Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Chatlog 2009-02-11
From OWL
See original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
00:00:00 <scribenick> PRESENT: Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, IanH, bijan, bmotik (muted), Ivan, Evan_Wallace, Michael Schneider (muted), uli (muted), christine, msmith, Zhe, Achille, Bernardo, Sandro 17:58:53 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl 17:58:53 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/02/11-owl-irc 17:59:05 <schneid> schneid has joined #owl 17:59:13 <IanH> IanH has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.02.11/Agenda 17:59:25 <IanH> Zakim, this will be owlwg 17:59:25 <Zakim> ok, IanH; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 1 minute 17:59:35 <MarkusK_> MarkusK_ has joined #owl 17:59:40 <IanH> ScribeNick: bijan 17:59:49 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started 17:59:50 <pfps> pfps has joined #owl 17:59:53 <bijan> I'm wondering if someone might take over for me scribing 17:59:56 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider 18:00:02 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 18:00:06 <bijan> I've got a rather nasty headache which is making it hard to concentrate 18:00:29 <Zakim> +bmotik 18:00:30 <IanH> Do we have a volunteer to take over from Bijan? 18:00:38 <bijan> I'll do it if no one volunteers of course 18:01:04 <bmotik> bmotik has joined #owl 18:01:07 <Zakim> -bmotik 18:01:21 <Zakim> +IanH 18:01:23 <bmotik> Zakim, this will be owl 18:01:23 <Zakim> ok, bmotik, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM already started 18:01:29 <Zakim> +??P18 18:01:33 <Zakim> +bmotik 18:01:36 <bijan> zakim, ??p18 is me 18:01:36 <Zakim> +bijan; got it 18:01:37 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 18:01:38 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 18:01:40 <bijan> zakim, mute me 18:01:40 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted 18:01:41 <IanH> RRSAgent, make records public 18:01:54 <IanH> zakim, who is here? 18:01:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, IanH, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted) 18:01:57 <Zakim> On IRC I see bmotik, pfps, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, bcuencagrau, bijan, sandro, trackbot, ewallace 18:01:59 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip 18:01:59 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made 18:02:01 <Zakim> +Ivan 18:02:04 <Zakim> +bmotik.a 18:02:23 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl 18:02:26 <IanH> CAN SOMEONE TAKE OVER SCRIBING -- Bijan is unwell 18:02:29 <bijan> Topic: Admin 18:02:30 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace 18:02:40 <Zakim> -bmotik.a 18:02:41 <uli> uli has joined #owl 18:02:47 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 18:02:50 <bijan> zakim, unmute me 18:02:51 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted 18:03:00 <schneid> zakim, [IPcaller] is me 18:03:00 <Zakim> +schneid; got it 18:03:00 <Christine> Christine has joined #owl 18:03:04 <schneid> zakim, mute me 18:03:04 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted 18:03:06 <Zakim> +??P10 18:03:16 <bijan> zakim, mute me 18:03:16 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted 18:03:34 <Christine> zakim, ??P10 is christine 18:03:34 <Zakim> +christine; got it 18:03:42 <Zakim> +??P11 18:03:49 <IanH> zakim, who is here? 18:03:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, IanH, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), Ivan, Evan_Wallace, schneid (muted), christine, ??P11 18:03:51 <Zakim> On IRC I see Christine, uli, Zhe, bmotik, pfps, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, bcuencagrau, bijan, sandro, trackbot, ewallace 18:03:53 <uli> zakim, ??P11 is me 18:03:54 <Zakim> -christine 18:03:55 <Zakim> +uli; got it 18:04:01 <uli> zakim, mute me 18:04:04 <Zakim> uli should now be muted 18:04:13 <Zakim> +bmotik.a 18:04:39 <msmith> msmith has joined #owl 18:04:46 <Zakim> -bmotik.a 18:04:51 <Zakim> +??P10 18:04:55 <uli> i said i'd volunteer if need be 18:05:03 <Christine> zakim, ??P10 is christine 18:05:03 <Zakim> +christine; got it 18:05:09 <Zakim> +msmith 18:05:24 <uli> thanks, Ivan! 18:05:30 <ivan> scribenick: ivan 18:05:41 <pfps> and he's British so no worries about washing it off 18:05:45 <Zakim> + +1.603.897.aaaa 18:05:57 <Zhe> zakim, +1.603.897.aaaa is me 18:05:57 <Zakim> +Zhe; got it 18:05:58 <IanH> zakim, who is here? 18:05:59 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, IanH, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), Ivan, Evan_Wallace, schneid (muted), uli (muted), christine, msmith, Zhe 18:06:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see msmith, Christine, uli, Zhe, bmotik, pfps, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, bijan, sandro, trackbot, ewallace 18:06:10 <ivan> Topic: roll call 18:06:14 <bijan> scribe: ivan 18:06:15 <ivan> ian: agenda amendement 18:06:20 <pfps> look fine by me 18:06:25 <ivan> ian: propose to accept previous minutes 18:06:28 <ivan> peter: fine 18:06:39 <ivan> ian: resolve to accept the minutes 18:06:44 <ivan> topic: action items 18:06:55 <ivan> ian: not spend time on the pending actions 18:07:02 <ivan> ian: those four should go on... 18:07:08 <ivan> ian: due and overdue action 18:07:13 <bijan> That was closed 18:07:14 <pfps> +q 18:07:16 <bijan> He has done it 18:07:18 <ivan> ... the one on alan, I believe that is gone 18:07:19 <pfps> q- 18:07:25 <IanH> q? 18:07:47 <ivan> action 264: another one on alan 18:07:47 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 264 18:07:57 <ivan> ... he sent a mail that he would get on that soon, 18:07:59 <ewallace> 269 has been mute. 18:08:00 <ivan> ... leave it open 18:08:05 <bijan> That was mooted 18:08:07 <IanH> q? 18:08:08 <ivan> action 269 is also on alan 18:08:09 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 269 18:08:13 <bijan> Yes 18:08:17 <Christine> yes it's moote 18:08:18 <bijan> zakim, unmute me 18:08:18 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted 18:08:23 <bernardo> bernardo has joined #owl 18:08:33 <ewallace> s/mute/moot/ 18:08:33 <ivan> ewallace: that was closed last time, alan did not close it 18:08:43 <ivan> ian: number 278 18:08:47 <ivan> ... in Jie 18:08:52 <Zakim> +bmotik.a 18:08:53 <Achille> Achille has joined #owl 18:08:54 <ivan> ... but he is not here 18:09:02 <bernardo> Zakim, mute me 18:09:02 <Zakim> sorry, bernardo, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 18:09:04 <IanH> zakim, who is here? 18:09:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, IanH, bijan, bmotik (muted), Ivan, Evan_Wallace, schneid (muted), uli (muted), christine, msmith, Zhe, bmotik.a 18:09:07 <Zakim> On IRC I see Achille, bernardo, msmith, Christine, uli, Zhe, bmotik, pfps, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, bijan, sandro, trackbot, ewallace 18:09:16 <ivan> bijan: he sent a mail he set it as a pending review 18:09:31 <ivan> ian: next one 279 on bijan 18:09:33 <bernardo> for some reason Zakim is identifying me as bmotik.a no matter what I do 18:09:44 <Zakim> +[IBM] 18:09:48 <ivan> bijan: the unicode site was down, i will do it tomorrow 18:10:00 <ivan> Topic: f2f 18:10:08 <Achille> Zakim, ibm is me 18:10:08 <Zakim> +Achille; got it 18:10:08 <ivan> ian: there is an agenda available 18:10:11 <IanH> q? 18:10:12 <pfps> agenda looks fine (and packed) 18:10:13 <ivan> ... comments? 18:10:31 <ivan> topic: announcements on xsd 1.1. being on last call 18:10:37 <ivan> ian: they are looking for comments 18:10:44 <ivan> ... we probably should make some review on that 18:10:44 <pfps> q+ 18:10:47 <IanH> q? 18:10:51 <ivan> ... even if we like it 18:10:53 <IanH> ack pfps 18:11:03 <Zakim> +Sandro 18:11:03 <ivan> pfps: i sent a message to the wg, i suggest they done the right thing 18:11:08 <IanH> q? 18:11:37 <ivan> ... there are not many changes, but the ones we wanted are correct 18:11:44 <ivan> ian: did you suggest a response? 