötzsch: Profile is target at making ontology processing easier ←
14:40:03 <Jie> Ivan: We sure can implement more, but that's not the point
Ivan Herman: We sure can implement more, but that's not the point ←
14:40:48 <Jie> ... if we don't know what the community need, then it is not we do standardization
... if we don't know what the community need, then it is not we do standardization ←
14:41:57 <Jie> Ivan: QL anr RL are "entry-level" ontologies in OWL
Ivan Herman: QL anr RL are "entry-level" ontologies in OWL ←
14:42:01 <Jie> ... it should be easy
... it should be easy ←
14:42:19 <Jie> Mike: One of the audience of QL is linked data
Mike Smith: One of the audience of QL is linked data ←
14:42:47 <Jie> ... also include people who want get relational data in OWL
... also include people who want get relational data in OWL ←
14:42:56 <Jie> ... they are not new to OWL
... they are not new to OWL ←
14:43:22 <Jie> Alan: QL and RL are different
Alan Ruttenberg: QL and RL are different ←
14:43:49 <Jie> QL is targeted at low complexity
QL is targeted at low complexity ←
14:44:07 <Jie> ... we are not designing the language to be introdutory
... we are not designing the language to be introdutory ←
14:44:40 <Jie> s/ introdutory/introductory/
s/ introdutory/introductory/ ←
14:44:54 <Jie> Boris: we have some general misunderstanding
Boris Motik: we have some general misunderstanding ←
14:45:05 <Jie> ... on why need QL
... on why need QL ←
14:45:36 <Jie> ... on processing database data, or low complexity or rule reasoning
... on processing database data, or low complexity or rule reasoning ←
14:46:25 <uli> +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 ←
14:46:34 <ewallace> This is the same discussion around OWL Lite
Evan Wallace: This is the same discussion around OWL Lite ←
14:46:39 <ewallace> as Sandro says
Evan Wallace: as Sandro says ←
14:46:59 <Jie> Zhe: from vendor point of view
Zhe Wu: from vendor point of view ←
14:47:08 <Jie> ... vendor wants to add more
... vendor wants to add more ←
14:48:12 <Jie> ... but i don't think it is necessary to add this feature
... but i don't think it is necessary to add this feature ←
14:49:16 <Jie> Peter: if people don't understand, they should look at primer
Peter Patel-Schneider: if people don't understand, they should look at primer ←
14:49:35 <Jie> Ian: profile is not techinical driven
Ian Horrocks: profile is not techinical driven ←
14:49:43 <Jie> ... it is user community driven
... it is user community driven ←
14:49:54 <schneid> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
14:50:07 <Jie> ... it should be the case we do it because it is doable
... it should be the case we do it because it is doable ←
14:51:17 <Jie> Ivan: in QL, the major disagreement is on sameAs
Ivan Herman: in QL, the major disagreement is on sameAs ←
14:52:00 <Jie> Markus: we don't get simpler to move a feature from non allowed list to allowed list
Markus Krötzsch: we don't get simpler to move a feature from non allowed list to allowed list ←
14:52:13 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:52:18 <IanH> ack schneid
Ian Horrocks: ack schneid ←
14:53:06 <Jie> schneid: requirement for QL for processing database data IS technical requirement
Michael Schneider: requirement for QL for processing database data IS technical requirement ←
14:53:36 <Jie> ... features we should avoid are
... features we should avoid are ←
14:53:57 <Jie> ... the ones need further understanding or other features
... the ones need further understanding or other features ←
14:54:08 <Jie> ... or the ones may be misleading
... or the ones may be misleading ←
14:54:21 <Jie> ... i think that's not the case here
... i think that's not the case here ←
14:54:23 <schneid> was owl lite easy to understand for new users?
Michael Schneider: was owl lite easy to understand for new users? ←
14:54:40 <Jie> Alan: reducing the language does not help anybody
Alan Ruttenberg: reducing the language does not help anybody ←
14:55:14 <Jie> Boris: I didn't say it should technical driven
Boris Motik: I didn't say it should technical driven ←
14:55:25 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
14:55:29 <Jie> s/should/should be
s/should/should be ←
14:55:53 <Jie> ... I agree things should be simple
... I agree things should be simple ←
14:56:10 <Jie> ... but it may exculde some people
... but it may exculde some people ←
14:57:41 <Jie> Ian: of course the document should be improve a little
Ian Horrocks: of course the document should be improve a little ←
14:57:49 <Jie> ... but the document is not user facing
... but the document is not user facing ←
14:58:20 <Jie> ... the specification document are for people who build system
... the specification document are for people who build system ←
14:59:21 <Jie> ... 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 ←
15:00:39 <Jie> ... we should void the mistake that pointing people to the wrong document
... we should void the mistake that pointing people to the wrong document ←
15:02:07 <Jie> Boris: why we need profile, it is contentious
Boris Motik: why we need profile, it is contentious ←
15:02:50 <Jie> ... there would be extension, but it will be painful.
... there would be extension, but it will be painful. ←
15:03:23 <Jie> Zhe: I agree we should focus on accessability
Zhe Wu: I agree we should focus on accessability ←
15:03:56 <Jie> ... for a regular user without good OWL knowledge, which one to choose?
... for a regular user without good OWL knowledge, which one to choose? ←
15:04:04 <Jie> ... we should make it clear to them
... we should make it clear to them ←
15:04:12 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call ←
15:04:14 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the call', sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'who is on the call', sandro ←
15:04:17 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call? ←
15:04:17 <Zakim> On 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) ←
15:05:23 <ewallace> Ian's suggestion sounds good.
Evan Wallace: Ian's suggestion sounds good. ←
15:05:45 <Jie> Ian: profile can have some discussion, but the major explanation will be in the primer
Ian Horrocks: profile can have some discussion, but the major explanation will be in the primer ←
15:05:51 <ewallace> Explain in detail in Primer, summarize in Profile doc.
