OWL Working Group

Minutes of 24 February 2009

Present
Ian Horrocks Boris Motik Mike Smith Zhe Wu Peter Patel-Schneider Jie Bao Ivan Herman Michael Schneider Markus Krötzsch Sandro Hawke Alan Ruttenberg
Remote
Jonathan Rees Evan Wallace Achille Fokoue Uli Sattler Bijan Parsia Christine Golbreich
Scribe
Peter Patel-Schneider Jie Bao Boris Motik Zhe Wu Ivan Herman
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions
  1. send response for 15 link
  2. reflexive, symmetric, and asymmetric should be added to be QL profile link
  3. We will not add sameas to the QL profile. link
  4. add some uli's text to profile document link
  5. reflexive, irreflexive, & asymmetric properties will be added to the QL profile link
  6. 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 link
  7. The reference to OWL-ED stays in the document but with a change of "much" to "some" link
  8. the WG will use its best endeavours to complete its work according to the schedule proposed by Sandro above. link
Topics
<sandro> PRESENT: Ian, Boris, Smith, Zhe, PFPS, Jie, Ivan, mschnei, markus, sandro, alanruttenberg
<sandro> REMOTE: rees, evan, achille, uli, bijan, christine
<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

1. 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

Zhe Wu: +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

2. OWL QL

<sandro> subtopic: Add reflexive, symmetric, and asymmetric?

2.1. 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

Zhe Wu: -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

2.2. 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

Zhe Wu: 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

Zhe Wu: +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, &amp; 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

Zhe Wu: +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, &amp; 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> topic: TQ comments

3. TQ comments

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

16:15:33 <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

16:16:35 <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

Zhe Wu: 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

16:19:09 <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 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

16:20:37 <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.

16:23:41 <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> bmotik: +1

Boris Motik: +1

16:31:52 <pfps> -0

Peter Patel-Schneider: -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

Jie Bao: 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

Zhe Wu: +1

16:34:32 <pfps> +0.2 for chaining the property axiom

Peter Patel-Schneider: +0.2 for chaining the property axiom

16:34:33 <bijan> 0

Bijan Parsia: 0

16:34:34 <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

16:35:23 <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&amp;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&amp;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&amp;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&amp;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&amp;R explaining why we want OWL/XML?

16:45:18 <bmotik> alanr: Bijan has a coherent story

Alan Ruttenberg: Bijan has a coherent story

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

16:46:01 <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&amp;F or whatever, here's my earlier bit: &lt;http://www.w3.org/mid/9926856B-8AF7-4F74-89DC-6C3AEE607EC9@cs.man.ac.uk&gt;

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

16:48:10 <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

16:49:21 <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&amp;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&amp;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

17:03:49 <bmotik> PROPOSED: Remove UC10 and UC11 from NF&R

PROPOSED: Remove UC10 and UC11 from NF&amp;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

17:04:38 <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

17:06:00 <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

17:06:48 <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

17:07:55 <bmotik> ianh: Some references to TQ composer were fixed

Ian Horrocks: Some references to TQ composer were fixed

17:08:15 <bmotik> ianh: Jeremy doesn't like Manchester syntax

Ian Horrocks: Jeremy doesn't like Manchester syntax

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

17:10:36 <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

17:11:12 <bmotik> ivan: I agree

Ivan Herman: I agree

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)

17:11:40 <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

17:12:20 <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"

17:13:21 <bmotik> ianh: The next comment is again about normativeness of OWL/XML

Ian Horrocks: The next comment is again about normativeness of OWL/XML

17:14:02 <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!

17:14:43 <bmotik> ianh: 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"

17:15:14 <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

17:15:33 <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

17:15:55 <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)

17:17:30 <bmotik> bijan: 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

17:18:05 <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

17:18:39 <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

17:22:30 <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

17:24:50 <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?

17:26:48 <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.

17:28:01 <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&amp;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

17:31:53 <bmotik> (everyone looking at NF&R)

(everyone looking at NF&amp;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"

17:32:41 <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

17:32:47 <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

17:33:06 <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.

17:33:32 <schneid> +1 to bijan (in general for non-lc docs)

Michael Schneider: +1 to bijan (in general for non-lc docs)

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"

17:33:52 <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

17:34:26 <bmotik> bijan: 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

17:35:13 <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> bmotik: +1

Boris Motik: +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

Zhe Wu: 0

17:36:47 <schneid> +1

Michael Schneider: +1

17:36:50 <baojie> 0

Jie Bao: 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

17:39:34 <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"

17:41:20 <bijan> Earlier for Bijan-issues would be appreciated

Bijan Parsia: Earlier for Bijan-issues would be appreciated

17:41:25 <ewallace> +1 on replanning now

Evan Wallace: +1 on replanning now

17:47:01 <ewallace> Don't worry about me, time wise.

(No events recorded for 5 minutes)

Evan Wallace: Don't worry about me, time wise.

17:47:47 <ewallace> What time are we planning for the NF&R discussion?

Evan Wallace: What time are we planning for the NF&amp;R discussion?

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.

17:53:40 <baojie> Ian just said "Other Documents" will be discussed

(No events recorded for 5 minutes)

Jie Bao: Ian just said "Other Documents" will be discussed

18:30:35 <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&amp;R or n-ary

18:30:37 <bijan> Sorry for the confusion

Bijan Parsia: Sorry for the confusion

18:34:21 <zwu21>  scribenick: Zhe

Zhe Wu: 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

4. 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,

18:39:14 <pfps> abstract structure -> generic syntax

Peter Patel-Schneider: abstract structure -&gt; generic syntax

18:39:14 <alanr> drop

Alan Ruttenberg: drop

18:39:19 <alanr> drop "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."

