Chatlog 2008-12-17

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 <scribenick> PRESENT: Peter_Patel-Schneider, Evan_Wallace, IanH, bcuencagrau (muted), msmith, Ivan, Sandro, uli, Christine, Zhe, Michael Schneider, Markus, Jie
17:45:27 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:45:27 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/12/17-owl-irc
17:45:57 <ewallace> ewallace has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.12.17/Agenda
17:46:22 <ewallace> zakim, this will be owlwg
17:46:23 <Zakim> ok, ewallace; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 14 minutes
17:46:55 <ewallace> ScribeNick: ewallace
17:47:17 <ewallace> RRSAgent, make records public
17:57:59 <pfps> pfps has joined #owl
17:58:24 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
17:58:31 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
17:58:46 <pfps> zakim, who is here?
17:58:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider
17:58:47 <Zakim> On IRC I see pfps, RRSAgent, ewallace, trackbot, sandro, Zakim
17:59:02 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
17:59:02 <IanH> IanH has joined #owl
17:59:27 <bcuencagrau> bcuencagrau has joined #owl
18:00:18 <Zakim> +??P4
18:00:29 <IanH> zakim, ??P4 is IanH
18:00:29 <Zakim> +IanH; got it
18:00:35 <Zakim> +??P5
18:00:41 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, ??P5 is me
18:00:41 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it
18:00:46 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
18:00:46 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
18:00:58 <uli> uli has joined #owl
18:01:00 <uli_> uli_ has joined #owl
18:01:09 <msmith> msmith has joined #owl
18:01:32 <ivan> ivan has joined #owl
18:01:48 <Zakim> +msmith
18:01:57 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
18:01:57 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
18:01:59 <Zakim> +Ivan
18:02:17 <Zakim> +Sandro
18:02:24 <elisa> elisa has joined #owl
18:02:25 <Zakim> +??P9
18:02:33 <uli_> zakim, ??P9 is me
18:02:35 <Zakim> +uli_; got it
18:02:41 <uli_> zakim, mute me
18:02:41 <Zakim> uli_ should now be muted
18:02:41 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:02:42 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Evan_Wallace, IanH, bcuencagrau (muted), msmith, Ivan, Sandro, uli_ (muted)
18:02:46 <Zakim> On IRC I see elisa, ivan, msmith, uli_, bcuencagrau, IanH, pfps, RRSAgent, ewallace, trackbot, sandro, Zakim
18:03:18 <Christine> Christine has joined #OWL
18:05:37 <ewallace> topic: Admin
18:05:37 <ewallace> subtopic: Accept previous minutes
18:03:39 <pfps> they're perfect :-)
18:03:41 <uli_> look good
18:03:41 <schneid> schneid has joined #owl
18:03:57 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl
18:04:29 <Zakim> +Zhe
18:04:34 <uli_> zakim, uli_ is uli
18:04:34 <Zakim> +uli; got it
18:04:37 <Zhe> zakim, mute me
18:04:37 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted
18:04:51 <Zakim> +Elisa_Kendall
18:04:56 <Zakim> + +7.233.aaaa
18:05:08 <MarkusK_> MarkusK_ has joined #owl
18:05:17 <schneid> zakim, +7.233.aaaa is mw
18:05:17 <Zakim> +mw; got it
18:05:19 <schneid> zakim, +7.233.aaaa is me
18:05:19 <Zakim> sorry, schneid, I do not recognize a party named '+7.233.aaaa'
18:05:27 <schneid> zakim, 7.233.aaaa is me
18:05:27 <Zakim> sorry, schneid, I do not recognize a party named '7.233.aaaa'
18:05:35 <pfps> zakim, mw is schneid
18:05:35 <Zakim> +schneid; got it
18:05:37 <Zakim> +??P15
18:05:58 <ewallace> resolved: accept previous minutes http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.12.17/Agenda
18:06:00 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:06:00 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:06:00 <ewallace> subtopic: Action Item Status
18:04:38 <pfps> I've pushed 252 off to next year anyway.
18:05:50 <pfps> MIME registration should happen soon
18:07:01 <pfps> There is a note on the action that appears to do something relevant.
