None.
<scribenick> PRESENT: bmotik, IanH, Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, bcuencagrau (muted), Rinke (muted), Zhe (muted), Sandro, zimmer, alanr, uli, michael schneider, baojie, evan, mike smith, achille
<scribenick> REGRETS: Elisa, Christine
<scribenick> CHAIR: Ian Horrocks
17:00:52 <IanH> ScribeNick: bmotik
(Scribe set to Boris Motik)
17:01:53 <bmotik> Topic: Agenda amendments
17:02:02 <bmotik> IanH: Any admendments?
Ian Horrocks: Any admendments? ←
17:02:13 <bmotik> Ianh: No amendments
Ian Horrocks: No amendments ←
17:02:19 <bmotik> Topic: Previous minutes
17:02:25 <bmotik> Ianh: Anyone looked at that?
Ian Horrocks: Anyone looked at that? ←
17:02:28 <MarkusK_> the minutes are okay, but have some "FIXME"s
Markus Krötzsch: the minutes are okay, but have some "FIXME"s ←
17:02:30 <pfps> minutes looked acceptable to me
Peter Patel-Schneider: minutes looked acceptable to me ←
17:02:31 <bmotik> Ianh: seemed alright to me.
Ian Horrocks: seemed alright to me. ←
17:02:54 <bmotik> Ianh: Can we accept them but ask Michael to do a bit more of tidying up
Ian Horrocks: Can we accept them but ask Michael to do a bit more of tidying up ←
17:03:06 <pfps> I think that even the FIXMEs were mostly OK - none of them were related to what I said, however,
Peter Patel-Schneider: I think that even the FIXMEs were mostly OK - none of them were related to what I said, however, ←
17:03:13 <bmotik> Topic: Pending review actions
17:03:25 <MarkusK_> +1 most FIXMEs could just be deleted
Markus Krötzsch: +1 most FIXMEs could just be deleted ←
17:03:34 <bmotik> Ianh: ACTION-333 seems to be completed
Ian Horrocks: ACTION-333 seems to be completed ←
17:03:50 <bmotik> IanH: ACTION-335 is on Bijan, but he is not on the call
Ian Horrocks: ACTION-335 is on Bijan, but he is not on the call ←
17:04:11 <bmotik> Ianh: Let's push it off to next week
Ian Horrocks: Let's push it off to next week ←
17:04:17 <bmotik> Topic: Documents and reviewing
17:04:32 <bmotik> Ianh: I see that the comment to rdf:text has been agreed to and sent
Ian Horrocks: I see that the comment to rdf:text has been agreed to and sent ←
17:04:39 <pfps> +1 to say that the response wasn't completely positive
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to say that the response wasn't completely positive ←
17:05:58 <pfps> +1 to let Boris fight this out with the commenter
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to let Boris fight this out with the commenter ←
17:06:00 <sandro> boris: michael sperberg-mcqueen seemed okay with all of our comment except one part, where he seems to disagree. I've asked him on the rdf-text list if it's okay for us to just explain better the scope of what we're doing. I've also asked him for more information on what rdf:text doesn't handle.
Boris Motik: michael sperberg-mcqueen seemed okay with all of our comment except one part, where he seems to disagree. I've asked him on the rdf-text list if it's okay for us to just explain better the scope of what we're doing. I've also asked him for more information on what rdf:text doesn't handle. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:06:42 <alanr> ruby is annotation
Alan Ruttenberg: ruby is annotation ←
17:06:47 <IanH> sandro: e.g., directions of languages (c.f. Ruby)
Sandro Hawke: e.g., directions of languages (c.f. Ruby) [ Scribe Assist by Ian Horrocks ] ←
17:06:56 <alanr> didn't seem to me to be part of the utterance
Alan Ruttenberg: didn't seem to me to be part of the utterance ←
17:07:15 <bmotik> Sandro: For example, in Japanese, one might need additional markup for direction and so on
Sandro Hawke: For example, in Japanese, one might need additional markup for direction and so on ←
17:07:22 <bmotik> Sandro: I agree that we should not handle that
Sandro Hawke: I agree that we should not handle that ←
17:07:39 <pfps> saying that rdf:text is just about language tagging sounds like the right solution to me
Peter Patel-Schneider: saying that rdf:text is just about language tagging sounds like the right solution to me ←
17:07:47 <bmotik> Sandro: I am hoping that someone from the i18n community will be able to provide a response
Sandro Hawke: I am hoping that someone from the i18n community will be able to provide a response ←
17:08:06 <bmotik> Ianh: So Boris is going to continue handling this with Axel?
Ian Horrocks: So Boris is going to continue handling this with Axel? ←
17:08:12 <bmotik> bmotik: yes
Boris Motik: yes ←
17:08:57 <bmotik> alanr: We could say a bit more about the Ruby text and the direction. The distinction seems to be about layout and annotation. I could draft something that explains this.
Alan Ruttenberg: We could say a bit more about the Ruby text and the direction. The distinction seems to be about layout and annotation. I could draft something that explains this. ←
17:10:25 <bmotik> bmotik: If you can provide some text for the introduction about what we handle and what we don't handle, that would be appreciated. We should not start speculating as to how one might want to handle these problems.