18:39:34 <alanr> was not _yet_ published -> has not yet been published

Alan Ruttenberg: was not _yet_ published -&gt; has not yet been published

18:40:02 <pfps> OK by me

Peter Patel-Schneider: OK by me

18:40:12 <alanr> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q?

18:41:16 <zwu21> ivan: will send it out tommrrow

Ivan Herman: will send it out tommrrow

18:41:41 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/FH3

Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/FH3

18:41:48 <zwu21> ivan: regarding LC 29,

Ivan Herman: regarding LC 29,

18:42:23 <zwu21> pfps: there are two responses. we are both stuck

Peter Patel-Schneider: there are two responses. we are both stuck

18:42:30 <zwu21> ... with Bijan's

... with Bijan's

18:42:48 <bijan> I give up mine without hesitation

Bijan Parsia: I give up mine without hesitation

18:43:03 <bijan> I 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

18:43:27 <bijan> Mine is more on justifying xml syntax

Bijan Parsia: Mine is more on justifying xml syntax

18:43:36 <bijan> Peter's is more about the harmlessness of owl/xml

Bijan Parsia: Peter's is more about the harmlessness of owl/xml

18:44:17 <christine> if still plan to discuss Documents, at what time please ?

Christine Golbreich: if still plan to discuss Documents, at what time please ?

18:44:18 <zwu21> IanH: 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 <bijan> +1

Bijan Parsia: +1

18:45:04 <pfps> 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).

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).

18:45:10 <zwu21> pfps: ... jc1b

Peter Patel-Schneider: ... jc1b

18:45:34 <zwu21> alanr: add a node that we will add something in NF&R

Alan Ruttenberg: add a node that we will add something in NF&amp;R

18:45:43 <zwu21> s/node/note/

s/node/note/

18:45:49 <sandro> amended 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&amp;R

18:46:16 <zwu21> ivan: the reason I think short resposne is ok

Ivan Herman: the reason I think short resposne is ok

18:46:58 <bijan> Cool!

Bijan Parsia: Cool!

18:47:06 <bijan> Then I'm all for microshort

Bijan Parsia: Then I'm all for microshort

18:47:09 <alanr> PROPOSED: Respond to FH3  as in JC1b

PROPOSED: Respond to FH3 as in JC1b

18:47:29 <bijan> I'mhappy to be out of the loop here

Bijan Parsia: I'mhappy to be out of the loop here

18:47:39 <alanr> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

18:47:43 <Zakim> +[IBM]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM]

18:47:45 <zwu21> pfps: delegate to IanH for response

Peter Patel-Schneider: delegate to IanH for response

18:47:46 <bijan> +1

Bijan Parsia: +1

18:47:47 <msmith> +1

Mike Smith: +1

18:47:48 <MarkusK_> +1

Markus Krötzsch: +1

18:47:49 <zwu21> +1

+1

18:47:56 <Achille> zakim, ibm is me

Achille Fokoue: zakim, ibm is me

18:47:56 <Zakim> +Achille; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Achille; got it

18:47:59 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

18:48:13 <alanr> RESOLVED Respond to FH3  as in JC1b

Alan Ruttenberg: RESOLVED Respond to FH3 as in JC1b

18:48:26 <pfps> +1

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1

18:48:28 <zwu21> subtopic: LC 34A

4.1. LC 34A

18:48:37 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JC1a

Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JC1a

18:48:38 <baojie> +1

Jie Bao: +1

18:48:54 <zwu21> alanr: I hope we can have something shorter

Alan Ruttenberg: I hope we can have something shorter

18:49:01 <alanr> http://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

18:49:05 <zwu21> pfps: fine by me

Peter Patel-Schneider: fine by me

18:49:06 <bijan> Second paragraph only?

Bijan Parsia: Second paragraph only?

18:49:12 <bijan> First and second paragraph only?

Bijan Parsia: First and second paragraph only?

18:49:32 <bijan> Me

Bijan Parsia: Me

18:49:51 <zwu21> IanH: bijan wrote the initial version.

Ian Horrocks: bijan wrote the initial version.

18:49:58 <zwu21> ... some of it is used here

... some of it is used here

18:51:01 <zwu21> ivan: this is the answer to his comment to stop the work?

Ivan Herman: this is the answer to his comment to stop the work?

18:51:16 <alanr> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q?

18:51:25 <zwu21> ... can we add something more formal?

... can we add something more formal?

18:51:33 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

18:51:49 <zwu21> ... for example, a few WG members want to move forward

... for example, a few WG members want to move forward

18:51:52 <bijan> zakim, unmute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me

18:51:52 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted

18:51:54 <alanr> ack Bijan

Alan Ruttenberg: ack Bijan

18:52:02 <IanH> ack bijan

Ian Horrocks: ack bijan

18:52:12 <alanr> q+ sandro

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ sandro

18:52:36 <zwu21> bijan: I don't see that TopQuardrant wants us to stop work

Bijan Parsia: I don't see that TopQuardrant wants us to stop work

18:52:41 <alanr> q+ ianh

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ianh

18:52:48 <zwu21> ... 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 <zwu21> ... according to the process he think is more appropriate

... according to the process he think is more appropriate

18:53:16 <alanr> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q?

