Chatlog 2009-01-28

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: bmotik, ewallace, Achille, BCuencaGrau, ratnesh, Zhe, baojie, bijan, MartinD, IanH, sandro, pfps, michael_schneider, ivan, christine, msmith
00:00:00 <scribenick> CHAIR: IanH
00:00:00 <scribenick> REGRETS: Markus Krötzsch, Rinke Hoekstra, Elisa Kendall


17:36:01 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:36:01 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/01/28-owl-irc
17:36:13 <MartinD> Zakim, this will be owlwg
17:36:13 <Zakim> ok, MartinD; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 24 minutes
17:36:42 <MartinD> RRSagent, make records public
17:52:44 <bijan> bijan has joined #owl
17:52:53 <baojie> baojie has joined #owl
17:53:16 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl
17:54:20 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
17:54:27 <Zakim> +??P0
17:54:33 <bijan> zakim, ??p0 is me
17:54:33 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
17:54:55 <Zakim> + +0190827aaaa
17:54:58 <Zakim> -bijan
17:54:59 <Zakim> +bijan
17:55:05 <MartinD> zakim, aaaa is me
17:55:05 <Zakim> +MartinD; got it
17:55:15 <MartinD> zakim, mute me
17:55:15 <Zakim> MartinD should now be muted
17:55:20 <bijan> zakim, mute me
17:55:20 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
17:55:58 <ratnesh> ratnesh has joined #owl
17:58:13 <BCuencaGrau> BCuencaGrau has joined #owl
17:58:23 <Achille> Achille has joined #owl
17:59:04 <Zakim> + +1.914.421.aabb
17:59:24 <Achille> Zakim, aabb is me
17:59:25 <Zakim> + +86528aacc
17:59:25 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
17:59:39 <Achille> Zakim, mute me
17:59:39 <Zakim> Achille should now be muted
17:59:48 <Zakim> +IanH
17:59:56 <ewallace> ewallace has joined #owl
18:00:00 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:00:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), MartinD (muted), Achille (muted), +86528aacc, IanH
18:00:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see ewallace, Achille, BCuencaGrau, ratnesh, Zhe, baojie, bijan, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, IanH, sandro, trackbot
18:00:21 <Zakim> - +86528aacc
18:00:30 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
18:00:30 <bmotik> bmotik has joined #owl
18:00:43 <IanH> ScribeNick: MartinD
18:00:54 <Zakim> +??P5
18:00:55 <IanH> omit: Martin, are you ready to scribe?
18:01:02 <Zakim> + +0186528aadd
18:01:05 <MartinD> omit: yep... 
18:01:06 <Zakim> +pfps
18:01:13 <IanH> Today's teleconference starts...
18:01:15 <bmotik> Zakim, ++0186528aadd is me
18:01:15 <Zakim> sorry, bmotik, I do not recognize a party named '++0186528aadd'
18:01:19 <ratnesh> zakim, ??P5 is me
18:01:19 <Zakim> +ratnesh; got it
18:01:20 <bmotik> Zakim, +0186528aadd is me
18:01:20 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
18:01:23 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:01:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), MartinD (muted), Achille (muted), IanH, Evan_Wallace, ratnesh, bmotik, pfps
18:01:25 <Zakim> On IRC I see bmotik, ewallace, Achille, BCuencaGrau, ratnesh, Zhe, baojie, bijan, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, IanH, sandro, trackbot
18:01:26 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:01:27 <Zakim> +baojie
18:01:27 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:01:39 <Zakim> +bmotik.a
18:01:54 <MartinD> Topic: Admin matters
18:02:09 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:02:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), MartinD (muted), Achille (muted), IanH, Evan_Wallace, ratnesh, bmotik (muted), pfps, baojie, bmotik.a
18:02:12 <Zakim> On IRC I see bmotik, ewallace, Achille, BCuencaGrau, ratnesh, Zhe, baojie, bijan, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, IanH, sandro, trackbot
18:02:16 <bijan> msmith will be a bit late
18:02:16 <pfps> pfps has joined #owl
18:02:21 <pfps> q+
18:02:23 <MartinD> Ian: checking who's here; any agenda ammendments?
18:02:28 <IanH> q?
18:02:33 <IanH> ack pfps
18:02:35 <Zakim> -bmotik.a
18:02:39 <Zakim> +Zhe
18:02:48 <Zhe> zakim, mute me
18:02:49 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted
18:02:59 <MartinD> Peter: agenda was messed up - e.g., the minute approval for 14 instead of 21 January
18:03:09 <Zakim> +bmotik.a
18:03:22 <MartinD> Ian: extra item needed -- approving both sets of minutes (14 Jan, 21 Jan)
18:03:26 <bijan> My actions aren't on
18:03:28 <michael_schneider> michael_schneider has joined #owl
18:03:29 <IanH> q?
18:03:30 <MartinD> Peter: action status has also changed
18:03:33 <Zakim> +Sandro
18:03:38 <IanH> q?
18:03:46 <bijan> q+
18:03:51 <bijan> Can we we resolve my pending review actions?
18:03:57 <MartinD> Ian: let's look at the agenda from 14 Jan
18:04:09 <Zakim> +??P15
18:04:10 <Zakim> +??P14
18:04:11 <IanH> q?