Boris Motik: If you can provide some text for the introduction about what we handle and what we don't handle, that would be appreciated. We should not start speculating as to how one might want to handle these problems. ←
17:09:28 <alanr> +1, document shouldn't say. Response should
Alan Ruttenberg: +1, document shouldn't say. Response should ←
17:09:39 <alanr> will do
Alan Ruttenberg: will do ←
17:10:08 <pfps> the suggested text should be produced ASAP
Peter Patel-Schneider: the suggested text should be produced ASAP ←
17:10:08 <alanr> action alanr to draft some text for rdf:text or response re unhandled features mentioned by sperber
Alan Ruttenberg: action alanr to draft some text for rdf:text or response re unhandled features mentioned by sperber ←
17:10:26 <alanr> understood, peter
Alan Ruttenberg: understood, peter ←
17:10:35 <bmotik> ianh: Other comments: there was one with a typo.
Ian Horrocks: Other comments: there was one with a typo. ←
17:10:42 <bmotik> ianh: This was fixed.
Ian Horrocks: This was fixed. ←
17:10:59 <bmotik> ianh: There was a comment about the use of the word "axiom" in the Primer.
Ian Horrocks: There was a comment about the use of the word "axiom" in the Primer. ←
17:11:29 <MarkusK_> no, the response does not entail changes to the Syntax
Markus Krötzsch: no, the response does not entail changes to the Syntax ←
17:11:34 <bmotik> bmotik: Does this entail any change to the Syntax?
Boris Motik: Does this entail any change to the Syntax? ←
17:11:42 <bmotik> ianh: No, it is only in the Primer.
Ian Horrocks: No, it is only in the Primer. ←
17:11:48 <MarkusK_> we stick to "axiom" but avoid some unfortunate formulations about "deriving axioms"
Markus Krötzsch: we stick to "axiom" but avoid some unfortunate formulations about "deriving axioms" ←
17:12:21 <MarkusK_> peter: I looked at the response draft and I think it is good as it is
Peter Patel-Schneider: I looked at the response draft and I think it is good as it is [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ] ←
17:12:37 <bmotik> IanH: I have checked with Richard about the comment of "Class" as is used in the documents, and he does want to consider his e-mail to be a LC comment. We need to produce a response, probably about the lines of "that's standard in our world".
Ian Horrocks: I have checked with Richard about the comment of "Class" as is used in the documents, and he does want to consider his e-mail to be a LC comment. We need to produce a response, probably about the lines of "that's standard in our world". ←
17:13:00 <alanr> sandro: could you please fix my action item syntax?
Sandro Hawke: could you please fix my action item syntax? [ Scribe Assist by Alan Ruttenberg ] ←
17:13:07 <bmotik> Topic: Quick Reference Guide
17:13:17 <bmotik> ianh: There has been quite a lot of activity on QRG
Ian Horrocks: There has been quite a lot of activity on QRG ←
17:13:34 <bmotik> ianh: Jie implemented the resolution regarding the three-column format.
Ian Horrocks: Jie implemented the resolution regarding the three-column format. ←
17:13:49 <bmotik> ianh: There has been discussion about other aspects of the document.
Ian Horrocks: There has been discussion about other aspects of the document. ←
17:13:59 <bmotik> ianh: Can the people who are working on the document fill us in?
Ian Horrocks: Can the people who are working on the document fill us in? ←
17:14:09 <bmotik> ianh: Jie, what's left to figure out?
Ian Horrocks: Jie, what's left to figure out? ←
17:14:15 <baojie> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Talk:Quick_Reference_Guide#May_5.2C_2009
Jie Bao: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Talk:Quick_Reference_Guide#May_5.2C_2009 ←
17:14:19 <bmotik> baojie: There are a couple of pending issues/
Jie Bao: There are a couple of pending issues/ ←
17:14:39 <bmotik> baojie: The first thing is how do we list OWL 2 Full vocabulary in the reference.
Jie Bao: The first thing is how do we list OWL 2 Full vocabulary in the reference. ←
17:15:01 <baojie> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Talk:Quick_Reference_Guide#Additional_Vocabulary_in_OWL_2_Full
Jie Bao: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Talk:Quick_Reference_Guide#Additional_Vocabulary_in_OWL_2_Full ←
17:15:03 <bmotik> baojie: I have an initial proposal that we have an additional table.
Jie Bao: I have an initial proposal that we have an additional table. ←
17:15:18 <schneid> Jie talks about vocabulary terms, that are exclusively used in the RDF-Based Semantics
Michael Schneider: Jie talks about vocabulary terms, that are exclusively used in the RDF-Based Semantics ←
17:15:23 <bmotik> baojie: This table would list all vocabulary that is not used in the syntax.
Jie Bao: This table would list all vocabulary that is not used in the syntax. ←
17:15:50 <bmotik> ianh: I looked at the link but didn't understand it.
Ian Horrocks: I looked at the link but didn't understand it. ←
17:15:53 <pfps> Section name is fine, as long as it is in the Appendix section.
Peter Patel-Schneider: Section name is fine, as long as it is in the Appendix section. ←
17:16:03 <bmotik> baojie: The additional vocabulary in OWL 2 Full
Jie Bao: The additional vocabulary in OWL 2 Full ←
17:16:13 <bmotik> ianh: Which of the ones do you think are used in OWL 2 Full?
Ian Horrocks: Which of the ones do you think are used in OWL 2 Full? ←
17:16:18 <bmotik> baojie: The second column.
17:16:27 <schneid> /all/ of these terms occur in the reverse Mapping, I believe!
Michael Schneider: /all/ of these terms occur in the reverse Mapping, I believe! ←
17:16:40 <bmotik> baojie: I find that there is a mismatch in the syntax and and the RDF semantics.
