Chatlog 2009-02-04

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: bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, Michael Schneider (muted), uli (muted), Alan Ruttenberg, Ivan, Bernardo, Christine, Jie, Mike Smith, Peter Patel-Schneider, zhe, Martin
17:52:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:52:54 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/02/04-owl-irc
17:53:01 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #owl
17:53:14 <Rinke> ScribeNick: Rinke
17:54:48 <bijan> zakim, who is here?
17:54:48 <Zakim> sorry, bijan, I don't know what conference this is
17:54:49 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace
17:54:54 <bijan> zakim, this is owl
17:54:55 <Zakim> ok, bijan; that matches SW_OWL()1:00PM
17:55:05 <bijan> zakim, who is here?
17:55:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P1
17:55:07 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace
17:55:12 <bijan> zakim, ??p1 is me
17:55:13 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
17:55:23 <bmotik> bmotik has joined #owl
17:55:32 <bmotik> Zakim, this will be owl
17:55:32 <Zakim> ok, bmotik, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM already started
17:56:29 <Zakim> +??P0
17:56:37 <Zakim> + +86528aaaa
17:56:43 <Rinke> zakim, ??P0 is me
17:56:43 <Zakim> +Rinke; got it
17:56:50 <bmotik> Zakim, +86528aaaa is me
17:56:50 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
17:56:54 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:56:54 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:57:00 <Rinke> zakim, mute me
17:57:00 <Zakim> Rinke should now be muted
17:57:26 <bijan> zakim, mute me
17:57:26 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
17:57:48 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
17:57:53 <IanH> IanH has joined #owl
17:58:07 <alanr> FYI I am traveling and a promised spot for me to chair from did not materialize. I have contacted Ian, who I expect to be here. If not I will chair using sometimes flakey skype connection in hotel room.
17:58:18 <alanr> ah, there you are Ian
17:58:39 <IanH> yes
17:58:56 <alanr> did you get my text/email?
17:58:58 <Zakim> +Ian_Horrocks
17:59:07 <IanH> about chairing? yes
17:59:12 <Zakim> +Sandro
17:59:24 <Achille> Achille has joined #owl
17:59:29 <Rinke> rrsagent, make records public
17:59:30 <alanr> ok. apologies for the late notice (which is less than I got when they didn't cough up the promised room)
17:59:41 <IanH> no prob
18:00:05 <Zakim> +[IBM]
18:00:10 <MarkusK_> MarkusK_ has joined #owl
18:00:12 <Achille> Zakim, IBM is me
18:00:12 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
18:00:17 <IanH> IanH has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.02.04/Agenda
18:00:26 <bcuencagrau> bcuencagrau has joined #owl
18:00:28 <schneid> schneid has joined #owl
18:00:32 <IanH> ScribeNick: Rinke
18:00:51 <IanH> zakim, Ian_Horrocks is IanH
18:00:51 <Zakim> +IanH; got it
18:01:00 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:01:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille
18:01:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace
18:01:14 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:01:21 <Zakim> +??P13
18:01:29 <schneid> zakim, ??P13 is me
18:01:29 <Zakim> +schneid; got it
18:01:32 <Zakim> + +0186528aabb
18:01:33 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:01:33 <uli> uli has joined #owl
18:01:33 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:01:35 <uli_> uli_ has joined #owl
18:01:37 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:01:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), +0186528aabb
18:01:47 <Zakim> On IRC I see uli_, uli, schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace
18:01:52 <Zakim> +??P15
18:01:54 <Zakim> - +0186528aabb
18:02:01 <uli> zakim, ??P15 is me
18:02:01 <Zakim> +uli; got it
18:02:03 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:02:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), uli
18:02:05 <uli> zakim, mute me
18:02:11 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
18:02:13 <Zakim> On IRC I see uli_, uli, schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace
18:02:19 <Rinke> topic: Admin
18:02:27 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:02:27 <Rinke> Roll call
18:02:28 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), uli (muted)
18:02:35 <Zakim> On IRC I see uli_, uli, schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace
18:02:37 <Rinke> subtopic: agenda amendments?
18:02:40 <Zakim> + +0186528aacc
18:02:46 <bijan> me!
18:02:49 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, +0186528aacc is me
18:02:49 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it
18:02:51 <Rinke> no amendments
18:02:53 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
18:02:53 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
18:02:57 <bijan> I ahve an agenda amendment
18:02:57 <Rinke> PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (28 January)
18:03:10 <ivan> ivan has joined #owl
18:03:12 <MarkusK_> +1
18:03:17 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:03:18 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
18:03:19 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
18:03:19 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
18:03:21 <Zakim> +Ivan
18:03:23 <Rinke> RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes (28 January)
18:03:30 <IanH> q?
18:03:44 <Zakim> +??P9
18:03:48 <Rinke> Bijan finished action-275, move to pending
18:03:53 <alanr> zakim, ??P9 is alanr
18:03:53 <Zakim> +alanr; got it
18:03:57 <Rinke> subtopic: action item status
18:04:09 <IanH> q?
18:04:25 <Rinke> IanH: Action-271, Action-276, and Action-277 done?
18:04:26 <msmith> msmith has joined #owl
18:04:35 <Rinke> bijan: Action-265 is done as well...
18:04:35 <IanH> q?
18:04:44 <Rinke> bijan: looking at the wrong agenda
18:04:59 <Rinke> IanH: all of these are done
18:05:10 <Rinke> due and overdue actions
18:05:26 <alanr> 247 done. 264 not (scheduling issues)
18:05:31 <Rinke> bijan: with regard to action-276, I drafted a response, should I send it? 
18:05:44 <Rinke> IanH: discuss this with the last call comments 
18:05:45 <IanH> q?
18:06:08 <alanr> the action is done - a proposal has been made
18:06:17 <Zakim> + +1.202.408.aadd
18:06:22 <Rinke> ianh: Action-247 leave it there, lots of conclusion. 
18:06:28 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
18:06:28 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
18:06:29 <Rinke> IanH: agree, proposal has been made, consider that done
18:06:31 <IanH> q?
18:06:33 <Rinke> action-264
18:06:40 <alanr> 264 scheduling snafus
18:06:41 <Rinke> IanH: any progress on that one? Alan?