18:08:12 <baojie> baojie has joined #owl
18:08:30 <pfps>  action 258 (QRG) might be done, but we should get confirmation from Jie that he thinks he is done.
18:08:50 <baojie> sorry for being late, unexpected snow. I believe Action 258 is done
18:08:41 <ewallace> action 258 done
18:08:42 <ewallace> subtopic: Announcing and soliciting reviews of documents
18:08:43 <ewallace> ianh: have we done enough publicizing?
18:08:48 <Zakim> + +49.343.aabb
18:08:57 <ewallace> sandro: The key thing is getting enough comments.
18:09:14 <ewallace> ... at two weeks before end we should remind folks to send comments.
18:09:19 <Zakim> +baojie
18:09:23 <pfps> should put item on agenda for first Jan meeting to send out reminder.
18:09:40 <ewallace> subtopic: Face-to-face meeting 5
18:10:06 <pfps> fill in people page ASAP
18:10:10 <ewallace> ianh: 23-24 Feb 2009 are the dates chosen.
18:10:43 <ewallace> topic: Last Call Comments
18:11:03 <ewallace> ianh: We did get one last call comment from Alan Rector about annotations.
18:11:16 <schneid> q+
18:11:17 <uli_> yes
18:11:19 <pfps> Is it the same as his other comment?
18:11:20 <ewallace> ianh: Anyone looked at it?
18:11:21 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:11:21 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:11:22 <IanH> q?
18:11:26 <IanH> ack schneid
18:11:47 <ewallace> mschneid: As far as I understand Alan
18:11:59 <ewallace> ... his concern is that you cannot annotate class expressions?
18:12:22 <ewallace> ianh: I think he wants a target not to be restricted to IRIs.
18:12:25 <schneid> UnionOf(comment("foo") A B) ?
18:12:36 <pfps> non-IRIs should work in OWL full, right?
18:12:43 <schneid> UnionOf(comment("foo") A C) ?
18:12:42 <ewallace> ianh: Wants to make statements about what kind of statements
18:12:53 <ewallace> ... are reasonable in an ontology.
18:12:57 <uli_> Wasn't this more about integrating 2 ontologies?
18:12:58 <IanH> q?
18:13:33 <uli_> q+
18:13:42 <msmith> yes, I understood as Ian did.
18:13:46 <uli_> zakim, unmute me
18:13:46 <Zakim> sorry, uli_, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
18:13:46 <msmith> q+
18:13:48 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:13:48 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:13:49 <ewallace> ianh: I think he wants the target of the annotation to be a class expression.
18:13:50 <IanH> q?
18:13:52 <uli_> zakim, unmute me
18:13:52 <Zakim> sorry, uli_, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
18:13:54 <pfps> Something like AnnotationAssertion(rdfs:comment foo UnionOf(a b))
18:13:59 <IanH> ack uli_
18:14:39 <uli_> 60?
18:15:02 <sandro> zakim, who is on the phone?
18:15:02 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Evan_Wallace, IanH, bcuencagrau (muted), msmith, Ivan, Sandro, uli, Zhe (muted), Elisa_Kendall, schneid (muted), MarkusK_, +49.343.aabb,
18:15:05 <Zakim> ... baojie
18:15:18 <ewallace> uli: I agree with Ian that what Alan wants is to have complex
18:15:29 <ewallace> ... class expressions be the target of annotations.
18:15:41 <IanH> q?
18:15:45 <ewallace> ... His main use case was combination of ontologies.
18:16:14 <ewallace> uli: We could do this, but without any semantics ...
18:16:25 <IanH> q?
18:16:28 <ewallace> ... it's late to be doing this.
18:16:43 <ewallace> ... I don't think that it is a well sorted through use case.
18:17:15 <pfps> There is a work-around, which is to put a string in, as in  AnnotationAssertion(rdfs:comment foo "UnionOf(a b)")
18:17:29 <ewallace> ianh: I was thinking, it was probably motivated by this sanctioning idea.
18:17:52 <ewallace> uli: In Alan's email he has a list of use cases.
18:18:36 <IanH> q?