18:11:48 <msmith> this is the new builtin type for us http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#dateTimeStamp 18:11:58 <bijan> It looks like ACTION-272 is pending review in spite of its tracker status 18:12:01 <ivan> ... let us look at the response off line and next week we can decide 18:12:12 <bijan> See: <http://www.w3.org/mid/b0ed1d660902091219r5b80f5a6mbaede7cd7faf7e59@mail.gmail.com> 18:12:14 <ivan> (that I cannot scribe) 18:12:41 <ivan> pfps: the changes take care of our things, we can now point at the xml schema, and remove our own stuff 18:12:53 <sandro> q? 18:12:57 <ivan> IanH: we have to make this comment after the f2f, we have time 18:13:09 <ewallace> Can we at least give a nod to Peter's proposed response 18:13:28 <ivan> action pfps: to send out a respoinse after the f2f 18:13:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-281 - Send out a respoinse after the f2f [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2009-02-18]. 18:13:32 <sandro> q+ to ask about wording on disjointness of value spaces 18:13:41 <ivan> s/respoinse/response/ 18:13:50 <IanH> q? 18:13:55 <IanH> ack sandro 18:13:55 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask about wording on disjointness of value spaces 18:14:09 <ivan> sandro: did peter look at the way on the disjointness of value spaces, whether it is muddy 18:14:15 <ewallace> 1.1 18:14:21 <ivan> pfps: there is no change vs the previous version 18:14:53 <ivan> pfps: they are quite clear that as far as datastructuring is concerned... 18:15:36 <ivan> sandro: do we have any useful feedback on our issues and the answer is no 18:15:47 <sandro> (the answer from Peter, that is.) 18:16:07 <IanH> q? 18:16:08 <pfps> in the current XML LC, "2.0"^^xsd:decimal and "2.0"^^xsd:float are distinct data structures, and thus not equal 18:16:10 <ivan> topic: test cases 18:16:27 <ivan> IanH: it is fairly important 18:16:34 <bijan> q+ 18:16:44 <IanH> q? 18:16:45 <pfps> the XML schema document says that applications can choose to use other equalities, for example to make the about 2.0's equal 18:16:45 <msmith> q+ 18:16:49 <ivan> ... there was a discussioni on email that many owl 1 cases are brokent because they lack the ontology header 18:16:52 <IanH> q? 18:16:54 <IanH> ack bijan 18:17:16 <ivan> bijan: the old thing was incorrect, those were labelled as dl and they were in fact not 18:17:30 <ivan> ... because they did not have the header 18:17:31 <IanH> ack msmith 18:17:34 <IanH> q? 18:17:44 <ivan> msmith: there are about 130 test cases like this 18:17:53 <ivan> ... i would modify these adding a header 18:18:10 <IanH> q? 18:18:11 <ivan> ... or just say these are not dl but it would be better to add the headers 18:18:26 <schneid> wasn't it allowed to have a bnode as the subject of the header? would simplify things 18:18:28 <ivan> bijan: maybe we should post an errata that the test cases were incorrect 18:18:29 <msmith> action msmith: to add an ontology header and a comment to each of the test cases from WebOnt that are prevented from being syntactically OWL 2 DL only be the absence of this header 18:18:29 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - msmith 18:18:32 <ivan> q+ 18:18:38 <IanH> q? 18:18:41 <IanH> ack ivan 18:18:44 <pfps> in OWL 1, the translation to triples includes an rdf:type owl:Ontology triple 18:18:55 <msmith> action michaelsm: to add an ontology header and a comment to each of the test cases from WebOnt that are prevented from being syntactically OWL 2 DL only be the absence of this header 18:18:55 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - michaelsm 18:19:04 <pfps> +1 to Bijan 18:19:09 <IanH> q? 18:19:10 <MarkusK_> +1 18:19:11 <msmith> action mismith: to add an ontology header and a comment to each of the test cases from WebOnt that are prevented from being syntactically OWL 2 DL only be the absence of this header 18:19:11 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - mismith 18:19:21 <pfps> +1 to issue an Errata (formally) 18:19:28 <IanH> q? 18:20:00 <sandro> action: smith: testing 18:20:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-282 - Testing [on Michael Smith - due 2009-02-18]. 18:20:08 <msmith> sure 18:20:18 <sandro> action-282 closed 18:20:18 <trackbot> ACTION-282 Testing closed 18:20:49 <ivan> topic: look at last call comments 18:21:03 <msmith> action smith: to add an ontology header and a comment to each of the test cases from WebOnt that are prevented from being syntactically OWL 2 DL only be the absence of this header and create content for errata on webont tests 18:21:03 <trackbot> Created ACTION-283 - Add an ontology header and a comment to each of the test cases from WebOnt that are prevented from being syntactically OWL 2 DL only be the absence of this header and create content for errata on webont tests [on Michael Smith - due 2009-02-18]. 