18:06:41 <alanr> not done
18:06:52 <Rinke> IanH: ok, push that till next week
18:06:55 <Rinke> action-269
18:07:00 <bijan> It was mooted long agao
18:07:05 <bijan> It's moot
18:07:07 <bijan> Kill it
18:07:10 <alanr> closed last week
18:07:13 <IanH> q?
18:07:20 <ewallace> +1 
18:07:22 <Rinke> bijan: moot after we assigned it
18:07:27 <Rinke> IanH: consider it closed
18:07:29 <Rinke> action-270
18:07:50 <Rinke> bmotik: would prefer a revision of the whole document, will be a bunch of other changes. Prefer to do them all at once
18:07:53 <alanr> this makes tracking much harder. 
18:08:00 <alanr> Better to do them incrementally where possible.
18:08:03 <Zakim> + +1.603.897.aaee
18:08:07 <Rinke> bmotik: decide at F2F, one action, and I'll do it.
18:08:14 <baojie> baojie has joined #owl
18:08:19 <alanr> q+
18:08:25 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl
18:08:26 <IanH> q?
18:08:29 <Rinke> IanH: hm, ok, we'll leave it until you build up the necessary amendments that need to be made
18:08:31 <IanH> ack alanr
18:08:36 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:08:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan, Rinke (muted), bmotik, Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), Ivan, alanr, msmith,
18:08:42 <Zakim> ... +1.603.897.aaee
18:08:44 <Zakim> On IRC I see Zhe, baojie, msmith, ivan, uli_, uli, schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace
18:08:51 <bijan> q+
18:08:53 <bmotik> q+
18:08:56 <Rinke> alanr: there are items that can be incrementally done, more easily, that would make identifying changes to people more easy
18:09:00 <alanr> q-
18:09:03 <IanH> q?
18:09:07 <alanr> q?
18:09:33 <Christine> Christine has joined #owl
18:09:33 <Zakim> +??P4
18:09:39 <IanH> q?
18:09:43 <IanH> ack bijan
18:09:49 <Rinke> IanH: I take that point as well. I see Boris' point as well. Where there are clear isolated changes, doing them directly can be done as well
18:09:56 <Christine> zakim, ??P4 is christine
18:09:56 <Zakim> +christine; got it
18:10:09 <Rinke> bijan: these are not at odds, we can do them incrementally in one go.
18:10:29 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aaff
18:10:33 <Rinke> bijan: editorial changes... would be more sensible to make them part of one big rereview
18:10:41 <IanH> q?
18:10:44 <baojie> Zakim, aaff is baojie
18:10:44 <Zakim> +baojie; got it
18:11:03 <Rinke> IanH: we can take it on a case-by-case basis. The key-thing can be done, respond to jim, cross it of the list
18:11:08 <IanH> q?
18:11:10 <bmotik> q-
18:11:13 <Rinke> IanH: it doesn't make sense to do global comments in isolation
18:11:14 <IanH> ack boris
18:11:20 <Rinke> bmotik: exactly
18:11:39 <alanr> +1
18:11:42 <Rinke> IanH: case-by-case basis. For this particular comment, doing it right now does not make much sense
18:11:49 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:11:49 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:11:49 <Rinke> IanH: we'll leave it open
18:12:03 <bmotik> -)
18:12:07 <Rinke> IanH: would be good for you to have the pressure of an open action
18:12:09 <alanr> "it will do you good"
18:12:10 <Rinke> aciton-275
18:12:21 <IanH> q?
18:12:22 <Rinke> IanH: that's done, bijan?
18:12:28 <Rinke> bijan: all parts of it are done
18:12:36 <Rinke> action-273
18:12:42 <Rinke> IanH: have not finished it yet
18:12:50 <Rinke> IanH: (that's me slapping my own wrist)
18:12:53 <IanH> q?
18:12:54 <Rinke> IanH: done by next week
18:13:00 <Rinke> bijan: would you like to reassign it?
18:13:07 <Rinke> IanH: would be happy to work with you on it
18:13:15 <Rinke> action-272
18:13:25 <IanH> q?
18:13:33 <Rinke> IanH: wiki page by christine to deal with comments on new features and rationale. Is christine here?
18:13:40 <IanH> q?
18:13:46 <Rinke> Christine: it was too early to do it, I changed the due date
18:13:52 <Rinke> IanH: ok, fine.
18:14:07 <Rinke> subtopic: f2f5
18:14:23 <Rinke> IanH: make clear participation and non-participation wrt f2f5
18:14:28 <Zakim> -Ivan
18:14:37 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
18:14:37 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
18:14:38 <Zakim> +Ivan
18:14:50 <IanH> q?
18:14:53 <Rinke> IanH: 14 people in all, that's not a lot. There should be more people who know whether they can make it or not
18:14:57 <Rinke> topic: last call comments
18:15:32 <Rinke> IanH: some responses have already been drafted, for us to say yay or nay
18:15:49 <Rinke> Subtopic: MS1
18:15:49 <Rinke> IanH: MSI just a bug, changes were made to fix the bug
18:15:52 <ivan> pointer to the entry?
18:15:56 <IanH> q?
18:16:00 <IanH> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1
18:16:09 <alanr> +1
18:16:13 <alanr> to close
18:16:16 <msmith> +1
18:16:16 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
18:16:19 <ivan> +1
18:16:23 <Rinke> IanH: happy to accept the change?
18:16:31 <bijan> +1
18:16:41 <IanH> q?
18:16:49 <pfps> pfps has joined #owl
18:16:51 <IanH> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1
18:16:54 <Rinke> IanH: peter, perhaps you can briefly explain the changes you made in response to MS1
18:17:37 <Rinke> pfps: under the last call version of the mapping from RDF back to the  FS, it did not check for lists that shared tails, or crossed or looped. I changed the wording to forbid these kinds of situations.
18:17:47 <IanH> q?
18:17:55 <Rinke> pfps: requires all lists to be separate
18:18:10 <msmith> I'm ok without getting an email :)
18:18:11 <alanr> right
18:18:18 <Rinke> IanH: given that this is an internal LC comment... do we need to send an official message to msmith 
18:18:28 <Rinke> pfps: but we should list it as a post LC change
18:18:48 <uli> +1
18:18:49 <alanr> emoting positively towards Mike for finding a bug.