18:18:39 <uli_> zakim, mute me
18:18:39 <Zakim> sorry, uli_, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
18:18:40 <IanH> ack msmith
18:18:44 <ewallace> msmith: 2 things:
18:18:45 <msmith> msmith: (1) bnodes can be the object of annotation assertions
18:18:46 <msmith> msmith: (2) obo in owl uses annotations in which the the objects are structured.  This causes individuals to be added to the model (and the realization hierarchy, etc.), which is not intended.
18:19:03 <Zakim> -uli
18:19:33 <Zakim> +??P9
18:19:41 <uli_> zakim, ??P9 is me
18:19:41 <Zakim> +uli_; got it
18:19:51 <uli_> zakim, mute me
18:19:51 <Zakim> uli_ should now be muted
18:20:21 <IanH> q?
18:20:25 <pfps> q+
18:20:28 <IanH> q?
18:20:31 <IanH> ack pfps
18:20:57 <ewallace> ianh: I am not hearing anyone respond, "yes we should change the spec accordingly."
18:21:18 <ewallace> pfps: This doesn't require a big fix since its part of the annotation system.
18:21:35 <sandro> q+ 
18:21:35 <ewallace> ... I am against doing something and still have Alan R. be unhappy.
18:21:38 <uli_> I would be afraid that this would confuse users even further...because it introduces more stuff that "looks" semantics but isn't... 
18:21:42 <pfps> q+
18:21:45 <IanH> q?
18:21:52 <IanH> ack sandro
18:21:53 <ewallace> ianh: I am reluctant to take a decision on this today.

18:22:10 <ewallace> sandro: I wonder if we could have someone push back with suggested
18:22:25 <IanH> ack pfps
18:22:27 <ewallace> ... ways of addressing the use cases without change to the language.
18:22:38 <uli_> no, we can't...cause e.g., we don't have an "interface mechanism" in OWL
18:22:46 <ewallace> pfps: It could be useful to send an informal reply to Alan that unless there
18:23:09 <ewallace> ... is a better use case, it's unlikely for anything to happen.
18:22:59 <uli_> sure

18:23:36 <ewallace> sandro: I'd rather try and make Alan happy.

18:24:21 <IanH> q?
18:25:00 <ewallace> sandro: The question is could the response be something that would be 
18:25:09 <ewallace> ... helpful to others as well.
18:26:07 <uli_> no need for a formal one!
18:26:44 <ewallace> topic: Test Cases
18:27:11 <Zakim> - +49.343.aabb
18:27:17 <ewallace> ianh: Markus and Mike have been doing quite a bit of work on the test cases.
18:27:20 <MarkusK_> Test cases are now being collected at http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/.
18:27:26 <msmith> q+
18:27:30 <MarkusK_> q+
18:27:32 <msmith> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test_Result_Format
18:27:34 <IanH> ack msmith
18:27:41 <IanH> q?
18:27:42 <ewallace> ... there is also a test harness now that can be used for running tests on various reasoners.
18:28:39 <ewallace> ianh: With OWL 1 we had a page with an overview of the tests and results.
18:28:53 <IanH> q?
18:28:56 <ewallace> ... We want to produce a similar thing, which means producing results
18:29:05 <IanH> ack MarkusK_
18:29:08 <ewallace> ... in a form that can be aggregated.
18:29:40 <ewallace> Markus: The URL above is the place for submitting tests.
18:30:17 <ewallace> ianh: I put a link from the sidebar of the OWL wg wiki to this page.
18:30:53 <ewallace> ianh: Quite a few tests have already been added.
18:31:19 <ewallace> ianh: We have the test infrastructure, it's easy to add tests.
18:31:44 <IanH> q?
18:31:58 <ewallace> ianh: We will need to create a process for approving tests in the telecons.
18:32:03 <IanH> q?
18:32:33 <ewallace> ianh: I think that Mike Smith converted a set of OWL 1 tests that are pending for approval.
18:32:38 <IanH> q?
18:32:56 <IanH> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test_Queue
18:33:23 <ewallace> ianh: That page contains all the test that have been transferred from
18:33:46 <ewallace> ... OWL 1 and have been run against at least two reasoners.