18:21:04 <ivan> IanH: i sent a mail on dealing this is a bit like we dealt with actions 18:21:31 <ivan> ... we would have responses ready to send, and there is an assumption that they are fine unless somebody complains 18:21:36 <IanH> q? 18:21:42 <Christine> +q 18:21:44 <ivan> IanH: is that o.k. with this? 18:21:48 <IanH> q? 18:21:52 <IanH> ack Christine 18:22:27 <ivan> Christine: i want to say i disagree with one sentence, we have higher priorities this time, so I will make proposals later on the features doucment 18:22:50 <ivan> IanH: yes, we should get the lc comments done first 18:23:09 <ivan> IanH: jh1 is accepted and can go 18:23:15 <bijan> Jump to resolved 18:23:50 <ivan> action bijan: send a response to jh1 comment 18:23:50 <trackbot> Created ACTION-284 - Send a response to jh1 comment [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-18]. 18:24:13 <schneid> why doesn't the chair just write "RESOLVED: ..." for an LC comment put on the road? 18:24:20 <ivan> IanH: next bunch are those that require more discussion 18:24:40 <ivan> bijan: i think the unicode one is almost finished 18:24:52 <ivan> ... my understanding is that as soon as it is finished i can send it 18:25:11 <ivan> ian: anyone opposing to md1 to be sent? 18:25:17 <schneid> (ok, creating an ACTION is even better) 18:25:21 <IanH> q? 18:25:29 <ivan> action bijan: send out response to md1 comment 18:25:29 <trackbot> Created ACTION-285 - Send out response to md1 comment [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-18]. 18:25:39 <IanH> q? 18:25:51 <ivan> IanH: vh4 18:25:58 <IanH> FH4 18:26:24 <ivan> IanH: this is addressing with lot of discussion on how we deal with anonymous individuals 18:26:30 <ivan> ... he did not like the new way 18:26:32 <ivan> q+ 18:26:38 <IanH> q? 18:26:41 <IanH> ack ivan 18:27:24 <bijan> ivan: Bijan's comment is great, but knowing Frank, it's difficult for me to believe that he'd make such a silly comment. So I agreed that I'd talk to Frank. 18:27:30 <bijan> q+ 18:27:33 <IanH> q? 18:27:56 <IanH> ack bijan 18:28:08 <schneid> q+ 18:28:17 <msmith> q+ 18:28:30 <schneid> zakim, unmute me 18:28:30 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted 18:28:33 <IanH> ack schneid 18:28:46 <ivan> schneid: what ivan wants to do can also be done by sending it out 18:29:10 <IanH> q? 18:29:14 <ivan> IanH: as he ivan will be there tomorrow why not trying to kill it as one iteration 18:29:14 <schneid> zakim, mute me 18:29:14 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted 18:29:15 <IanH> ack msmith 18:29:18 <IanH> q? 18:29:50 <ivan> msmith: even if it is clarified, there is probably value to consider the answer the way bijan wrote it because others may have misunderstood it the same way 18:29:55 <IanH> q? 18:30:00 <bijan> q+ 18:30:02 <ivan> IanH: should we have a better explanation in the document 18:30:03 <bijan> zakim, unmute me 18:30:03 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan 18:30:05 <IanH> ack bijan 18:30:24 <ivan> bijan: what level of granularity do we want to describe thigns 18:30:27 <Christine> +q 18:30:29 <schneid> schneid: as an alternative to first asking Frank, we can send the mail out and wait for Franks answer; this matches the official process 18:30:32 <ivan> ... maybe in the new features is the right place 18:30:42 <ivan> ... we have no other place to put it now 18:31:01 <ivan> ... general design decisions are not documented yet 18:31:02 <IanH> q? 18:31:10 <ivan> ... do we really want to document things on that level? 