Evan Wallace: Explain in detail in Primer, summarize in Profile doc. ←
15:06:38 <Jie> Ivan: some examples in profile will help
Ivan Herman: some examples in profile will help ←
15:06:46 <Jie> Boris: i agree
Boris Motik: i agree ←
15:07:38 <Jie> Ian: we should go back and focus on decision
Ian Horrocks: we should go back and focus on decision ←
15:07:55 <uli> and
Uli Sattler: and ←
15:07:55 <uli> and symmetric
Uli Sattler: and symmetric ←
15:08:45 <Jie> PROPOSED: the reflexive, symmetric, and asymmetric should be added to be QL profile
PROPOSED: the reflexive, symmetric, and asymmetric should be added to be QL profile ←
15:08:47 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
15:08:49 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
15:08:49 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
15:08:50 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
15:08:51 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:08:52 <Jie> +1
+1 ←
15:08:52 <schneid> +1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
15:08:52 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
15:08:55 <ewallace> +0
Evan Wallace: +0 ←
15:08:56 <ivan> s/asymmertic/assymetric
Ivan Herman: s/asymmertic/assymetric ←
15:09:00 <ivan> 0
Ivan Herman: 0 ←
15:09:01 <zwu2> -0
15:09:03 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
15:09:08 <bijan> 0
Bijan Parsia: 0 ←
15:09:18 <Achille> 0
Achille Fokoue: 0 ←
15:09:22 <msmith> +1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
15:09:25 <Jie> s/add/added
s/add/added ←
15:09:47 <Jie> RESOLVED
RESOLVED ←
15:10:04 <alanr> 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.
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. ←
15:10:29 <uli> q+ to explain
Uli Sattler: q+ to explain ←
15:10:37 <uli> i don't mind
Uli Sattler: i don't mind ←
15:10:41 <ivan> ack uli
Ivan Herman: ack uli ←
15:10:42 <uli> zakim, unmute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, unmute me ←
15:10:42 <Zakim> uli, you wanted to explain
Zakim IRC Bot: uli, you wanted to explain ←
15:10:44 <Zakim> uli was not muted, uli
Zakim IRC Bot: uli was not muted, uli ←
15:10:50 <IanH> ack uli
Ian Horrocks: ack uli ←
15:11:03 <schneid> s/assymetric/asymmetric :-)
Michael Schneider: s/assymetric/asymmetric :-) ←
<sandro> RESOLVED: reflexive, symmetric, and asymmetric should be added to be QL profile
RESOLVED: reflexive, symmetric, and asymmetric should be added to be QL profile ←
<sandro> subtopic: Add sameAs
15:12:14 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
15:12:42 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
15:12:42 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
15:12:52 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:12:55 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
15:12:57 <Jie> Uli: if we add sameAS, we may have either recursive query or materialized view
Uli Sattler: if we add sameAS, we may have either recursive query or materialized view ←
15:13:02 <Jie> ... we need to note it
... we need to note it ←
15:13:31 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:13:43 <Jie> Alan: for many users, having an extra table is not an issue
Alan Ruttenberg: for many users, having an extra table is not an issue ←
15:13:45 <uli> no 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. ←
15:14:02 <Jie> thanks, uli
thanks, uli ←
15:14:08 <uli> ...and if we have sameAs, we need a system..
Uli Sattler: ...and if we have sameAs, we need a system.. ←
15:14:12 <uli> zakim, unmute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, unmute me ←
15:14:12 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should no longer be muted ←
15:14:19 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:14:47 <msmith> no
Mike Smith: no ←
15:14:51 <alanr> but what about using materialization for transitive
Alan Ruttenberg: but what about using materialization for transitive ←
15:15:17 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
15:15:22 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
15:15:22 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
15:15:28 <Jie> Ian: question is if we have sameAs, will we have transitive property also?
Ian Horrocks: question is if we have sameAs, will we have transitive property also? ←
15:15:50 <Jie> Mike: transitive property is not in LOGSAPCE
Mike Smith: transitive property is not in LOGSAPCE ←
15:15:59 <Jie> ... it increases complexity
... it increases complexity ←
15:16:33 <uli> +1 to Markus
Uli Sattler: +1 to Markus ←
15:17:01 <uli> (the point about QL is "by querying only")
Uli Sattler: (the point about QL is "by querying only") ←
15:18:06 <Jie> Boris: adding transitive is not only about recursive query
Boris Motik: adding transitive is not only about recursive query ←
15:18:33 <MarkusK_> markus: replying to alln, I do not think that it is enough to state that QL can still be implmented in DBs using "some extra tables"
Markus Krötzsch: replying to alln, I do not think that it is enough to state that QL can still be implmented in DBs using "some extra tables" [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ] ←
15:18:36 <Jie> ... sameAs is the only thing can introduce equivalency
... sameAs is the only thing can introduce equivalency ←
15:18:46 <alanr> zhe asked. We're done now.
Alan Ruttenberg: zhe asked. We're done now. ←
15:18:47 <Jie> ... and it can be precomputed
... and it can be precomputed ←
15:19:28 <MarkusK_> markus: 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 ] ←
15:20:17 <MarkusK_> markus: 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 ] ←
15:20:44 <MarkusK_> s /alln/allen/
Markus Krötzsch: s /alln/allen/ ←
15:20:57 <Jie> =Ivan: my favorite approach is that we have sameAs in QL, but make it clear for some implementation it may lead to slower performance
=Ivan: my favorite approach is that we have sameAs in QL, but make it clear for some implementation it may lead to slower performance ←
15:21:54 <Jie> Ian: we have QL is for accessing database
Ian Horrocks: we have QL is for accessing database ←
15:22:51 <Jie> ... if add sameas, we lose the ability to access db just from a query interface
... if add sameas, we lose the ability to access db just from a query interface ←
15:23:01 <Jie> s/if/if we
s/if/if we ←
15:23:31 <uli> Ivan, 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 ←
15:23:47 <Jie> Ivan: if I'm a user, I will not care about how things are technical done
Ivan Herman: if I'm a user, I will not care about how things are technical done ←
15:24:12 <Jie> s/technical/technically
s/technical/technically ←
15:25:08 <uli> 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
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 ←
15:25:27 <Jie> Schneid: QL is designed for scalability, sameas may kill it
Michael Schneider: QL is designed for scalability, sameas may kill it ←
15:26:53 <Jie> Mike: if we add sameAs, user may lose some access for data
Mike Smith: if we add sameAs, user may lose some access for data ←
15:27:05 <uli> ...and existentials in the head
Uli Sattler: ...and existentials in the head ←
15:27:53 <Jie> Markus: QL is not a subset of EL because symmertic property and (scriber lost it)
Markus Krötzsch: QL is not a subset of EL because symmertic property and (scriber lost it) ←
15:29:14 <Jie> Ivan: what it is in QL , not in EL?
Ivan Herman: what it is in QL , not in EL? ←
15:29:36 <Jie> Markus: inverse property and symmertic property
Markus Krötzsch: inverse property and symmertic property ←
15:30:19 <Jie> Alan: people need QL, not EL because they want to access database data, how can they do it with EL?