18:33:49 <IanH> q?
18:33:52 <schneid> q+
18:33:58 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:33:58 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:33:59 <IanH> ack schneid
18:34:00 <ewallace> ianh: Should we bulk approve these?
18:34:43 <ewallace> mschneid: I looked at some ... there are some that deal with DAML+OIL.
18:34:49 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:34:49 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:34:53 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:34:53 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:34:55 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:34:55 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:35:03 <ewallace> ... I think these should be dropped, since they don't make sense anymore.
18:35:22 <ewallace> msmith: These are not in the test queue.
18:35:26 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:35:26 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:35:30 <IanH> q?
18:35:35 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:35:35 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:35:47 <msmith> q+
18:35:54 <ewallace> ianh: M Scheider - where did you see these tests that refer to DAML+OIL?
18:36:52 <schneid> sorry, will send them later. I just have some problems with my internet connection
18:35:58 <IanH> q?
18:36:01 <IanH> ack msmith
18:36:39 <ewallace> msmith: in terms of bulk acceptance - this will work well for many of the tests
18:36:51 <ewallace> ... that don't fit into a particular profile.

18:37:18 <IanH> q?
18:37:20 <ewallace> ianh: I presume these came from the DL test suite, so they should be sensible.
18:37:26 <ewallace> ... tests for OWL 2.
18:37:31 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:37:31 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:37:36 <IanH> q?
18:37:44 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:37:44 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:38:10 <ewallace> ianh: Given that we are a fairly small group today, I'd be happy to postpone
18:38:14 <msmith> q+
18:38:20 <IanH> q?

18:38:30 <ewallace> ... a decision on these until the next scheduled telecon.  
18:38:31 <sandro> q+
18:38:36 <IanH> ack msmith

18:38:39 <IanH> q?
18:38:59 <ewallace> msmith: The list is the set of tests that were complete.  The list is larger.
18:39:24 <schneid> DAML+OIL stuff in the "by issue" list, e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/byIssue#issue-I3.2-Qualified-Restrictions
18:39:29 <IanH> q?
18:39:32 <IanH> ack sandro
18:39:44 <ewallace> ianh: Please mark the block that we are talking about today for consideration next time.
18:39:59 <msmith> schneid: see e.g., http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/TestCase:WebOnt-I3.2-001
18:40:20 <ewallace> sandro: I think we should say for every OWL 1 test if it is approved or why it isn't,
18:40:28 <msmith> q+
18:40:38 <ewallace> ... so people have a better sense of compatibility between the versions of OWL.
18:40:46 <IanH> q?
18:40:53 <msmith> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Conformance_and_Test_Cases#Changes_to_Test_Types
18:40:54 <IanH> q?
18:40:55 <schneid> thanks, mike, for the pointer
18:40:58 <IanH> ack msmith
18:40:59 <ewallace> ianh: It may be that even the DAML+OIL tests should be translated.
18:41:35 <ewallace> msmith: I just posted the links to the test cases, and the DAML+OIL tests are already removed.
18:42:09 <IanH> q?
18:42:13 <ewallace> ianh: I guess we could expand a section of the Test document to include an explanation
18:42:27 <ewallace> ... of those OWL 1 tests that weren't included.
18:42:16 <msmith> yes, I agree.  clear documentation of any test removal makes sense.
18:42:38 <schneid> btw, we don't have "daml:" in our "restricted vocabulary" :)
18:43:08 <ewallace> ianh: we have the set of tests that's in the queue.
18:43:32 <ewallace> ... its our job to look at these tests.  Barring any concerns we will bulk approve those pending.
18:43:34 <IanH> q?
18:44:37 <ewallace> ianh: We anticipate approving the current bunch and announcing new pending
18:44:45 <ewallace> ... tests at the next meeting.
18:45:00 <IanH> q?
18:45:34 <msmith> yes.
18:45:38 <ewallace> ianh: In the future, tests will come in from the wiki in the sidebar and be pushed into
18:45:43 <ewallace> ... the queue.
18:45:51 <IanH> q?
18:46:13 <IanH> q?