18:04:16 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:04:16 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
18:04:17 <Achille> q+
18:04:20 <IanH> ack bijan
18:04:25 <ivan> ivan has joined #owl
18:04:28 <MartinD> ...there was a problem with incorrect records, which needed fixing
18:04:30 <christine> christine has joined #owl
18:04:31 <michael_schneider> zakim, ??P15 is me
18:04:32 <Zakim> I already had ??P15 as BCuencaGrau, michael_schneider
18:04:37 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
18:04:37 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
18:04:38 <michael_schneider> zakim, ??P14 is me
18:04:39 <Zakim> +michael_schneider; got it
18:04:39 <Zakim> +Ivan
18:04:44 <BCuencaGrau> Zakim, mute me
18:04:44 <Zakim> BCuencaGrau should now be muted
18:04:50 <michael_schneider> zakim, mute me
18:04:50 <Zakim> michael_schneider should now be muted
18:04:56 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:04:56 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:04:56 <MartinD> Bijan: is it correct, there is only one item under pending review?
18:05:00 <bijan> yes
18:05:05 <IanH> q?
18:05:11 <Achille> Zakim,  unmute me
18:05:11 <Zakim> Achille should no longer be muted
18:05:15 <IanH> ack Achille
18:05:36 <christine> thanks
18:05:52 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:05:52 <Zakim> bijan was already muted, bijan
18:05:55 <MartinD> Achille: I just send an email about the issues/concerns raised in those minutes from 14 Jan
18:05:58 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:05:58 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
18:06:03 <IanH> q?
18:06:15 <MartinD> Bijan: changes look fine
18:06:40 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:06:40 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:06:46 <Achille> Zakim, mute me
18:06:46 <Zakim> Achille should now be muted
18:06:47 <pfps> 14 jan acceptable
18:07:00 <MartinD> PROPOSED: Accept minutes from 14 January (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-01-14)
18:07:11 <pfps> 14 jan minutes minimally acceptable ...
18:07:14 <MartinD> RESOLVED: Accept minutes from 14 January (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-01-14)
18:07:16 <ewallace> They looked good to me.
18:07:28 <pfps> 21 jan MINIMALLY acceptable ...
18:07:41 <pfps> one thing that scribes should do is reorder headings to get things in the right place
18:07:45 <pfps> but I'm not going to hold up this time, as the intent can be deciphered
18:07:56 <MartinD> Ian: from people's opinion it looks 21 Jan is also acceptable, although minimally
18:08:10 <MartinD> ...any more work needs to be done by scribe? 
18:08:23 <MartinD> ... let's accept the other ones too
18:08:37 <MartinD> PROPOSED: Accept minutes from 21 January (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-01-21)
18:08:46 <MartinD> RESOLVED: Accept minutes from 21 January (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-01-21)
18:08:55 <MartinD> Topic: Action items status
18:08:55 <bijan> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/actions/pendingreview
18:09:16 <MartinD> Ian: we have several actions from Bijan, most are done afaik
18:09:21 <pfps> q+
18:09:29 <IanH> ack pfps
18:09:35 <bijan> q+
18:09:43 <MartinD> Peter: a number of these have to do with Last Call (LC) actions, but not sure what's the process here
18:10:10 <MartinD> ... do we need to re-vote or re-send message or approve message(s) from Bijan or ??
18:10:18 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:10:18 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
18:10:23 <IanH> q?
18:10:26 <MartinD> Ian: unsure what's the official line...
18:10:32 <IanH> ack bijan
18:10:57 <MartinD> Bijan: this is not about my ownership of the docs written...
18:11:03 <IanH> q?
18:11:51 <MartinD> Ian: if someone was in charge of acting on some changes, that person would send it as a "proposal" and if no objections then approved... but let's get back to this later
18:12:07 <MartinD> Ian: all actions in pending category can be cleared now...
18:12:08 <pfps> q+
18:12:12 <IanH> q?
18:12:16 <IanH> ack pfps
18:12:23 <bijan> ACTION-269 is done ormotted
18:12:25 <bijan> mooted
18:12:49 <MartinD> Peter: one of alan's action (action 247) was outstanding for quite a while...
18:13:04 <MartinD> Ian: yes, this needs to be concluded soon
18:13:33 <MartinD> ACTION: Ian to talk to Alan about acting on action 247 or withdraw the comment...
18:13:33 <trackbot> Created ACTION-271 - Talk to Alan about acting on action 247 or withdraw the comment... [on Ian Horrocks - due 2009-02-04].
18:13:49 <pfps> the point is that 247 is blocking other work
18:14:06 <MartinD> Ian: other actions cannot be moved on, at this point
18:14:15 <MartinD> Topic: face to face meeting (no.5)
18:14:17 <IanH> q?
18:14:39 <MartinD> Ian: we are confirming, this meeting goes ahead... 