Alan Ruttenberg: people need QL, not EL because they want to access database data, how can they do it with EL? ←
15:30:36 <Jie> Ian: we need to cut discussion
Ian Horrocks: we need to cut discussion ←
15:31:15 <sandro> Uli, do you have a handy text for your proposal?
Sandro Hawke: Uli, do you have a handy text for your proposal? ←
15:32:06 <uli> yes
Uli Sattler: yes ←
15:32:11 <uli> will send in a second
Uli Sattler: will send in a second ←
15:32:49 <schneid> schneid: 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 ] ←
15:32:54 <Jie> Mike: on conformance, if a feature is not in the language, and the tool support it, does not make the tool not conforming
Mike Smith: on conformance, if a feature is not in the language, and the tool support it, does not make the tool not conforming ←
15:33:14 <uli> 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."
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." ←
15:33:30 <schneid> and this dillemma would be delegated to users, of course
Michael Schneider: and this dillemma would be delegated to users, of course ←
15:33:45 <uli> yes
Uli Sattler: yes ←
15:33:52 <Jie> 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."
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." ←
15:33:55 <sandro> PROPOSED: 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. ←
15:34:20 <msmith> chair adjusting wording
Mike Smith: chair adjusting wording ←
15:34:36 <Jie> PROPOSED: We will add sameas to the QL profile.
PROPOSED: We will add sameas to the QL profile. ←
15:34:44 <MarkusK_> -1
Markus Krötzsch: -1 ←
15:34:44 <pfps> -1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: -1 ALU ←
15:34:46 <IanH> -1
Ian Horrocks: -1 ←
15:34:46 <bmotik> -1
Boris Motik: -1 ←
15:34:47 <Jie> 0
0 ←
15:34:47 <alanr> 0
Alan Ruttenberg: 0 ←
15:34:48 <uli> -1
Uli Sattler: -1 ←
15:34:49 <Achille> -100 (IBM)
Achille Fokoue: -100 (IBM) ←
15:34:51 <schneid> -0.9
Michael Schneider: -0.9 ←
15:35:01 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
15:35:04 <sandro> PROPOSED: Add SameAs to OWL-QL
PROPOSED: Add SameAs to OWL-QL ←
15:35:04 <sandro> -1
Sandro Hawke: -1 ←
15:35:06 <ivan> ack ivan
Ivan Herman: ack ivan ←
15:35:08 <msmith> 0
Mike Smith: 0 ←
15:35:14 <zwu2> 0
15:35:21 <sandro> yes, bijan, following without the audio isn't really practical.
Sandro Hawke: yes, bijan, following without the audio isn't really practical. ←
15:35:37 <Jie> RESOLVED: We will not add sameas to the QL profile.
RESOLVED: We will not add sameas to the QL profile. ←
15:36:24 <Jie> PROPOSED: add some uli's text to profile document
PROPOSED: add some uli's text to profile document ←
15:36:28 <pfps> +1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU ←
15:36:28 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
15:36:28 <Achille> +1
Achille Fokoue: +1 ←
15:36:29 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
15:36:29 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:36:29 <msmith> +1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
15:36:29 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
15:36:31 <ivan> 1
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
15:36:32 <Jie> +1
+1 ←
15:36:35 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
15:36:35 <schneid> +1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
15:36:36 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
15:36:42 <ewallace> +1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
15:36:51 <zwu2> +1
15:37:02 <Jie> RESOLVED: add some uli's text to profile document
RESOLVED: add some uli's text to profile document ←
15:37:13 <bijan> I 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 ←
15:37:20 <IanH> PROPOSED: 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 <pfps> +1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU ←
15:37:35 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
15:37:35 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
15:37:36 <msmith> +1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
15:37:37 <ivan> 0
Ivan Herman: 0 ←
15:37:38 <Achille> 0
Achille Fokoue: 0 ←
15:37:38 <schneid> +1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
15:37:38 <alanr> ++1
Alan Ruttenberg: ++1 ←
15:37:41 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
15:37:41 <ewallace> +1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
15:37:41 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:37:42 <bijan> 0
Bijan Parsia: 0 ←
15:37:46 <zwu2> +1
15:37:54 <sandro> (this is correcting the previious proposal)
Sandro Hawke: (this is correcting the previious proposal) ←
15:37:59 <Jie> +1
+1 ←
15:38:03 <IanH> RESOLVED: reflexive, irreflexive, & asymmetric properties will be added to the QL profile
RESOLVED: reflexive, irreflexive, & asymmetric properties will be added to the QL profile ←
15:38:16 <sandro> ian: (just tidying up)
Ian Horrocks: (just tidying up) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:38:20 <Zakim> -uli
Zakim IRC Bot: -uli ←
15:39:15 <Jie> break
break ←
15:39:16 <sandro> Bijan, can you dial in about 3:30 boston time?
Sandro Hawke: Bijan, can you dial in about 3:30 boston time? ←
15:39:36 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: -Evan_Wallace ←
15:39:37 <bijan> So 8:30 here, yes?
Bijan Parsia: So 8:30 here, yes? ←
15:39:38 <bijan> Probably
Bijan Parsia: Probably ←
15:46:59 <Zakim> -Achille
(No events recorded for 7 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: -Achille ←
15:54:49 <pfps> no 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 ←
15:55:28 <jar> oh 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 :-) ←
16:01:09 <sandro> scribe: Boris
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
(Scribe set to Boris Motik)
16:01:36 <Zakim> +[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
16:01:39 <bmotik> subtopic: TQ comments
16:01:43 <Achille> zakim, ibm is me
Achille Fokoue: zakim, ibm is me ←
16:01:46 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Achille; got it ←
16:01:51 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: +Evan_Wallace ←
16:01:54 <bmotik> ianh: I've drafted a response
Ian Horrocks: I've drafted a response ←
16:02:01 <IanH> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JC1b
Ian Horrocks: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JC1b ←
16:02:35 <bmotik> ianh: 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 <bmotik> (everyone's reading Ian's response)
(everyone's reading Ian's response) ←
16:07:49 <msmith> editorial comment: s/IEFT/IETF/g (Internet Engineering Task Force)
Mike Smith: editorial comment: s/IEFT/IETF/g (Internet Engineering Task Force) ←
16:08:55 <bmotik> ianh: Let's go through the comment
Ian Horrocks: Let's go through the comment ←
16:09:23 <bmotik> ivan: 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 ←
16:09:36 <bmotik> ianh: My response does not address this
Ian Horrocks: My response does not address this ←
16:09:55 <bmotik> ianh: 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 ←
16:10:33 <bmotik> ianh: 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 ←
16:10:47 <bmotik> ianh: Thanks -- I'll add this to my response
Ian Horrocks: Thanks -- I'll add this to my response ←
16:11:50 <bmotik> ianh: Links to Wiki's should be the links to TR
Ian Horrocks: Links to Wiki's should be the links to TR ←
16:12:02 <bmotik> sandro: I can't find these links, but I'll ask Jeremy
Sandro Hawke: I can't find these links, but I'll ask Jeremy ←
16:12:27 <sandro> action: sandro find and fix the to-wiki-links Jeremy complains about
ACTION: sandro find and fix the to-wiki-links Jeremy complains about ←
16:12:27 <trackbot> Created 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]. ←
16:12:56 <bmotik> ianh: 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 ←
16:13:22 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
16:15:33 <bmotik> schneid: Jeremy says that various disjointness axioms would make implementation more difficult
Michael Schneider: Jeremy says that various disjointness axioms would make implementation more difficult ←
16:15:52 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
16:16:35 <bmotik> ianh: 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? ←
16:16:47 <bmotik> ianh: Zhe, does your implementation support disjoint union?