18:53:19 <zwu21> ... We can safely ignore it

... We can safely ignore it

18:54:09 <zwu21> ... 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

18:54:09 <alanr> ack sandro

Alan Ruttenberg: ack sandro

18:54:14 <bijan> zakim, mute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me

18:54:14 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted

18:54:27 <zwu21> sandro: I am for short responses

Sandro Hawke: I am for short responses

18:54:40 <zwu21> ... not sure what we can do differently here

... not sure what we can do differently here

18:54:45 <alanr> ack ian

Alan Ruttenberg: ack ian

18:54:46 <zwu21> pfps: you can just point to NF&R

Peter Patel-Schneider: you can just point to NF&amp;R

18:54:50 <alanr> q+ ivan

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ivan

18:54:54 <alanr> q+ alanr

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ alanr

18:55:06 <zwu21> ianH: 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

18:55:10 <bijan> Oh, WebSHROIQ

Bijan Parsia: Oh, WebSHROIQ

18:55:11 <bijan> I see

Bijan Parsia: I see

18:55:14 <zwu21> ... and don't call it OWL

... and don't call it OWL

18:55:37 <bijan> zakim, unmute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me

18:55:37 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted

18:55:40 <alanr> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q?

18:56:08 <alanr> ack ivan

Alan Ruttenberg: ack ivan

18:56:13 <bijan> zakim, mute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me

18:56:13 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted

18:56:20 <sandro> bijan: 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 ]

18:56:23 <IanH> I like that -- put positive responses on a wiki page

Ian Horrocks: I like that -- put positive responses on a wiki page

18:56:41 <zwu21> ivan: 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)

18:56:45 <IanH> That way we could even be more expansive

Ian Horrocks: That way we could even be more expansive

18:56:51 <zwu21> ... and they can read/check it

... and they can read/check it

18:56:55 <sandro> "blurbs"

Sandro Hawke: "blurbs"

18:56:56 <bijan> I'd like the testimonal page anyway

Bijan Parsia: I'd like the testimonal page anyway

18:56:59 <ewallace> +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 <sandro> +1 to a testimonial/blurbs page

Sandro Hawke: +1 to a testimonial/blurbs page

18:57:18 <IanH> q+

Ian Horrocks: q+

18:57:22 <zwu21> ... 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 <sandro> (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 <zwu21> ... according to the charter

... according to the charter

18:57:36 <alanr> ack alanr

Alan Ruttenberg: ack alanr

18:58:37 <alanr> ack ianh

Alan Ruttenberg: ack ianh

18:58:38 <zwu21> alanr: 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

18:58:46 <zwu21> s/chaning/changing/

s/chaning/changing/

18:58:52 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

18:59:26 <alanr> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q?

18:59:42 <bijan> q-

Bijan Parsia: q-

18:59:51 <alanr> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q?

18:59:52 <zwu21> IanH: 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 <zwu21> ... for the rest, point to a web page

... for the rest, point to a web page

19:00:10 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:02:05 <zwu21> pfps crafted FH1 response

pfps crafted FH1 response

19:02:31 <zwu21> Topic: document schedule

5. document schedule

19:02:34 <alanr> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q?

19:02:47 <bijan> zakim, mute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me

19:02:47 <Zakim> bijan was already muted, bijan

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was already muted, bijan

19:02:52 <zwu21> ivan: 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 <zwu21> ... do a complete publication of all our documents,

... do a complete publication of all our documents,

19:03:25 <zwu21> ... the current LC documents to be re-issued as LC

... the current LC documents to be re-issued as LC

19:03:25 <alanr> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q?

19:03:50 <zwu21> ... 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 <zwu21> ... 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 <zwu21> ... ok with re-issue another draft of Primer

... ok with re-issue another draft of Primer

19:04:35 <zwu21> ... not sure about NF&R,

... not sure about NF&amp;R,

19:04:45 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

19:05:09 <zwu21> ... 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

19:05:18 <alanr> q+ ianh

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ianh

19:05:30 <zwu21> ... regarding timing, RDf semantics is not clear to me

... regarding timing, RDf semantics is not clear to me

19:05:50 <Zakim> +??P8

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P8

19:05:51 <zwu21> Michael: when do you think is the earliest date for publishing?

Michael Schneider: when do you think is the earliest date for publishing?

19:05:57 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:06:06 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

19:06:06 <Zakim> On 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

19:06:07 <Zakim> On 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

19:06:15 <bijan> zakim, unmute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me

19:06:15 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted

19:06:16 <zwu21> alanr: do we agree to a simultaneous publication of all docs?

Alan Ruttenberg: do we agree to a simultaneous publication of all docs?

19:06:20 <alanr> ack bijan

Alan Ruttenberg: ack bijan

19:06:21 <christine> zakim, ??P8 is christine

Christine Golbreich: zakim, ??P8 is christine

19:06:22 <Zakim> +christine; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +christine; got it

19:06:23 <alanr> q+ mike

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ mike

19:06:50 <alanr> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q?

19:07:02 <sandro> Bijan: 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 ]

19:07:08 <zwu21> bijan: 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 <zwu21> ... otherwise, I am ok with it

... otherwise, I am ok with it

19:07:37 <bijan> zakim, mute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me

19:07:37 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted

19:08:03 <alanr> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q?

19:08:06 <alanr> ack ianh

Alan Ruttenberg: ack ianh

19:08:15 <bijan> 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

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

19:08:16 <zwu21> IanH: 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

19:08:18 <alanr> q+ alanr

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ alanr

19:09:11 <alanr> ack mike

Alan Ruttenberg: ack mike

19:09:46 <zwu21> Ivan: by CR, all should be in sync

Ivan Herman: by CR, all should be in sync

19:10:01 <zwu21> Mike: want to clarify the consequences

Mike Smith: want to clarify the consequences

19:10:02 <alanr> q+ sandro

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ sandro

19:10:05 <alanr> ack alanr

Alan Ruttenberg: ack alanr

19:10:31 <zwu21> alanr: 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 <zwu21> ... we can do the same thing if they come back

... we can do the same thing if they come back

19:11:01 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

19:12:10 <zwu21> sandro: 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

19:12:15 <alanr> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q?

