Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Chatlog 2008-11-12
From OWL
See original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
00:00:00 <MarkusK_> PRESENT: Peter Patel-Schneider, Markus Krötzsch, Ivan Herman, Jie Bao, Jos de Bruijn, Boris Motik, Alan Ruttenberg, Uli Sattler, Sandro Hawke, Zhe Wu, clu, Michael Schneider, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Mike Smith, Rinke Hoekstra, Achille Fokoue, Jeff Pan 00:00:00 <MarkusK_> REGRETS: Christine Golbreich, Evan Wallace, Ian Horrocks, Elisa Kendall 00:00:00 <MarkusK_> CHAIR: Alan Ruttenberg 17:49:12 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl 17:49:12 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/11/12-owl-irc 17:49:21 <pfps> Zakim, this is owlwg 17:49:21 <Zakim> pfps, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be owlwg". 17:49:28 <pfps> Zakim, this will be owlwg 17:49:28 <Zakim> ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes 17:49:39 <pfps> RRSagent, make records public 17:54:57 <schneid> schneid has joined #owl 17:55:22 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started 17:55:29 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider 17:57:33 <MarkusK_> MarkusK_ has joined #owl 17:58:01 <ivan> ivan has joined #owl 17:58:06 <Zakim> +??P7 17:58:16 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip 17:58:16 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made 17:58:18 <Zakim> +Ivan 17:58:34 <uli> uli has joined #owl 17:58:35 <ivan> zakim, drop me 17:58:35 <Zakim> Ivan is being disconnected 17:58:37 <Zakim> -Ivan 17:59:01 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip 17:59:01 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made 17:59:03 <Zakim> +Ivan 17:59:07 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aaaa 17:59:13 <bmotik> bmotik has joined #owl 17:59:29 <josb> josb has joined #owl 17:59:38 <alanr_> alanr_ has joined #owl 17:59:39 <Zakim> +josb 17:59:41 <Zakim> +??P11 17:59:44 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P11 is me 17:59:44 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it 17:59:47 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 17:59:47 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 18:00:54 <Zakim> + +1.617.452.aabb 18:01:11 <baojie> baojie has joined #owl 18:01:13 <Zakim> +??P14 18:01:17 <alanr_> zakim, aabb is me 18:01:17 <Zakim> +alanr_; got it 18:01:21 <uli> zakim, ??P14 is me 18:01:21 <Zakim> +uli; got it 18:01:23 <alanr_> zakim, who is here? 18:01:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, +1.518.276.aaaa, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli 18:01:25 <Zakim> On IRC I see baojie, alanr_, josb, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, clu, alanr, sandro, trackbot 18:01:25 <uli> zakim, mute me 18:01:25 <Zakim> uli should now be muted 18:01:34 <baojie> Zakim, aaaa is me 18:01:34 <Zakim> +baojie; got it 18:02:19 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl 18:02:42 <Zakim> +Sandro 18:02:53 <Zakim> +Zhe 18:03:00 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call? 18:03:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe 18:03:42 <Zakim> + +0494212186aacc 18:03:56 <clu> zakim, aacc is me 18:03:56 <Zakim> +clu; got it 18:04:00 <clu> zakim, mute me 18:04:00 <Zakim> clu should now be muted 18:04:16 <bcuencagrau> bcuencagrau has joined #owl 18:04:20 <Zakim> +wonsuk 18:04:33 <msmith> msmith has joined #owl 18:04:39 <alanr_> zakim, who is here? 18:04:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe, clu (muted), wonsuk 18:04:41 <Zakim> On IRC I see msmith, bcuencagrau, Zhe, baojie, alanr_, josb, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, clu, sandro, trackbot 18:04:50 <schneid> zakim, wonsuk is me 18:04:59 <Zakim> +schneid; got it 18:05:03 <schneid> zakim, mute me 18:05:10 <Zakim> +??P20 18:05:15 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, ??P20 is me 18:05:19 <alanr_> zakim, who is here 18:05:22 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted 18:05:25 <alanr_> zakim, who is here? 18:05:30 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it 18:05:31 <Rinke> Rinke has joined #owl 18:05:34 <Zakim> alanr_, you need to end that query with '?' 18:05:36 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me 18:05:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe, clu (muted), schneid (muted), bcuencagrau 18:05:51 <MarkusK_> Scribe: MarkusK_ 18:05:53 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted 18:05:57 <Zakim> On IRC I see Rinke, msmith, bcuencagrau, Zhe, baojie, alanr_, josb, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, clu, sandro, trackbot 18:06:02 <MarkusK_> Topic: Admin 18:06:05 <uli> Alan, you are very quiet 18:06:07 <Rinke> ScribeNick: MarkusK_ 18:06:09 <Zakim> +msmith 18:06:23 <MarkusK_> Alan: Last minute agenda extension regarding question on XML literals 18:06:28 <MarkusK_> Previous minutes 18:06:40 <alanr_> zakim is slow 18:06:52 <Zakim> +Tom 18:06:54 <alanr_> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-11-05 18:06:57 <Rinke> zakim, Tom is me 18:06:57 <Zakim> +Rinke; got it 18:07:05 <msmith> last week's minutes looked ok to me 18:07:36 <MarkusK_> Alan: I did mechanical cleanup on F2F4 2nd day minutes 18:07:42 <pfps> pfps has joined #owl 18:07:57 <MarkusK_> Alan: Contents should be in better shape now 18:08:19 <MarkusK_> Alan: Anyone looked at last week's minutes? 