Chatlog 2009-01-21

From OWL
Jump to: navigation, search

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: baojie, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Michael Schneider, MarkusK_, Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan, bmotik , Ivan, uli, Alan Ruttenberg, Zhe, Achille, msmith, sandro
00:00:00 <scribenick> REGRETS: Ian Horrocks, Elisa Kendall, Evan Wallace, Rinke Hoekstra
00:00:00 <scribenick> CHAIR: Alan Ruttenberg
18:02:47 <alanr> alanr has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.01.21/Agenda
18:06:05 <sandro> scribe: jie
18:06:15 <Jie> Topic: Admin
18:06:15 <Jie> Subtopic: Agenda amendments?
18:06:18 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-01-14
18:06:20 <Jie> Sub topic: Preious minutes
18:06:27 <bijan> I have a problem
18:06:47 <bijan> Christine Golbreich: we should vote now becasue last time we postponed it because bijan was not there
18:07:26 <Jie> bijan: problem on vote on Manchester Sytnax as a note
18:07:42 <Jie> bijan: it is not time critical to determine this issue
18:08:01 <Jie> bijan: I suggest to postponed it
18:08:38 <sandro> alan: What Christine meant, I think, is that we had postponed it for only one week.   So we postponed because Bijan wasn't there, but we only postponed for one week.
18:08:44 <alanr> ack Achille
18:09:07 <msmith> yes, my recollection matches achille's
18:09:10 <MarkusK_> +1 to Achille, that is what Christine tried to express
18:09:19 <sandro> achille: I was scribe.   Christine wanted to vote then because she didn't want it postponed again and again.
18:09:20 <uli> I agree with Achille's memory of this
18:09:53 <Jie> Alan: we will do it next week
18:10:36 <sandro> alan: let's not approve the minutes yet, given no one expressing an opinion, other than this issue about what Christine said.
18:10:41 <Jie> Subtopic: Actions
18:11:14 <alanr> ack pfps
18:11:25 <Jie> Subsubtopic: Action 247
18:11:46 <Jie> Alan: don't have time to do it, will try to finish next week
18:12:17 <sandro> ADD YOURSELF TO http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F5_People
18:12:18 <pfps> pfps: several documents depend on the Manchester syntax, so there soon needs to be a final determination of what is going on here
18:12:23 <Jie> Topic Reivews of LC documents
18:12:31 <Jie> Alan: we don't have many
18:12:40 <Jie> subtopic: F2F5
18:13:05 <bijan> I'm not sure we need it
18:13:23 <pfps> I don't need much (if any) lead time to be there.
18:14:06 <Jie> bijan: i'm not sure if we need it
18:14:21 <Jie> ... it is an expensive trip also
18:14:48 <pfps> hopefully we will be able to get good facilities for remote participation
18:14:48 <sandro> q+ agenda topics
18:15:02 <Jie> bijan: unless we have major changes
18:15:20 <bijan> Tests are easy to do offline
18:15:21 <Jie> Sandro: we have big test cases to go through
18:15:35 <bijan> I definitely wouldn't go to a f2f in the States to do tests :)
18:15:39 <Jie> if nothing else, we can have two days to get the tests done
18:15:42 <sandro> :-)
18:15:45 <bijan> How about a vote mechanism in the wiki for the tests
18:16:12 <sandro> the thing on tests is getting people to spend the time on them.
18:16:19 <Jie> Alan: let decide about F2F5 next week
18:16:25 <Jie> Topic: Last Call comments
18:16:57 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Responses_to_Last_Call_Comments
18:17:10 <Jie> Alan: let's go through the comments page
18:17:27 <Jie> Subtopic: Comment 1: Alan Rector
18:17:27 <alanr> ack pfps
18:17:38 <Jie> Peter: I'm worried about it
18:17:53 <schneid> q+
18:17:55 <Jie> It includes changes to the spec that is not operational yet
18:18:39 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/ALR1
18:18:42 <sandro> +1 don't say we're changing the spec until the change is fully done.
18:19:34 <Zakim> +Zhe
18:19:45 <Jie> Peter: if there are changes, we need somehow track it
18:21:10 <Jie> bijan: what you want us to do with this page?