Jie Bao: I find that there is a mismatch in the syntax and and the RDF semantics. ←
17:16:58 <pfps> They have to, as they show up in OWL 1 ontologies
Peter Patel-Schneider: They have to, as they show up in OWL 1 ontologies ←
17:17:20 <bmotik> baojie: The second thing is that there is an issue of naming: shall we call things "onotlogy properties" or "annotation properties">
Jie Bao: The second thing is that there is an issue of naming: shall we call things "onotlogy properties" or "annotation properties"> ←
17:17:21 <schneid> call them annotation properties, and don't talk about owl:OntologyProperty at all in the QRG
Michael Schneider: call them annotation properties, and don't talk about owl:OntologyProperty at all in the QRG ←
17:17:31 <schneid> it will only confuse people
Michael Schneider: it will only confuse people ←
17:17:34 <Rinke> +1 to michael
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 to michael ←
17:17:38 <bmotik> baojie: Peter suggested to remove n-ary features.
Jie Bao: Peter suggested to remove n-ary features. ←
17:17:46 <bmotik> baojie: I don't see a strong reason to do that.
Jie Bao: I don't see a strong reason to do that. ←
17:18:06 <bmotik> baojie: Peter had some other comments that I haven't had the chance to look at.
Jie Bao: Peter had some other comments that I haven't had the chance to look at. ←
17:18:27 <bmotik> pfps: Fourth thing: Uli suggested a reorganization of the sections.
Peter Patel-Schneider: Fourth thing: Uli suggested a reorganization of the sections. ←
17:18:16 <uli> done
Uli Sattler: done ←
17:18:33 <bmotik> baojie: I've already done that.
Jie Bao: I've already done that. ←
17:18:33 <uli> that was very speedy indeed!
Uli Sattler: that was very speedy indeed! ←
17:19:01 <baojie> OWL 2 Full Vocabulary in QRG
Jie Bao: OWL 2 Full Vocabulary in QRG ←
17:19:23 <bmotik> ianh: So what do we want to do about OWL 2 vocabulary?
Ian Horrocks: So what do we want to do about OWL 2 vocabulary? ←
17:19:23 <pfps> also organization of 2.7 and 2.8 (Annotations and Ontologies)
Peter Patel-Schneider: also organization of 2.7 and 2.8 (Annotations and Ontologies) ←
17:20:06 <bmotik> schneid: Some of this vocabulary should go to a separate table.
Michael Schneider: Some of this vocabulary should go to a separate table. ←
17:20:21 <bmotik> schneid: Ignore ontology properties in QRG and call them annotation properties as in the Syntax.
Michael Schneider: Ignore ontology properties in QRG and call them annotation properties as in the Syntax. ←
17:20:56 <bmotik> schneid: For me, this is the RDF semantics feature.
Michael Schneider: For me, this is the RDF semantics feature. ←
17:21:38 <bmotik> ianh: Michael seems to believe that we should just leave this vocabulary out. Jie, are you OK with that?
Ian Horrocks: Michael seems to believe that we should just leave this vocabulary out. Jie, are you OK with that? ←
17:21:35 <pfps> I'm all *for* it
Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm all *for* it ←
17:21:52 <bmotik> baojie: I'm OK with that.
17:22:04 <bmotik> ianh: So then we've decided what to do about Item 1
Ian Horrocks: So then we've decided what to do about Item 1 ←
17:22:08 <schneid> schneid: there are two groups: the group of terms that are mapped by the reverse RDF mapping (DataRange, distinctMembers, DeprecatedClass|Property)
Michael Schneider: there are two groups: the group of terms that are mapped by the reverse RDF mapping (DataRange, distinctMembers, DeprecatedClass|Property) [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
17:22:27 <bmotik> baojie: Can we specify what is *this* vocabulary?
Jie Bao: Can we specify what is *this* vocabulary? ←
17:22:29 <schneid> schneid: the other "group" is the term owl:OntologyProperty
Michael Schneider: the other "group" is the term owl:OntologyProperty [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
17:22:49 <bmotik> ianh: If I understood Micahel, I presume that he thinks the OWL 2 vocabulary should not be listed in the QRG
Ian Horrocks: If I understood Micahel, I presume that he thinks the OWL 2 vocabulary should not be listed in the QRG ←
17:23:01 <bmotik> pfps: Precisely that
Peter Patel-Schneider: Precisely that ←
17:23:14 <baojie> DataRange, distinctMembers, DeprecatedClass|Property owl:OntologyProperty
Jie Bao: DataRange, distinctMembers, DeprecatedClass|Property owl:OntologyProperty ←
17:23:41 <bmotik> schneid: Don't talk about OWL 2 ontology properties; just call them annotation properties
Michael Schneider: Don't talk about OWL 2 ontology properties; just call them annotation properties ←
17:23:42 <schneid> schneid: (1) don't talk about owl:OntologyProperty, (2) talk about the actual ontology properties as annotation properties, because they are called so in all other documents except the RDF-based Semantics
Michael Schneider: (1) don't talk about owl:OntologyProperty, (2) talk about the actual ontology properties as annotation properties, because they are called so in all other documents except the RDF-based Semantics [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
17:24:02 <bmotik> baojie: Peter suggested to move the ontology properties into the annotations section
Jie Bao: Peter suggested to move the ontology properties into the annotations section ←
17:24:11 <bmotik> schneid: Yes, do that
Michael Schneider: Yes, do that ←
17:24:16 <bmotik> Ianh: All clear?