19:12:18 <alanr> ack sandro

Alan Ruttenberg: ack sandro

19:12:22 <ivan> ack sandro

Ivan Herman: ack sandro

19:12:45 <zwu21> ... main point of second LC is the whole package

... main point of second LC is the whole package

19:13:05 <zwu21> ... all the rec track spec will be LC,

... all the rec track spec will be LC,

19:13:25 <bijan> zakim, unmute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me

19:13:25 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted

19:13:26 <alanr> ack bijan

Alan Ruttenberg: ack bijan

19:13:26 <zwu21> ... ok with this strategy

... ok with this strategy

19:13:43 <zwu21> bijan: I did not understand Sandro's story

Bijan Parsia: I did not understand Sandro's story

19:13:48 <sandro> sandro: 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 ]

19:14:18 <alanr> q+ sandro

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ sandro

19:14:50 <ivan> zakim, who is here?

Ivan Herman: zakim, who is here?

19:14:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see MIT346, bijan, Evan_Wallace, Achille, christine

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MIT346, bijan, Evan_Wallace, Achille, christine

19:14:51 <Zakim> On 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

19:14:54 <alanr> q+ schneid

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ schneid

19:14:57 <alanr> ack sandro

Alan Ruttenberg: ack sandro

19:15:17 <zwu21> sandro: 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 <zwu21> ... the story is not perfect, but good enough

... the story is not perfect, but good enough

19:15:37 <alanr> q+ 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

19:15:37 <bijan> no

Bijan Parsia: no

19:15:46 <alanr> q+ boris

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ boris

19:15:53 <zwu21> ... the roadmap will look really odd without other documents

... the roadmap will look really odd without other documents

19:15:54 <ivan> ack schneid

Ivan Herman: ack schneid

19:16:02 <sandro> sandro: 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 ]

19:16:12 <alanr> q+ sandro

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ sandro

19:16:21 <alanr> q+ mike

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ mike

19:16:22 <zwu21> schneid: we make editorial, we also make design changes.

Michael Schneider: we make editorial, we also make design changes.

19:16:55 <bijan> If there's no change to the design?

Bijan Parsia: If there's no change to the design?

19:17:09 <schneid> schneid: 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 ]

19:17:12 <alanr> ack alanr

Alan Ruttenberg: ack alanr

19:17:12 <Zakim> alanr, 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

19:17:24 <alanr> ack boris

Alan Ruttenberg: ack boris

19:17:31 <zwu21> bmotik: I think changes are significant

Boris Motik: I think changes are significant

19:17:34 <bijan> They change implementations :(

Bijan Parsia: They change implementations :(

19:17:39 <alanr> q+ ianh

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ianh

19:18:00 <alanr> q+ schneid

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ schneid

19:18:08 <alanr> ack sandro

Alan Ruttenberg: ack sandro

19:18:55 <alanr> ack mike

Alan Ruttenberg: ack mike

19:18:58 <sandro> sandro: 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 ]

19:18:59 <ivan> ack mike

Ivan Herman: ack mike

19:19:08 <bijan> zakim, mute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me

19:19:08 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted

19:19:14 <alanr> q+ 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

19:19:17 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

19:19:24 <alanr> ack ianh

Alan Ruttenberg: ack ianh

19:19:24 <ivan> ack ianh

Ivan Herman: ack ianh

19:19:31 <zwu21> Mike: 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

19:19:47 <ivan> ack schneid

Ivan Herman: ack schneid

19:19:47 <alanr> ack schneid

Alan Ruttenberg: ack schneid

19:20:36 <ivan> ack alanr

Ivan Herman: ack alanr

19:20:36 <Zakim> alanr, 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

19:20:36 <zwu21> schneid: 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 <zwu21> ... in 1st LC, then we can do minimal

... in 1st LC, then we can do minimal

19:21:03 <alanr> ack ivan

Alan Ruttenberg: ack ivan

19:21:32 <zwu21> ivan: getting beyond LC does not mean it is over

Ivan Herman: getting beyond LC does not mean it is over

19:21:54 <zwu21> ... 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

19:22:11 <bijan> There'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

19:22:18 <zwu21> alanr: publish date 3/31/09...

Alan Ruttenberg: publish date 3/31/09...

19:23:09 <alanr> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q?

19:23:13 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:23:14 <zwu21> schneid: end of march should be enough for RDF semantics

Michael Schneider: end of march should be enough for RDF semantics

19:23:19 <christine> 3/31/09 for UF docs as well ?

Christine Golbreich: 3/31/09 for UF docs as well ?

19:23:24 <zwu21> ivan: what about Primer, NF&R

Ivan Herman: what about Primer, NF&amp;R

19:23:33 <bijan> Primer is fine for another draft by then

Bijan Parsia: Primer is fine for another draft by then

19:23:46 <schneid> schneid: 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 ]

19:24:14 <alanr> ack ianh

Alan Ruttenberg: ack ianh

19:24:21 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:24:24 <IanH> q+

Ian Horrocks: q+

19:24:31 <christine> can you write what said about NF&R

Christine Golbreich: can you write what said about NF&amp;R

19:24:51 <zwu21> jie: 1 month is enough for quick reference

Jie Bao: 1 month is enough for quick reference

19:25:14 <zwu21> ... the missing links are primer and syntax,

... the missing links are primer and syntax,

19:25:53 <ewallace> Who will be working on the Primer?

Evan Wallace: Who will be working on the Primer?