18:46:28 <schneid> q+
18:46:28 <IanH> q?
18:46:32 <IanH> q?
18:46:34 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:46:34 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:46:38 <IanH> ack schneid
18:46:42 <ewallace> ianh: Is anyone will to produce some test cases for new capabilities, like annotations?
18:47:09 <ewallace> mschneid: I guess I will produce some test cases for RDF semantics after LC.
18:47:24 <msmith> schneid, that is handled in some of the webont tests already.  I will send you a link.
18:47:42 <IanH> q?
18:47:44 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:47:44 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:47:48 <ewallace> ianh: I guess there are two things: the distinction of OWL 1 and 2, and the issue that
18:47:59 <ewallace> ... annotations no longer have semantics.
18:48:13 <msmith> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/TestCase:WebOnt-AnnotationProperty-002
18:48:23 <IanH> q?
18:48:23 <msmith> is the full version of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/TestCase:WebOnt-AnnotationProperty-001
18:48:27 <ewallace> ianh: Not sure how OWL 1 annotation semantics could have been properly tested.
18:48:51 <ewallace> pfps: I believe that there was a test for this, and some implementations passed this test.
18:49:33 <IanH> q?
18:49:40 <ewallace> ianh: This test would reveal this backwards incompatibility.
18:49:41 <pfps> agreed.
18:50:01 <msmith> q+
18:50:03 <schneid> old DL: annotate an individual x, then say SameIndividual(x y), and y should have the same annotation, but not OWL 2 DL
18:50:05 <IanH> q?
18:50:06 <ewallace> ianh: We should identify which test this was and mention it in the conformance
18:50:14 <ewallace> ... and test case document.
18:50:38 <ewallace> msmith: We have a place in the document where the whole point is to highlight
18:50:50 <ewallace> ... diffs between OWL Full and DL.
18:50:38 <schneid> (the above was a guess!)
18:50:42 <IanH> q?
18:51:07 <ewallace> ianh: Do we have a similar category for diffs between OWL 1 and 2?
18:51:16 <ewallace> msmith: No.
18:51:59 <ewallace> ianh: I wasn't overwhelmed with volunteers for test cases, but we could use some more tests.
18:52:22 <IanH> q?
18:52:28 <msmith> yes
18:52:32 <IanH> ack msmith
18:52:33 <ewallace> ianh: I will ask the editors of the relevant docs to produce some of these.
18:52:37 <uli_> Perhaps we all have a think about this over christmas?!
18:53:16 <schneid> As I said, I will take the opportunity to produce a few testcases, but only after LC publication
18:53:57 <uli_> I will also have a look at how we can get test cases out of our ontology repository
18:54:18 <ewallace> topic: Plans for non-Last Call documents
18:54:22 <pfps> q+
18:54:28 <IanH> q?
18:54:31 <IanH> ack pfps
18:54:42 <uli_> why?
18:54:44 <sandro> q+
18:54:45 <ewallace> ianh: I don't plan for a decision today on this.
18:54:49 <IanH> q?
18:54:58 <IanH> ack sandro
18:55:21 <ewallace> pfps: I wouldn't object to ManchesterSyntax being rec track, but I am not in favor.
18:55:27 <IanH> q?
18:55:28 <pfps> q+
18:55:30 <uli_> q+
18:55:49 <ewallace> sandro: I would be against this being Rec track as I described in email.
18:55:59 <IanH> q?
18:56:03 <IanH> ack pfps
18:56:27 <uli_> zakim, unmute me
18:56:27 <Zakim> uli_ should no longer be muted
18:56:28 <IanH> q?
18:56:30 <Zakim> + +49.343.aacc
18:56:31 <IanH> ack uli_
18:56:32 <ewallace> pfps: I don't see how the ManchesterSyntax doc could be inferred to be the
18:56:49 <pfps> q+
18:57:01 <ewallace> ... one and only OWL 2 ASCII syntax because the Functional Syntax is also ASCII-ish.
18:57:20 <sandro> q+ to respond to Uli, with "that's what a WG Note is"
18:57:20 <msmith> +1 to uli
18:57:30 <IanH> ack pfps
18:57:31 <uli_> zakim, mute me
18:57:31 <Zakim> uli_ should now be muted
18:57:39 <uli_> good point
18:57:43 <IanH> q?