Ian Horrocks: All clear? ←
17:24:20 <bmotik> baojie: Yes
17:24:39 <bmotik> ianh: About the third point (n-ary)... opinions?
Ian Horrocks: About the third point (n-ary)... opinions? ←
17:24:40 <pfps> -0.1
Peter Patel-Schneider: -0.1 ←
17:24:47 <bmotik> -0.5
-0.5 ←
17:25:05 <alanr> -1
Alan Ruttenberg: -1 ←
17:24:57 <bmotik> ianh: It seems unnecessary because they are not a part of the language
Ian Horrocks: It seems unnecessary because they are not a part of the language ←
17:25:26 <ewallace> since it's not a "real" feature of OWL2 it seems a good sacrifice for shortening QRG
Evan Wallace: since it's not a "real" feature of OWL2 it seems a good sacrifice for shortening QRG ←
17:25:26 <msmith> unnecessary since they can't be used
Mike Smith: unnecessary since they can't be used ←
17:25:32 <pfps> n-ary some and all are in the syntax, but are not useful unless you have the DRE
Peter Patel-Schneider: n-ary some and all are in the syntax, but are not useful unless you have the DRE ←
17:25:35 <bmotik> baojie: But they do add something to the syntax, so if we leave them out, this is the only construct that we leave out
Jie Bao: But they do add something to the syntax, so if we leave them out, this is the only construct that we leave out ←
17:25:46 <bmotik> ianh: But in Syntax, you are allowed to have only one property in Syntax
Ian Horrocks: But in Syntax, you are allowed to have only one property in Syntax ←
17:25:55 <bmotik> pfps: We are talking about n-ary some and all
Peter Patel-Schneider: We are talking about n-ary some and all ←
17:26:26 <bmotik> pfps: They are in the Syntax, but they are not useful if you don't have the n-ary extension. And this extension is not a part of the OWL 2 language.
Peter Patel-Schneider: They are in the Syntax, but they are not useful if you don't have the n-ary extension. And this extension is not a part of the OWL 2 language. ←
17:26:31 <msmith> an nary extension that might have its own QRG
Mike Smith: an nary extension that might have its own QRG ←
17:26:58 <bmotik> pfps: Nobody should be writing this unless they also take into account the n-ary extension.
Peter Patel-Schneider: Nobody should be writing this unless they also take into account the n-ary extension. ←
17:27:03 <ewallace> So this is not "Quick Reference" material
Evan Wallace: So this is not "Quick Reference" material ←
17:27:30 <pfps> we are talking about DataAllValuesFrom(:age :height drs:greater)
Peter Patel-Schneider: we are talking about DataAllValuesFrom(:age :height drs:greater) ←
17:27:31 <bmotik> baojie: So we could not have it in the expression table, but we should have it in the new features list
Jie Bao: So we could not have it in the expression table, but we should have it in the new features list ←
17:27:37 <bmotik> baojie: It is mentioned in NF&R
Jie Bao: It is mentioned in NF&R ←
17:27:56 <pfps> a pointer to NF&R is OK
Peter Patel-Schneider: a pointer to NF&R is OK ←
17:28:02 <bmotik> IanH: So everybody seems to agree that we shouldn't have it in the syntax table, OK?
Ian Horrocks: So everybody seems to agree that we shouldn't have it in the syntax table, OK? ←
17:28:04 <bmotik> baojie: OK
17:28:14 <bmotik> ianh: We should see about the new features table
Ian Horrocks: We should see about the new features table ←
17:28:33 <msmith> yes is not OWL 2 DL
Mike Smith: yes is not OWL 2 DL ←
17:28:36 <bmotik> schneid: A document that uses an n-ary datatype is not a conformant OWL 2 ontology document
Michael Schneider: A document that uses an n-ary datatype is not a conformant OWL 2 ontology document ←
17:29:11 <bmotik> schneid: When we use n-ary properties, we need to use an n-ary datatype; this datatype is not in the list in the Syntax; ergo, the containing document is not an OWL 2 document.
Michael Schneider: When we use n-ary properties, we need to use an n-ary datatype; this datatype is not in the list in the Syntax; ergo, the containing document is not an OWL 2 document. ←
17:30:05 <bmotik> schneid: Implementors should not support these terms and should still create conformant OWL 2 reasoners.
Michael Schneider: Implementors should not support these terms and should still create conformant OWL 2 reasoners. ←
17:30:45 <bmotik> ianh: The question left open is whether we should mention n-ary in the "new features" section. It seems to me that we shouldn't.
Ian Horrocks: The question left open is whether we should mention n-ary in the "new features" section. It seems to me that we shouldn't. ←
17:30:57 <bmotik> baojie: I'd like to be consistent with the NF&R document.
Jie Bao: I'd like to be consistent with the NF&R document. ←
17:31:28 <Rinke> I think the NF&R doc needs to be changed...
Rinke Hoekstra: I think the NF&R doc needs to be changed... ←
17:31:31 <bmotik> baojie: If this feature is in NF&R, then it should be in QRG, and vice versa.
Jie Bao: If this feature is in NF&R, then it should be in QRG, and vice versa. ←
17:32:04 <pfps> I'm happy leaving the entry under 4.1 class expressions on n-ary. I think that the entry under 4.1 / data ranges should go.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm happy leaving the entry under 4.1 class expressions on n-ary. I think that the entry under 4.1 / data ranges should go. ←
17:32:16 <alanr> seems inconsistent to have one and not the other.