19:26:00 <christine> +q

Christine Golbreich: +q

19:26:01 <zwu21> Markus: end of March is too tight

Markus Krötzsch: end of March is too tight

19:26:03 <Zakim> -bijan

Zakim IRC Bot: -bijan

19:26:09 <alanr> q+ pfps

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ pfps

19:26:13 <alanr> q+ ivan

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ivan

19:26:22 <ivan> q-

Ivan Herman: q-

19:26:32 <alanr> ack IanH

Alan Ruttenberg: ack IanH

19:26:58 <alanr> q+ sandro

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ sandro

19:26:58 <zwu21> IanH: 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 <zwu21> ... 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 <zwu21> ... I want to whole timeline be examined

... I want to whole timeline be examined

19:27:39 <alanr> q+ schneid

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ schneid

19:27:42 <zwu21> ... for feasibility

... for feasibility

19:27:43 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

19:27:51 <alanr> ack christine

Alan Ruttenberg: ack christine

19:29:35 <ewallace> Ah, now it is clear.

Evan Wallace: Ah, now it is clear.

19:29:37 <zwu21> ivan: the NF&R can move directly from LC to PR

Ivan Herman: the NF&amp;R can move directly from LC to PR

19:29:53 <zwu21> christine: is there lots of work to do?

Christine Golbreich: is there lots of work to do?

19:30:20 <zwu21> ... maybe NF&R can finish in 1 month as well?

... maybe NF&amp;R can finish in 1 month as well?

19:30:23 <alanr> ack pfps

Alan Ruttenberg: ack pfps

19:30:31 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:30:33 <zwu21> alanr: we will review it and see what needs to be done

Alan Ruttenberg: we will review it and see what needs to be done

19:30:35 <alanr> ack sandro

Alan Ruttenberg: ack sandro

19:30:43 <sandro> Editors Done - March 17; begin WG review

Sandro Hawke: Editors Done - March 17; begin WG review

19:30:43 <sandro> LC2 published March 1, comment deadline march 29

Sandro Hawke: LC2 published March 1, comment deadline march 29

19:30:43 <sandro> 4-8 weeks handling LC2 comments

Sandro Hawke: 4-8 weeks handling LC2 comments

19:30:43 <sandro> CR (LC for User Docs), in May

Sandro Hawke: CR (LC for User Docs), in May

19:30:43 <sandro> PR for everything (but Notes) in July

Sandro Hawke: PR for everything (but Notes) in July

19:30:44 <sandro> Rec in September

Sandro Hawke: Rec in September

19:31:04 <christine> +q

Christine Golbreich: +q

19:31:29 <zwu21> s/March 1/April 1/g

s/March 1/April 1/g

19:31:36 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:31:42 <ivan> ack schneid

Ivan Herman: ack schneid

19:31:55 <zwu21> schneid: I can finish in the first half of march

Michael Schneider: I can finish in the first half of march

19:32:04 <alanr> ack schneid

Alan Ruttenberg: ack schneid

19:32:15 <zwu21> ... however, what does 2 weeks buy us?

... however, what does 2 weeks buy us?

19:32:43 <alanr> ack ivan

Alan Ruttenberg: ack ivan

19:33:07 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.518.276.aaaa

19:33:25 <alanr> q+ ianh

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ianh

19:33:26 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:33:35 <alanr> ack christine

Alan Ruttenberg: ack christine

19:34:25 <alanr> ack ianh

Alan Ruttenberg: ack ianh

19:34:33 <ivan> ack IanH

Ivan Herman: ack IanH

19:34:54 <alanr> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q?

19:35:05 <zwu21> IanH: I appreciate that RDF semantics has to go through LC,

Ian Horrocks: I appreciate that RDF semantics has to go through LC,

19:35:13 <ivan> ivan: 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 <Zakim> +??P14

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14

19:35:24 <zwu21> ... it seems to me that because schedule is tight,

... it seems to me that because schedule is tight,

19:35:26 <bijan> zakim, ??p14 is me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, ??p14 is me

19:35:26 <Zakim> +bijan; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +bijan; got it

19:35:34 <zwu21> ... we may want to avoid 2nd LC

... we may want to avoid 2nd LC

19:35:48 <sandro> 09 March - FPWD Document Overview

Sandro Hawke: 09 March - FPWD Document Overview

19:35:48 <sandro> 30 March - Editors Done, begin WG review

Sandro Hawke: 30 March - Editors Done, begin WG review

19:35:48 <sandro> 13 April - Publish Round 5 (LC2)

Sandro Hawke: 13 April - Publish Round 5 (LC2)

19:35:48 <sandro> 01 June  - CR

Sandro Hawke: 01 June - CR

19:35:48 <sandro> 01 Aug   - PR

Sandro Hawke: 01 Aug - PR

19:35:49 <sandro> 01 Oct   - Rec

Sandro Hawke: 01 Oct - Rec

19:36:10 <bijan> When would CR end?

Bijan Parsia: When would CR end?

19:36:18 <bijan> zakim, mute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me

19:36:18 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted

19:36:27 <sandro> CR ends 15 July

Sandro Hawke: CR ends 15 July

19:37:02 <alanr> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q?

19:37:05 <zwu21> ivan: how long does implenters need for CR to do implementation

Ivan Herman: how long does implenters need for CR to do implementation

19:37:13 <bijan> zakim, unmute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me

19:37:13 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted

19:37:15 <zwu21> IanH: Pellet and HermiT are very close

Ian Horrocks: Pellet and HermiT are very close

19:37:20 <christine> +q

Christine Golbreich: +q

19:37:28 <zwu21> ... HermiT is more or less complete

... HermiT is more or less complete

19:37:43 <zwu21> bijan: Pellet is tracking OWL 2

Bijan Parsia: Pellet is tracking OWL 2

19:37:56 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

19:38:03 <alanr> q+ alanr

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ alanr

19:38:12 <bijan> zakim, mute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me

19:38:12 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted

19:38:52 <bijan> FPWD, publish early and often

Bijan Parsia: FPWD, publish early and often

19:38:53 <alanr> ack christine

Alan Ruttenberg: ack christine

19:38:56 <alanr> ack ivan

Alan Ruttenberg: ack ivan

19:39:04 <zwu21> christine: can we set is to Mar 9?