18:21:52 <Jie> Peter: if anybody make proposal to change, he/she has to make the change trackable
18:22:08 <Jie> Peter: voteable
18:22:37 <Jie> Peter: the WG has to vote for a change
18:23:58 <sandro> agenda-
18:24:07 <sandro> q=schneid 
18:24:08 <Jie> bijan: I think we should reject
18:24:12 <sandro> queue=schneid 
18:24:57 <uli> q+
18:25:43 <Jie> the workaround is sufficient
18:25:49 <alanr> ack schneid
18:26:20 <Jie> Schneid: No change
18:26:47 <Jie> no need to introduce a new language feature
18:26:49 <bijan> One could even annotate the naming axiom saying "this is for annotation purposes, not modeling"
18:26:50 <alanr> q+ to ask whether named class workaround has performance impact
18:26:58 <alanr> ack uli
18:27:13 <Jie> Uli: I chatted with Alan Rector
18:27:39 <alanr> q-
18:27:40 <bijan> If the change doesn't address his use cases, we should reject it
18:28:38 <Jie> Alan: then we should respond that there is a workaround to this issue
18:29:05 <schneid> schneid: I would keep things as they are, since naming class expressions is possible anyway, and can be used. Maybe we put an informative note in our spec to inform people about the nameing "trick"
18:29:09 <uli> I had a chat with Alan Rector and he seemed to be willing to accept that his proposed change would only help him to make work-arounds, but not really provide a solution. As a consequence, he indicated that he wouldn't insist on this change
18:29:25 <uli> ?
18:29:28 <alanr> PROPOSED: Respond to ALR1 on the basis of Ian suggestions for using named classes as a workaround
18:29:34 <pfps> q+
18:29:56 <alanr> ack pfps
18:30:20 <alanr> PROPOSED: Respond to ALR1 on the basis of the suggestions for workarounds
18:30:29 <pfps> ok
18:30:37 <ivan> +1
18:30:39 <pfps> +1
18:30:40 <Bernardo> +1
18:30:41 <alanr> +1
18:30:41 <Jie> +1
18:30:42 <bmotik> +1
18:30:43 <Zhe> +1
18:30:43 <MarkusK_> +1
18:30:44 <Achille> +1
18:30:45 <uli> +1
18:30:46 <bijan> +!
18:30:49 <msmith> +1
18:30:55 <sandro> +1
18:30:59 <schneid> +1
18:31:04 <alanr> RESOLVED: Respond to ALR1 on the basis of Ian suggestions for using named classes as a workaround
18:31:12 <bijan> I'm writing one right now
18:31:25 <bijan> on the page
18:31:27 <bijan> Already
18:31:52 <bijan> not saved yet :)
18:32:00 <Jie> Subtopic: comment COL1
18:32:05 <alanr> Action: Bijan to draft response to ALR1
18:32:05 <trackbot> Created ACTION-265 - Draft response to ALR1 [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-01-28].
18:32:18 <alanr> q?
18:32:20 <Jie> Subtopic: comment MS1
18:32:28 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1
18:32:53 <pfps> q+
18:32:58 <alanr> ack pfps
18:34:00 <alanr> action: pfps to provide fix to MS1 in RDF Mapping and put diff on http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1.
18:34:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-266 - Provide fix to MS1 in RDF Mapping and put diff on http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1. [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2009-01-28].
18:34:03 <pfps> process is then to change the document and put a diff into the reponse page (along with rationale, I guess)
18:34:20 <pfps> q+
18:34:23 <alanr> ack pfps
18:35:01 <alanr> PROPOSED: Peter will propose fix for MS1 in the form of edits to the RDF Mapping Document
18:35:02 <Jie> Peter: we need to vote on it, if I gonna to work on it
18:35:06 <pfps> +1
18:35:10 <msmith> +1
18:35:11 <Jie> +1
18:35:11 <alanr> +1
18:35:11 <ivan> +1
18:35:12 <MarkusK_> +1
18:35:13 <Bernardo> +1
18:35:14 <Achille> 0
18:35:18 <uli> +1
18:35:19 <sandro> +1
18:35:21 <bijan> +!
18:35:22 <bmotik> +1
18:35:23 <bijan> +1
18:35:26 <alanr> RESOLVED: Peter will propose fix for MS1 in the form of edits to the RDF Mapping Document
18:35:28 <Zhe> +1
18:35:45 <Jie> Subtopic: MD1
18:35:52 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1
18:36:24 <alanr> lost my connection
18:36:24 <Jie> Alan: anybody knows the difference between Unicode 3.0/5.0?
18:36:26 <alanr> back in a sec
18:36:37 <bijan> Lots and lots of characters
18:36:40 <pfps> Was there a response from Martin?
18:36:43 <schneid> q+
18:37:18 <bijan> No
18:37:22 <Jie> schneid: I wonder if it is necessary to have Unicode version mentioned
18:37:23 <alanr> q?