18:15:03 <MartinD> ... F2F5 = http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F5
18:15:24 <MartinD> ... would be useful if as many people as possible come and join, as there is quite some important stuff to do
18:15:36 <MartinD> Topic: Last call comments
18:16:00 <bijan> q+
18:16:02 <MartinD> Ian: see here http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/ and http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Responses_to_Last_Call_Comments
18:16:08 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:16:08 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
18:16:08 <IanH> ack bijan
18:16:34 <MartinD> ... first let's talk about how to approach the situation if somebody has an action to draft a response, what should we do with the outcome
18:16:41 <pfps> q+
18:16:42 <MartinD> Subtopic: Tracking responses to comments
18:16:46 <IanH> q?
18:16:59 <MartinD> Bijan: depends on type of action - whether it proposes to change something or only to clarify
18:17:39 <IanH> ack pfps
18:17:45 <MartinD> Ian: might be useful to look at the last call page on the wiki... so that we can go down, see the status, see the response and if happy, just go on with it
18:18:17 <MartinD> Peter: we already had this response to the call; that is THE thing we did... the affected doc does map correctly?
18:18:35 <MartinD> Ian: might be useful to say explicitly which doc needs touching
18:19:30 <MartinD> Bijan: I would update keys with what I understand happened... no draft there to doc on syntax? do we need another column on this?
18:19:46 <IanH> q?
18:20:03 <MartinD> Ian: maybe enough to just put in who does work on it, otherwise bookkeeping is going to take too much overhead
18:20:38 <MartinD> Bijan: if chairs are not sending those responses, then each response should have a concrete owner - who would then respond, right?
18:21:07 <MartinD> Peter: the response would link to an email, point made earlier
18:21:13 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:21:13 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:21:21 <MartinD> Ian: should also point to incoming email and perhaps copied to public owl list
18:21:42 <MartinD> Peter: there is quite a few msgs in the "response" column...
18:21:48 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:21:48 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
18:21:50 <bijan> q+
18:21:56 <IanH> q?
18:22:05 <MartinD> Ian: do we need to contact the people making responses that we provided comments?
18:22:22 <ivan> q+
18:22:26 <ivan> ack bijan
18:22:30 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:22:30 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:22:38 <pfps> q-
18:22:48 <MartinD> ... we should have a template for email going out to people with a response, asking them whether this satisfies the objections, etc.
18:22:50 <MartinD> ... provide this later...
18:22:57 <MartinD> ... so, we will add an "owner" to each objection/response, and the "response" will actually point to the email sent to the original objection
18:22:57 <bijan> yep
18:22:58 <pfps> +1
18:22:58 <bijan> good
18:23:18 <christine> q+
18:23:31 <IanH> ack ivan
18:23:57 <MartinD> Ivan: we may need another column - need pointer to the email from commentator saying "yes happy with changes"
18:24:30 <MartinD> ... we need a trace from "objection" - "our response" - "their acceptance of change or otherwise"
18:24:55 <IanH> q?
18:25:00 <IanH> ack christine
18:25:01 <MartinD> ... in between these recorded points there may be some discussion, but at least resolutions would be clear
18:25:11 <pfps> commentor responses could go in status column
18:25:14 <IanH> q?
18:25:22 <msmith> msmith has joined #owl
18:25:25 <Zakim> +msmith
18:25:48 <IanH> Christine -- we can't hear you!
18:26:13 <christine> a columm about who answers
18:26:21 <bijan> q+
18:26:23 <Zakim> -michael_schneider
18:26:25 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:26:25 <Zakim> bijan was already muted, bijan
18:26:27 <MartinD> Ian: what are we doing about comments on new features/requirements
18:26:30 <IanH> ack bijan
18:26:43 <christine> seems there is a mix wi
18:27:04 <MartinD> Bijan: suggestion - treat these separately, comments on draft are different from suggestions for new features;
18:27:27 <MartinD> ... we may then contact proposers separately with what is going to happen with their suggestions
18:27:29 <christine> please wait for  the connection
18:27:34 <Zakim> +??P21
18:27:35 <pfps> just use a special status flag for these
18:27:39 <IanH> q?
18:27:55 <MartinD> Ian: but we may still want to trace these responses somehow... some of them might be quite substantial
18:27:56 <christine> zakim, P21 is christine
18:27:56 <Zakim> sorry, christine, I do not recognize a party named 'P21'
18:28:02 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:28:02 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:28:12 <MartinD> zakim, ?p21 is christine
18:28:12 <Zakim> sorry, MartinD, I do not recognize a party named '?p21'
18:28:13 <IanH> q?
18:28:20 <MartinD> zakim, ??p21 is christine
18:28:20 <Zakim> +christine; got it
18:28:47 <MartinD> Christine: regarding that special column for replies... I didn't understand how the owner is going to be appointed
18:29:08 <MartinD> Ian: volunteering or general agreement? but there will be a column on the owner
18:29:09 <ewallace> Do we need a place to collect the comments on NF and R?
18:29:28 <MartinD> Christine: regarding how to comment / react on new features
18:29:33 <MartinD> ... pick points from mailing list and sort them into two type - "can't fix them directly" vs. "somehow linked to LC comments - need reply"?
18:29:49 <bijan> ewallace, i suggested that we put them into one issue in the tracker
18:29:57 <bijan> but a wiki page are good
18:30:15 <bijan> q+
18:30:19 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:30:19 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
18:30:38 <MartinD> Bijan: not sure we need to have them as LC
18:30:58 <christine> omit: +q
18:31:02 <MartinD> Ian: the issue is that LC comments are mixed with new feature proposal..