18:08:27 <MarkusK_> Pfps: Yes, they appear to be ok 18:08:46 <uli> something is causing static noise 18:09:01 <MarkusK_> Proposed: Accept minutes of Nov 5 Telco 18:09:22 <MarkusK_> Accepted: Accept minutes of Nov 5 Telco 18:09:36 <pfps> I haven't had a chance to look at the F2F4 minutes since yesterday 18:09:37 <Zakim> +[IBM] 18:09:53 <Achille> Achille has joined #owl 18:09:58 <Achille> Zakim, IBM is me 18:09:58 <Zakim> +Achille; got it 18:10:10 <MarkusK_> Action item status 18:10:10 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - item 18:10:22 <msmith> I updated the action, it was actually done by markus k 18:10:36 <MarkusK_> Action 243 completed 18:10:36 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 243 18:10:59 <sandro> action-243 closed 18:10:59 <trackbot> ACTION-243 Edit test section of test & conf to include two links and explanatory text closed 18:11:00 <MarkusK_> Alan: I completed Action 242 18:11:19 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call? 18:11:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe, clu (muted), schneid (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), msmith, 18:11:22 <Zakim> ... Rinke, Achille 18:11:23 <MarkusK_> Topic: Reviewing and Publishing 18:11:23 <MarkusK_> SubTopic: OWL2 Datatypes 18:11:31 <MarkusK_> Alan: Jos de Bruijn is joining OWL WG to look at issues related to datatypes, esp. regarding RIF-OWL compatibility. 18:11:38 <JeffP> JeffP has joined #owl 18:12:11 <josb> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB#Primitive_Datatypes 18:12:24 <JeffP> {JeffP am only available on IRC) 18:12:28 <MarkusK_> Jos: We have a certain set of required datatypes in RIF. These are required, but you are free to implement further datatypes. The conformance conditions of RIF require that only the required datatypes are implemented but conformance can be parameterized to include further datatypes. Now OWL requires much more datatypes than RIF, so the extended conformance conditions would apply. 18:14:01 <bmotik> +q 18:14:10 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me 18:14:10 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted 18:13:30 <sandro> ID, IDREF, ENTITY 18:14:15 <MarkusK_> Jos: I was surprised to see the datatypes ID, IDREF, ENTITY being included in OWL since they were partly discouraged by WebOnt. 18:14:18 <alanr_> ack bmotik 18:14:34 <msmith> Where in the RIF documents is the description of conformance? 18:14:37 <MarkusK_> Boris: I can try to explain. The datatypes ID, IDREF, ENTITY essentially are just restricted types of strings. They have no relation to documents or anything so things are done like in XML Schema. 18:15:35 <schneid> RDF Semantics document tells people they should not use xsd:ENTITY and such: <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#DTYPEINTERP> 18:15:42 <MarkusK_> Boris: Those particular special forms of strings should not cause problems since they are not relatvie to a document. 18:15:46 <sandro> boris: We understand ID, IDREF, and ENTITY to just be subtypes of string with a restricted syntax. This is how they are done in XML Schema. They are just strings with additional restrictions. 18:16:00 <josb> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#ENTITY 18:16:10 <MarkusK_> Jos: I think at least ENTITY seems to point to a document (see link pasted). 18:16:32 <MarkusK_> Boris: (reads from linked text) 18:16:34 <pfps> q+ 18:16:40 <MarkusK_> Boris: Indeed, it mentions a document. I had not noticed this; this was not the intention in OWL. I will check version 1.1 of the spec. 18:16:38 <msmith> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#ENTITY 18:16:52 <alanr_> says same thing in 1.1 18:17:00 <pfps> the 1.1 document appears to be incoherent 18:17:27 <Zakim> -uli 18:17:32 <MarkusK_> Jos: The intended interpretation is that entities need to be distinguished when taking the union of two documents. 18:17:41 <MarkusK_> Boris: this was not intended in OWL. Anything beyond simple strings would be out of scope. 18:17:52 <Zakim> +??P14 18:18:00 <uli> zakim, ??P14 is me 18:18:00 <Zakim> +uli; got it 18:18:10 <uli> zakim, mute me 18:18:10 <Zakim> uli should now be muted 18:18:26 <sandro> q? 18:18:31 <MarkusK_> Jos: Why was this a concern for WebOnt and RDF but not for OWL? 18:18:38 <josb> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#DTYPEINTERP 18:19:21 <MarkusK_> Jos: this link is relevant to the discussion of ENTITIY. 