Alan Ruttenberg: seems inconsistent to have one and not the other. ←
17:32:40 <alanr> prefer not, but can live with it if there are strong opinions
Alan Ruttenberg: prefer not, but can live with it if there are strong opinions ←
17:32:43 <pfps> They both point to the same place - but they both *can* stay
Peter Patel-Schneider: They both point to the same place - but they both *can* stay ←
17:33:02 <pfps> QRG is now *much* better!
Peter Patel-Schneider: QRG is now *much* better! ←
17:33:09 <baojie> thanks!
17:33:49 <pfps> Work might be needed on Annotations and Ontologies
Peter Patel-Schneider: Work might be needed on Annotations and Ontologies ←
17:33:50 <bmotik> pfps: Jie and I can argue the changes regarding the annotations between us.
Peter Patel-Schneider: Jie and I can argue the changes regarding the annotations between us. ←
17:33:51 <bmotik> Topic: More issues with rdf:text
17:33:51 <bmotik> We have got a response from Philipps Addison regarding rdf:text. Can we discuss this again?
We have got a response from Philipps Addison regarding rdf:text. Can we discuss this again? ←
17:34:27 <uli> Boris, where is the response?
Uli Sattler: Boris, where is the response? ←
17:34:58 <ewallace> Is this about rdf:statements?
Evan Wallace: Is this about rdf:statements? ←
17:34:59 <IanH> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009May/0007.html
Ian Horrocks: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009May/0007.html ←
17:35:49 <uli> Boris, does he understand the difference between 'internationalised text' and 'internationalised utterances'?
Uli Sattler: Boris, does he understand the difference between 'internationalised text' and 'internationalised utterances'? ←
17:35:54 <bmotik> bmotik: The response by Phlips Addison is not as we want it.
Boris Motik: The response by Phlips Addison is not as we want it. ←
17:36:06 <alanr> I have sent analysis of ruby text and bidi issue to list, dispatching my earlier action
Alan Ruttenberg: I have sent analysis of ruby text and bidi issue to list, dispatching my earlier action ←
17:36:13 <bmotik> ACTION: sandro to Look at the response for rdf:text
ACTION: sandro to Look at the response for rdf:text ←
17:36:13 <trackbot> Created ACTION-336 - Look at the response for rdf:text [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-05-13].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-336 - Look at the response for rdf:text [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-05-13]. ←
17:36:34 <bmotik> bmotik: So I'm off the hook for this?
Boris Motik: So I'm off the hook for this? ←
17:36:40 <bmotik> ianh: For the moment...
Ian Horrocks: For the moment... ←
17:36:44 <bmotik> Topic: NF&R
17:36:52 <bmotik> ianh: Christine is not on the call today
Ian Horrocks: Christine is not on the call today ←
17:36:59 <bmotik> ianh: I saw a detailed review from Rinke
Ian Horrocks: I saw a detailed review from Rinke ←
17:37:12 <bmotik> pfps: I think the document is getting close.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I think the document is getting close. ←
17:37:12 <pfps> I think that NF&R is getting close.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I think that NF&R is getting close. ←
17:37:31 <bmotik> rinke: My suggestions are editorial-ish, but might be controversial.
Rinke Hoekstra: My suggestions are editorial-ish, but might be controversial. ←
17:37:41 <ewallace> Christine finds Rinke's comments controversial.
Evan Wallace: Christine finds Rinke's comments controversial. ←
17:38:07 <bmotik> pfps: I'm not sure I agree with Rinke's probles of appendix vs. non-appendix.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm not sure I agree with Rinke's probles of appendix vs. non-appendix. ←
17:38:17 <bmotik> pfps: Maybe I'll respond to Rinke's message.
Peter Patel-Schneider: Maybe I'll respond to Rinke's message. ←
17:38:27 <bmotik> ianh: I'd like to minimize changes if possible.
Ian Horrocks: I'd like to minimize changes if possible. ←
17:38:41 <bmotik> rinke: I don't advocate a large change.
Rinke Hoekstra: I don't advocate a large change. ←
17:39:04 <bmotik> ianh: So Peter and Rinke and Christine are dealing with that?
Ian Horrocks: So Peter and Rinke and Christine are dealing with that? ←
17:39:07 <bmotik> pfps: Yes
Peter Patel-Schneider: Yes ←
17:39:10 <MarkusK_> Primer is ready for review
Markus Krötzsch: Primer is ready for review ←
17:39:17 <bmotik> Topic: Primer
17:39:26 <bmotik> ianh: It is getting close to reviewing.
Ian Horrocks: It is getting close to reviewing. ←
17:39:19 <alanr> Who are the reviewers?
Alan Ruttenberg: Who are the reviewers? ←
17:39:26 <msmith> I am one of the reviewers
Mike Smith: I am one of the reviewers ←
17:39:31 <bmotik> ianh: Mike volunteered to review it.
Ian Horrocks: Mike volunteered to review it. ←
17:39:44 <bmotik> ianh: Michelle offered to review it and Deborrah.
Ian Horrocks: Michelle offered to review it and Deborrah. ←
17:39:57 <bmotik> ianh: I don't think there is lots more to say aobut it.
