OWL Working Group

Minutes of 06 May 2009

Present
Boris Motik, Ian Horrocks, Peter Patel-Schneider, Markus Krötzsch, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Rinke Hoekstra, Zhe Wu, Sandro Hawke, Antoine Zimmermann, Alan Ruttenberg, Uli Sattler, Michael Schneider, Jie Bao, Evan Wallace, Mike Smith, Achille Fokoue
Regrets
Elisa Kendall, Christine Golbreich
Chair
Ian Horrocks
Scribe
Boris Motik
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions

None.

Topics
<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

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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.

Jie Bao: 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.

Jie Bao: 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

Jie Bao: 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

Jie Bao: 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!

Jie Bao: 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Any other business



Formatted by CommonScribe


This revision (#3) generated 2009-05-06 20:23:03 UTC by 'bmotik2', comments: None