18:19:22 <pfps> q+ to ask why we are doing this sort of thing at a teleconference 18:19:32 <msmith> rdf-mt says, "xsd:QName and xsd:ENTITY require an enclosing XML document context" 18:19:40 <MarkusK_> Jos: Both RDF and OWL discourage the use of this type, pointing to this section. 18:19:42 <alanr_> ack pfps 18:19:42 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask why we are doing this sort of thing at a teleconference 18:19:59 <josb> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/syntax.html#owl_built_in_datatypes 18:20:05 <schneid> +1 to PFPS 18:20:13 <MarkusK_> Pfps: Should this be discussed during the current telco? We are not sufficiently prepared. Let us take this to Email. 18:20:37 <schneid> I just stumbled over the RDFS paragraph a few days ago, not related to this discussion. 18:20:38 <MarkusK_> Sandro: It seemed to be an urgent issue that needed some discussion. 18:21:01 <MarkusK_> Alan: Should we simply remove the problematic types then? Or is anybody interested in having them? 18:20:56 <schneid> q+ 18:20:58 <pfps> I'm perfectly happy to junk them 18:21:00 <uli> I would think that this would be too rushed 18:21:01 <schneid> zakim, unmute me 18:21:01 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted 18:22:32 <alanr_> ack schneid 18:21:28 <MarkusK_> Schneid: I would feel incomfortable with keeping these datatypes in, because RDFS semantics says SHOULD NOT be used, while RDF-based Semantics would have it in its datatype map. 18:21:25 <msmith> I think junking them is ok, but suggest that proposal go to the list and be resolved next week. 18:21:33 <uli> +1 to Mike 18:21:37 <schneid> zakim, mute me 18:21:37 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted 18:21:48 <ivan> +1 18:21:49 <uli> yes 18:21:50 <JeffP> +1 to Mike 18:21:55 <MarkusK_> Alan: Then we can discuss this over email and schedule a proposal for next week. 18:22:14 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: XMLLiteral in OWL 2 18:22:14 <MarkusK_> Jos: XMLLiteral is a datatype not included in OWL 2, but required in RDF; in OWL 1 it was built-in. Is it a mistake that it is not in OWL 2? 18:22:16 <pfps> q+ 18:22:23 <pfps> q+ on a point of order 18:22:25 <bmotik> q+ 18:23:54 <ivan> ack pfps 18:23:54 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to comment on a point of order 18:23:04 <MarkusK_> Pfps: A link in the agenda is not accessible without a login. 18:23:12 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Sorry, I will fix this. 18:23:32 <MarkusK_> Pfps: What good can we do with this discussion now? I am clueless. More preparation would be useful. 18:24:07 <MarkusK_> Sandro: OK, but maybe Jos can still bring forward what the issue is, and then we can possibly move on. 18:24:10 <msmith> +1 to adding XMLLiteral if we can. 18:24:15 <ivan> XMLLiteral is not an xsd datatype 18:24:39 <MarkusK_> Boris: The only normative types in OWL 1.0 are strings and integers; I overlooked the XMLLiteral type. 18:24:41 <schneid> XMLLiteral is in the RDF namespace 18:24:53 <schneid> q+ 18:24:58 <schneid> zakim, unmute me 18:24:58 <Zakim> schneid was not muted, schneid 18:24:58 <ivan> XMLLiteral is (the only) datatype defined in RDF 18:24:59 <alanr_> ack bmotik 18:25:06 <bmotik> ACTION: bmotik2 to Come up with an analysis of whether OWL 2 should include XMLLiteral 18:25:06 <trackbot> Created ACTION-244 - Come up with an analysis of whether OWL 2 should include XMLLiteral [on Boris Motik - due 2008-11-19]. 18:25:07 <josb> I would expect an answer to my public comment to be an outcome of the action 18:25:10 <MarkusK_> Alan: We should come up with a proposal whether or not to include XMLLiteral in OWL 2 18:25:34 <josb> rdf:XMLLiteral spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-XMLLiteral 18:25:38 <MarkusK_> Schneid: XMLLiteral is mandatory in RDF and thus it is mandatory for the RDF-based semantics. I do not see why it is required for DL datatype maps though. XMLLiteral is already covered for OWL 2 Full. 18:28:16 <schneid> rdf:XMLLiteral in RDF Semantics: <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#RDFINTERP> 18:25:45 <alanr_> q? 18:25:49 <schneid> zakim, mute me 18:25:49 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted 18:25:50 <alanr_> acm schneid 18:25:52 <ivan> q? 18:25:54 <alanr_> ack schneid 18:26:01 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 18:26:01 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 18:26:29 <bmotik> -q 18:26:35 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me 18:26:35 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted 18:26:38 <MarkusK_> Thanks to Jos for attending, bye 18:26:43 <Zakim> -josb 18:26:48 <JeffP> bye 18:22:14 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Progress report on document changes 18:27:09 <sandro> Boris: my parts of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Last_Call_Check_List to be done by the end of the week 18:27:29 <MarkusK_> Alan: I also noticed a link at the end where the full grammar should be 18:27:32 <schneid> Ivan, several of the RDF semantic conditions are about rdf:XMLLiteral 18:27:35 <MarkusK_> Boris: I can fix this too. 18:27:57 <MarkusK_> Alan: Some remaining changes seems to be more than editorial 18:28:16 <MarkusK_> Boris: Yes, the original reviewers should be asked to look over it again after I finish. I will send a pointer by email. 