18:31:22 <IanH> q?
18:31:30 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:31:30 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:31:37 <MartinD> ... "can't see feature X" now; but then the amendments may be included in the final version...
18:31:54 <IanH> ack bijan
18:32:03 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:32:03 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:32:05 <MartinD> ... christine's point on a concrete wiki page, similar to LC comments may do... trying to categorize as suggested
18:32:08 <IanH> ack christine
18:32:28 <MartinD> Christine: agree that these are not LC comments, it's just they may need reply and we should be consistent
18:32:47 <MartinD> Ian: you take action then to produce the page consolidating new features and rationale?
18:33:14 <IanH> q?
18:33:19 <MartinD> ACTION: Christine to produce a wiki page to consolidate new features/rationales from email responses that got mixed into LC comments
18:33:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-272 - Produce a wiki page to consolidate new features/rationales from email responses that got mixed into LC comments [on Christine Golbreich - due 2009-02-04].
18:33:30 <MartinD> Subtopic: Potential break in use cases - RDF imports
18:33:36 <MartinD> Ian: was asked by Alan to include comment from Mike here...
18:33:48 <IanH> q?
18:34:03 <MartinD> Mike: related to issue 135, resolved earlier...
18:34:08 <msmith> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Mapping_to_RDF_Graphs&diff=11045&oldid=10323
18:34:22 <MartinD> ... resolution embedded in the RDF mapping doc
18:34:53 <bmotik> q+
18:34:54 <MartinD> ... then it was written in a way that any RDF graph with no typing triple will become "an anonymous OWL ontology"?
18:35:03 <IanH> q?
18:35:12 <bmotik> zakim, unmute me
18:35:12 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
18:35:16 <MartinD> ... in my email I gave example how this may affect our test cases
18:35:17 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:35:31 <pfps> pointers?
18:35:42 <MartinD> Boris: at last f2f this was the decision taken - imports vs. inclusions vs. etc.
18:35:53 <MartinD> ... alan was for allowing imports of arbitrary graphs
18:36:21 <msmith> One example http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/TestCase:WebOnt-I5.2-001
18:36:42 <MartinD> Ian: the point may be subtler - if RDF graph with no typing header was allowed, now this is reversed, it should work?
18:37:03 <MartinD> Boris: targets of import statements would be merged into graphs...
18:37:08 <IanH> q?
18:37:15 <pfps> q+
18:37:27 <MartinD> ... no aware that these graphs were ok in owl 1... 
18:37:28 <IanH> ack pfps
18:37:56 <MartinD> Peter: discussion turned on the backward compatibility... this was the solution to regain that back compatibility
18:38:06 <IanH> q?
18:38:08 <bijan> q+
18:38:18 <bijan> q-
18:38:19 <IanH> q?
18:38:22 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:38:22 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
18:38:22 <bmotik> +1 to pfps
18:38:25 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:38:25 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:38:28 <MartinD> Ian: so should we treat headerless RDF graphs as OWL ontologies
18:38:34 <MartinD> Peter: as OWL DL ontologies
18:38:38 <msmith> q+
18:38:58 <MartinD> Ian: currently they are treated as OWL FULL ontologies, if I follow Peter and Boris correctly
18:38:59 <bijan> q+
18:39:02 <IanH> ack msmith
18:39:07 <msmith> http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/TestCase:WebOnt-I5.2-001
18:39:29 <MartinD> Mike: ontologies like the ones in test case above will not be valid OWL 2 DL, if the doc remains as it is now
18:39:42 <IanH> ack bijan
18:39:46 <IanH> q?
18:39:46 <MartinD> Ian: so, there is some back compatibility issue and a case that reveals the point
18:40:10 <MartinD> Bijan: confused now; we would normally handle this case, surprised we are not following this up
18:40:54 <MartinD> Ian: this is a kind of along Alan's repair idea... include the graphs, import even graphs that do not satisfy header requirements - treat them as merging with other content
18:41:02 <pfps> q+
18:41:09 <MartinD> Bijan: importing seems fine, treating them as standalone is tricky
18:41:17 <IanH> ack pfps
18:41:27 <MartinD> Ian: yes, they should be imported into "unbroken" one
18:41:35 <bijan> q+
18:41:36 <michael_schneider> q+
18:41:44 <IanH> ack bijan
18:41:56 <MartinD> Peter: current broken ontologies are those that miss certain declarations; the discussion was not about importing
18:42:28 <IanH> q?
18:42:38 <michael_schneider> zakim, unmute me
18:42:38 <Zakim> sorry, michael_schneider, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
18:42:39 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:42:39 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:42:44 <MartinD> Bijan: standalone fragments remain OWL FULL, if imported into properly typed ontologies, they may become OWL 2 DL - but only via import (kind of inherit typing info)
18:42:45 <IanH> ack michael_schneider
18:42:51 <IanH> ack michael_schneider
18:43:22 <michael_schneider> what with the RHS of an entailment: does it need an ontology header?