Ian Horrocks: Zhe, does your implementation support disjoint union? ←
16:16:49 <bmotik> Zhe: No
16:17:35 <bmotik> bmotik: 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 ←
16:18:21 <bmotik> ivan: 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 ←
16:18:30 <bmotik> ivan: We could ask for more explanation
Ivan Herman: We could ask for more explanation ←
16:18:34 <bmotik> s/ivna/ivan
s/ivna/ivan ←
16:19:09 <bmotik> alanr: 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? ←
16:19:58 <bmotik> ianh: We'll tweak the proposal to say that this does not address all the points and say that we don't see the difficult 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 difficult in implementations ←
16:20:06 <bmotik> s/difficult/sifficulty
s/difficult/sifficulty ←
16:20:37 <bmotik> ianh: 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 ←
16:21:09 <bmotik> schneid: 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 ←
16:21:16 <bmotik> ianh: We'll add this
Ian Horrocks: We'll add this ←
16:21:39 <bmotik> ianh: Jeremy suggested changing the serialization of property chains
Ian Horrocks: Jeremy suggested changing the serialization of property chains ←
16:22:18 <bmotik> pfps: No, they are suggesting something else
Peter Patel-Schneider: No, they are suggesting something else ←
16:22:39 <bmotik> pfps: RDF allows blank nodes in properties
Peter Patel-Schneider: RDF allows blank nodes in properties ←
16:23:01 <bijan> RDF doesn't allow blank nodes in properties.
Bijan Parsia: RDF doesn't allow blank nodes in properties. ←
16:23:32 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
16:23:41 <bmotik> alanr: 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 ←
16:24:21 <MarkusK_> markus: 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 ] ←
16:24:24 <bmotik> msmith: 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 ←
16:24:25 <pfps> RDF 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 ←
16:24:44 <MarkusK_> markus: 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 ] ←
16:24:53 <bijan> Oh, right. Yes. Carry on. _:x rdf:type rdf:Property
Bijan Parsia: Oh, right. Yes. Carry on. _:x rdf:type rdf:Property ←
16:25:06 <MarkusK_> markus: 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 ] ←
16:25:26 <bmotik> schneid: 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 ←
16:25:29 <MarkusK_> markus: 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 ] ←
16:25:41 <bmotik> schneid: 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 ←
16:26:01 <bmotik> schneid: The bnode does not represent a property chain
Michael Schneider: The bnode does not represent a property chain ←
16:26:19 <bmotik> schneid: I believe that people will be confused by this
Michael Schneider: I believe that people will be confused by this ←
16:27:07 <bmotik> schneid: 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 ←
16:27:14 <bmotik> schneid: I couldn't find a real problem
Michael Schneider: I couldn't find a real problem ←
16:27:46 <bmotik> schneid: I'd like to have a single triple encoding
Michael Schneider: I'd like to have a single triple encoding ←
16:28:23 <bmotik> schneid: 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 ←
16:28:38 <bmotik> ianh: What do we think of this?
Ian Horrocks: What do we think of this? ←
16:28:42 <bmotik> bmotik: I don't care
Boris Motik: I don't care ←
16:29:02 <bmotik> ianh: Didn't we have an issue about this?
Ian Horrocks: Didn't we have an issue about this? ←
16:29:13 <bmotik> schneid: 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 ←
16:30:07 <bmotik> ivan: 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 ←
16:31:31 <bmotik> PROPOSED: 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 <schneid> +1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
16:31:50 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
16:31:51 <bmotik> +1
+1 ←
16:31:52 <pfps> -0
16:31:52 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
16:31:58 <ewallace> 0
Evan Wallace: 0 ←
16:32:08 <bijan> 0
Bijan Parsia: 0 ←
16:33:31 <bmotik> (Addendum: it will be called owl:propertyChainAxiom)
(Addendum: it will be called owl:propertyChainAxiom) ←
16:34:03 <Jie> 0
16:34:04 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
16:34:07 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
16:34:11 <ewallace> +1 on owl:propertyChainAxiom name
Evan Wallace: +1 on owl:propertyChainAxiom name ←
16:34:12 <schneid> +1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
16:34:16 <msmith> 0
Mike Smith: 0 ←
16:34:16 <Achille> 0
Achille Fokoue: 0 ←
16:34:18 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
16:34:20 <IanH> 0
Ian Horrocks: 0 ←
16:34:21 <sandro> 0
Sandro Hawke: 0 ←
16:34:30 <zwu2> +1
16:34:32 <pfps> +0.2 for chaining the property axiom
Peter Patel-Schneider: +0.2 for chaining the property axiom ←
16:34:32 <bmotik> 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
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 ←
16:34:46 <bijan> 0
Bijan Parsia: 0 ←
16:35:23 <bmotik> schneid: Note that owl:propertyChain gets ditched
Michael Schneider: Note that owl:propertyChain gets ditched ←
16:35:41 <bmotik> ianh: TQ complained about negative property assertions
Ian Horrocks: TQ complained about negative property assertions ←
16:35:50 <bmotik> alanr: Nobody compained about them
Alan Ruttenberg: Nobody compained about them ←
16:36:00 <bmotik> ianh: SOme people found them useful
Ian Horrocks: SOme people found them useful ←
16:36:17 <bmotik> schneid: 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 ←
16:36:30 <bmotik> ianh: What about my response?
Ian Horrocks: What about my response? ←
16:36:40 <bmotik> alanr: I'm good with this
Alan Ruttenberg: I'm good with this ←
16:36:48 <bmotik> ianh: So that covers it?