18:28:27 <alanr_> q? 18:28:35 <MarkusK_> Sandro: I will provide a color-coded diff then. 18:28:45 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 18:28:45 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 18:29:02 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Mime types 18:29:11 <sandro> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Oct/0164.html 18:29:28 <sandro> q? 18:29:29 <MarkusK_> Alan: Peter's email suggested mime types for functional and Manchester syntax. There are still question marks for XML syntax. 18:29:57 <sandro> q+ 18:30:14 <MarkusK_> Alan: Do we still need to specify file extensions? 18:30:24 <MarkusK_> Pfps: I assume that file extensions should be specified. A three-character extension might be good. It should be possible to find un-occupied 3-char extensions. I propose oxl or just xml for XML syntax. 18:31:51 <MarkusK_> Sandro: I think it could be xml, but I need to check. 18:32:11 <MarkusK_> For RDF/XML the extension is rdf. 18:32:29 <MarkusK_> Alan: So the choice is between oxl and xml? 18:32:29 <alanr_> owx 18:32:31 <sandro> .xml or .oxl (.owx) 18:32:33 <MarkusK_> Pfps: Yes 18:32:40 <MarkusK_> Sandro: owx is another option 18:33:06 <MarkusK_> Action: Sandro to check if it would be recommendable to use xml as file extension for XML syntax files. 18:33:06 <trackbot> Created ACTION-245 - Check if it would be recommendable to use xml as file extension for XML syntax files. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-11-19]. 18:33:09 <ivan> good point 18:33:27 <MarkusK_> Alan: Using xml might cause confusion with some tools, e.g. Protege. 18:33:58 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Also web servers might like to have a separate extension for serving the right mime type. 18:34:14 <MarkusK_> Alan: Then we should probably not consider xml. 18:34:14 <sandro> action-245 closed 18:34:14 <trackbot> ACTION-245 Check if it would be recommendable to use xml as file extension for XML syntax files. closed 18:34:24 <MarkusK_> Pfps: ok 18:34:26 <Rinke> oxl = OMEGA Product Suite File 18:34:27 <ivan> toss a coin 18:34:29 <MarkusK_> Sandro: ok 18:34:31 <sandro> owx 18:34:45 <MarkusK_> Alan: So the choice is between owx and oxl. 18:35:10 <msmith> Does mime registration limit us to 3 characters? 18:35:22 <sandro> No, but some people prefer it. 18:35:37 <Rinke> ... and some filesystems do as well 18:35:43 <MarkusK_> Alan: There appears to be a file type for oxl but none for owx, which might support the latter. Peter, do you like owx? 18:35:57 <JeffP> xol? 18:36:04 <ivan> owx it is! 18:36:07 <MarkusK_> Pfps: I don't care. 18:36:17 <Zhe> owx is not bad 18:36:32 <MarkusK_> Alan: Ok, then let us use owx. 18:36:48 <MarkusK_> Pfps: I will edit all relevant documents to mirror this choice. 18:37:02 <ivan> :-) 18:37:16 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Could we fix who will contact IETF for registering the mime types? 18:38:13 <sandro> q? 18:38:15 <sandro> q- 18:38:30 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Alignment of functional syntax keywords and RDF syntax URIs 18:38:41 <MarkusK_> (Sandro takes over chairing) 18:39:09 <MarkusK_> Alan: The action was to have a smaller group of people to work-out a proposal. It might be good to have another week for a coherent proposal. 18:39:59 <pfps> q+ 18:40:08 <sandro> ack pfps 18:40:18 <MarkusK_> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/AligningSyntaxKeywords 18:40:27 <ivan> q+ 18:41:07 <alanr_> q+ 18:41:13 <alanr_> ack ivan 18:41:17 <MarkusK_> Ivan: One option for solving the dealock would be to not do any change. 18:41:41 <pfps> there are a couple of suggestions that don't seem to have much, if any, pushback 18:42:09 <bmotik> I'm afraid that the only noncontentious thing is ExistsSelf 18:42:26 <sandro> STRAWPOLL: Should we put effort into aligning the functional syntax and RDF names? 18:42:29 <bmotik> -1 18:42:32 <ivan> +1 18:42:32 <bcuencagrau> -1 18:42:32 <alanr_> +1 18:42:35 <sandro> +1 18:42:38 <pfps> -1 18:42:44 <MarkusK_> 0 18:42:44 <schneid> -0 18:42:44 <msmith> 0 18:42:45 <JeffP> 0 18:42:48 <uli> -0 18:42:51 <Zhe> +1 consistency is always a good thing 18:42:53 <Rinke> +0.5 18:42:59 <Achille> 0 18:43:28 <sandro> baojie? opinion? 18:43:33 <schneid> consequently, one could then also ask for aligning the Manchester Syntax... 18:43:43 <Rinke> I don't really think differences in singular vs plural form are a problem 18:43:44 <pfps> there are various different kinds of consistency that could be aimed for here. The current status is for a particular kind of consistency. 