Christine Golbreich: can we set is to Mar 9?

19:39:25 <alanr> q+ pfps

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ pfps

19:39:37 <christine> scan we set is to Mar 9?/ 15

Christine Golbreich: scan we set is to Mar 9?/ 15

19:39:57 <ivan> ack alanr

Ivan Herman: ack alanr

19:39:59 <zwu21> ivan: the LC version can have your current comments

Ivan Herman: the LC version can have your current comments

19:40:14 <bijan> I have more answers

Bijan Parsia: I have more answers

19:40:23 <zwu21> ... question of Profiles implementation

... question of Profiles implementation

19:40:27 <alanr> q+ pfps

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ pfps

19:40:32 <alanr> q+ mike

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ mike

19:40:36 <alanr> ack pfps

Alan Ruttenberg: ack pfps

19:40:52 <zwu21> pfps: 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

19:41:10 <christine> for 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 <zwu21> ... given a RL document, it will do RL reasoning

... given a RL document, it will do RL reasoning

19:41:54 <alanr> ack mike

Alan Ruttenberg: ack mike

19:41:56 <alanr> q+ pfps

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ pfps

19:41:59 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

19:42:13 <zwu21> Mike: if we have Pellet and Hermit, then we have 2 implementations

Mike Smith: if we have Pellet and Hermit, then we have 2 implementations

19:42:21 <alanr> q+ 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 <zwu21> ... Pellet RC can support RL and QL

... Pellet RC can support RL and QL

19:42:59 <alanr> ack pfps

Alan Ruttenberg: ack pfps

19:43:02 <zwu21> ivan: no RL implementation

Ivan Herman: no RL implementation

19:43:13 <zwu21> pfps: what do we need for CR exit status

Peter Patel-Schneider: what do we need for CR exit status

19:43:18 <alanr> q+ schneid

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ schneid

19:43:22 <zwu21> ... I don't think we need a product

... I don't think we need a product

19:43:37 <zwu21> sandro: two interoperable implementations

Sandro Hawke: two interoperable implementations

19:43:38 <alanr> q+ boris

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ boris

19:43:59 <alanr> q+ ianh

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ianh

19:44:04 <alanr> ack bijan

Alan Ruttenberg: ack bijan

19:44:04 <bijan> zakim, unmute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me

19:44:06 <sandro> ack bijan

Sandro Hawke: ack bijan

19:44:07 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted

19:44:54 <zwu21> bijan: regarding profiles, for QL, there are 3

Bijan Parsia: regarding profiles, for QL, there are 3

19:45:04 <sandro> Bijan: QL implementations: C&P, Aberdeen, Rome

Bijan Parsia: QL implementations: C&amp;P, Aberdeen, Rome [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

19:45:07 <zwu21> ... for EL, IBM has one

... for EL, IBM has one

19:45:08 <alanr> q+ pfps

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ pfps

19:45:12 <Achille> q+

Achille Fokoue: q+

19:45:13 <baojie> q+

Jie Bao: q+

19:45:18 <pfps> q-

Peter Patel-Schneider: q-

19:45:37 <zwu21> ... for profile checkers, there will be one from Machnester

... for profile checkers, there will be one from Machnester

19:45:44 <zwu21> ... one from Aberdeen

... one from Aberdeen

19:46:11 <ivan> ack alanr

Ivan Herman: ack alanr

19:46:11 <Zakim> alanr, 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

19:46:18 <alanr> ack schneid

Alan Ruttenberg: ack schneid

19:46:22 <alanr> ack boris

Alan Ruttenberg: ack boris

19:46:43 <zwu21> bmotik: 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?

19:46:51 <zwu21> s/can/care

s/can/care

19:46:54 <alanr> q+ pfps

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ pfps

19:46:59 <pfps> q-

Peter Patel-Schneider: q-

19:47:13 <alanr> ack ianh

Alan Ruttenberg: ack ianh

19:47:18 <zwu21> IanH: I think we already have enough implementations,

Ian Horrocks: I think we already have enough implementations,

19:47:21 <alanr> q+ schneid

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ schneid

19:47:37 <alanr> ack Achille

Alan Ruttenberg: ack Achille

19:47:50 <zwu21> Achille: want to clarify IBM's implementation of EL++,

Achille Fokoue: want to clarify IBM's implementation of EL++,

19:47:59 <zwu21> ... is a simplfied version

... is a simplfied version

19:47:59 <alanr> ack baojie

Alan Ruttenberg: ack baojie

19:48:30 <christine> +q

Christine Golbreich: +q

19:48:32 <alanr> ack schneid

Alan Ruttenberg: ack schneid

19:48:42 <alanr> q+

Alan Ruttenberg: q+

19:48:47 <zwu21> schneid: 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 <zwu21> ... now, we already have enough

... now, we already have enough

19:49:14 <alanr> q+ ianh

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ianh

19:49:20 <alanr> ack christine

Alan Ruttenberg: ack christine

19:49:21 <ivan> ack christine

Ivan Herman: ack christine

19:49:46 <zwu21> alanr: 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 <zwu21> ... you know what, let us communicate in emails

... you know what, let us communicate in emails

19:50:40 <bijan> +1 to ivan, publishing wds *should be cheap*

Bijan Parsia: +1 to ivan, publishing wds *should be cheap*

19:50:57 <bijan> What's the question?

Bijan Parsia: What's the question?

19:51:01 <ewallace> What is the question?

Evan Wallace: What is the question?

19:51:32 <alanr> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q?

19:52:03 <zwu21> christine: 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

19:52:05 <bijan> There'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

19:52:15 <zwu21> alanr: happy to discuss offlien

Alan Ruttenberg: happy to discuss offlien

19:52:22 <zwu21> s/offlien/offline/g

s/offlien/offline/g

19:53:04 <zwu21> ivan: 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

19:53:40 <zwu21> alanr: do we expect comments on PR?