18:31:14 <ivan> q+ 18:31:43 <ivan> Christine: bijan said what i would propose, there are general design decisions that are not documented 18:31:58 <IanH> ack Christine 18:32:04 <ivan> ... before the first draft publications i discussed with some members 18:32:15 <IanH> q? 18:32:17 <IanH> ack ivan 18:32:32 <Christine> +q 18:32:47 <bijan> But this isn't a difference between OWL 1 and OWL 2 18:32:54 <bijan> but in OWL 1's *spec* and OWL 2's spec! 18:33:05 <bijan> q+ 18:33:07 <IanH> q? 18:33:53 <IanH> ack Christine 18:34:25 <ivan> Christine: we can do that in due time, we can list the general specific points, when we can know which one we want to document 18:34:31 <IanH> ack bijan 18:35:02 <ivan> bijan: we used to have an appendix on similar things but we removed it for some person's objection... 18:35:23 <ivan> IanH: we will have a section on the f2f on general documentation issues 18:35:40 <ivan> IanH: i made a list of last call comments that require policy discussions 18:36:05 <ivan> ... first of those is that we were not very consistent on how we use the terms owl, owl full, owl dl, etc 18:36:07 <IanH> q? 18:36:14 <bijan> I propose that we use OWL 2 for OWL DL. 18:36:18 <ivan> ... there was a proposal sent round based on a discussion ivan and I had 18:36:21 <IanH> q? 18:36:25 <ivan> ... anyone looked at that? 18:36:32 <pfps> +1 18:36:32 <bijan> q+ 18:36:35 <ewallace> q+ 18:36:36 <ivan> ... if nobody wants to discuss it... 18:36:42 <IanH> ack bijan 18:36:53 <ivan> bijan: insert all sorts of dl-s and full-s everywhere? 18:37:17 <ivan> IanH: not only, there is a section in the syntax document that list all the strings that are required on ontology structures 18:37:39 <ivan> ... we have to work on that part to make it clear to describe which strings you have to have owl dl 18:38:00 <ewallace> q- 18:38:01 <IanH> q? 18:38:04 <ivan> ... we have to take a close look when we were really considering dl 18:38:09 <ivan> q+ 18:38:18 <IanH> ack ivan 18:38:30 <bmotik> q+ 18:38:39 <IanH> q? 18:38:40 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me 18:38:40 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted 18:38:43 <IanH> ack bmotik 18:38:58 <ivan> bmotik: at a highl level it looks good, the devil is in the details 18:39:06 <ivan> ... doing it by email is rather difficult 18:39:17 <ivan> ... i would do some slides for the f2f 18:39:29 <IanH> q? 18:39:32 <ivan> ... i have a clear idea, but i would like to present to you in person 18:39:42 <ivan> IanH: ivan cannot travel for the f2f 18:39:55 <ivan> ... so we have to schedule it for the first half of the day 18:40:05 <ivan> ... so that ivan should be around at least remotely 18:41:55 <bmotik> q+ 18:41:59 <IanH> q? 18:42:02 <IanH> ack bmotik 18:42:21 <ivan> bmotik: i thought a starter as a discussion and circulate the slides before the f2f 18:42:29 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 18:42:29 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 18:43:03 <IanH> q? 18:43:04 <bijan> No 18:43:09 <bijan> q+ 18:43:18 <ivan> IanH: the second on of these is the comment from rm1 18:43:19 <schneid> would lead to a slight BW issue... 18:43:24 <IanH> q? 18:43:27 <IanH> ack bijan 18:43:33 <ivan> ... the default would be to say that this cannot be done 18:43:43 <ivan> bijan: it breaks backward compatibility! 18:43:45 <schneid> q+ 18:43:49 <msmith> sounds great 18:43:50 <schneid> zakim, unmute me 18:43:50 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted 18:43:50 <IanH> q? 18:43:50 <ivan> IanH: that is a good reason to me 18:43:57 <IanH> ack schneid 18:44:16 <ivan> schneid: it would also make it pretty useless, you cannot have keyword, you cannot tag anything 18:44:17 <bernardo> I think the backwards compatibility is more than enough 18:44:25 <IanH> q? 18:44:34 <ivan> bijan: you are right, but just to make it non-starter for procedural reason make it simple 18:44:36 <schneid> zakim, mute me 18:44:36 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted 18:44:38 <pfps> +1 to the end 18:44:41 <IanH> q? 18:45:13 <IanH> q? 18:45:15 <schneid> ok 18:45:44 <schneid> alright 18:45:48 <ivan> action bijan: respond to rm1 along these lines of procedural problems 18:45:49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-286 - Respond to rm1 along these lines of procedural problems [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-18]. 