18:43:51 <bmotik> +q 18:43:58 <ivan> ack alanr_ 18:44:02 <sandro> q? 18:44:05 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me 18:44:05 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted 18:44:05 <sandro> ack bmotik 18:44:09 <MarkusK_> Sandro: If there was no effort involved, would there be objections changing the names? 18:44:34 <baojie> sorry, was off for a few minutes, I would vote +1 18:44:24 <MarkusK_> Boris: I voted with -1. In an ideal world, it would be great to have that alignment but in practice, forcing an alignment would make the functional syntax ugly. For instance, we do have singular names in RDF where we have n-ary constructs in functional-style syntax. Given that we cannot change RDF, I believe that the alignment is not practical. 18:44:46 <alanr_> q+ 18:44:56 <sandro> boris: In an ideal world, yes, we'd like the same names. But the RDF syntax takes precidence, so the function syntax would start to get very ugly. 18:45:29 <sandro> boris: If we were designing two syntax from scratch, then sure, align them. 18:45:40 <sandro> boris: but since we can't change RDF, let's not make functional ugly. 18:45:41 <sandro> q? 18:45:43 <bcuencagrau> +q 18:45:45 <sandro> ack alanr_ 18:45:46 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 18:45:46 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 18:46:23 <sandro> alan: let's accept plurality issues, but try to solve the other? 18:46:30 <MarkusK_> Alan: Maybe one could focus on alignments that are less problematic than the plurals/singulars. There are other issues that could possibly be changed with less effort. I will suggest this in an email. 18:46:38 <ivan> q+ 18:46:57 <sandro> ack bcuencagrau 18:46:57 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, unmute me 18:47:00 <Zakim> bcuencagrau was not muted, bcuencagrau 18:47:24 <msmith> q+ to mention the OWL XML schema 18:47:27 <MarkusK_> Bernardo: Do you then only suggest to change some names? I agree with Boris. We have a nice and well-developed functional syntax now. It has been developed for quite some time, and I would not like to implement major changes there now. 18:47:52 <sandro> q? 18:47:53 <alanr_> q+ 18:48:06 <sandro> ack ivan 18:48:12 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me 18:48:12 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted 18:48:44 <MarkusK_> Ivan: I also see that the complete alignment appears to be unrealistic. We only arrived at consensus in a few cases, while most of the namings remained disputed. Still there is a problem in understanding OWL 2 for people coming to OWL from the RDF world. A possible answer of course is that people from the DL world would prefer the current namings over the RDF-compatible ones. But changing only two or three names seems not to solve the problem anyway, so we might just avoid this extra work. 18:49:19 <bcuencagrau> +q 18:49:25 <bmotik> +q 18:50:27 <sandro> ack msmith 18:50:27 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to mention the OWL XML schema 18:51:00 <ivan> +1 to msmith 18:51:09 <sandro> ack alanr_ 18:51:11 <MarkusK_> MikeSmith: Note that the functional syntax is also aligned with the OWL XML syntax. Any change in the names would thus also affect the XML syntax. 18:51:08 <schneid> of course, every change in the FS would need to be followed by OWL/XML 18:51:17 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, unmute me 18:51:17 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should no longer be muted 18:52:06 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Many people may arrive at OWL as an extension of RDF and those people should be supported. 18:52:25 <sandro> q? 18:52:29 <sandro> ack bcuencagrau 18:52:48 <MarkusK_> Sandro: An editorial improvement could be to (scribe did not get this, sorry) 18:53:01 <pfps> q+ 18:53:05 <pfps> q- 18:53:10 <sandro> Alan: We could xref the function syntax to the RDF vocabulary, as an editorial fix. 18:53:13 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me 18:53:13 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted 18:53:13 <MarkusK_> Bernardo: One way to move forward would be to check if there are comments from the community after publishing the documents. So we may want to wait for comments before starting major changes. 18:53:33 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me 18:53:33 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted 18:53:36 <sandro> ack bmotik 18:53:48 <MarkusK_> Sandro: The downside would be that this may require a second last call. 18:54:26 <MarkusK_> Boris: We should keep in mind that OWL is indeed serving two partially overlapping communities. I am not convinced that changing some names would solve the problem that those different approaches bring. And there are various documents addressing the view of the RDF community, including the Primer that shows explicitly how to translate syntactic forms. 