Ian Horrocks: I don't think there is lots more to say aobut it. ←
17:39:58 <MarkusK_> +1 Primer is ready, nothing more to be said
Markus Krötzsch: +1 Primer is ready, nothing more to be said ←
17:40:11 <bmotik> Topic: Overview and Manchester Syntax
17:40:17 <bmotik> ianh: They are ready a while ago
Ian Horrocks: They are ready a while ago ←
17:40:34 <bmotik> ianh: They were held bak because of keeping the UFD back because of the schedule
Ian Horrocks: They were held bak because of keeping the UFD back because of the schedule ←
17:40:41 <bmotik> Topic: Data-range Extension
17:40:44 <uli> yes
Uli Sattler: yes ←
17:40:49 <bmotik> ianh: It might need further work
Ian Horrocks: It might need further work ←
17:41:08 <bmotik> Ianh: Uli, ETA?
Ian Horrocks: Uli, ETA? ←
17:41:15 <bmotik> Uli: ETA?
Uli Sattler: ETA? ←
17:41:24 <bmotik> Uli: There is not much to do on it.
Uli Sattler: There is not much to do on it. ←
17:41:49 <bmotik> Uli: I could say "next week", but then it might not be the case
Uli Sattler: I could say "next week", but then it might not be the case ←
17:42:04 <bmotik> ianh: Since it is a note only, it will not impact on our schedule
Ian Horrocks: Since it is a note only, it will not impact on our schedule ←
17:42:09 <bmotik> Topic: References in the documents
17:42:21 <bmotik> ianh: Sandro has some magic method that we used on the Overview
Ian Horrocks: Sandro has some magic method that we used on the Overview ←
17:42:28 <bmotik> pfps: I don't like Sandro's solution
Peter Patel-Schneider: I don't like Sandro's solution ←
17:42:38 <bmotik> pfps: It doesn't show up in the Wiki
Peter Patel-Schneider: It doesn't show up in the Wiki ←
17:42:50 <bmotik> pfps: I like Michael's solution, which is based on templates.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I like Michael's solution, which is based on templates. ←
17:42:58 <MarkusK_> +1 to use templates for references
Markus Krötzsch: +1 to use templates for references ←
17:43:18 <bmotik> ianh: Yes, I used this in Comformance
Ian Horrocks: Yes, I used this in Comformance ←
17:43:44 <pfps> see http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/References
Peter Patel-Schneider: see http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/References ←
17:43:46 <ewallace> Reference template solution sounds cool.
Evan Wallace: Reference template solution sounds cool. ←
17:44:04 <bmotik> ianh: Sandro, do you want to defend your solution?
Ian Horrocks: Sandro, do you want to defend your solution? ←
17:44:12 <bmotik> ianh: What is your solution actually?
Ian Horrocks: What is your solution actually? ←
17:44:34 <bmotik> Sandro: You can do all that at publication time
Sandro Hawke: You can do all that at publication time ←
17:45:02 <ewallace> Fix once, correct everywhere!
Evan Wallace: Fix once, correct everywhere! ←
17:45:04 <bmotik> Sandro: You can do it anyway you want as long as you get it right for the publication time
Sandro Hawke: You can do it anyway you want as long as you get it right for the publication time ←
17:45:23 <bmotik> ianh: The point is to ensure consistency among references
Ian Horrocks: The point is to ensure consistency among references ←
17:45:33 <schneid> true, there is a lot of manual work in the documents to always write the correct citation marks!
Michael Schneider: true, there is a lot of manual work in the documents to always write the correct citation marks! ←
17:45:58 <bmotik> Sandro: We haven't decided what the text in square brackets should be, and I tried to automate that
Sandro Hawke: We haven't decided what the text in square brackets should be, and I tried to automate that ←
17:46:09 <bmotik> pfps: We could have another template for the pointer.
Peter Patel-Schneider: We could have another template for the pointer. ←
17:46:10 <schneid> yes, peter, this was my idea too
Michael Schneider: yes, peter, this was my idea too ←
17:46:16 <bmotik> pfps: I don't think I want to go there.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I don't think I want to go there. ←
17:46:28 <bmotik> pfps: Of course, what we need is LaTeX
Peter Patel-Schneider: Of course, what we need is LaTeX ←
17:46:39 <bmotik> ianh: But we don't have that
Ian Horrocks: But we don't have that ←
17:46:44 <alanr> blahdeblahde will help with wiki issues
Alan Ruttenberg: blahdeblahde will help with wiki issues ←
17:47:00 <alanr> meaning *I* will help with them if I'm made aware of issue
Alan Ruttenberg: meaning *I* will help with them if I'm made aware of issue ←
17:47:01 <schneid> there should always be a /pair/ of templates for each reference
Michael Schneider: there should always be a /pair/ of templates for each reference ←
17:47:18 <MarkusK_> Boris: My impression is that templates slow down page creation.
Boris Motik: My impression is that templates slow down page creation. [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ] ←
17:47:32 <pfps> What should the citations in the text really look like? RIght now we generally use "FooLong [FooShort]" or something like that.