18:18:50 <ivan> +1
18:18:50 <Zhe> +1
18:18:52 <alanr> +1
18:19:01 <baojie> +1
18:19:13 <alanr> and peter for fixing :)
18:19:18 <msmith> +1
18:19:20 <sandro> :-)
18:20:03 <IanH> PROPOSED: Changes described in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1 are an adequate response to comment MS1
18:20:05 <Achille> +1
18:20:06 <MarkusK_> +1
18:20:08 <ewallace> +1
18:20:15 <bijan> +1
18:20:15 <Rinke> Rinke: +1
18:20:19 <uli> +1
18:20:23 <Zhe> +1
18:20:23 <schneid> +1
18:20:23 <ivan> +1
18:20:30 <bcuencagrau> +1
18:20:33 <IanH> RESOLVED: Changes described in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1 are an adequate response to comment MS1
18:20:37 <pfps> +1
18:20:47 <pfps> q+
18:20:54 <Rinke> IanH: now MD1 (unicode), comment from Martin Duerr
18:21:03 <IanH> ack pfps
18:21:11 <Rinke> pfps: backtrack a sec, do we now send out a response?
18:21:39 <schneid> I think, people from outside watching this list will wait for a response
18:21:49 <Rinke> IanH: no, not on this one. Actually this was sent to public-owl-comments. It might be good to send an official response to public-owl-comments.
18:22:01 <ivan> s/Duerr/Duerst/
18:22:26 <Rinke> IanH: peter, can you take the task of sending a response to mike on the public-owl-comments list
18:23:20 <Rinke> (some discussion on where the response will be archived)
18:23:52 <Rinke> IanH: if decide we should try to respond "in thread" then we should modify the page..
18:24:33 <Rinke> sandro: don't know whether it's worth making changes to the ones we already responded to.
18:25:07 <Rinke> bijan: isn't it enough to have everything in one place (Rinke: rough paraphrase)
18:25:15 <Rinke> IanH: we should decide whether we respond in thread
18:25:23 <Rinke> sandro: people should, but not must, respond in thread
18:25:38 <IanH> q?
18:25:40 <Rinke> IanH: if you can respond in thread, that's a good thing. Ok, we're done with that?
18:26:04 <Rinke> bijan: I think that's just dumb. I like having straightforward directions for sending responses.
18:26:39 <Rinke> sandro: there's only one done that was not done in thread
18:26:54 <Rinke> IanH: if anything else went wrong, then there was something wrong with the list
18:27:10 <Rinke> IanH: then we come back to MD1 (unicode) Martin Duerst
18:27:25 <ivan> +1 to the response
18:27:27 <alanr> +1 to respond
18:27:29 <Rinke> IanH: response drafted by bijan, discussed by email. Anyone would like to object?
18:27:43 <alanr> yes, already agreed to be formal
18:27:45 <Rinke> IanH: do we need to do formal proposals, sandro, ivan?
18:27:51 <IanH> q?
18:27:56 <Rinke> sandro: we don't need to vote on it, if nobody cares
18:28:04 <alanr> remember peter's discussion ?
18:28:08 <Rinke> sandro: if hearing no objections, it's resolved
18:28:13 <Rinke> IanH: you wanted to be formal?
18:28:39 <bijan> q+
18:28:43 <IanH> q?
18:28:52 <IanH> ack bijan
18:28:56 <Rinke> alanr: if I remember correctly, peter asked that any changes we made to the documents should be formally approved. There should be something in the record. Hearing no objections, but putting a resolved in would be good.
18:29:07 <alanr> I'll go with what pfps thinks on this issue
18:29:23 <pfps> no document change (so far) so no need to vote, I think
18:29:23 <Rinke> bijan: are we voting on the text I sent in? I only located the references, and sent an email: no documents have been changed yet. What are we voting on?
18:29:25 <schneid> q+
18:29:26 <alanr> ok
18:29:29 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:29:29 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:29:29 <IanH> q?
18:29:32 <IanH> ack schneid
18:29:52 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:29:52 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:29:54 <Rinke> schneid: I suggest we vote or not, but keep it on the list, on the queue, and flush the queue in one go.
18:30:04 <Rinke> bijan: not send the response before the work has been done
18:30:18 <ivan> we need to action the editors
18:30:19 <Rinke> IanH: we are happy with the response, but we need to make the changes in question
18:30:26 <Rinke> bijan: we need to action people appropriately
18:30:30 <ivan> :-) with the response
18:30:31 <bijan> I am!
18:30:33 <Rinke> IanH: are we happy with the response? I was happy
18:30:35 <schneid> +1
18:30:59 <Rinke> RESOLVED: the response to MD1 is appropriate, http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1
18:31:14 <bijan> +1
18:31:17 <IanH> RESOLVED: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1 is an appropriate response to MD1
18:31:32 <Zhe> noise
18:31:38 <ivan> noise noise noise
18:31:38 <bijan> zakim, who is talking?
18:31:39 <sandro> zakim, who is talking?
18:31:44 <uli> pfew!
18:31:45 <ivan> yes
18:31:51 <Zakim> bijan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: IanH (59%), Sandro (5%)
18:31:53 <schneid> for comparison, I got a whole bunch of answers to my SKOS LC comments all on the same day
18:31:56 <IanH> q?
18:32:03 <Zakim> sandro, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: bijan (46%), IanH (47%), Sandro (5%)
18:32:06 <Rinke> IanH: bijan, which documents need changing here?
18:32:32 <Rinke> bijan: syntax, I can do that... actually there's an issue. I know what to do for the unicode reference.
18:32:50 <Rinke> bijan: but for XML and RDF there is still the question on how to draft what we're going to do
18:33:14 <Rinke> bijan: for unicode, syntax, ms, and internationalized string, and ... needs changing
18:33:44 <Rinke> bijan: i believe we're inconsistent with references to unicode. 
18:34:01 <Rinke> IanH: if we are happy with that, and it answers his actual comment, then we should do that
18:34:33 <Rinke> bijan: we now have syntax pointing to XML 1.1, which I think is wrong. And then it also refers to the RDF syntax, which it shouldn't. Everything else is actually fine
18:34:38 <Rinke> IanH: only syntax?