Ian Horrocks: So that covers it? ←
16:37:00 <bmotik> ianh: OK, so let's move on to SelfRestrictions
Ian Horrocks: OK, so let's move on to SelfRestrictions ←
16:37:44 <bmotik> alanr: Local reflexivity is more useful than the global reflexivity
Alan Ruttenberg: Local reflexivity is more useful than the global reflexivity ←
16:37:59 <bmotik> schneid: In the past, there was a problem with certain semantics
Michael Schneider: In the past, there was a problem with certain semantics ←
16:38:33 <bmotik> schneid: Now, however, the paradox is no longer pertinent
Michael Schneider: Now, however, the paradox is no longer pertinent ←
16:38:55 <bmotik> ianh: 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 ←
16:39:21 <bmotik> schneid: THis is particular in RDF
Michael Schneider: THis is particular in RDF ←
16:39:32 <bmotik> ianh: 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 ←
16:40:34 <bmotik> ianh: 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 ←
16:41:00 <bmotik> alanr: 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? ←
16:41:08 <ewallace> Holger had this same position before Jeremy joined TopQuadrant
Evan Wallace: Holger had this same position before Jeremy joined TopQuadrant ←
16:41:19 <bmotik> markusk: Have we got any use-cases for globally reflexive properties?
Markus Krötzsch: Have we got any use-cases for globally reflexive properties? ←
16:41:58 <bmotik> ianh: 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 ←
16:42:23 <alanr> this point should be added to NF&R
Alan Ruttenberg: this point should be added to NF&R ←
16:42:31 <schneid> schneid: 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 ] ←
16:42:56 <bmotik> ianh: We'll say that we'll clarify this in NF&R
Ian Horrocks: We'll say that we'll clarify this in NF&R ←
16:43:14 <bmotik> ivan: We should add this to the introductory text
Ivan Herman: We should add this to the introductory text ←
16:43:59 <bmotik> ianh: I'll say that we'll extended NF&R
Ian Horrocks: I'll say that we'll extended NF&R ←
16:44:01 <bmotik> ianh: Let's move to OWL/XML
Ian Horrocks: Let's move to OWL/XML ←
16:44:26 <bmotik> ivan: 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 ←
16:44:39 <bmotik> ivan: Jeremy is not satisfied with the recommendation status
Ivan Herman: Jeremy is not satisfied with the recommendation status ←
16:45:11 <bmotik> alanr: 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? ←
16:45:17 <Zakim> +??P4
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4 ←
16:45:18 <bmotik> alanr: Bijan has a coherent story
Alan Ruttenberg: Bijan has a coherent story ←
16:45:23 <bijan> zakim, ??p4 is me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, ??p4 is me ←
16:45:23 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bijan; got it ←
16:45:39 <bmotik> ianh: 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 ←
16:45:53 <Zakim> -jar
Zakim IRC Bot: -jar ←
16:46:01 <bmotik> pfps: 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" ←
16:46:21 <bmotik> ivan: The sentence about "not a new feature" should go
Ivan Herman: The sentence about "not a new feature" should go ←
16:46:42 <bmotik> ianh: The next thing is Manchester Syntax
Ian Horrocks: The next thing is Manchester Syntax ←
16:46:51 <bijan> For NF&F or whatever, here's my earlier bit: <http://www.w3.org/mid/9926856B-8AF7-4F74-89DC-6C3AEE607EC9@cs.man.ac.uk>
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> ←
16:46:59 <bijan> on OWL/XML
Bijan Parsia: on OWL/XML ←
16:47:13 <bmotik> (everyone): ship it
(everyone): ship it ←
16:47:34 <bmotik> ianh: Jeremy doesn't like using reification in annotations
Ian Horrocks: Jeremy doesn't like using reification in annotations ←
16:47:36 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
16:47:51 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
16:47:51 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was not muted, bijan ←
16:47:56 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
16:47:59 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
16:48:10 <bmotik> bijan: I don't recall any explicit feedback about reification
Bijan Parsia: I don't recall any explicit feedback about reification ←
16:48:39 <bmotik> bijan: 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 ←
16:49:02 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
16:49:02 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
16:49:21 <bmotik> ianh: Jeremy is worried about reification at all
Ian Horrocks: Jeremy is worried about reification at all ←
16:49:40 <bmotik> ianh: But this doesn't handle annotation on axioms
Ian Horrocks: But this doesn't handle annotation on axioms ←
16:49:57 <bijan> We considered *many* alternative encodings, e.g., Literals
Bijan Parsia: We considered *many* alternative encodings, e.g., Literals ←
16:50:24 <bmotik> ianh: 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 ←
16:50:32 <bmotik> ianh: Therefore, we *must* reify
Ian Horrocks: Therefore, we *must* reify ←
16:50:49 <bmotik> ianh: I pointed to our discussion about the usage of RDF reification
Ian Horrocks: I pointed to our discussion about the usage of RDF reification ←
16:51:04 <bmotik> schneid: Raised by Jeremy!
Michael Schneider: Raised by Jeremy! ←
16:51:22 <bmotik> ianh: So we're happy with the response as is?