Peter Patel-Schneider: What should the citations in the text really look like? RIght now we generally use "FooLong [FooShort]" or something like that. ←
17:47:33 <bmotik> bmotik: The Wiki is slow and this is because of the many templates
Boris Motik: The Wiki is slow and this is because of the many templates ←
17:47:33 <MarkusK_> -1 to Boris: pages are cahced unless you edit them
Markus Krötzsch: -1 to Boris: pages are cahced unless you edit them ←
17:47:49 <bmotik> Sandro: The pages should be cached
Sandro Hawke: The pages should be cached ←
17:47:54 <pfps> Wiki is just slow
Peter Patel-Schneider: Wiki is just slow ←
17:48:08 <bmotik> bmotik: Then Wiki is just a *bad* tool
Boris Motik: Then Wiki is just a *bad* tool ←
17:48:42 <sandro> (the load average on the wiki server is currently: top - 17:48:33 up 235 days, 22:54, 1 user, load average: 12.88, 6.58, 3.78 ) :-( :-( :-(
Sandro Hawke: (the load average on the wiki server is currently: top - 17:48:33 up 235 days, 22:54, 1 user, load average: 12.88, 6.58, 3.78 ) :-( :-( :-( ←
17:49:12 <bmotik> ianh: So we are using templates
Ian Horrocks: So we are using templates ←
17:49:25 <bmotik> Sandro: It is the Wiki server that is overloaded; it is not the technology
Sandro Hawke: It is the Wiki server that is overloaded; it is not the technology ←
17:49:48 <bmotik> Topic: Implementation & Testing
17:49:51 <pfps> Editors should (sometime) try to templatize their references!
Peter Patel-Schneider: Editors should (sometime) try to templatize their references! ←
17:49:55 <bmotik> ianh: Anything interesting happening?
Ian Horrocks: Anything interesting happening? ←
17:50:03 <MarkusK_> I have nothing interesting to report on tests
Markus Krötzsch: I have nothing interesting to report on tests ←
17:50:20 <msmith> difference since last week in test suite http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Test_Suite_Status&diff=23288&oldid=22789
Mike Smith: difference since last week in test suite http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Test_Suite_Status&diff=23288&oldid=22789 ←
17:50:30 <bmotik> alanr: I sent a note out about some syntax tests that I have up and running. I've proposed a suggestion as to how a reasoner might handle them.
Alan Ruttenberg: I sent a note out about some syntax tests that I have up and running. I've proposed a suggestion as to how a reasoner might handle them. ←
17:51:05 <bmotik> alanr: I suggest we check these tests in two ways. (1) We check that the tripes are isomorpic. (2) We do a bidirectional entailment test.
Alan Ruttenberg: I suggest we check these tests in two ways. (1) We check that the tripes are isomorpic. (2) We do a bidirectional entailment test. ←
17:51:24 <bmotik> alanr: I am in the process of figuring out how to transfer these tests into the WIki.
Alan Ruttenberg: I am in the process of figuring out how to transfer these tests into the WIki. ←
17:51:26 <pfps> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Apr/0440.html ???
Peter Patel-Schneider: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Apr/0440.html ??? ←
17:51:38 <alanr> peter, yes
Alan Ruttenberg: peter, yes ←
17:51:43 <bmotik> alanr: We don't have a category for syntax tests. I need to talk about this to Mike.
Alan Ruttenberg: We don't have a category for syntax tests. I need to talk about this to Mike. ←
17:52:04 <bmotik> schneid: I've started the work on test cases. Currently, evertyhing is in the FZI SVN.
Michael Schneider: I've started the work on test cases. Currently, evertyhing is in the FZI SVN. ←
17:52:18 <bmotik> schneid: The RDF semantics will be covered.
Michael Schneider: The RDF semantics will be covered. ←
17:52:34 <bmotik> ianh: This will involve you pouring at some stange a large number of tests, right?
Ian Horrocks: This will involve you pouring at some stange a large number of tests, right? ←
17:52:52 <bmotik> schneid: The best I can do is produce the page code and then put it into the Wiki.
Michael Schneider: The best I can do is produce the page code and then put it into the Wiki. ←
17:53:01 <bmotik> schneid: I would like to see bulk-upload if possible.
Michael Schneider: I would like to see bulk-upload if possible. ←
17:53:29 <bmotik> ianh: So you don't need any structural change of the tests; it is just the upload question?
Ian Horrocks: So you don't need any structural change of the tests; it is just the upload question? ←
17:53:47 <bmotik> schneid: There are some bugs.
Michael Schneider: There are some bugs. ←
17:54:02 <bmotik> schneid: Other than that, I'm fine.
Michael Schneider: Other than that, I'm fine. ←
17:54:36 <pfps> The pointer to svn.mumble.net doesn't appear to be working
Peter Patel-Schneider: The pointer to svn.mumble.net doesn't appear to be working ←
17:55:03 <alanr> just clicked on it successfully. FIrewall issue?
Alan Ruttenberg: just clicked on it successfully. FIrewall issue? ←
17:55:12 <alanr> http://svn.mumble.net:8080/svn/lsw/trunk/owl/owl2/tests/fs2rdf/
Alan Ruttenberg: http://svn.mumble.net:8080/svn/lsw/trunk/owl/owl2/tests/fs2rdf/ ←
17:55:13 <bmotik> msmith: There are 182 tests with no status. The vast majority of those are incomplete. E.g., these tests miss the species, the profile, or something.
Mike Smith: There are 182 tests with no status. The vast majority of those are incomplete. E.g., these tests miss the species, the profile, or something. ←
17:55:24 <schneid> Just to be clear, I will create the final test case format automatically, so they should be fine structurally
Michael Schneider: Just to be clear, I will create the final test case format automatically, so they should be fine structurally ←
17:55:27 <bmotik> msmith: I'll try to pour over these next week and ask people to finish tests.
Mike Smith: I'll try to pour over these next week and ask people to finish tests. ←
17:55:45 <bmotik> msmith: This is a bunch of tests for a few people.