18:35:01 <Rinke> bijan: no, all the ones I mentioned before, and rdf:text
18:35:03 <ivan> +1
18:35:06 <ivan> q+
18:35:14 <Rinke> bijan: just give me a global action to do all the unicode changes
18:35:19 <IanH> q?
18:35:27 <bijan> Unicode The Unicode Consortium, The Unicode Standard, Version  5.1.0, ISBN 0-321-48091-0, as updated from time to time by the publication of new versions. (See http://www.unicode.org/unicode/standard/versions for the latest version and additional information on versions of the standard and of the Unicode Character Database).
18:35:35 <Rinke> ivan: just a very small issue on the rdf:text, please contact the RIF person to take on this.
18:35:43 <Rinke> bijan: could Jie take this on?
18:36:14 <Rinke> IanH: are you able to take on the action to take on the change to the rdf:text document. 
18:36:26 <Rinke> baojie: I can do that
18:36:41 <Rinke> yes
18:37:15 <Rinke> ACTION, baojie to make the necessary changes to the rdf:text document, given the response to MD1 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1)
18:38:20 <Rinke> action: baojie to make the necessary changes to the rdf:text document, given the response to MD1 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1)
18:38:20 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - baojie
18:38:30 <Rinke> action: jie to make the necessary changes to the rdf:text document, given the response to MD1 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1)
18:38:31 <trackbot> Created ACTION-278 - Make the necessary changes to the rdf:text document, given the response to MD1 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1) [on Jie Bao - due 2009-02-11].
18:39:00 <Rinke> subtopic: JH1
18:39:00 <Rinke> IanH: JH1 (keys), where bijan drafted a proposed response
18:39:02 <IanH> q?
18:39:15 <Rinke> IanH: needed an additional example to the document
18:39:25 <IanH> q?
18:39:27 <Christine> +q
18:39:31 <IanH> ack ivan
18:39:31 <ivan> ack ivan
18:39:32 <Rinke> bijan: Jim was happy with the additional line to the document, that I sent to the mailing list
18:39:37 <IanH> ack Christine
18:40:01 <Rinke> ACTION: bijan to make the necessary changes to the documents given the response to MD1  (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1)
18:40:01 <trackbot> Created ACTION-279 - Make the necessary changes to the documents given the response to MD1  (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1) [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-11].
18:40:21 <Rinke> IanH: no general agreement on whether this is the appropriate response
18:40:37 <IanH> q?
18:40:38 <Rinke> IanH: I don't want that discussion on the teleconf (waste of time). Bring this back next week.
18:40:41 <alanr> recommend discuss on chairs before that
18:40:48 <alanr> q+
18:40:55 <Rinke> IanH: after we have discussed the response via email
18:41:02 <IanH> q?
18:41:07 <Rinke> bijan: can I add the change to the document?
18:41:09 <IanH> ack alanr
18:41:16 <Rinke> IanH: is this affected by the critique on the response?
18:41:16 <uli> "Please note that we have added more extensive documentation of hasKey feature in the Syntax,  a better explanation in the RDF-Based Semantics, and more documentation in the N"
18:41:25 <uli> ...is the suggested rephrasing
18:41:56 <bijan> Current text: """Please note that we will have a more extensive documentation of the rationale behind this design in the NF&R as well as some discussion in the primer. The working group will contact you when they reach last call to see if the overall solution meets your concerns. "
18:41:57 <Christine> +q
18:42:07 <Rinke> alanr: discuss on chairs list
18:42:12 <IanH> q?
18:42:28 <Rinke> bijan: I don't agree. We only need to say that the response is acceptable. The new features and rationale doc is not in LC
18:42:32 <IanH> ack Christine
18:43:00 <bijan> q+
18:43:01 <alanr> q+
18:43:05 <Rinke> Christine: there was one point in the draft that I did not agree, is the notion of feature. but we make change in the feature document. The change has already been done in the document. The rationale as well.
18:43:18 <Rinke> IanH: your point is that the text can be changed to state that we /have/ made some changes.
18:43:26 <IanH> ack bijan
18:43:29 <alanr> there is certainly not consensus on that. I disagree  concurring with Bijan
18:44:00 <Rinke> bijan: the changes thusfar do not address the comment. They do not even take notice of the comment. I would object to doing that. I already explained this to christine on the list.
18:44:03 <IanH> q?
18:44:06 <IanH> ack alanr
18:44:20 <Rinke> IanH: I understand what the dispute there is then. 
18:44:33 <Rinke> alanr: this is why I think we should moderate it. 
18:44:34 <Christine> +q
18:44:39 <alanr> +1
18:44:45 <Rinke> IanH: I don't really see the usefulnes of carrying on with this discussion right now
18:44:47 <Christine> +1
18:45:07 <Rinke> IanH: push this on the mailinglist for discussion.
18:45:13 <IanH> q?
18:45:15 <Rinke> IanH: let's do this via email, and move on.
18:45:17 <IanH> ack Christine 
18:45:43 <Rinke> bijan: can we just decide? this is the smallest wordsmithing... if this is the level of detail we're taking in then it's going to take forever. 
18:45:54 <Rinke> bijan: I don't want to have this discussion. I want it to be over. 
18:46:03 <Rinke> bijan: my text doesn't say anything wrong. 
18:46:03 <Christine> +q
18:46:04 <alanr> Bijan, I don't think you need to participate in the discussion further. I understand your point.
18:46:07 <alanr> I care
18:46:10 <Rinke> bijan: why not just vote.
18:46:27 <IanH> q?
18:46:34 <Rinke> IanH: I've got sympathy with what you say. this is going to produce more heat than light.
18:46:43 <ivan> ack Christine
18:46:44 <IanH> ack Christine
18:46:45 <Rinke> Christine: I agree to move on.
18:46:52 <alanr> I vote +1
18:46:58 <Rinke> bijan: can I add my sentence to the syntax document?
18:46:58 <alanr> for Bijan to take this action
18:47:06 <Rinke> IanH: this additional explanation-thing that Jim wanted
18:47:12 <alanr> there is no contest on that
18:47:26 <Rinke> IanH: why don't you go ahead on that
18:47:54 <Rinke> IanH: we need to find some better, faster way of dealing with these things.