18:57:46 <IanH> ack sandro
18:57:46 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to respond to Uli, with "that's what a WG Note is"
18:57:54 <ewallace> pfps: I am also confused why Sandro wouldn't object to the QRG because its not in 
18:58:02 <ewallace> ... the charter either.
18:58:22 <uli_> but do we make similar statements regarding other syntaxes?
18:58:44 <IanH> q?
18:58:47 <ewallace> sandro: A Recommendation says THE technology you should use for this space is defined here.
18:58:53 <ivan> q+
18:59:01 <IanH> q?
18:59:14 <uli_> q+
18:59:28 <IanH> ack ivan
18:59:39 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/06/OWLCharter.html#deliverables
18:59:43 <ewallace> Sandro: I think that QRG could be said to be part of the Reference that we are chartered to produce.
18:59:58 <IanH> q?
19:00:01 <pfps> q+
19:00:49 <ewallace> ivan: If we have the Manchester syntax as a Rec, we have to say something about conformance wrt it.
19:00:48 <pfps> From Conformance: Several syntaxes have been defined for OWL 2 ontology documents, some or all of which could be used by OWL 2 tools for exchanging documents. However, conformant OWL 2 tools that take ontology documents as input(s) MUST accept ontology documents using the RDF/XML serialization [OWL 2 Mapping to RDF Graphs], and conformant OWL 2 tools that publish ontology documents MUST, if...

19:00:49 <IanH> q?
19:00:49 <pfps> ...possible, be able to publish them in the RDF/XML serialization if asked to do so (e.g., via HTTP content negotiation). OWL 2 tools MAY also accept and/or publish ontology documents using other serializations, for example the XML Serialization [OWL 2 XML Syntax]. 

19:00:56 <uli_> ack uli
19:00:56 <IanH> q?
19:00:58 <pfps> q-
19:01:14 <ivan> q+
19:01:54 <IanH> ack ivan
19:02:20 <ewallace> ivan: The question I have is: Why should it be a Rec?
19:02:25 <IanH> q?
19:03:00 <uli_> zakim, unmute me
19:03:00 <Zakim> uli_ should no longer be muted
19:03:06 <IanH> q?
19:03:13 <ewallace> ... Regardless of what happened to the other documents, are there any arguments for making it Rec.
19:03:26 <Christine> several arguments why not have been given
19:03:32 <IanH> q?
19:03:39 <ivan> q+
19:03:46 <ewallace> uli: In past, we have read some many papers where folks have pasted in rdf/xml for e.g.s.
19:04:21 <ewallace> ... We should encourage a human readable alternative, like Manchester.
19:03:53 <sandro> hopefully the primer will give it enough exposure....
19:04:12 <Christine> agree
19:04:13 <IanH> q?

19:04:50 <Christine> +q
19:04:52 <ewallace> uli: I would like not to discourage people in using it for human to human communication.
19:04:56 <IanH> q?
19:05:12 <IanH> ack ivan
19:05:14 <uli_> zakim, mute me
19:05:14 <Zakim> uli_ should now be muted
19:05:31 <sandro> I think most people don't care Rec-vs-Note, but for the ones who do care, it's an important thing to get right.
19:05:42 <ewallace> ivan: I understand Uli.  But RDF community has been happy to use Turtle for years
19:05:50 <IanH> q?
19:05:58 <ewallace> ... without any Rec document specifying it.
19:06:22 <ewallace> Christine: I don't see why it would discourage people for using it becuase
19:06:36 <ewallace> ... it is already used in tools, etc.
19:06:44 <IanH> q?
19:06:48 <IanH> ack Christine
19:06:54 <ewallace> ... I think it would be in conflict with what is in Conformance.
19:07:09 <ewallace> ... Having it in Rec track will give it a special status.
19:07:42 <ewallace> ianh: Given a lack of champion for this being Rec track, let's not continue this
19:07:46 <ewallace> ... discussion now.