Ian Horrocks: So we're happy with the response as is? ←
16:51:30 <bmotik> alanr: I hear no objections
Alan Ruttenberg: I hear no objections ←
16:51:58 <bmotik> ianh: 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 ←
16:52:07 <bmotik> ianh: Other than that, we are good with it
Ian Horrocks: Other than that, we are good with it ←
16:52:28 <bmotik> ianH: Moving on to n-ary datatypes
Ian Horrocks: Moving on to n-ary datatypes ←
16:52:36 <bmotik> alanr: I have a problem with how this is stated
Alan Ruttenberg: I have a problem with how this is stated ←
16:53:19 <bmotik> alanr: 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? ←
16:53:35 <bmotik> ianh: 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 ←
16:53:49 <bmotik> ianh: Moving on to RDF interoperability
Ian Horrocks: Moving on to RDF interoperability ←
16:54:52 <bmotik> ivan: 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 ←
16:55:00 <bmotik> ivan: We have already addressed that
Ivan Herman: We have already addressed that ←
16:55:23 <bmotik> ivan: 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 ←
16:55:31 <bmotik> ivan: I would simply say "Nothing has changed"
Ivan Herman: I would simply say "Nothing has changed" ←
16:55:55 <bmotik> ianh: I can strengten the second sentence in my proposed response
Ian Horrocks: I can strengten the second sentence in my proposed response ←
16:56:09 <bmotik> ivan: I see that you are referring to some other responses
Ivan Herman: I see that you are referring to some other responses ←
16:57:02 <bmotik> ivan: Sorry, not important
Ivan Herman: Sorry, not important ←
16:57:20 <bmotik> alanr: 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? ←
16:57:33 <bmotik> ivan: It is the same, not better, not worse
Ivan Herman: It is the same, not better, not worse ←
16:58:01 <bijan> Tactically, 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 ←
16:58:03 <bmotik> ianh: 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 <bijan> "not changed" is less arguable
Bijan Parsia: "not changed" is less arguable ←
16:58:37 <bmotik> ianh: Appendix and dependcies on life sciences
Ian Horrocks: Appendix and dependcies on life sciences ←
16:58:45 <bmotik> alanr: We should response a bit more actively
Alan Ruttenberg: We should response a bit more actively ←
16:59:14 <bmotik> alanr: 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 ←
16:59:21 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
16:59:21 <Zakim> bijan was already muted, bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was already muted, bijan ←
16:59:30 <bmotik> alanr: 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 ←
16:59:44 <bmotik> ianh: He complained about some trivial typos
Ian Horrocks: He complained about some trivial typos ←
17:00:52 <bmotik> ianh: 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 ←
17:01:01 <bmotik> ianh: It is similar to OWL 1
Ian Horrocks: It is similar to OWL 1 ←
17:01:19 <bmotik> ianh: We motivated certain features, but not included all of them
Ian Horrocks: We motivated certain features, but not included all of them ←
17:01:26 <bmotik> alanr: Why don't we get rid of them?
Alan Ruttenberg: Why don't we get rid of them? ←
17:01:37 <bmotik> ianh: It could be useful to document them
Ian Horrocks: It could be useful to document them ←
17:01:46 <bmotik> ianh: I'd be OK with deleting these
Ian Horrocks: I'd be OK with deleting these ←
17:02:02 <bmotik> pfps: We were supposed to gather use cases and requirements
Peter Patel-Schneider: We were supposed to gather use cases and requirements ←
17:02:15 <bmotik> pfps: 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 ←
17:02:18 <bijan> Throw it away!
Bijan Parsia: Throw it away! ←
17:02:27 <bmotik> alanr: The document is called "New Features and Rationale"
Alan Ruttenberg: The document is called "New Features and Rationale" ←
17:02:34 <bijan> The use cases right? I'm strongly against them
Bijan Parsia: The use cases right? I'm strongly against them ←
17:02:34 <bmotik> alanr: These are not new features
Alan Ruttenberg: These are not new features ←
17:02:56 <bmotik> pfps: Given the abstract of the current document, Alan is correct
Peter Patel-Schneider: Given the abstract of the current document, Alan is correct ←
17:03:19 <bmotik> ianh: 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 ←
17:03:32 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:03:43 <ewallace> q
Evan Wallace: q ←
17:03:48 <bijan> q-
Bijan Parsia: q- ←
17:03:49 <ewallace> q+
Evan Wallace: q+ ←
17:03:49 <bmotik> PROPOSED: Remove UC10 and UC11 from MF&R
PROPOSED: Remove UC10 and UC11 from MF&R ←
17:03:55 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:04:02 <IanH> ack ewallace
Ian Horrocks: ack ewallace ←
17:04:03 <bmotik> s/MF&R/NF&R
s/MF&R/NF&R ←
17:04:19 <bmotik> ewallace: 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 ←
17:04:20 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:04:26 <ewallace> q-
Evan Wallace: q- ←
17:04:38 <bmotik> ewallace: This is a motivation for n-ary
Evan Wallace: This is a motivation for n-ary ←
17:04:47 <bmotik> ianh: This is a good point
Ian Horrocks: This is a good point ←
17:05:13 <bmotik> ianh: 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 ←
17:05:37 <bmotik> alanr: 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 ←
17:05:49 <bmotik> ianh: 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 ←
17:05:56 <bijan> On the queue!
Bijan Parsia: On the queue! ←
17:06:00 <bmotik> alanr: 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 ←
17:06:03 <bijan> ack
Bijan Parsia: ack ←
17:06:04 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:06:09 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
17:06:29 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
17:06:29 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
17:06:48 <bmotik> ianh: 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 ←
17:06:57 <bmotik> alanr: I'd say that they motivate what's in the note
Alan Ruttenberg: I'd say that they motivate what's in the note ←
17:07:06 <bmotik> ianh: Alan should craft the text for that
Ian Horrocks: Alan should craft the text for that ←
17:07:42 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:07:55 <bmotik> ianh: Some references to TQ composer were fixed
Ian Horrocks: Some references to TQ composer were fixed ←
17:08:05 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
17:08:05 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
17:08:15 <bmotik> ianh: Jeremy doesn't like Manchester syntax
Ian Horrocks: Jeremy doesn't like Manchester syntax ←
17:08:40 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:08:44 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
17:08:55 <bmotik> pfps: 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 ←
17:09:08 <bmotik> bijan: I'm not sure whether one can comment on a note
Bijan Parsia: I'm not sure whether one can comment on a note ←
17:09:57 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
17:09:57 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
17:10:08 <bmotik> bijan: 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" ←
17:10:19 <bmotik> ianh: Next is GRIDDL
Ian Horrocks: Next is GRIDDL ←
17:10:24 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:10:30 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:10:36 <bijan> I didn't hear that
Bijan Parsia: I didn't hear that ←
17:10:57 <bmotik> ianh: My response says that the charter does not mandate GRIDDL
Ian Horrocks: My response says that the charter does not mandate GRIDDL ←
17:11:07 <bmotik> alanr: This is not a general reading of the charter
Alan Ruttenberg: This is not a general reading of the charter ←
17:11:11 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:11:12 <bmotik> ivan: I agree
Ivan Herman: I agree ←
17:11:15 <bijan> q-
Bijan Parsia: q- ←
17:11:23 <bijan> I'm happy with that response
Bijan Parsia: I'm happy with that response ←
17:11:29 <bmotik> ivan: 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 <bijan> (ivan's)
Bijan Parsia: (ivan's) ←
17:11:39 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
17:11:40 <bijan> I'm off again
Bijan Parsia: I'm off again ←
17:11:49 <bmotik> bijan: I agree with Ivan's rpoposal
Bijan Parsia: I agree with Ivan's rpoposal ←
17:11:51 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
17:11:51 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
17:12:20 <bmotik> ianh: 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" ←
17:12:31 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:13:21 <bmotik> ianh: The next comment is again about normativeness of OWL/XML
Ian Horrocks: The next comment is again about normativeness of OWL/XML ←
17:13:30 <bijan> q-
Bijan Parsia: q- ←
17:14:02 <bmotik> msmith: 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 ←
17:14:21 <bmotik> msmith: I'll look up a reference
Mike Smith: I'll look up a reference ←
17:14:34 <bijan> MIME 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! ←
17:14:39 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:14:43 <bmotik> ianh: The response to this will be to say "The XML syntax is option"
Ian Horrocks: The response to this will be to say "The XML syntax is option" ←
17:14:48 <bmotik> s/option/optional
s/option/optional ←
17:15:14 <bmotik> pfps: 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 ←
17:15:18 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
17:15:18 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
17:15:33 <bmotik> sandro: 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 ←
17:15:46 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
17:15:46 <pfps> normative is not the same as rec-track
Peter Patel-Schneider: normative is not the same as rec-track ←
17:15:48 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:15:55 <bmotik> bijan: Jeremy raised several points
Bijan Parsia: Jeremy raised several points ←
17:16:09 <bmotik> bijan: I have plenty of motivation for XML syntax
Bijan Parsia: I have plenty of motivation for XML syntax ←
17:16:33 <bmotik> bijan: We have also done our best not to be divisive
Bijan Parsia: We have also done our best not to be divisive ←
17:16:47 <bmotik> bijan: 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) ←
17:17:02 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:17:14 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:17:30 <bmotik> bijan: We'd registed a MIME type even if XML syntax is a note
Bijan Parsia: We'd registed a MIME type even if XML syntax is a note ←
17:17:44 <bmotik> s/is/were
s/is/were ←
17:18:05 <bmotik> bijan: 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 ←
17:18:36 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
17:18:36 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
17:18:39 <bmotik> ianh: Could you type into IRC some text about these points?