18:48:03 <Rinke> IanH: that's something for me and alan to discuss offline
18:48:19 <bijan> q+
18:48:28 <alanr>  group: for your information we have already started discussing that (how to make this more efficient)
18:48:36 <Rinke> IanH: next is a list of all comments that I thought were significantly nontrivial, that required us to make some decision on the design.
18:48:36 <IanH> q?
18:48:42 <IanH> ack bijan
18:49:04 <Rinke> bijan: I have drafted an initial response to jeremy, and I would like feedback on whether this direction is ok (had some feedback from ivan)
18:49:07 <alanr> q+
18:49:16 <Rinke> IanH: sure, it isn't on this list at the moment. 
18:49:18 <IanH> q?
18:49:20 <IanH> ack alanr
18:50:03 <Rinke> alanr: my judgment is that I wouldn't abandon the draft, rather than refining it right now. There's discussion on the **** list right now, it's very much appreciated. Let's wait until that progresses
18:50:13 <alanr>  *** = chairs list
18:50:17 <ivan>  -:)
18:50:18 <Rinke> IanH: coming back to the list
18:50:38 <bijan> q+
18:50:42 <IanH> q?
18:50:44 <Rinke> subtopic: Naming issues
18:50:44 <Rinke> IanH: grddl, several comments referring to OWL, OWL DL and OWL Full (being more clear in the documents)
18:50:50 <IanH> ack bijan
18:51:25 <Rinke> bijan: I have a question. Looking at comments, not all of them about the design of the language. Just wondering whether the ones that are literally editorial could be moved to a different category (e.g. the use of OWL DL, OWL etc...)
18:51:33 <ivan> it is on the borderline...
18:51:51 <Rinke> IanH: it could be dealt with in an editorial way, perhaps... it could potentially require major restructuring of the documents
18:52:10 <Rinke> bijan: let me put it another way, what triggers another last call at this point.
18:52:11 <IanH> q?
18:52:12 <alanr> Can we postpone this discussion for the moment (of what triggers last call)
18:52:20 <Rinke> bijan: do we have some sens on that?
18:52:25 <Rinke> s/sens/sense
18:52:33 <schneid> "OWL 2" --> "OWL 2 DL" will certainly not justify another LC, but it's important anyway
18:52:34 <alanr> A subject of current discussion on chairs list. We are trying to understand issues.
18:52:38 <IanH> q?
18:52:47 <Rinke> IanH: how we decide to deal with them will determine the answer to bijan's question
18:52:52 <schneid> q+
18:53:12 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:53:12 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:53:13 <IanH> q?
18:53:17 <IanH> ack schneid
18:53:18 <Rinke> IanH: see whether we have a rough agreement on these... see whether we can get a high-level plan on what to do
18:53:19 <MartinD> MartinD has joined #OWL
18:53:38 <Rinke> schneid: we should have a clear story about the OWL names. 
18:53:46 <IanH> q?
18:53:51 <Rinke> schneid: what do the names signify, only syntax, only semantics?
18:54:07 <Rinke> schneid: I understood OWL 2 Full only as semantics, but now realize that's a bad idea.
18:54:21 <Rinke> schneid: it's very unclear at the moment. We should have a clear story on this.
18:54:25 <IanH> q?
18:54:33 <Rinke> IanH: I agree, this is also what the commenters ask.
18:54:42 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:54:42 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:54:58 <Rinke> schneid: we should state "that's the name of the syntax, that's the name of the semantics, that's the name of the whole language"
18:55:00 <IanH> q?
18:55:09 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/mid/82658D86-CD96-4178-B822-E9D4ECFAAB99@comlab.ox.ac.uk -> Ian's mail
18:55:18 <Rinke> IanH: I sent an email summarising. A couple of people have been working on diagrammatic responses
18:55:30 <IanH> q?
18:55:47 <bijan> Ok, "RIF1 (Disjoint numeric datatypes)", I think we should make them disjoint
18:55:48 <uli> +1
18:55:50 <Rinke> IanH: we need to be clearer about all of these things. I don't think we'll succeed in doing this in the next 5 minutes. Unless anyone really objects...
18:56:11 <Rinke> IanH: let's leave FH2, SWD1 for the moment
18:56:18 <bijan> q+
18:56:23 <Rinke> subtopic: XML and GRDDL
18:56:23 <Rinke> IanH: skipped over XML and GRDDL (TM1, FH3, BP2)
18:56:25 <IanH> q?
18:56:32 <IanH> ack bijan
18:56:39 <Rinke> bijan: I drafted some text in response to Frank's email.
18:57:03 <Rinke> bijan: which provided extensive rationale for the XML syntax. Jonathan Rees liked those, but still wanted GRDDL.
18:57:24 <Rinke> IanH: I agree, motivating the XML stuff isn't too difficult, but the GRDDL point is still there.
18:57:34 <IanH> q?
18:57:44 <alanr> chocolate?
18:57:44 <ivan> two beers?
18:57:47 <Rinke> IanH: I had the idea that you might have come round, and perhaps even be the man to take on GRDDL.
18:57:48 <alanr> hugs
18:57:55 <alanr> genuine gratitude?
18:58:42 <Rinke> bijan: I am negotiating... I'm unsure what my official position would be if the discussion went the other way...
18:58:58 <IanH> q?
18:59:12 <Rinke> bijan: I am negotiating with the pro-GRDDL people on the group. But I'm not there yet.
18:59:13 <schneid> IMHO, asking for dropping XML is very exaggerated, but I think the commenters believe that OWL/XML MUST be supported --> point them to the Conformance document!
18:59:16 <ivan> q+
18:59:22 <IanH> q?
19:00:17 <bijan> q+
19:00:26 <Rinke> ivan: I think there is a general feeling that the exact whole of OWL/XML in the whole framework is heavily misunderstood. There have been several comments, some came only a few days ago, is the feeling that RDF/XML is abandoned. This is not true, but it seems the messaging on this has gone wrong.
19:00:33 <IanH> q?
19:00:39 <IanH> ack ivan
19:00:39 <Rinke> ivan: one remark about all different syntaxes in the examples. 
19:00:41 <IanH> q?
19:00:42 <bmotik> +q
19:00:46 <Rinke> ivan: it's part of the same set of comments.
19:01:10 <Rinke> IanH: more related to what we discussed previously, but next on the list, misunderstanding on the whole messaging thing.