18:54:14 <sandro> (Hey, let's have two different languages, with different names! :-) 18:54:38 <sandro> q? 18:55:09 <uli> good points, Boris 18:55:11 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 18:55:11 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 18:55:18 <alanr_> q? 18:56:00 <MarkusK_> Ivan: So how should we continue? 18:56:24 <schneid> we had pretty much a draw in the straw poll, with half of the votes being 0 18:56:34 <MarkusK_> Sandro: This can be discussed on the mailing lists; if not enough people continue to work on this, we need to give up on the alignment. 18:56:45 <MarkusK_> Alan: I will send a mail with some suggestions for discussion 18:56:51 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Manchester syntax 18:57:08 <MarkusK_> Pfps: Some months ago, I mailed that Manchester syntax is ready for review. There have been some at least partial reviews since then. I have addressed most of those comments, but one major comment resulted in issue-146. 18:58:23 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Any other comments before publishing this? 18:59:11 <MarkusK_> Alan: Some review comments are still in the document, maybe these should be turned into editor's notes. 18:59:31 <MarkusK_> Pfps: I still wait for responses from the authors of some of these comments. 19:00:25 <MarkusK_> Alan: I guess I would like my comments turned into editor's notes without open issues. If Peter agrees with that. 19:01:18 <Rinke> (my two remaining review comments have been addressed, as far as I'm concerned they may be removed) 19:01:23 <MarkusK_> Pfps: For this document there appears to be disagreement between the editor and the reviewers. Keeping the comments as notes will not solve the problem in the end. 19:01:42 <schneid> q+ 19:01:50 <ivan> q+ 19:02:00 <Rinke> I don't have an alternative either 19:02:00 <MarkusK_> Sandro: But we can ask the public for comments on open issues. 19:02:14 <Rinke> yes 19:02:34 <MarkusK_> Pfps: OK, I can turn the comments into editor's notes, and we can then go forward with publication. 19:02:42 <schneid> q- 19:02:57 <sandro> ACTION: Pfps convert review comments to editors notes (except rinke's) 19:02:57 <trackbot> Created ACTION-246 - Convert review comments to editors notes (except rinke's) [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2008-11-19]. 19:03:14 <msmith> and in test&conf (responding to the question where to find examples for making editor's notes on the wiki) 19:04:06 <schneid> there's also an EdNote resulting from some open disagreement between the editor and one of the reviewers of the RDF-Based Semantics ... :) 19:03:29 <ivan> q? 19:03:33 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Can we propose to publish? Should publication be as soon as possible or in combination with other publications? 19:04:08 <MarkusK_> Alan: Maybe we can at least resolve now to publish. 19:04:33 <sandro> PROPOSED: Publish ManchesterSyntax as FPWD, after Peter's just-discussed editors notes are added, in our next round of publications. 19:05:29 <MarkusK_> Alan: So "next round" would mean the next time we publish; is this at Last Call? 19:05:36 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Yes, that would be useful. 19:04:40 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford) 19:04:45 <Rinke> +1 (UvA) 19:04:46 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI) 19:04:48 <pfps> +1 (ALU) 19:04:50 <bcuencagrau> +1 (Oxford) 19:04:53 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE) 19:04:55 <ivan> +1 (w3c) 19:04:58 <alanr_> +1 19:04:58 <Achille> +1 (IBM) 19:05:11 <sandro> +1 19:05:12 <alanr_> +1 (science commons) 19:05:19 <uli> +1 (Man) 19:05:33 <msmith> +1 (C&P) 19:05:38 <sandro> RESOLVED: Publish ManchesterSyntax as FPWD, after Peter's just-discussed editors notes are added, in our next round of publications. 19:05:42 <baojie> +1 (RPI) 19:05:48 <sandro> ack ivan 19:06:16 <MarkusK_> Ivan: There is one open issue related to the Manchester Syntax; I do not understand what it says. 19:06:31 <MarkusK_> Sandro: This one is on the agenda, maybe we can get to this. 19:06:43 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Datarange extensions 19:07:24 <MarkusK_> Alan: We have had some reviews, and the question now is if we can make this a publishable WG note. 19:07:12 <bmotik> q+ 19:07:18 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me 19:07:18 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted 19:07:22 <alanr_> ack bmotik 19:07:45 <MarkusK_> Boris: I think the document is good, but some of the comments need to be addressed. I think all reviewers agreed that this should be published as a note. Some open issues remain, but I do not see why those should not be solvable. 