Alan Ruttenberg: do we expect comments on PR?

19:54:17 <zwu21> ivan: 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 <zwu21> ... not on PR documents

... not on PR documents

19:55:04 <zwu21> IanH: 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 <alanr> ?

Alan Ruttenberg: ?

19:55:31 <alanr> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q?

19:55:35 <alanr> ack alanr

Alan Ruttenberg: ack alanr

19:55:38 <alanr> ack inah

Alan Ruttenberg: ack inah

19:55:43 <alanr> ack ianh

Alan Ruttenberg: ack ianh

19:56:01 <pfps> I'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

19:56:02 <zwu21> sandro: we chould consider skip CR

Sandro Hawke: we chould consider skip CR

19:56:16 <pfps> However, we should use the schedule as a cloture mechanism

Peter Patel-Schneider: However, we should use the schedule as a cloture mechanism

19:56:49 <zwu21> ivan: let us not skip CR

Ivan Herman: let us not skip CR

19:57:37 <zwu21> ... what we called user facing documents do not go through CR

... what we called user facing documents do not go through CR

19:57:38 <sandro> 09 March - Publich Round 5: FPWD Document Overview

Sandro Hawke: 09 March - Publich Round 5: FPWD Document Overview

19:57:38 <sandro> 30 March - Editors Done, begin WG review

Sandro Hawke: 30 March - Editors Done, begin WG review

19:57:38 <sandro> 15 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)

19:57:38 <sandro> 01 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

19:57:38 <sandro> 15 July  - CR comments due

Sandro Hawke: 15 July - CR comments due

19:57:39 <sandro> 01 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

19:57:42 <sandro> 01 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 <zwu21> ... that gives up more time

... that gives up more time

19:57:57 <zwu21> ... 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 <zwu21> ... if it is final, we can publish it as a note anytime

... if it is final, we can publish it as a note anytime

19:58:19 <bijan> We shouldn't solicit comments on a note

Bijan Parsia: We shouldn't solicit comments on a note

19:58:29 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Timeline

Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Timeline

19:58:48 <bijan> The 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

20:00:13 <zwu21> ivan: at PR, we may get formal objections

Ivan Herman: at PR, we may get formal objections

20:00:28 <zwu21> ... which will be a very tough thing

... which will be a very tough thing

20:00:48 <zwu21> Mike: it is indepenent of our timeline though

Mike Smith: it is indepenent of our timeline though

20:00:52 <IanH> PROPOSED: 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 <christine> +q

Christine Golbreich: +q

20:01:17 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

20:01:20 <alanr> ack christine

Alan Ruttenberg: ack christine

20:02:02 <zwu21> christine: don't see the impact of either 9th of 15th

Christine Golbreich: don't see the impact of either 9th of 15th

20:02:07 <zwu21> alanr: we will address that

Alan Ruttenberg: we will address that

20:02:25 <pfps> +1 ALU

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU

20:02:31 <alanr> +1 SC

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 SC

20:02:32 <schneid> +1

Michael Schneider: +1

20:02:32 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

20:02:32 <IanH> +1

Ian Horrocks: +1

20:02:33 <bmotik> +1

Boris Motik: +1

20:02:33 <MarkusK_> +1 FZI

Markus Krötzsch: +1 FZI

20:02:33 <zwu21> +1

+1

20:02:34 <bijan> +1

Bijan Parsia: +1

20:02:36 <msmith> +1

Mike Smith: +1

20:02:37 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

20:02:38 <Achille> +1

Achille Fokoue: +1

20:02:40 <baojie> +1

Jie Bao: +1

20:02:59 <christine> +1 (except 09 march)

Christine Golbreich: +1 (except 09 march)

20:03:00 <zwu21> alanr: 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 <ewallace> +1

Evan Wallace: +1

20:03:26 <IanH> RESOLVED: 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.

20:03:42 <bijan> Is all that's left editorial?

Bijan Parsia: Is all that's left editorial?

20:03:50 <bijan> I 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 :(

20:04:04 <pfps> no, after break is imports and griddle

Peter Patel-Schneider: no, after break is imports and griddle

20:04:28 <Zakim> -christine

Zakim IRC Bot: -christine

20:08:22 <Zakim> - +1.518.276.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.518.276.aaaa

20:08:28 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace

Zakim IRC Bot: -Evan_Wallace

20:17:51 <bijan> zakim, mute me

(No events recorded for 9 minutes)

Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me

20:17:51 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted

20:20:26 <zwu21> IanH: going to imports

Ian Horrocks: going to imports

20:20:58 <pfps> scribenick: ivan

(Scribe set to Ivan Herman)

20:21:08 <pfps> it should be one

Peter Patel-Schneider: it should be one

20:21:25 <ivan> Topic: imports

6. imports

20:21:37 <ivan> IanH: 2 comments, both with drafts

Ian Horrocks: 2 comments, both with drafts

20:21:41 <ivan> ... #53

... #53

20:22:22 <IanH> http://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

20:22:36 <pfps> draft 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

20:22:55 <ivan> IanH: proposed draft:

Ian Horrocks: proposed draft:

20:23:35 <sandro> sorry, my IP address changed on me.   webcam restarted....

Sandro Hawke: sorry, my IP address changed on me. webcam restarted....