19:01:37 <Rinke> ivan: the whole OWL/XML made people feel that this was the exchange syntax. I had the discussion with some of my colleagues this week.
19:01:41 <IanH> q?
19:01:45 <IanH> ack bijan
19:01:50 <Rinke> IanH: not directly related to the whole OWL/XML GRDDL thing.
19:02:01 <Rinke> bijan: I agree, I think people have lashed on the Functional Syntax and XML
19:02:05 <IanH> q?
19:02:06 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
19:02:06 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
19:02:12 <alanr> +1
19:02:18 <alanr> to what Bijan says
19:02:31 <IanH> q?
19:02:35 <Rinke> bijan: we haven't changed how OWL was specified. Putting the two semantics in two documents confused people who thought there was only one semantics.
19:02:37 <schneid> actually, in OWL 1 there have been even three different semantics...
19:02:42 <Rinke> bijan: that does need to be dealt with.
19:02:55 <Rinke> IanH: there's a whole presentation issue that needs to be dealt with. 
19:03:09 <bmotik> -q
19:03:25 <Rinke> IanH: there isn't one specific comment that says this. but we need a response to such a comment.
19:03:29 <IanH> q?
19:03:38 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
19:03:38 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
19:04:06 <bmotik> +q
19:04:10 <Rinke> subtopic: RIF1
19:04:10 <Rinke> IanH: ok, what about the RIF1 related to numeric datatypes
19:04:11 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
19:04:11 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
19:04:12 <IanH> q?
19:04:17 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:04:32 <alanr> missed that
19:04:35 <Rinke> bmotik: I have a proposal, we make the datatypes exactly as they are in XML
19:04:38 <sandro> +1 stoning
19:04:40 <IanH> q?
19:04:41 <bijan> q+
19:04:45 <alanr> -1
19:04:53 <Rinke> bmotik: throw a stone at me at the F2F5 for starting this in the first place
19:04:59 <ivan> +1 stoning (in virtual space, will not be at the f2f...)
19:05:13 <IanH> NO -- I want to see blood
19:05:16 <alanr> I'm not sorry yet
19:05:18 <Rinke> bmotik: there is also a practical reason, non-disjointness really difficult to implement.
19:05:19 <sandro> rofl
19:05:26 <Rinke> bmotik: I'm sorry
19:05:40 <ewallace> Why are disjoint types now acceptable?
19:05:51 <IanH> q?
19:05:53 <msmith> q+
19:05:55 <IanH> ack bijan
19:05:56 <alanr> q+
19:05:57 <Rinke> IanH: Boris proposes that we change our decision on disjointness because of conformance with XML, and implementation issues
19:06:05 <msmith> q-
19:06:15 <IanH> q?
19:06:15 <Rinke> bijan: I am happy to have disjointness as well (we should throw stones at Rob as well)
19:06:23 <Rinke> msmith: would this require another last call?
19:06:38 <Rinke> IanH: I'm just not wanting to talk about whether or not that requires another last call
19:06:53 <Rinke> IanH: deal with each comment, then look at the totality of changes.
19:07:01 <Rinke> IanH: welcome to have comments from sandro, ivan
19:07:06 <IanH> q?
19:07:24 <ivan> q+
19:07:30 <Rinke> sandro: I agree. And: not another LC, it's a corner issue that people just haven't thought about enough.
19:07:31 <msmith> q+ to request more detail from Boris
19:07:39 <IanH> ack alanr
19:07:57 <bijan> q+
19:08:10 <Rinke> alanr: Im not ready to cave on this yet. We do have a meeting with RIF on this, next week. I want to discuss this with Jonathan (my colleague).
19:08:14 <alanr> understood. just chiming in.
19:08:23 <IanH> q?
19:08:25 <Rinke> IanH: we don't have a unanimous plan on this
19:08:27 <bijan> q-
19:08:28 <alanr> yes. more than that even :)
19:08:37 <Rinke> IanH: we;ll ask you again after the RIF meeting
19:08:37 <IanH> ack ivan
19:08:40 <IanH> q?
19:08:58 <bijan> Given all the feedback, I think Manchester (pace Uli) might formally object to non-disjoint double
19:09:08 <bijan> So it's not just to satisfy rif
19:09:14 <IanH> q?
19:09:17 <Rinke> ivan: wrt. the LC or non-LC issue. We have a number of documents that are not LC. A second LC is not the end of the world. I agree we should not spend time on this issue. It is not a huge issue.
19:09:18 <Zakim> +Tony
19:09:25 <IanH> q?
19:09:28 <IanH> ack msmith
19:09:28 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to request more detail from Boris
19:09:35 <bmotik> +q
19:09:35 <ewallace> +1 to Mike suggestions
19:09:37 <Rinke> msmith: If boris could write an email that more explicitly specifies the change he's proposing to make
19:09:41 <IanH> q?
19:09:41 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
19:09:41 <alanr> uli is ready to drop rational too?
19:09:42 <Zakim> bmotik was not muted, bmotik
19:09:42 <Rinke> msmith: that would be helpful
19:09:46 <Rinke> sandro: test cases test cases
19:09:49 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:09:51 <IanH> q?
19:09:53 <alanr> q+
19:09:57 <schneid> q+
19:10:01 <Rinke> bmotik: this is already specified in the 1.1 XML schema. It's very precise on this.
19:10:14 <msmith> q+
19:10:18 <bijan> +1 to what boris just said
19:10:24 <IanH> q?
19:10:27 <Rinke> bmotik: float disjoint from double would be disjoint from decimal, but integer and all that crap wouldn't be
19:10:28 <uli> alanr, I am not sure...
19:10:38 <IanH> q?
19:10:42 <IanH> ack alanr
19:10:42 <msmith> but where does that leave owl:realPlus?
19:10:43 <ivan> ack alanr
19:10:52 <msmith> q-
19:11:03 <Rinke> alanr: how would that impact ... 
19:11:05 <IanH> q?
19:11:05 <alanr> thanks
19:11:09 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
19:11:09 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
19:11:13 <IanH> ack schneid
19:11:17 <Rinke> IanH: that's a different issue, because those are new datatypes
19:11:52 <Rinke> schneid: there was months of discussion about this. Would like the ramifications of this change. There were reasons for not having this disjointness. 
19:11:55 <alanr> the ramifications are bad :)
19:11:58 <IanH> q?