Ian Horrocks: Could you type into IRC some text about these points? ←
17:18:43 <bmotik> bijan: I'll do it
Bijan Parsia: I'll do it ←
17:18:49 <bijan> I think this should be the response to JJC
Bijan Parsia: I think this should be the response to JJC ←
17:19:03 <bmotik> ivan: 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 ←
17:19:10 <bijan> 1) Motivation: XML toolchain friendly owl foramt (e.g., SOAP, etc.)
Bijan Parsia: 1) Motivation: XML toolchain friendly owl foramt (e.g., SOAP, etc.) ←
17:19:16 <bmotik> ivan: I don't see a need for repetition
Ivan Herman: I don't see a need for repetition ←
17:19:29 <bijan> 2) 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 ←
17:19:51 <bmotik> ivan: 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 ←
17:19:51 <bijan> 3) 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 ←
17:20:02 <bijan> FIne
Bijan Parsia: FIne ←
17:20:28 <bmotik> alanr: 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 ←
17:21:14 <bmotik> ianh: 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. ←
17:21:25 <bmotik> ivan: We can only refer to the Document Overview.
Ivan Herman: We can only refer to the Document Overview. ←
17:21:27 <baojie> baojie has joined #OWL
Jie Bao: baojie has joined #OWL ←
17:21:34 <bmotik> ianh: Moving on to owl:real
Ian Horrocks: Moving on to owl:real ←
17:21:52 <msmith> 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
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 ←
17:21:56 <bmotik> ivan: 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 ←
17:22:16 <bmotik> ianh: 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 ←
17:22:20 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:22:30 <alanr> 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].
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]. ←
17:22:36 <alanr> 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].
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]. ←
17:24:09 <bmotik> ianh: Good, we're done with that
Ian Horrocks: Good, we're done with that ←
17:24:33 <bmotik> ianh: There a
Ian Horrocks: There a ←
17:24:50 <bmotik> ianh: 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 ←
17:25:00 <bmotik> ianh: One comment is regarding effactiveness
Ian Horrocks: One comment is regarding effactiveness ←
17:25:14 <bijan> Isn't the abstract going to change?
Bijan Parsia: Isn't the abstract going to change? ←
17:26:46 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
17:26:46 <Zakim> bijan was already muted, bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was already muted, bijan ←
17:26:48 <bmotik> ianh: 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 ←
17:26:58 <bmotik> ianh: The response is "We'll rewrite the abstract"
Ian Horrocks: The response is "We'll rewrite the abstract" ←
17:27:20 <bijan> I 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" ←
17:27:39 <bmotik> pfps: 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) ←
17:27:41 <bijan> He supports OWL Full! :)
Bijan Parsia: He supports OWL Full! :) ←
17:27:48 <bmotik> ivan: It is ducking his comments.
Ivan Herman: It is ducking his comments. ←
17:27:59 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:28:01 <bmotik> ivan: I don't know what to asnwer regarding his non-belief
Ivan Herman: I don't know what to asnwer regarding his non-belief ←
17:28:39 <ewallace> Isn't less still more?
Evan Wallace: Isn't less still more? ←
17:28:50 <bijan> Even less is way more
Bijan Parsia: Even less is way more ←
17:29:23 <bmotik> alanr: 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 <ewallace> +1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
17:30:11 <bmotik> ianh: 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 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
17:30:19 <bmotik> ianh: His next comment is more philosophical
Ian Horrocks: His next comment is more philosophical ←
17:30:42 <bmotik> ianh: 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 ←
17:31:04 <ewallace> It was in NF&R
Evan Wallace: It was in NF&R ←
17:31:05 <bmotik> ivan: 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 ←
17:31:19 <bmotik> alanr: 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 ←
17:31:22 <baojie> baojie has left #OWL
Jie Bao: baojie has left #OWL ←
17:31:48 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:31:53 <bmotik> (everyone looking at NF&R)
(everyone looking at NF&R) ←
17:31:58 <ewallace> It is still there.
Evan Wallace: It is still there. ←
17:32:14 <bmotik> pfps: 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 ←
17:32:21 <bmotik> pfps: We could change "much" to "some"
Peter Patel-Schneider: We could change "much" to "some" ←
17:32:31 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:32:41 <bmotik> alanr: 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 ←
17:32:44 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
17:32:44 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
17:32:47 <bmotik> pfps: I think it belongs in that paragraph
Peter Patel-Schneider: I think it belongs in that paragraph ←
17:32:52 <bmotik> sandro: I agree
Sandro Hawke: I agree ←
17:32:53 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:32:57 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
17:33:06 <bmotik> bijan: 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 ←
17:33:25 <ewallace> This one will go to Last Call.