18:43:25 <Zakim> -christine
18:43:30 <michael_schneider> zakim, mute me
18:43:30 <Zakim> sorry, michael_schneider, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
18:43:32 <MartinD> Ian: are we happy that we knew about this and nothing needs changing right now?
18:43:38 <MartinD> ... mike raised this, are you accepting this?
18:43:41 <bijan> Let O1 be the OWL Full but not OWL DL ontology, and O2 another ontology. If O2 imports O1 results in a OWL DL ontology, that is fine and does not involve repair.
18:43:47 <bmotik> I am extatic
18:44:03 <christine> there was a mix between scnheid and me !
18:44:03 <IanH> q?
18:44:05 <bijan> Fixing O1 is changing the ontology, which puts it into repair mode
18:44:09 <Zakim> -BCuencaGrau
18:44:29 <MartinD> Mike: good that other people are comfortable, I just came across a case raising this
18:44:40 <MartinD> Subtopic: Filtering key comments on LC
18:44:44 <MartinD> Ian: let's go to last call comments
18:45:00 <Zakim> +??P15
18:45:07 <IanH> q?
18:45:08 <MartinD> ... thing that wasn't discussed - do we go down the list, quick discussion and allocate ownership?
18:45:14 <ivan> q+
18:45:18 <MartinD> ... suggestions?
18:45:19 <pfps> chair's pero.. perrog.. choice
18:45:19 <bijan> How about the chairs, or some person, does it offline?
18:45:20 <IanH> q?
18:45:21 <bijan> and then we do a batch agreement
18:45:23 <christine> zakim, ??P15 is christine
18:45:23 <Zakim> +christine; got it
18:45:55 <MartinD> Ivan: there is a number of comments of type "good job" and many editorial - those might be useful to get out of our way, done
18:46:13 <MartinD> ... we need to know which comments are serious and require serious work
18:46:18 <Zakim> +??P21
18:46:29 <michael_schneider> zakim, ??P21 is me
18:46:29 <Zakim> +michael_schneider; got it
18:46:29 <MartinD> ... otherwise we may waste time on minor points and find the big ones too late
18:46:30 <pfps> can't the chairs do this sort of thing?  I don't view it as a good thing to do now.
18:46:43 <michael_schneider> q+
18:46:49 <ivan> ack ivan
18:46:55 <michael_schneider> zakim, unmute me
18:46:55 <Zakim> michael_schneider was not muted, michael_schneider
18:46:57 <pfps> chairs could just send back 'we're happy that you are happy'
18:47:00 <MartinD> Ian: chairs can go through the list, filter minor comments, editorial ones = no discussion required... etc.
18:47:07 <IanH> ack michael_schneider
18:47:10 <pfps> chairs could assign editorial fixes to some editor
18:47:24 <bijan> Yes
18:47:27 <msmith> yes
18:47:29 <msmith> q+
18:47:33 <bijan> Both sides do
18:47:35 <pfps> yes, otherwise the rhs is not an ontology
18:47:37 <MartinD> michael_schneider: there are still situations when you have entailment, does the right side need onto header
18:47:40 <IanH> q?
18:47:47 <IanH> ack msmith
18:47:48 <MartinD> Mike: RHS cannot exist as ontology without its header
18:47:58 <michael_schneider> zakim, mute me
18:47:58 <Zakim> michael_schneider should now be muted
18:47:58 <bijan> Tools are free to be more liberal of course, but then they aren't checking "ontologies"
18:48:17 <MartinD> Ian: we should then go through those comments offline, and focus/discuss the important ones
18:48:29 <MartinD> ... it's not that clear which one had attention until now
18:48:45 <michael_schneider> it's actually a little formal problem with the correspondence theorem, since ontology headers are not interpreted by the Direct Semantics... but I will solve this :)
18:48:46 <IanH> q?
18:48:50 <bijan> q+
18:48:51 <MartinD> Subtopic: Discussion on comments from TopQuadrant / Jeremy Carroll
18:48:52 <MartinD> Ian: for example, one obvious case - how to deal with points raised by TopQuadrant - quite a large one?
18:48:52 <pfps> number, please?
18:48:56 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:48:56 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
18:48:56 <IanH> q?
18:49:01 <IanH> ack bijan
18:49:05 <bmotik> number 34
18:49:25 <pfps> found it, but do we have a final version?
18:49:29 <MartinD> Bijan: TQ is a bunch of comments, we can now go through them now or just filter them as suggested earlier
18:49:55 <MartinD> Ian: either chairs or somebody should split TQ comments into "proper" focused comments
18:50:01 <ivan> q+
18:50:07 <IanH> q?
18:50:15 <IanH> ack ivan
18:50:19 <MartinD> Bijan: do the pointer first and then check if they match...
18:50:21 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/mid/003801c98000$a83794e0$f8a6bea0$@com
18:50:37 <MartinD> Ivan: Jeremy sent separately email above - the main TQ comment...
18:50:54 <IanH> q?
18:50:56 <MartinD> ... how to treat this separate page he edited - what is the comment, what is the blurb around
18:51:00 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:51:01 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
18:51:06 <msmith> the mail ivan pasted is much smaller
18:51:27 <MartinD> Bijan: the key point is second to last paragraph
18:51:37 <MartinD> ... about unmotivated new features, etc.