18:37:30 <schneid> q-
18:37:45 <sandro> I guess it should be latest version, otherwise we will have
18:37:45 <sandro> some people wondering whether they can use the latest characters.
18:37:45 <sandro> For more details, please see http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-RefUnicode.
18:37:50 <Jie> Sandro: I talked with Martin Duerst
18:38:02 <schneid> schneid: wonders whether it would be allowed to generically refer to the "latest Unicode version"
18:38:19 <Jie> Alan: we need somebody to read this
18:38:19 <msmith> q+ to respond to michael about a specific version
18:38:24 <bijan> I'm finished my Alan Rector action
18:38:24 <alanr> ack msmith
18:38:24 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to respond to michael about a specific version
18:38:30 <sandro> (I was quoting from private e-mail from Martin Duerst there)
18:38:54 <bmotik> q+
18:39:08 <alanr> ack bmotik
18:39:10 <alanr> q?
18:39:11 <Jie> Msmith: we need address a specific version of Unicode for datatype implementation
18:39:37 <Jie> Boris: one problem is whether the set of characters is infinite
18:40:11 <Jie> if the number of characters in Unicode changes across versions
18:40:46 <Jie> it is possible that one consistent ontology to be inconsistent when using a different version of Unicode
18:40:52 <bijan> q+
18:40:53 <msmith> ok, it seems I remembered it incompletely then.  thanks for clarifying Boris.
18:41:32 <schneid> hey, we have a new testcase :)
18:42:13 <alanr> ack bijan
18:42:40 <schneid> but referring to the "latest version" will also refer to a finite alphabet (at every time)
18:42:43 <Jie> bijan: at two places we deal with Unicode
18:42:48 <bmotik> yes
18:42:52 <Jie> Datatype, and syntax
18:43:03 <schneid> IRIs refer also to Unicode, right?
18:43:36 <Jie> in the syntax, if we don't address unicode version, there may be gap between functional syntax and other syntaxes
18:44:19 <Jie> e.g., XML only allows certain versions of Unicode
18:44:25 <ivan> q+
18:44:28 <alanr> ack ivan
18:45:12 <bijan> q+
18:45:13 <Jie> Ivan: Martin's question is what version we use, and he suggests 5.0
18:45:26 <alanr> ack bijan
18:45:32 <Jie> We just need to respond we use the  latest version
18:46:07 <Jie> Bijan: XML is tied to Unicode 3
18:46:45 <alanr> q?
18:46:53 <ivan> [[[C064  [S]  All generic references to the Unicode Standard [Unicode] must refer to the latest version of the Unicode Standard available at the date of publication of the containing specification.]]]
18:46:59 <Jie> Sandro: is it the latest version for now, or latest version ever?
18:47:30 <alanr> q+ to ask why not make is finite but 2^32
18:49:12 <Jie> alan: we need list on the page the points we need address
18:49:40 <Jie> ... on Bijan, Boris, Sandro
18:50:16 <bijan> working on it
18:50:39 <bijan> Er..dunno
18:50:43 <bmotik> q+
18:50:45 <bijan> I'll write and see what happens ;)
18:50:50 <alanr> ack alanr
18:50:50 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to ask why not make it finite but 2^32
18:50:57 <alanr> ack bmotik
18:51:18 <sandro> ACTION: Bijan to write about unicode versioning issue
18:51:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-267 - Write about unicode versioning issue [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-01-28].
18:51:27 <ivan> q+
18:51:36 <Jie> Boris: after reading the note, I agree that the infinite supply of characters is not relevant
18:51:47 <bmotik> q+
18:52:02 <bijan> q+
18:52:03 <bmotik> -q
18:52:10 <alanr> ack ivan
18:52:37 <bijan> I've got it, ivan
18:52:41 <alanr> ack Bijan
18:53:11 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JH1
18:53:13 <Jie> Subtopic: JH1
18:53:35 <Jie> Alan: it is about better documentation of key
18:53:50 <Jie> ... Syntax editors
18:53:54 <alanr> q?
18:54:29 <bmotik> q+
18:54:32 <Jie> bijan: Jim is over-stating. I don't know if to put it into Syntax
18:54:35 <alanr> ack bmotik
18:54:37 <Jie> ... maybe Rationale
18:54:39 <bijan> q+
18:54:45 <alanr> ack bijan
18:54:52 <Jie> Boris: I don't understand the problem of this comment
18:54:59 <alanr> they didn't grok the feature
18:55:27 <Jie> bijan: The problem is that they assume key is global
18:55:34 <alanr> q?
18:55:36 <uli> ...but they have been now convinced, haven't they?