18:46:04 <schneid> no, action on schneid 18:46:27 <ivan> close action 286 18:46:33 <sandro> action-286 closed 18:46:33 <trackbot> ACTION-286 Respond to rm1 along these lines of procedural problems closed 18:47:36 <ivan> IanH: next item was from bp1 18:47:39 <IanH> q? 18:47:55 <pfps> huh? 18:47:56 <ivan> bijan: people in different lists asked to have a name for an axiom 18:48:00 <sandro> action: michael Respond to rm1 along these lines of procedural problems 18:48:00 <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - michael 18:48:00 <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. msmith9, mschneid, msintek) 18:48:11 <sandro> action: mschneid Respond to rm1 along these lines of procedural problems 18:48:11 <trackbot> Created ACTION-287 - Respond to rm1 along these lines of procedural problems [on Michael Schneider - due 2009-02-18]. 18:48:13 <pfps> this is not BP1 18:48:14 <ivan> ... they were asking for standard generation of names, but that is too hard 18:48:26 <ivan> ... but m'ter people just wanted to have a standard place to hook it in 18:48:51 <ivan> ... instead of using annotation, there would be some 'axiom name' in a standard way 18:48:52 <pfps> NO! 18:49:31 <bijan> BP3 18:49:36 <ivan> general screw up, this was the description of bp3... 18:49:44 <pfps> BP3 is not on the agenda 18:50:05 <pfps> q+ 18:50:07 <ivan> IanH: it seems like an easy thing to do as another built in annotation property 18:50:07 <IanH> q? 18:50:12 <IanH> ack pfps 18:50:18 <msmith> q+ to ask about size of changes to syntax 18:50:20 <ewallace> can we have a pointer? 18:50:26 <IanH> q? 18:50:29 <ivan> pfps: i will hold my nose... but we are heading down on the road of good intentions... 18:50:39 <IanH> ack msmith 18:50:39 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to ask about size of changes to syntax 18:51:04 <msmith> +1 to this proposal 18:51:07 <pfps> no syntax change - only change to documents is to add owl:xxxx as an annotation property 18:51:13 <IanH> q? 18:51:15 <ivan> msmith: the syntax structure would not change at all, but just have one more annotation property defined for that purpose 18:51:25 <ivan> 0 18:52:36 <ivan> action bijan: propose a change on the documents 18:52:36 <trackbot> Created ACTION-288 - Propose a change on the documents [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-18]. 18:52:52 <ivan> IanH: now we can go back to bp1 18:52:59 <ivan> bijan: this one is more complicated... 18:53:02 <IanH> q? 18:53:35 <ivan> ... it would be nice to have a standard way to mark particular axioms to be invisible to the reasoners 18:53:39 <IanH> q? 18:53:41 <schneid> q+ 18:53:52 <ivan> ... old version of the axioms, alternative reasoning, etc 18:54:03 <msmith> We are discussing this LC Comment: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0100.html 18:54:16 <ivan> ... each syntax has a textual comment, but we cannot rely on tools really looking at them 18:54:31 <ivan> ... we cannot publish a document with the old versions of the axioms 18:54:47 <IanH> q? 18:54:55 <ivan> ... this is the need 18:55:03 <schneid> zakim, unmute me 18:55:03 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted 18:55:05 <bmotik> q+ 18:55:09 <pfps> q+ 18:55:10 <ivan> ... ability to hide axioms from reasoners but not from the structural model 18:55:10 <IanH> ack schneid 18:55:44 <IanH> q? 18:55:47 <ivan> schneid: when you have an ontology understandable on the owl1 and you add these to it and you have to use owl 2 systems to understand 18:56:09 <ivan> bijan: to requirement is to hide axioms that survive the syntax conversions 18:56:21 <ivan> IanH: but they would not work with owl 1, right 18:56:23 <IanH> q? 18:56:29 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me 18:56:29 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted 18:56:33 <ivan> schneid: there would be interoperability problems 18:56:33 <schneid> zakim, mute me 18:56:33 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted 18:56:37 <IanH> ack bmotik 18:56:48 <bijan> q+ 18:56:59 <sandro> q+ to ask why not just put the "old stuff" in another document? 