18:51:56 <MartinD> ... alternatives they suggest might not be key for us at the moment
18:52:18 <MartinD> ... the only hard comments are those last two paragraphs on OWL2..
18:52:34 <MartinD> ... they are mostly detailing what means "undermotivated"
18:52:59 <MartinD> ... the substantive point is about OWL XML, OWL Manchester syntax
18:53:33 <MartinD> ... we should do enumeration of those features, weigh the benefit of feature vs. motivation... this is what they may expect from us as response
18:53:52 <MartinD> Ian: it's a bit strange email "we ask many 
18:54:07 <michael_schneider> q+
18:54:11 <MartinD> ... asking many unmotivated features to be dropped
18:54:15 <IanH> q?
18:54:21 <MartinD> ... a way to address is to add motivation to all features?
18:54:24 <michael_schneider> zakim, unmute me
18:54:24 <Zakim> michael_schneider should no longer be muted
18:54:28 <IanH> ack michael_schneider
18:54:33 <IanH> q?
18:54:53 <MartinD> michael_schneider: the story talks about cost problem
18:55:34 <MartinD> ... is this about extension of any kind of ontology language? is there something specific they want to have extended here? Some points apply to C, Java, etc.
18:55:43 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:55:43 <Zakim> bmotik was already muted, bmotik
18:55:52 <michael_schneider> zakim, mute me
18:55:52 <Zakim> michael_schneider should now be muted
18:55:55 <MartinD> ... there are features that have additional cost, always... which we may not want to start including
18:55:56 <bmotik> no
18:56:01 <IanH> q?
18:56:29 <MartinD> Ian: rough agreement here 
18:56:40 <bijan> q+
18:56:51 <IanH> q?
18:56:52 <MartinD> ... what is the concrete action - breaking the email down into detailed list? (BIjan thinks no need for this)
18:56:57 <christine> +q
18:56:58 <IanH> ack bijan
18:57:01 <MartinD> Bijan: I may draft the response
18:57:30 <MartinD> ... we should identify what we see as substantive comment, and then respond to this - WG doesn't think there are unmotivated features
18:57:31 <ivan> q+
18:57:45 <IanH> q?
18:57:48 <bmotik> +1 to bijan
18:57:49 <IanH> ack christine
18:57:52 <MartinD> ... so, thanking them for listing them, raising them and we will definitely address explicit motivation in the further drafts
18:57:56 <pfps> +1 to bijan
18:58:09 <MartinD> Christine: not sure this is about motivation for new features
18:58:26 <MartinD> ... they suggested there are too many features, maybe not needed
18:58:37 <MartinD> ... more motivation in the New Features doc will not change anything, his comments basically concern OWL 2 in general, not specifically the New Features doc
18:58:45 <IanH> q?
18:58:48 <IanH> ack ivan
18:58:53 <MartinD> Ivan: two issues here
18:59:22 <bmotik> q+
18:59:27 <IanH> q?
18:59:36 <bijan> q+
18:59:43 <MartinD> ... one point is that answer as suggested above by Bijan (that feature doc is extended, etc.) may open us to the objection that we now work with many features that do not have explicit cases/motivation
18:59:57 <MartinD> ... then there are some technical issue, which can be treated as such
19:00:23 <MartinD> ... property chain inclusion, how RDF is treated, etc. etc.
19:00:24 <IanH> q?
19:00:32 <MartinD> ... these should not be forgotten
19:00:37 <michael_schneider> not all concerns were actually about "unmotivated features". there were a few more concrete things
19:00:39 <christine> url please ?
19:01:04 <michael_schneider> +1 to ian, this is not a software development project
19:01:17 <MartinD> Ian: one about requirements - always clear that we are not producing fully fledged requirements doc, it was more about capturing some experiences from previous work in WG, elsewhere
19:01:44 <bmotik> zakim, unmute me
19:01:44 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
19:01:53 <MartinD> ... this is not about acquiring all requirements, about continuously formulating needs as things emerge... this is not a "done" req. doc
19:02:38 <MartinD> ... one of the jobs of chair should be to go through comments, to filter those technical ones, and then we can give a part response to TQ in general terms, and a part in concrete technical points raised to LC
19:02:39 <bijan> That's what I meant
19:02:39 <bijan> pfft
19:02:44 <IanH> q?
19:02:52 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:03:15 <MartinD> Boris: if we go through those comments from TQ, he agrees with most substantive logical changes
19:04:06 <MartinD> ... another thing to include in our response, is about symmetry issue - people were not sure why certain things are included, so this syntactic sugar helps them to make sense of changes
19:04:25 <MartinD> ... there should not be problem with RDF compatibility, we have RDF-friendly fragment
19:04:27 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
19:04:27 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
19:04:36 <IanH> q?
19:04:38 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
19:04:38 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
19:04:40 <IanH> ack bijan
19:04:46 <MartinD> Ian: the basic plan of a general reply on motivation + adding points on technical aspects, remains valid
19:04:59 <christine> q+
19:05:14 <bijan> zakim, mute me
19:05:14 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
19:05:24 <MartinD> Ian: can we take some action here?