19:11:59 <Rinke> schneid: would it be very bad?
19:12:11 <Rinke> schneid: would like to see the non-obvious ramifications
19:12:24 <bijan> I note again, Pellet (and Jena) have supported disjointness here
19:12:41 <IanH> q?
19:12:44 <Rinke> IanH: would be the kind of ones that when you have integers and doubles in an inference, you would have different answers for your inferences.
19:12:51 <alanr> instance classification issues as well
19:12:56 <uli> Michael, I see (1) less tricky to implement (2) possibly strange inferences (3) comformance to Schema
19:12:58 <IanH> q?
19:13:07 <Rinke> IanH: all those guys are overlapping and derived from decimal
19:13:30 <Rinke> schneid: there was this idea to have overlapping value spaces, and this must have a good reason.
19:13:48 <bmotik> q+
19:13:55 <Rinke> IanH: the good reason was that logicallly speaking the double 1 should be interpreted in the same way as the integer 1
19:14:00 <alanr> or that the different 0's are different
19:14:04 <IanH> q?
19:14:17 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:14:34 <Rinke> bmotik: because of that, there is no need for owl:realPlus .. just an umbrella for the doubles etc.
19:14:39 <schneid> zakim, mute me
19:14:39 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
19:15:05 <IanH> q?
19:15:06 <Rinke> IanH: we can see how the meeting with RIF goes. It's possible to resolve this by doing what they asked us to do?
19:15:10 <bmotik> q+
19:15:18 <schneid> thanks, uli
19:15:24 <IanH> q?
19:15:28 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:15:29 <Rinke> subtopic: RIF2
19:15:29 <Rinke> IanH: what to do with RIF2 (same set of supported datatypes). They don't support some of the derived string-types.
19:15:37 <bijan> q+
19:15:39 <Rinke> bmotik: are they complaining about OWL 2 RL, or in general?
19:15:52 <Zakim> -Achille
19:15:55 <IanH> q?
19:16:01 <IanH> ack bijan
19:16:09 <Rinke> IanH: they wouldn't object to profiles to support only a subset of datatypes. I think they'd like both languages as a whole to support the same set of datatypes.
19:16:14 <alanr> q+
19:16:18 <bmotik> q+
19:16:43 <IanH> q?
19:17:12 <Rinke> bijan: we should resolve this to say that we're happy if they support all datatypes we have. I'm not convinced with the exhange argument... 
19:17:47 <Rinke> bijan: least-common denominator approach does not really match with the development of a language that allows people to express what they need to express.
19:17:51 <pfps> +1 to 1/3-full cups (+2 to 2/3-full cups)
19:18:05 <bijan> Sure
19:18:07 <ivan> q+
19:18:11 <Rinke> IanH: I understood the argument and sympathise, will put your argument forward on the OWL/RIF meeting
19:18:13 <alanr> is the cup 1/3 full or 2/3 empty?
19:18:15 <IanH> q?
19:18:19 <sandro> do you think RIF should have built-ins for rational math?
19:18:24 <bijan> I just think we need a better prima facie argument to budge
19:18:26 <IanH> q?
19:18:28 <IanH> ack alanr
19:18:34 <bijan> sandro, I don't care. That's up to them
19:19:00 <Rinke> alanr: there are two cases we may consider. Wrt the string derived types, we don't have a lot of demand for them, we could drop some of them: some negotiating room for horse trading. 
19:19:11 <bijan> Why give up what can be defined? What's the harm of having names for types that are expressively available?
19:19:11 <sandro> q?
19:19:19 <Rinke> IanH: that supports the notion that we need the same set
19:19:37 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:19:44 <Rinke> alanr: I understand bijan's point.. i have sympathy for harmonisation, see how far we can go.
19:20:04 <Rinke> bmotik: but we would need to extend our set of datatypes as well (e.g. from XQuery, and one that has to do with datetime).
19:20:10 <Rinke> bmotik: we would both need to change
19:20:17 <Rinke> IanH: would they be difficult to support
19:20:21 <Rinke> bmotik: I don't think so.
19:20:29 <Rinke> IanH: what about the issue with time zones
19:20:55 <bijan> q+
19:20:56 <Rinke> bmotik: there is a diversion with datetime as well. We are interpreting timezones in OWL in a different way as well
19:21:08 <ewallace> I think there is some confusion in RIF wg about dateTime
19:21:09 <IanH> ack ivan
19:21:24 <Rinke> IanH: we don't support XML datetime, but have a subtype with an explicit timezone.
19:22:06 <IanH> q?
19:22:06 <Rinke> ivan: we should stop the discussion now, and see where we can go from the RIF/OWL meeting. What I don't see is the issue with the rdf:text on the LC page. I haven't seen any move on this over the past few weeks.
19:22:10 <Rinke> IanH: what do you suggest?
19:22:17 <Rinke> ivan: we should have it on the LC comments page.
19:22:24 <Rinke> sandro: but rdf:text is not in last call.
19:22:35 <Rinke> ivan: oh, ok. but it may come up on the meeting with RIF
19:22:42 <IanH> q?
19:22:45 <Rinke> IanH: it seems to be a completely separate issue
19:22:55 <IanH> ack bijan
19:23:05 <Rinke> bijan: What does RIF require conformant systems to support in terms of the datatypes
19:23:12 <Rinke> bmotik: do you want a list? I can recite it...
19:23:27 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-bld/#Conformance_Clauses
19:23:27 <Rinke> bijan: I'm not clear that you have to support them all (i'm looking at conformance clauses)
19:23:35 <Rinke> IanH: take this to email?
19:23:38 <IanH> q?
19:23:43 <Rinke> bijan: i concede
19:23:54 <Rinke> IanH: discuss this by email before the meeting with RIF
19:24:18 <Rinke> subtopic: FH4
19:24:18 <Rinke> IanH: close to running out of time. Try to tackle one more of these: anonymous individuals (FH4)
19:24:25 <bijan> Clarify rationale and reject the change
19:24:31 <IanH> q?
19:24:32 <bmotik> +q
19:24:36 <pfps> +1 to bijan
19:24:44 <Rinke> IanH: Frank didn't like the new way in which we deal with anonymous individuals?
19:24:51 <msmith> +1 to bmotik, I didn't understand the comment
19:24:53 <uli> I don't
19:24:56 <Rinke> IanH: yes, bijan is right....