Mike Smith: This is a bunch of tests for a few people. ←
17:55:51 <schneid> schneid: I suggest to have a "OPTIONAL" marker
Michael Schneider: I suggest to have a "OPTIONAL" marker [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
17:56:07 <MarkusK_> schneid: feel free to contact me regarding possible bulk upload
Michael Schneider: feel free to contact me regarding possible bulk upload [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ] ←
17:56:17 <schneid> ok, markus
Michael Schneider: ok, markus ←
17:56:20 <bmotik> ianh: The two Michaels should have a discussion about the "OPTIONAL" feature
Ian Horrocks: The two Michaels should have a discussion about the "OPTIONAL" feature ←
17:56:23 <MarkusK_> ... there are options, but I need to knwo what is convenient to you
Markus Krötzsch: ... there are options, but I need to knwo what is convenient to you ←
17:56:28 <bmotik> IanH: Coming back to the syntactic tests...
Ian Horrocks: Coming back to the syntactic tests... ←
17:56:41 <bmotik> ianh: Alan, does syntactic tests require some change to the structure of the test harness?
Ian Horrocks: Alan, does syntactic tests require some change to the structure of the test harness? ←
17:56:42 <bmotik> alanr: (Explains the differences which are not scribed)
Alan Ruttenberg: (Explains the differences which are not scribed) ←
17:57:37 <uli> I am not sure I understood
Uli Sattler: I am not sure I understood ←
17:57:45 <pfps> I also did not understand what was wanted.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I also did not understand what was wanted. ←
17:57:52 <alanr> test categories: give functional, rdf expect correct
Alan Ruttenberg: test categories: give functional, rdf expect correct ←
17:57:56 <uli> Alan, are those test like the ones you described in earlier emails?
Uli Sattler: Alan, are those test like the ones you described in earlier emails? ←
17:57:59 <alanr> give function, rdf expect incorrect
Alan Ruttenberg: give function, rdf expect incorrect ←
17:58:09 <alanr> give rdf, expect rejection (syntax error)
Alan Ruttenberg: give rdf, expect rejection (syntax error) ←
17:58:25 <schneid> schneid: I am in the process of writing a suite of test cases for the RDF-Based Semantics, but currently everything is locally stored at FZI
Michael Schneider: I am in the process of writing a suite of test cases for the RDF-Based Semantics, but currently everything is locally stored at FZI [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
17:58:50 <pfps> Are these tests? I don't understand what is supposed to be going on.
Peter Patel-Schneider: Are these tests? I don't understand what is supposed to be going on. ←
17:58:57 <schneid> schneid: I have just look through the TestCases section of Conformance, and found a few issues, will report them soon
Michael Schneider: I have just look through the TestCases section of Conformance, and found a few issues, will report them soon [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
17:59:00 <bmotik> alanr: THe tests in the earlier e-mails were only where you specify functional and you want to get a correct translation. The new tests also contain syntax errors that a parser should detect.
Alan Ruttenberg: THe tests in the earlier e-mails were only where you specify functional and you want to get a correct translation. The new tests also contain syntax errors that a parser should detect. ←
17:59:25 <bmotik> msmith: What is the difference between an RDF graph that a parser rejects as incorrect or an RDF graph that a parser says "It is not an OWL 2 DL ontology"?
Mike Smith: What is the difference between an RDF graph that a parser rejects as incorrect or an RDF graph that a parser says "It is not an OWL 2 DL ontology"? ←
17:59:51 <bmotik> alanr: If we have at the end of the RDF mapping we have excess triples -- that's the thing I want to test for.
Alan Ruttenberg: If we have at the end of the RDF mapping we have excess triples -- that's the thing I want to test for. ←
18:00:04 <bmotik> msmith: But that graph is also not an OWL 2 DL ontology.
Mike Smith: But that graph is also not an OWL 2 DL ontology. ←
18:00:22 <pfps> I want to see a proposal for what needs to be changed.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I want to see a proposal for what needs to be changed. ←
18:00:24 <bmotik> alanr: It's a different case because you can not be an OWL 2 DL ontology because you've violated something else.
Alan Ruttenberg: It's a different case because you can not be an OWL 2 DL ontology because you've violated something else. ←
18:00:42 <bmotik> ianh: I think we should hold off further discussion until we see some tests from Alan.
Ian Horrocks: I think we should hold off further discussion until we see some tests from Alan. ←
18:00:47 <bmotik> pfps: I didn't see any examples.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I didn't see any examples. ←
18:01:22 <msmith> alanr's previous link did work for me http://svn.mumble.net:8080/svn/lsw/trunk/owl/owl2/tests/fs2rdf/
Mike Smith: alanr's previous link did work for me http://svn.mumble.net:8080/svn/lsw/trunk/owl/owl2/tests/fs2rdf/ ←
18:02:05 <bmotik> pfps: I'm happy to wait until I see some proposal as to what needs to be changed in the test set up.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm happy to wait until I see some proposal as to what needs to be changed in the test set up. ←
18:02:07 <pfps> still not working for me
Peter Patel-Schneider: still not working for me ←
18:02:23 <bmotik> Topic: Features at risk
18:02:29 <bmotik> ianh: That's just a standard reminder
Ian Horrocks: That's just a standard reminder ←
18:02:38 <bmotik> Topic: Any other business
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#3) generated 2009-05-06 20:23:03 UTC by 'bmotik2', comments: None