19:05:30 <christine> no
19:05:37 <IanH> q?
19:05:39 <christine> want to speak
19:05:45 <IanH> q?
19:05:48 <IanH> ack christine
19:06:02 <MartinD> Christine: how many new features are a matter of concern here?
19:06:21 <ivan> q+
19:06:21 <bijan> q+
19:06:32 <IanH> q?
19:06:34 <MartinD> Ian: still working on documenting all the feature motivations - may get more motivation on some features 
19:07:02 <MartinD> Christine: I would like to be involved in the reply, to see which specific feature is without motivation, etc.
19:07:17 <bijan> I'm happy to yield
19:07:19 <bijan> I don't have to do it
19:07:27 <MartinD> Ian: we should start with drafting, the others would then see the draft and react to it
19:07:51 <MartinD> Christine: I don't want to have many new additions to new features, this was addressed by WG for long enough
19:08:19 <MartinD> Ian: yes, we should not promise a large number of new features; but everybody will be able to react to Bijan's draft
19:08:20 <IanH> ack ivan
19:09:07 <MartinD> Ivan: there is one criticism we raised at F2F - the motivation doc has bias towards life science, issue we found earlier
19:09:07 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
19:09:07 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
19:09:17 <MartinD> ... trying to rebalance this bias may be really helpful
19:09:27 <christine> q+
19:10:01 <MartinD> Ian: relating that authors had called  for UCs from other domains many times, but Christine relied on other people for it and without feedback she obviously worked with all UCs she was provided, therfore mainly from Life Sciences domain
19:10:08 <IanH> ack bijan
19:10:45 <MartinD> Bijan: two points - what we need to add to the list of things - XML syntax may need a new section (e.g.)
19:11:13 <MartinD> ... we should either have one umbrella section or concrete sections to respond to things raised, so that we don't get the same comments again
19:11:21 <MartinD> ... some comments came from me as well
19:11:44 <MartinD> ... there is a lot of work to be done, but this is only first publicly released working draft
19:11:55 <bijan> zakim, mute me
19:11:55 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
19:12:07 <MartinD> Ian: the doc is only working draft, correct - there will be changes to it
19:12:09 <IanH> ack christine
19:12:39 <MartinD> Ian: let's get back to actions
19:13:03 <christine> christine has joined #owl
19:13:13 <MartinD> ACTION: Ian to sift through Jeremy's / TQ email and web page to filter those aspects requiring further work
19:13:13 <trackbot> Created ACTION-273 - Sift through Jeremy's / TQ email and web page to filter those aspects requiring further work [on Ian Horrocks - due 2009-02-04].
19:13:17 <MartinD> ACTION: Bijan to draft general response w.r.t. motivation issue raised in the TQ email/comment
19:13:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-274 - Draft general response w.r.t. motivation issue raised in the TQ email/comment [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-04].
19:13:21 <bijan> Or someone else!
19:13:26 <bijan> Oh, too late
19:13:31 <MartinD> Subtopic: Approving responses to comments
19:13:53 <MartinD> Ian: probably concludes that aspect
19:14:12 <MartinD> ... we currently don't have that status column on comments
19:14:23 <MartinD> ... quite a few issues discussed, people drafted responses, any ready for formal agreement in WG?
19:14:24 <MartinD> ... we can look at them and move them forward
19:14:24 <bijan> First one: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/ALR1
19:14:29 <pfps> +1
19:14:33 <IanH> q?
19:14:52 <pfps> ALR1, MS1
19:14:55 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
19:14:55 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
19:14:59 <MartinD> Ian: without owner/status tracking it's abit confusing, but let's try
19:15:16 <MartinD> Bijan: the pointer to the first is above
19:15:30 <MartinD> Ian: the actual comment is at the bottom "The WG has decided"
19:15:35 <pfps> Bijan's response looks fine to me (and quite subdued)
19:16:00 <MartinD> Bijan: this was discussed, at least two people saw it
19:16:07 <IanH> q?
19:16:16 <pfps> victory!
19:16:27 <MartinD> Ian: unless anybody has a problem, let's declare this done - as soon as boilerplating is ready we can move on
19:16:34 <ivan> q+
19:16:35 <MartinD> ... any other responses in the same category - drafted, ready to go?
19:16:36 <pfps> MS1, but it requires a technical change
19:16:37 <ivan> q+
19:16:45 <IanH> ack \
19:16:49 <IanH> ack ivan
19:16:59 <bijan> There's a decision to be made on Martin Duerst
19:17:08 <MartinD> Ivan: issue with unicode... in RDF comments, where are we?
19:17:20 <bijan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0094.html
19:17:27 <MartinD> Bijan: decide how to reply to the issue (I only summarized the point, not replied)
19:17:46 <MartinD> ... we can send this to RDF list...
19:17:58 <MartinD> ... we talk now about number 5
19:18:34 <MartinD> ... my proposal - send generic syntax ref doc, as now, may XML syntax too, and .....
19:19:14 <IanH> q?
19:19:16 <michael_schneider> +1 to generic
19:19:21 <pfps> rather complex and not optimal, but I guess the legalese is required
19:19:21 <MartinD> ... according to conformance doc, we restrict parsing to certain minimal levels, so characters of unicode5 should not be serialized, as tthey are not supported at these levels?