19:07:57 <uli> q+ 19:08:05 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 19:08:05 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 19:08:09 <uli> zakim, unmute me 19:08:09 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted 19:08:41 <MarkusK_> Uli: We plan to address all the reviewers' comments, but this won't happen by next week. 19:08:55 <uli> zakim, mute me 19:08:55 <Zakim> uli should now be muted 19:09:22 <MarkusK_> Alan: OK; so let us continue to work on this. 19:09:28 <sandro> Alan: consensus seems to be that this is moving along nicely to end up as a Note. 19:09:49 <bmotik> Given this outcome, could we perhaps resolve ISSUE-127 now/soon? 19:10:03 <MarkusK_> Topic: Issues 19:10:12 <sandro> subtopic: issue-127 19:10:29 <MarkusK_> (Alan is back chairing) 19:10:28 <bmotik> +1 to close 19:10:33 <bmotik> q+ 19:10:42 <sandro> ack uli 19:10:43 <alanr_> ack uli 19:10:54 <alanr_> ack bmotik 19:10:56 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me 19:10:56 <Zakim> bmotik was not muted, bmotik 19:11:01 <ivan> q+ 19:11:02 <uli> zakim, mute me 19:11:02 <Zakim> uli should now be muted 19:11:16 <MarkusK_> Boris: Does anything speak against closing Issue 127? 19:11:43 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 19:11:43 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 19:11:47 <ivan> q- 19:11:55 <schneid> we had /3/ proposals to close this in the last few days, AFAIR :) 19:12:07 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-127 given the work on Data Range Extension is proceeding nicely 19:12:09 <bmotik> +1 19:12:12 <sandro> +1 19:12:13 <alanr_> +1 19:12:13 <msmith> +1 19:12:13 <ivan> +1 19:12:14 <Rinke> +1 19:12:14 <schneid> +1 19:12:14 <MarkusK_> +1 19:12:14 <pfps> +1 19:12:17 <Zhe> +1 19:12:18 <bcuencagrau> +1 19:12:23 <uli> +1 19:12:24 <JeffP> 0 19:12:26 <baojie> +1 19:12:33 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close issue-127 given the work on Data Range Extension is proceeding nicely 19:12:56 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Issue-87 19:13:08 <MarkusK_> (Sandro is chairing this) 19:13:50 <MarkusK_> Alan: It is considered useful to add rational numbers as a datatype. The question was how this should be realized, and what conformance would require for this datatype. Also it was asked if we should have a dedicated lexical representation for rationals. 19:14:05 <bmotik> q+ 19:14:18 <msmith> q+ 19:14:20 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me 19:14:20 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted 19:14:23 <sandro> ack bmotik 19:15:17 <MarkusK_> Boris: Regarding the dedicated lexical form, I do not see any problems. There might be some implementation challenges involved. One would probably store rationals as pairs of integers. We do not need arithmetics, since OWL does not include much arithmetics anyway. But comparing floats and rationals might be a slight challenge for implementors. 19:15:28 <alanr_> q+ to mention finite number of floats between rationals 19:16:13 <msmith> q- 19:16:43 <sandro> ack alanr_ 19:16:43 <Zakim> alanr_, you wanted to mention finite number of floats between rationals 19:16:46 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 19:16:46 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 19:16:51 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me 19:16:51 <Zakim> bcuencagrau was already muted, bcuencagrau 19:17:11 <bmotik> q+ 19:17:33 <MarkusK_> Alan: I was also wondering about the comparison. Maybe we should put this in and tag it as an "at risk" feature. There was also a problem relating to counting floats. 19:17:33 <sandro> a? 19:17:36 <sandro> q? 19:17:37 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me 19:17:37 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted 19:17:42 <sandro> ack bmotik 19:17:54 <schneid> xsd:double just specifies a finite subset of all rationals 19:18:17 <alanr_> q+ 19:18:45 <sandro> ack alanr_ 19:18:46 <MarkusK_> Boris: Yes, but the value space of rationals is dense, i.e. there are infinitely many values between each pair of distinct rational numbers. Even if there are only finitely many constants, the number of rationals is not a problem. 19:19:32 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 19:19:32 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 19:19:33 <MarkusK_> Alan: Yes, but there might e.g. be a data range of floats bounded by rational constants 19:19:58 <MarkusK_> Sandro: This discussion probably should be continued elsewhere. 19:19:41 <msmith> +1 19:19:46 <alanr_> +1 19:20:10 <sandro> STRAWPOLL: go ahead with Rationals in OWL2, marked as At Risk until we get implementation experience 19:20:11 <ivan> +1 (why putting it on the agenda next week?) 19:20:14 <bmotik> +1 19:20:17 <MarkusK_> +1 19:20:17 <baojie> +1 19:20:18 <uli> +1 19:20:19 <pfps> +1 19:20:19 <Achille> +1 19:20:19 <Zhe> +1 19:20:22 <schneid> +1 (even without "at risk") 19:20:23 <alanr_> +1 19:20:23 <bcuencagrau> +1 19:20:24 <Rinke> +1 19:20:29 <JeffP> 0 19:20:49 <bmotik> Perhaps we can come up by the next week with questions that need to be answered in order to remove "at risk" 19:20:55 <MarkusK_> Sandro: It appears to be too early to make this a full resolution, since it was not announced on the agenda. 