20:23:39 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

20:23:53 <jar> q+ jar

Jonathan Rees: q+ jar

20:23:57 <ivan> schneid: there are confusions due to sloppiness of myself

Michael Schneider: there are confusions due to sloppiness of myself

20:24:12 <ivan> ... 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

20:24:36 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

20:24:48 <ivan> ... i kept that in in the 2nd draft

... i kept that in in the 2nd draft

20:24:58 <baojie> q+

Jie Bao: q+

20:24:59 <ivan> ... there was also a note that was very clever;

... there was also a note that was very clever;

20:25:09 <ivan> ... 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 <ivan> ... 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 <ivan> ... 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

20:25:52 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

20:25:53 <ivan> s/on/one/

s/on/one/

20:26:01 <ivan> .... my current draft does not have it any more

.... my current draft does not have it any more

20:26:22 <ivan> IanH: 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

20:26:29 <ivan> schneid: indeed

Michael Schneider: indeed

20:26:46 <ivan> ... 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 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace

Zakim IRC Bot: +Evan_Wallace

20:27:16 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

20:27:25 <IanH> ack jar

Ian Horrocks: ack jar

20:27:34 <schneid> http://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

20:27:34 <ivan> jar: since i submitted that I was thinking about it.

Jonathan Rees: since i submitted that I was thinking about it.

20:27:40 <ivan> ... this is a borderline editorial

... this is a borderline editorial

20:27:49 <ivan> ... i am not sure what the goal for today

... i am not sure what the goal for today

20:27:58 <ivan> ... i guess it is the lc comments

... i guess it is the lc comments

20:28:18 <ivan> ... 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 <ivan> ... i am happy to contribute and work with whoever works on this

... i am happy to contribute and work with whoever works on this

20:28:57 <ivan> IanH: 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 <ivan> ... is that o.k?

... is that o.k?

20:29:07 <ivan> jar: yes, that sounds fine

Jonathan Rees: yes, that sounds fine

20:29:10 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

20:29:19 <jar> my 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 <ivan> ... I feel there is a lot of room for improvement

... I feel there is a lot of room for improvement

20:29:52 <ivan> IanH: 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

20:29:55 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

20:29:55 <ivan> ... is that ok

... is that ok

20:29:59 <ivan> jar: yes

Jonathan Rees: yes

20:30:38 <ivan> baojie: 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

20:30:50 <jar> 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)

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)

20:30:58 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

20:31:01 <ivan> IanH: i am reluctant to reopen this

Ian Horrocks: i am reluctant to reopen this

20:31:05 <IanH> ack baojie

Ian Horrocks: ack baojie

20:31:17 <ivan> boris: michael you defer to the syntax document?

Boris Motik: michael you defer to the syntax document?

20:31:44 <ivan> schneid: 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

20:31:57 <ivan> bmotik: I agree

Boris Motik: I agree

20:32:12 <ivan> IanH: we are done on this one, aren't we?

Ian Horrocks: we are done on this one, aren't we?

20:32:22 <ivan> ... do we have a response draft?

... do we have a response draft?

20:32:48 <ivan> pfps: (reads up the response)

Peter Patel-Schneider: (reads up the response)

20:33:09 <ivan> IanH: 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 <ivan> ... further efforts will be made to improve the presentation

... further efforts will be made to improve the presentation

20:34:21 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

20:34:22 <ivan> Topic: import by location

7. import by location

20:34:27 <bijan> zakim, unmute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me

20:34:27 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted

20:34:29 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

20:34:32 <IanH> ack bijan

Ian Horrocks: ack bijan

20:35:13 <ivan> bijan: 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

20:35:21 <bijan> zakim, mute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me

20:35:21 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted

20:35:23 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

20:35:27 <bijan> I happy to

Bijan Parsia: I happy to

20:35:29 <ivan> pfps: I volunteer bijan to write it:-)

Peter Patel-Schneider: I volunteer bijan to write it:-)

20:35:58 <bijan> I head to the page

Bijan Parsia: I head to the page

20:36:09 <ivan> Topic: 2 comments on axiom annotation

8. 2 comments on axiom annotation

20:36:26 <ivan> IanH: they are from bijan, asking for axiom hiding and for naming

Ian Horrocks: they are from bijan, asking for axiom hiding and for naming

20:36:29 <bijan> zakim, unmute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me

20:36:29 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted

20:36:32 <ivan> ... i though we agreed

... i though we agreed

20:36:38 <ivan> ... and the commenter agreed, too

... and the commenter agreed, too

20:36:57 <ivan> bijan: 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

20:37:04 <ivan> pfps: i can do it

Peter Patel-Schneider: i can do it

20:37:10 <ivan> ... i know how to abuse you nicely

... i know how to abuse you nicely

20:37:52 <ivan> Topic: number 30, frank's objection

9. number 30, frank's objection

20:38:18 <IanH> Ivan: discussed this to death

Ivan Herman: discussed this to death [ Scribe Assist by Ian Horrocks ]

20:38:26 <bijan> ship it!

Bijan Parsia: ship it!

20:38:28 <IanH> Ivan: version on the web agrees with discussion

Ivan Herman: version on the web agrees with discussion [ Scribe Assist by Ian Horrocks ]

20:38:40 <msmith> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/FH4

Mike Smith: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/FH4

20:39:19 <bijan> I just reread it and it's great!

Bijan Parsia: I just reread it and it's great!

20:39:31 <IanH> PROPOSED: send drafted response to comment 30

PROPOSED: send drafted response to comment 30

20:39:34 <ewallace> +1

Evan Wallace: +1

20:39:36 <IanH> +1

Ian Horrocks: +1

20:39:36 <ivan> +1

+1

20:39:38 <zwu21>  +1

Zhe Wu: +1

20:39:40 <pfps> +1 ALU

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU

20:39:52 <schneid> +1

Michael Schneider: +1

<sandro> Meeting in progress. New content inserted above this line.

Sandro Hawke: Meeting in progress. New content inserted above this line.


This revision (#4) generated 2009-02-24 20:46:00 UTC by 'sandro', comments: 'meeting in progress'