18:55:50 <alanr> yes, they want some documentation so someone else doesn't make the same mistake
18:56:32 <ivan> q+
18:56:37 <alanr> ack ivan
18:56:46 <uli> I'd prefer new features and rationale
18:56:50 <Jie> Alan: maybe document it in Primer or Rationale
18:57:10 <schneid> +1 to Ivan, this is the document meant to be read if one wants to know about the new features
18:57:20 <uli> a simple "please note that "keyfor(C P)" only concerns instances of C, not everything
18:57:35 <msmith> editors of that doc?
18:57:46 <alanr> PROPOSED: Respond to JH1 by adding documentation in F&R and then sending that documentation in the response.
18:57:50 <bmotik> +1
18:57:54 <ivan> +1
18:57:57 <Bernardo> +1
18:57:58 <alanr> +1
18:57:59 <schneid> +1
18:58:00 <Zhe> +1
18:58:00 <MarkusK_> +1
18:58:02 <pfps> +1
18:58:02 <Achille> +1
18:58:02 <Jie> 0
18:58:03 <sandro> +1
18:58:10 <alanr> RESOLVED: Respond to JH1 by adding documentation in F&R and then sending that documentation in the response
18:58:11 <uli> +1
18:58:11 <msmith> +0 (neither christine or evan is here)
18:58:15 <bijan> Rereading the syntax, I can see how o ne *might* find "A key axiom of the form HasKey( owl:Thing OPE ) is similar to the axiom InverseFunctionalProperty( OPE ); the main difference is that the first axiom is applicable only to individuals that are explicitly named in an ontology, while the second axiom is also applicable to individuals whose existence is implied by existential quantification. The structure of such axiom is shown in Figure 17."
18:58:17 <bijan> a bit misleading
18:58:23 <bijan> I can add a bit of clarificatory text
18:59:23 <Jie> bijan: I can add a single sentence in Syntax
19:00:11 <alanr> PROPOSED: also address JH1 by Bijan adding a clarificatory sentence to the syntax specification and passing that on in the response.
19:00:13 <bmotik> I'd add this sentence in the example that Jim identified.
19:00:25 <Jie> +1
19:00:26 <bmotik> +1
19:00:27 <ivan> +1
19:00:29 <MarkusK_> +1
19:00:31 <Zhe> +1
19:00:34 <Bernardo> +1
19:00:34 <Achille> +1
19:00:37 <pfps> +1
19:00:38 <sandro> +1
19:00:38 <uli> +1
19:00:40 <schneid> +1
19:00:41 <bijan> +1
19:00:43 <msmith> +1
19:00:45 <alanr> RESOLVED: also address JH1 by Bijan adding a clarificatory sentence to the syntax specification and passing that on in the response
19:01:18 <alanr> Action: Bijan to add sentence to address JH1. Add diff to http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JH1
19:01:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-268 - Add sentence to address JH1. Add diff to http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JH1 [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-01-28].
19:01:41 <bijan> what's up with features and rationales?
19:01:55 <bijan> Oh sorry, I see
19:02:27 <alanr> Action: Alan to mail Christine & Evan about resolution to JH1
19:02:27 <trackbot> Created ACTION-269 - Mail Christine & Evan about resolution to JH1 [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2009-01-28].
19:02:40 <Jie> Subtopic: MS2
19:02:48 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS2
19:03:11 <schneid> q+
19:03:34 <alanr> ack schneid
19:04:26 <Jie> schneid: I do not understand the meaning of the phrase "arbitrary object" here
19:05:18 <bmotik> q+
19:06:04 <alanr> ack bmotik 
19:06:45 <Jie> Boris: I phrased like this because the values are not from a datatype
19:07:16 <Jie> ... but it is hard to say where they are from
19:07:24 <alanr> It has to be serialized, at least
19:08:00 <Jie> Boris: datatypes can be extended
19:08:13 <Jie> ... it can't be predefined
19:08:38 <pfps> the question (I think) is whether the value can be an object identifier (as opposed to a literal)
19:09:05 <Jie> schneid: is OWL 2 datatype map close to that?
19:09:20 <bmotik> q+
19:09:58 <alanr> ack bmotik
19:11:22 <alanr> q+
19:12:03 <bmotik> q+
19:12:06 <Jie> schneid: the problem is that if there is no domain, in semantics we don't have an interpretation function
19:12:24 <Zakim> -Alan
19:12:32 <alanr> phone dropped. calling back in
19:12:39 <bijan> q+
19:12:42 <Zakim> +Alan
19:12:43 <alanr> back
19:13:01 <ivan> ack alanr
19:13:26 <alanr> ack bmotik
19:14:38 <Jie> Boris: schneid: your suggestion may lead to a family of semantics
19:15:29 <Jie> Alan: it is rather technical, maybe go on on mail list
19:16:53 <Jie> bijan: can we close this comment with a new comment that is closer to what you thought?