Evan Wallace: This one will go to Last Call. ←
17:33:31 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:33:32 <schneid> +1 to bijan (in general for non-lc docs)
Michael Schneider: +1 to bijan (in general for non-lc docs) ←
17:33:33 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
17:33:33 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
17:33:41 <bmotik> bijan: 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" ←
17:33:41 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:33:45 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
17:33:45 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
17:33:47 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:33:52 <bmotik> ivan: 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 ←
17:34:10 <bmotik> ivan: Instead of "much" we say "some" and this seems quite good
Ivan Herman: Instead of "much" we say "some" and this seems quite good ←
17:34:14 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
17:34:26 <bmotik> bijan: I'd be perfectly happy for them to raize a new LC comment and to give the same response
Bijan Parsia: I'd be perfectly happy for them to raize a new LC comment and to give the same response ←
17:34:31 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:34:35 <bmotik> s/raize/raise
s/raize/raise ←
17:35:01 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
17:35:01 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
17:35:05 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:35:13 <bmotik> ianh: 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 ←
17:35:26 <bmotik> alanr: But what do we lose if we remove it?
Alan Ruttenberg: But what do we lose if we remove it? ←
17:35:26 <bijan> I think it's fair and helpful
Bijan Parsia: I think it's fair and helpful ←
17:35:44 <bmotik> pfps: 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! ←
17:36:21 <bijan> I 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 ←
17:36:22 <bmotik> alanr: 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 ←
17:36:37 <bmotik> PROPOSED: 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" ←
17:36:39 <bmotik> +1
+1 ←
17:36:39 <pfps> +1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU ←
17:36:40 <msmith> +1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
17:36:43 <ewallace> -1
Evan Wallace: -1 ←
17:36:45 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
17:36:45 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
17:36:47 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
17:36:47 <alanr> -1 (but won't block)
Alan Ruttenberg: -1 (but won't block) ←
17:36:47 <zwu21> 0
17:36:47 <schneid> +1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
17:36:50 <baojie> 0
17:36:58 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
17:36:59 <bijan> 0
Bijan Parsia: 0 ←
17:37:10 <Achille> 0
Achille Fokoue: 0 ←
17:37:15 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:37:27 <bmotik> ewallace: I would go with Bijan and Peter
Evan Wallace: I would go with Bijan and Peter ←
17:37:40 <bmotik> ewallace: I voted against changing "much" to "some"
Evan Wallace: I voted against changing "much" to "some" ←
17:37:47 <bmotik> ianh: Will you lie in the road?
Ian Horrocks: Will you lie in the road? ←
17:37:50 <bmotik> ewallace: No
Evan Wallace: No ←
17:38:03 <bmotik> RESOLVED: 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" ←
17:38:17 <bmotik> ewallace: Ask Christine to make the change
Evan Wallace: Ask Christine to make the change ←
17:38:20 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
17:38:20 <Zakim> bijan was already muted, bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was already muted, bijan ←
17:38:45 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:39:34 <bijan> Who's changing it?
Bijan Parsia: Who's changing it? ←
17:40:17 <bmotik> bmotik: I've changed "much" to "some"
Boris Motik: I've changed "much" to "some" ←
17:40:43 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:41:20 <bijan> Earlier for bijanissues would be appreciated
Bijan Parsia: Earlier for bijanissues would be appreciated ←
17:41:25 <ewallace> +1 on replanning now
Evan Wallace: +1 on replanning now ←
17:43:11 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:46:11 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:46:13 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
17:46:13 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
17:46:29 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:47:01 <ewallace> Don't worry about me, time wise.
Evan Wallace: Don't worry about me, time wise. ←
17:47:24 <ewallace> q+
Evan Wallace: q+ ←
17:47:47 <ewallace> What time are we planning for the NF&R discussion?
Evan Wallace: What time are we planning for the NF&R discussion? ←
17:47:54 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
17:47:54 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
17:48:12 <ewallace> Just want to know when to encourage Christine to join.
Evan Wallace: Just want to know when to encourage Christine to join. ←
17:50:38 <Zakim> -Achille
Zakim IRC Bot: -Achille ←
17:53:40 <baojie> Ian just said "Other Documents" will be discussed
Jie Bao: Ian just said "Other Documents" will be discussed ←
17:53:42 <ewallace> q-
Evan Wallace: q- ←
17:53:47 <Zakim> -bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: -bijan ←
17:53:49 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: -Evan_Wallace ←
18:30:35 <bijan> christine, 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 ←
18:30:37 <bijan> Sorry for the confusion
Bijan Parsia: Sorry for the confusion ←
18:34:21 <zwu21> scribenick: Zhe
18:34:22 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
Ivan Herman: zakim, who is here? ←
18:34:22 <Zakim> On the phone I see MIT346
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MIT346 ←
18:34:23 <Zakim> On 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 ←
18:34:26 <pfps> scribenick zwu21
Peter Patel-Schneider: scribenick zwu21 ←
18:34:45 <sandro> scribe: Zhe
(Scribe set to Zhe Wu)
18:35:12 <zwu21> ...
... ←
18:35:13 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/TC1
Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/TC1 ←
18:35:23 <zwu21> scribenick: Zhe
18:35:47 <zwu21> Topic: philosophical
18:36:11 <zwu21> alanr: 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 <Zakim> +??P5
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P5 ←
18:36:17 <bijan> zakim, ??p5
Bijan Parsia: zakim, ??p5 ←
18:36:17 <Zakim> I don't understand '??p5', bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand '??p5', bijan ←
18:36:22 <bijan> zakim, ??p5 is me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, ??p5 is me ←
18:36:24 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bijan; got it ←
18:36:26 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:36:26 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
18:36:30 <zwu21> ... looking at TC1
... looking at TC1 ←
18:36:42 <zwu21> ivan: only one change made.
Ivan Herman: only one change made. ←
18:36:58 <zwu21> ... last sentence before the refences
... last sentence before the refences ←
18:37:08 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:37:18 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: +Evan_Wallace ←
18:37:33 <IanH> we don't hear any noise
Ian Horrocks: we don't hear any noise ←
18:38:23 <ewallace> Hearing nothing.
Evan Wallace: Hearing nothing. ←
18:38:45 <alanr> structural specification and functional-style syntax document
Alan Ruttenberg: structural specification and functional-style syntax document ←
18:38:57 <zwu21> alanr: make a normal reference,
Alan Ruttenberg: make a normal reference, ←
<sandro> Meeting in progress. New content inserted above this line.
Sandro Hawke: Meeting in progress. New content inserted above this line. ←
This revision (#3) generated 2009-02-24 18:41:26 UTC by 'sandro', comments: 'update on meeting in progress'