19:07:56 <ewallace> topic: Coordination with RIF
19:08:14 <ewallace> ianh: There was a meeting last Thursday about this topic.
19:08:18 <IanH> q?
19:08:27 <ewallace> ianh: Can someone give a quick overview of what occured?
19:08:41 <IanH> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Dec/att-0044/2270.2.html
19:08:50 <ewallace> sandro: Everyone should have a pointer to the minutes.
19:08:58 <MarkusK_> I have to leave now. Bye.
19:09:07 <Zakim> -MarkusK_
19:09:15 <ewallace> sandro: We need to coordinate comments to rdf:text.
19:09:44 <ewallace> ... We talked about Jos' rdf compatibility document and updating it to OWL 2.
19:09:54 <IanH> action: baojie forward rdf:text comments to RIF list
19:09:54 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - baojie
19:10:08 <ewallace> We talked about the list of datatypes.  In particular this was an opportunity
19:10:24 <ewallace> ...  for Boris to speak about the new datatypes.
19:10:36 <Zakim> - +49.343.aacc
19:11:13 <ewallace> ... Other types in OWL for completeness.
19:11:30 <ivan> q+
19:11:35 <IanH> q?
19:11:36 <ewallace> ... Finally we talked about OWL RL.
19:11:54 <IanH> q?
19:12:18 <ewallace> ianh: Timeline?
19:12:26 <IanH> What is future actions and timeline?
19:12:44 <ewallace> sandro: we might have assigned a schedule for the RL encoding.
19:12:53 <ewallace> ... it was probably about 2 weeks.
19:13:12 <ewallace> sandro: No additional meeting has been planned at this time.
19:13:13 <IanH> q?
19:13:17 <IanH> ack ivan
19:13:23 <ewallace> ianh: Should there be a future meeting?
19:13:27 <ewallace> ivan: Yes.
19:13:59 <ewallace> ivan: I think that for the RL rules, the least disruptive thing would 
19:14:09 <ewallace> ... be to publish a joint note.
19:14:36 <ewallace> ... Changing the OWL 2 Profile document might force us to a 2nd LC.
19:15:09 <ewallace> sandro: Disagree.  It just changes the syntax of the rules.
19:15:26 <IanH> q?
19:15:34 <ewallace> ianh: Worried that the action wrt datatypes is open ended, with no schedule.
19:15:58 <ewallace> sandro: the worst thing would be for RIF to respond that the burden of
19:16:10 <ewallace> ... these datatypes is too great.  
19:16:18 <IanH> q?
19:16:19 <ewallace> ... This would have to be done at LC.
19:16:56 <ewallace> topic: Features "At-Risk"
19:17:07 <ewallace> just a place holder in today's agenda.
19:17:17 <ewallace> topic: AOB
19:17:20 <uli_> hurray
19:17:31 <uli_> ho ho ho 
19:17:46 <schneid> +1 to 7th Jan
19:17:48 <ewallace> ianh: Next call will be Wednesday the 7th of Jan
19:18:13 <msmith> happy holidays everyone.  See you in January.
19:18:14 <uli_> happy new year
19:18:18 <Zakim> -uli_
19:18:20 <Zakim> -msmith
19:18:20 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
19:18:22 <ivan> bye, bye everyone!
19:18:22 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
19:18:22 <Zhe> happy new year
19:18:23 <Zakim> -Sandro
19:18:23 <schneid> bye!
19:18:25 <Zakim> -Elisa_Kendall
19:18:27 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
19:18:28 <Zakim> -Zhe
19:18:30 <Zakim> -baojie
19:18:31 <Christine> bye
19:18:31 <Zakim> -Ivan
19:18:38 <Zakim> -schneid
19:18:40 <Zakim> -IanH
19:18:40 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
19:18:41 <Zakim> Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, Evan_Wallace, IanH, bcuencagrau, msmith, Ivan, Sandro, Zhe, uli, Elisa_Kendall, schneid, MarkusK_, +49.343.aabb, baojie, uli_, +49.343.aacc
19:18:46 <baojie> baojie has left #owl
19:24:21 <IanH> RRSAgent, make records public
19:55:09 <msmith> msmith has left #owl