18:57:00 <ivan> bmotik: i worry that annotation become a catch-all for everything, like alan rector's requirements, now having this request 18:57:00 <pfps> q+ 18:57:06 <ivan> ... i am scared for all this 18:57:16 <ivan> ... i understand that applications would want this 18:57:30 <ivan> ... but having that with annotations for this... 18:57:36 <IanH> q? 18:57:39 <ivan> ... that is leading us out of scope 18:57:40 <schneid> q+ 18:57:42 <IanH> ack pfps 18:57:47 <ivan> pfps: that takes us to hell:-( 18:58:07 <IanH> q? 18:58:11 <IanH> ack bijan 18:58:25 <IanH> q? 18:58:31 <ivan> bijan: there was a stronger comment from m'ter for all of these and I tried to break it down into separate concerns 18:58:53 <ivan> bijan: i want reiterate is that it is not necessarily annotation 18:59:04 <IanH> q? 18:59:40 <ivan> ... alternatively in an xml syntax we use xml commenting with a special initial tag like ---AXIOM---, in the m'ter syntax we can use the same approach 18:59:52 <pfps> q+ 18:59:55 <ivan> ... the parsing model should take these into the structural model 19:00:09 <ivan> ... this is one solution and answer the objections thus far... 19:00:29 <ivan> IanH: it would help to have a more specific proposal off line, it is difficult to understand the details 19:00:31 <IanH> q? 19:00:40 <ivan> bijan: if the wg is open to that, i am happy to 19:00:41 <IanH> ack sandro 19:00:41 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask why not just put the "old stuff" in another document? 19:00:44 <IanH> q? 19:00:59 <ivan> sandro: all the solutions i can think of do not work for me 19:01:09 <ivan> ... except using another another file 19:01:28 <IanH> q? 19:01:32 <schneid> zakim, unmute me 19:01:32 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted 19:01:37 <IanH> ack schneid 19:02:16 <IanH> ack pfps 19:02:16 <schneid> zakim, mute me 19:02:17 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted 19:02:19 <ivan> schneid: if this is outside the normal set of axioms than my argument is moot, but if it is mapped back into the rdf mapping then it is impossible to handle that with a full reasoner, they do more inferencing not less 19:02:33 <IanH> q? 19:02:49 <ivan> pfps: a translation to rdf should also be worked out with full reasoning working properly as well 19:03:19 <IanH> q? 19:03:20 <ivan> IanH: it might be useful to have a straw poll whether bijan should go and work out a full proposal 19:03:33 <Christine> +q 19:03:50 <Christine> +q 19:03:53 <IanH> q? 19:04:04 <Christine> +q 19:04:11 <IanH> q? 19:04:15 <IanH> ack Christine 19:04:15 <sandro> ack Christine 19:05:01 <ivan> Christine: a general comment, this seems to be a very specific need, we should weight the benefit between this generic need and keep the spec less complex 19:05:14 <sandro> strawpoll: is it likely we'll change OWL2 in some way to provide a solution here, some way to keep axioms around but not accessible to the reasoner? 19:05:21 <ivan> ... bijan can surely propose a solution but the document would become too complex 19:05:31 <pfps> -1 19:05:32 <ewallace> +1 on Bijan providing a proposal 19:05:33 <sandro> -1 19:05:33 <ivan> -1 19:05:37 <bijan> +1 19:05:38 <schneid> -0.9 19:05:41 <MarkusK_> 0 19:05:43 <bernardo> 0 19:05:44 <uli> 0 19:05:44 <Achille> 0 19:05:47 <msmith> +1 19:05:51 <IanH> -1 19:05:53 <Christine> lost irc 19:06:02 <Zhe> 0 19:06:23 <sandro> Christine: 0 or -1 19:06:25 <ivan> 0 for Christine 19:06:51 <ivan> IanH: apathy or negative seems to carry... 19:07:06 <ivan> bijan: it seems that the wg will not accept it 19:07:27 <ivan> ... i propose to answer to that person that the group cannot properly do it... 19:07:37 <IanH> q? 19:08:49 <sandro> PROPOSED: Re comment BP-1 the WG does not expect to provide any change to OWL2 to support this use case. We hope the commenter is able to find a suitable work-around. 19:08:58 <IanH> +1 19:09:00 <sandro> +1 19:09:01 <ivan> +1 19:09:07 <bernardo> +1 19:09:09 <Zhe> +1 19:09:09 <Achille> +1 19:09:09 <MarkusK_> +1 19:09:10 <ewallace> 0 19:09:11 <bijan> 0 19:09:12 <msmith> +! 19:09:13 <schneid> +1 19:09:15 <pfps> +1 19:09:18 <bmotik> +1 19:09:23 <bijan> -1 19:09:31 <uli> 0 19:10:14 <sandro> Bijan: I'm opposed, but I wont formally object 19:10:22 <sandro> RESOLVED: Re comment BP-1 the WG does not expect to provide any change to OWL2 to support this use case. We hope the commenter is able to find a suitable work-around. 