19:21:06 <ivan> q+ 19:21:12 <sandro> Subtopic: issue-146 19:21:22 <MarkusK_> (Sandro chairing) 19:22:16 <MarkusK_> Sandro: We probably could let this issue sit until we have feedback on Manchester syntax. 19:22:17 <sandro> we're going to let this sit.... 19:22:52 <ivan> q- 19:22:55 <MarkusK_> Ivan: I really do not understand Issue 146. I would like a more detailed explanation via email. 19:23:19 <sandro> ACTION: Alan make a detailed proposal for edits to ManchesterSyntax to address issue-146 - due Jan 15 19:23:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-247 - make a detailed proposal for edits to ManchesterSyntax to address issue-146 [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-01-15]. 19:23:56 <sandro> Subtopic: deprecated 19:24:08 <sandro> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Nov/0076.html 19:24:18 <bmotik> q+ 19:24:21 <pfps> q+ 19:24:36 <MarkusK_> Alan: Since we have punning, we can no longer distinguish deprecation of properties and classes. A simple way to fix this would be to have two separate annotation properties as deprecation markers: one for classes and one for properties. 19:24:43 <Zakim> -Rinke 19:24:45 <sandro> ack bmotik 19:24:46 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me 19:24:48 <Zakim> bmotik was not muted, bmotik 19:24:49 <sandro> q? 19:25:04 <pfps> q- 19:25:24 <MarkusK_> Boris: So the suggestion is to have two distinct annotation properties? 19:25:29 <MarkusK_> Alan: Yes. 19:25:48 <ivan> q+ 19:25:51 <schneid> or more: for individuals, classes, datatypes, dataproperties, objectproperties 19:25:54 <sandro> ack ivan 19:25:56 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 19:25:56 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 19:25:57 <MarkusK_> Boris: Isnt't it that you deprecate a URI rather than a particular use/view of it? 19:26:11 <MarkusK_> Alan: No, my intention is to deprecate a particular view on a URI. 19:26:24 <MarkusK_> Ivan: Are there any use cases? 19:26:27 <bmotik> +1 to ivan 19:26:37 <bmotik> q+ 19:26:41 <MarkusK_> Alan: Yes, you could have a legacy document that contains a deprecated property. But you can no longer tell that that use was deprecated, and not, e.g., the class. 19:27:00 <sandro> q? 19:27:37 <MarkusK_> Ivan: Conceptually, URIs still refer to one thing, and this is what I expect to deprecate. Thus the deprecation refers to all uses of the URI. 19:27:54 <sandro> q? 19:28:01 <schneid> q+ 19:28:02 <MarkusK_> Alan: My assumption was that single uses of URIs might be deprecated. 19:28:23 <MarkusK_> Ivan: If I am in OWL Full, I also deprecate a URI. 19:28:41 <bmotik> In OWL Full, there is no distinction between a property and a class 19:28:43 <sandro> ack bmotik 19:28:44 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me 19:28:44 <Zakim> bmotik was not muted, bmotik 19:29:20 <MarkusK_> Boris: The reason for having deprecated class and deprecated property in OWL 1 seems to be a side effect but not a very thought-through design. For instance, there is no way of deprecating individuals. I do not think that this OWL 1 deprecation was actually used a lot either. Maybe we do not require to spend more effort on this. 19:29:56 <ivan> ??? 19:30:04 <alanr_> q? 19:30:10 <schneid> zakim, unmute me 19:30:10 <Zakim> schneid was not muted, schneid 19:31:00 <schneid> zakim, mute me 19:31:00 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted 19:31:03 <MarkusK_> Schneid: One could imagine that someone wants to deprecate only the class use of a URI but not the property use, but this will probably never happen in practice. 19:31:07 <uli> bye 19:31:10 <Zhe> bye 19:31:10 <Zakim> -bmotik 19:31:11 <sandro> ADJOURNED 19:31:13 <Zakim> -alanr_ 19:31:14 <Zakim> -msmith 19:31:15 <msmith> bye 19:31:15 <Zakim> -uli 19:31:17 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider 19:31:17 <Zakim> -Zhe 19:31:18 <msmith> msmith has left #owl 19:31:18 <Zakim> -baojie 19:31:23 <Zakim> -clu 19:31:24 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau 19:31:28 <Zakim> -Ivan 19:31:36 <ivan> ivan has left #owl 19:31:40 <uli> uli has left #owl 19:31:46 <Zakim> -Achille 19:31:52 <sandro> RRSAgent, make log public 19:32:02 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Scribe_Conventions 19:32:17 <MarkusK_> Bye 19:32:17 <Zakim> -Sandro 19:32:21 <Zakim> -MarkusK_ 19:34:17 <Zakim> -schneid 19:34:18 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended 19:34:20 <Zakim> Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, +1.518.276.aaaa, josb, bmotik, +1.617.452.aabb, alanr_, uli, baojie, Sandro, Zhe, +0494212186aacc, clu, schneid, bcuencagrau, 19:34:23 <Zakim> ... msmith, Rinke, Achille 19:35:47 <alanr_> alanr_ has left #owl 19:42:01 <alanr> alanr has joined #owl 19:58:43 <alanr> alanr has left #owl 21:58:03 <Zakim> Zakim has left #owl