19:19:34 <pfps> no LC for this
19:19:48 <MartinD> ... would require some changes to syntax doc, and all other docs referencing unicode
19:19:50 <ivan> q+
19:19:50 <pfps> but we need to document the change
19:19:57 <MartinD> Ian: how difficult to draft response?
19:20:23 <MartinD> Bijan: we now updated all docs, metacomment to RDF group to tie it normatively to XML...
19:20:50 <IanH> ack ivan
19:20:51 <ivan> ack ivan
19:20:56 <MartinD> ... we need to change references, docs and probably consider the conformity doc
19:21:12 <MartinD> Ivan: we should make it clear we are aware of the problem
19:21:25 <MartinD> Ian: Bijan, will you take ownership of this too?
19:21:48 <MartinD> ... somebody needs to own the reply, although not being editor of the touched docs
19:21:53 <pfps> Bijan can kick the editors and get them to "do the right thing" 
19:22:00 <MartinD> Bijan: happy to coordinate, to track those references
19:22:19 <MartinD> ... will send email to the list to change conformance aspects...
19:22:21 <christine> q+
19:22:25 <IanH> q?
19:22:30 <MartinD> omit: metacomment -- does this need formal action
19:22:30 <IanH> ack christine
19:22:57 <bijan> Its'  not clear that jim means it as a LC comment
19:23:13 <MartinD> ACTION: Bijan to track references to unicode [5] in the current drafts and propose changes needed to the conformance doc
19:23:13 <trackbot> Created ACTION-275 - Track references to unicode [5] in the current drafts and propose changes needed to the conformance doc [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-04].
19:23:18 <bijan> q+
19:23:37 <IanH> ACTION: Bijan to draft response/actions w.r.t. [5]
19:23:37 <trackbot> Created ACTION-276 - Draft response/actions w.r.t. [5] [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-04].
19:23:52 <IanH> q?
19:23:53 <MartinD> Topic: Concluding points
19:23:55 <christine> q+
19:23:56 <IanH> ack bijan
19:23:56 <ivan> quote - RECOMMENDATION FROM THE AC MEMBER OF RPI 
19:23:56 <ivan>  I think the WG should seriously consider taking the profiles off of the Rec track for now, getting the rest through, and then putting the profiles either into a separate CR or leaving them as WG notes. 
19:24:04 <MartinD> Bijan: there is also points from Jim following our discussion, but they are not in the category LC
19:24:15 <IanH> q?
19:24:24 <IanH> ack christine
19:24:27 <bijan> q+ to point at another issue to dispose of
19:24:32 <IanH> ack bijan
19:24:32 <Zakim> bijan, you wanted to point at another issue to dispose of
19:24:33 <MartinD> Ian: there is formal suggestion from AC member... as quoted above
19:24:48 <ivan> q+
19:25:06 <MartinD> ... we have treated comments from other members of WG as last call comments, but not sure how to treat this specific one
19:25:15 <ivan> q-
19:25:28 <MartinD> Bijan: chair may want to ask the sender if they want to have their comment as LC or not
19:25:54 <MartinD> ... if they want to be LC commenting, fair enough... if not, no need to reply formally at this stage
19:26:04 <MartinD> Ian: this is about having some more documentation
19:26:15 <christine> have to know before reply
19:26:40 <pfps> go, Bijan, go!
19:26:44 <MartinD> Bijan: we already made changes, we only need to send an email - does that satisfy the needs/points?
19:26:47 <bijan> Oy
19:27:01 <bijan> I don't care
19:27:13 <MartinD> Ian: don't mind doing this - Bijan or myself?
19:27:18 <MartinD> Bijan: I can do it
19:27:50 <MartinD> Ian: going reasonably well - 
19:28:10 <IanH> q?
19:28:17 <MartinD> ... alan and me will go through the comments and filter those needing further action, talk, and which can be sorted by "polite acknowledgement"
19:28:34 <MartinD> Bijan: this is not something that chairs *must* do, somebody else can do it
19:28:39 <msmith> omit: bye
19:28:41 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
19:28:42 <Zakim> -msmith
19:28:43 <ivan> ivan has left #owl
19:28:43 <Zakim> -Zhe
19:28:45 <Zakim> -bmotik.a
19:28:45 <Zakim> -bmotik
19:28:46 <Zakim> -bijan
19:28:46 <Zakim> -Achille
19:28:46 <MartinD> Ian: this concludes today's talk then...
19:28:47 <Zakim> -pfps
19:28:48 <Zakim> -baojie
19:28:51 <Zakim> -Sandro
19:28:52 <Zakim> -Ivan
19:28:54 <Zakim> -IanH
19:28:55 <ratnesh> omit: bye
19:28:55 <MartinD> zakim, who was here
19:28:56 <Zakim> -christine
19:28:58 <Zakim> omit: I don't understand 'who was here', MartinD
19:29:01 <Zakim> -ratnesh
19:29:08 <Zakim> -michael_schneider
19:29:14 <bijan> Ivan, I'm sending the rdf comment to where? and on behalf of the group?
19:29:15 <Zhe> omit: bye