19:17:57 <Jie> Subtopic: test cases
19:18:02 <bijan> profile validation?
19:18:04 <bijan> Or species?
19:18:14 <bijan> A profile recognizer is coming
19:18:17 <bijan> well, I didn't know ;)
19:18:27 <Jie> Subtopic: IH1
19:18:49 <Jie> Alan: on global restrictions
19:19:12 <bijan> Why?
19:19:14 <bijan> q+
19:19:24 <Jie> Alan: I'm not against adding examples
19:19:30 <alanr> ack Bijan
19:20:04 <Jie> bijan: OK, it is editorial
19:20:06 <pfps> q+
19:20:36 <alanr> ack pfps
19:21:26 <bijan> Seriously?
19:21:38 <bijan> q+
19:21:42 <Jie> Peter: editorial changes could cause problems
19:22:01 <alanr> ack bijan
19:22:55 <Jie> bijan: examples are not normative, I don't think they will cause problems
19:25:22 <alanr> PROPOSAL: Editors of syntax document will add examples for section 11, in coordination with Ivan. To be reviewed by WG after done.
19:25:30 <bmotik> +1
19:25:32 <Jie> Bernardo: I can work with Boris offline on examples
19:25:33 <pfps> +1
19:25:34 <uli> +1
19:25:34 <ivan> +1
19:25:35 <Jie> =1
19:25:37 <Jie> +1
19:25:37 <Zhe> +1
19:25:48 <sandro> +1
19:25:57 <MarkusK_> +1
19:26:03 <alanr> +1
19:26:03 <Achille> 1
19:26:09 <msmith> +1
19:26:13 <alanr> RESOLVED: IH1 to be resolved by editors of syntax document will add examples for section 11, in coordination with Ivan. To be reviewed by WG after done.
19:26:49 <bmotik> ACTION: bmotik2 to Add new examples in response to IH1
19:26:49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-270 - Add new examples in response to IH1 [on Boris Motik - due 2009-01-28].
19:27:13 <Jie> Subtopic: IH2
19:27:09 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/IH2
19:28:05 <ivan> q+
19:28:09 <alanr> ack ivan
19:28:16 <Jie> Alan: it says abstract should be stand-alone
19:29:05 <bijan> +1 to making abstract applicable to people who don't know about OWL 1 and don't need to
19:29:57 <alanr> PROPOSAL: Address IH2 by chairs + others interested writing a new abstract that stands on it's own to introduce OWL 2. Keep info from the current abstract for another section.
19:30:10 <Jie> +1
19:30:12 <ivan> +1
19:30:16 <pfps> +1
19:30:17 <MarkusK_> +1
19:30:17 <msmith> +1
19:30:19 <bijan> +1
19:30:19 <alanr> +1
19:30:19 <uli> +1
19:30:21 <Achille> +1
19:30:22 <bmotik> +1
19:30:24 <Zhe> +1
19:30:29 <sandro> +1
19:30:33 <Bernardo> +1
19:30:36 <alanr> RESOLVED: Address IH2 by chairs + others interested writing a new abstract that stands on it's own to introduce OWL 2. Keep info from the current abstract for another section.
19:30:48 <Jie> Topic: adjourn
19:30:50 <Zakim> -uli
19:30:53 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
19:30:54 <MarkusK_> bye
19:30:54 <uli> bye
19:30:55 <Zakim> -msmith
19:30:56 <Zakim> -bijan
19:30:57 <Zakim> -Zhe
19:30:57 <Zakim> -Sandro
19:30:58 <uli> uli has left #owl
19:30:58 <Zakim> -MarkusK_
19:30:58 <Zakim> -Alan
19:31:00 <Zakim> -Ivan
19:31:01 <Zakim> -Bernardo
19:31:03 <Zakim> -bmotik
19:31:05 <Zakim> -baojie
19:31:07 <schneid> missed RDF-Based the third time, sigh...
19:31:15 <schneid> quit
19:31:24 <Zakim> -schneid
19:31:25 <msmith> msmith has left #owl
19:31:29 <Zakim> -Achille
19:31:30 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
19:31:32 <Zakim> Attendees were baojie, Bernardo, schneid, MarkusK_, Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan, bmotik, Ivan, uli, Alan, msmith, Sandro, Achille, Zhe