19:25:00 <IanH> q?
19:25:06 <Rinke> bmotik: did anyone understand the comment?
19:25:06 <bmotik> -q
19:25:09 <alanr> q+
19:25:10 <schneid> Frank talks about "deviation" of OWL 1, I believe
19:25:13 <IanH> q?
19:25:20 <Rinke> IanH: that's my feeling as well, we should clarify
19:25:35 <bmotik> +q
19:25:45 <IanH> q?
19:25:49 <IanH> ack alanr
19:26:00 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:26:01 <Rinke> alanr: I was wondering whether the anon individuals in OWL 1 had different syntax where the name wasn't mentioned. perhaps boris could think of a way to deal with this with minimal impact (Syntactic change)
19:26:20 <bijan> +1 to Boris
19:26:26 <Rinke> bmotik: there is no way to do this. I thought long and hard. This didn't play along well with the axiom based view on OWL.
19:26:26 <schneid> q+
19:26:32 <bijan> q+
19:26:36 <pfps> +1 to Boris, as well, the RDF form hasn't changed
19:26:36 <IanH> q?
19:26:44 <Rinke> IanH: we do have backwards compatibility don't we?
19:26:53 <ivan> q+
19:26:56 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
19:26:56 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
19:27:00 <bijan> q-
19:27:01 <IanH> ack schneid
19:27:10 <Rinke> bmotik: we do. It is only the problem with the Abstract syntax vs. the functional syntax.
19:27:41 <IanH> q?
19:27:42 <Rinke> schneid: I think that if he is coming more from the RDF/web view... working with anonymous individuals is very common (e.g. in foaf).
19:27:42 <alanr> on the motivation issue we can certainly response coherently
19:27:47 <IanH> ack ivan
19:27:48 <alanr> s/response/respond/
19:27:58 <bijan> q+
19:28:00 <Rinke> ivan: I am lost actually, can somebody explain in one minute what the problem is?
19:28:01 <IanH> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0037.html
19:28:09 <Rinke> IanH: it's not that easy, his email is very short. 
19:28:14 <IanH> q?
19:28:21 <IanH> ack bijan
19:28:26 <Rinke> ivan: I don't understand what problem he's responding to
19:28:32 <bmotik> In OWL 1 you had Individual( value(p "bla") )
19:28:43 <schneid> ClassAssertion(foaf:Agent _:x)
19:28:45 <schneid> PropertyAssertion(foaf:knows _:x Alice)
19:28:50 <bmotik> In OWL 2 you have PropertyAssertion( p _:1 "bla" )
19:29:03 <bmotik> It is the same from the expressivity point of view, but the syntax is different.
19:29:09 <alanr> there is also more expressivity in owl 2, no?
19:29:11 <Rinke> bijan: in OWL 1 AS anon individuals were represented using blank nodes (no node id's). We have to use node id's because of the syntax. Frank is confused by this.
19:29:15 <alanr> that's what I thought, ian
19:29:20 <schneid> We can now share
19:29:33 <schneid> the same anon in different axioms
19:29:34 <IanH> q?
19:29:35 <Rinke> IanH: isn't it so that we could deal with more RDF with this change
19:29:45 <Rinke> ivan: seems to be syntactic sugar only in the functional syntax.
19:29:57 <Rinke> bijan: seems to be about presentation, not a technical comment. 
19:29:58 <alanr> q+
19:30:00 <bijan> I can write a draft
19:30:03 <IanH> q?
19:30:06 <Rinke> IanH: probably isn't a big deal
19:30:06 <IanH> ack alanr
19:30:10 <msmith> @schneid, we can only share in careful ways (see the global restrictions)
19:30:14 <Rinke> alanr: I didn't understand that last comment 
19:30:27 <Rinke> bijan: it's not a substantive change, change in the presentation, not technical.
19:30:27 <IanH> q?
19:30:30 <schneid> ah, there was this fine print again ;-)
19:30:53 <Rinke> bijan: I explain why we make the change, it's an editorial manner.
19:31:32 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
19:31:39 <Rinke> IanH: we have to carry on with the rest of this list next week. Alan and I will discuss on how to deal with carrying forward with responding to the comments
19:31:41 <alanr> And pfps be earnest?
19:31:50 <Rinke> topic: anny additional business?
19:31:57 <Rinke> IanH: no? ok, we're done
19:31:57 <bijan> yes please!
19:32:03 <msmith> thanks all. bye
19:32:04 <Zakim> -msmith
19:32:08 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
19:32:11 <Zakim> -MarkusK_
19:32:14 <uli> bye
19:32:17 <Zhe> bye
19:32:17 <alanr> thanks everyone! Particularly Ian. No thanks to my hosts.
19:32:18 <Rinke> action: bijan to draft a response to FH1 (anonymous individuals) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0037.html
19:32:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-280 - Draft a response to FH1 (anonymous individuals) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0037.html [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-11].
19:32:18 <uli> uli has left #owl
19:32:19 <Zakim> -bmotik
19:32:22 <Zakim> - +1.603.897.aaee
19:32:23 <Zakim> -Ivan
19:32:24 <Zakim> -uli
19:32:25 <Zakim> -alanr
19:32:26 <Zakim> -christine
19:32:27 <Zakim> -bijan
19:32:27 <Zakim> -baojie
19:32:28 <Zakim> -schneid
19:32:29 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
19:32:31 <Zakim> -Sandro
19:32:33 <Zakim> -Tony
19:32:35 <Zakim> -IanH
19:32:41 <Zakim> -Rinke
19:32:42 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
19:32:43 <Zakim> Attendees were bijan, Rinke, bmotik, Evan_Wallace, Sandro, Achille, IanH, MarkusK_, schneid, +0186528aabb, uli, bcuencagrau, Ivan, alanr, +1.202.408.aadd, msmith, +1.603.897.aaee,
19:32:46 <Zakim> ... christine, +1.518.276.aaff, baojie, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Tony
19:33:17 <Rinke> RRSAgent, pointer?
19:33:17 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/02/04-owl-irc#T19-33-17
19:55:22 <MartinD> MartinD has left #OWL
21:34:56 <Zakim> Zakim has left #owl
21:37:20 <alanr> alanr has joined #owl