19:10:56 <ivan> IanH: one thing i wanted to settle: asking people to take on the job of answering some of the easy cases 19:11:02 <ivan> ... to get people work in parallel 19:11:16 <ivan> ... alan and i went through the list with the easy ones 19:12:42 <IanH> q? 19:12:44 <schneid> zakim, unmute me 19:12:44 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted 19:12:49 <IanH> ack schneid 19:12:59 <IanH> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0006.html 19:13:02 <bijan> zakim, mute me 19:13:02 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted 19:13:38 <bmotik> q+ 19:14:03 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me 19:14:03 <Zakim> bmotik was not muted, bmotik 19:14:08 <IanH> q? 19:14:44 <christine> christine has joined #owl 19:14:46 <IanH> ack bmotik 19:15:28 <ivan> bmotik: we do not expect to resolve for next week, but maybe schneid and me could talk about ms2 at the f2f 19:15:41 <bijan> This is totally editorial and a message saying that is great 19:15:41 <ivan> (scribe gave up) 19:15:58 <schneid> zakim, mute me 19:15:58 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted 19:16:52 <msmith> q+ 19:17:00 <IanH> q? 19:17:04 <IanH> ack msmith 19:17:07 <pfps> the answer is known 19:18:10 <schneid> zakim, unmute me 19:18:10 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted 19:18:22 <IanH> q? 19:18:22 <schneid> q+ 19:18:30 <IanH> ack schneid 19:19:28 <IanH> q? 19:20:04 <IanH> q? 19:20:13 <IanH> q? 19:20:36 <schneid> zakim, mute me 19:20:36 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted 19:20:52 <bmotik> q+ 19:21:15 <schneid> schneid: currently, we use the term "lexical value", but OWL 1 and RDF uses the term "lexical form" 19:21:35 <schneid> schneid: in addition, boris pointed out that the XSD spec uses "lexical representation" 19:21:36 <pfps> yes 19:21:40 <IanH> q? 19:21:49 <IanH> ack bmotik 19:22:28 <schneid> zakim, unmute me 19:22:28 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted 19:23:03 <schneid> zakim, mute me 19:23:03 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted 19:23:47 <bijan> I lost track 19:23:52 <bijan> zakim, unmute me 19:23:52 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted 19:23:59 <IanH> q? 19:24:04 <schneid> schneid: I am still prefering "lexical /form/", since our notion of datatypes is not restricted to XSD datatypes, so it is not mandatory that we take the terminology from XSD 19:24:04 <ivan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0040.html 19:24:56 <bmotik> q+ 19:25:33 <ivan> q+ 19:25:33 <pfps> yes 19:25:40 <IanH> q? 19:25:45 <IanH> ack bmotik 19:26:29 <IanH> q? 19:26:32 <IanH> ack ivan 19:27:59 <uli> sure 19:28:40 <pfps> yes 19:28:41 <Zakim> -schneid 19:29:26 <IanH> q? 19:29:38 <pfps> :-) 19:30:28 <pfps> yes 19:31:18 <uli> zakim, unmute me 19:31:18 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted 19:31:30 <IanH> q? 19:31:41 <uli> zakim, mute me 19:31:43 <Zakim> uli should now be muted 19:32:04 <IanH> q? 19:32:11 <IanH> q? 19:32:28 <IanH> q? 19:32:38 <bijan> I have a question about [62] 19:32:47 <bmotik> q+ 19:32:50 <IanH> q? 19:32:54 <bijan> q+ 19:32:55 <IanH> ack bmotik 19:32:57 <IanH> q? 19:33:04 <IanH> ack bmotik 19:33:48 <IanH> q? 19:33:51 <pfps> the Wiki keeps track of diffs - everyone should mark their changes correctly 19:33:53 <IanH> ack bijan 19:34:01 <ewallace> me too 19:34:14 <IanH> q? 19:34:52 <IanH> q? 19:35:09 <Zhe> bye 19:35:09 <Zakim> -bmotik.a 19:35:13 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace 19:35:17 <Zakim> -bijan 19:35:20 <Zakim> -MarkusK_ 19:35:21 <Zakim> -msmith 19:35:24 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider 19:35:25 <Zakim> -Achille 19:35:28 <Zakim> -Zhe 19:35:30 <Zakim> -bmotik 19:35:31 <Zakim> -uli 19:35:33 <Zakim> -christine 19:35:37 <Zakim> -Sandro 19:38:03 <Zakim> -Ivan 19:38:04 <Zakim> -IanH 19:38:04 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended 19:38:06 <ivan> ivan has left #owl 19:38:07 <Zakim> Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, bmotik, IanH, bijan, Ivan, Evan_Wallace, schneid, christine, uli, msmith, Zhe, Achille, Sandro 20:12:43 <uli> uli has left #owl 20:23:02 <msmith> msmith has left #owl 21:52:31 <Zakim> Zakim has left #owl