Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.

Chatlog 2009-02-18

From OWL
Jump to: navigation, search

See original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

17:45:19 <scribenick> PRESENT: bijan (muted), MarkusK_, ratnesh, Alan Ruttenberg, bmotik (muted), pfps, Achille, Sandro, IanH, msmith, Elisa_Kendall, Zhe, Bernardo (muted), Ivan, uli (muted), Michael schneider, Evan, MartinD, Antoine Zimmermann, Jie Bao
17:45:19 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:45:19 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/02/18-owl-irc
17:45:34 <bijan> bijan has left #owl
17:46:28 <bijan> bijan has joined #owl
17:46:36 <bijan> zakim, this is owl
17:46:36 <Zakim> bijan, Team_(owlc)16:58Z is already associated with an irc channel; use 'move owl to here' if you mean to reassociate the channel
17:48:48 <bijan> zakim, this will be owlwg
17:48:48 <Zakim> ok, bijan; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 12 minutes
17:48:56 <bijan> ScribeNick: bijan
17:49:02 <bijan> RRSAgent, make records public
17:50:16 <pfps> pfps has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.02.18/Agenda
17:55:56 <zimmer> zimmer has joined #owl
17:56:15 <zimmer> Hi everybody!
17:56:41 <ratnesh> ratnesh has joined #owl
17:56:49 <bmotik> bmotik has joined #owl
17:57:20 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
17:57:27 <Zakim> +??P2
17:57:41 <bijan> zakim, ??P2 is  me
17:57:41 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
17:58:14 <MarkusK_> MarkusK_ has joined #owl
17:59:37 <bmotik> Zakim, this will be owl
17:59:37 <Zakim> ok, bmotik, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM already started
17:59:45 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:59:46 <Zakim> +??P7
17:59:55 <Bernardo> Bernardo has joined #owl
18:00:01 <Zakim> +Alan
18:00:06 <Achille> Achille has joined #owl
18:00:15 <ratnesh> zakim, ??P7 is me
18:00:15 <Zakim> +ratnesh; got it
18:00:25 <Zakim> +bmotik
18:00:28 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:00:28 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:00:30 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:00:30 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:00:33 <elisa> elisa has joined #owl
18:00:39 <bijan> yes
18:00:42 <zimmer> zakim, ??P7 is me
18:00:42 <Zakim> I already had ??P7 as ratnesh, zimmer
18:00:45 <Zakim> +pfps
18:00:57 <Zakim> +[IBM]
18:01:18 <Zakim> +Sandro
18:01:29 <Zakim> +bmotik.a
18:01:39 <Bernardo> Zakim bmotik.a is me
18:01:58 <Bernardo> Zakim, mute me
18:01:58 <Zakim> sorry, Bernardo, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
18:02:05 <Zakim> +IanH
18:02:19 <Zakim> -bmotik.a
18:02:30 <zimmer> Ratnesh and I are both on P7
18:02:32 <Zakim> +msmith
18:02:41 <msmith> msmith has joined #owl
18:03:22 <ivan> ivan has joined #owl
18:03:33 <bmotik> Zakim, bmotik.a is Bernardo
18:03:33 <Zakim> sorry, bmotik, I do not recognize a party named 'bmotik.a'
18:03:40 <uli> uli has joined #owl
18:03:42 <Zakim> +Elisa_Kendall
18:03:51 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl
18:04:20 <Zakim> +Zhe
18:04:27 <alanr> there was a "-bmotik.a" bernardo
18:04:32 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
18:04:32 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
18:04:33 <Zakim> +bmotik.a
18:04:34 <Zakim> +Ivan
18:04:39 <schneid> schneid has joined #owl
18:04:45 <Zakim> +??P24
18:04:48 <Bernardo> Zakim, bmotik.a is Bernardo
18:04:48 <Zakim> +Bernardo; got it
18:04:52 <uli> zakim, ??P24 is me
18:04:52 <Zakim> +uli; got it
18:04:56 <Bernardo> Zakim, mute me
18:04:56 <Zakim> Bernardo should now be muted
18:04:56 <uli> zakim, mute me
18:04:57 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
18:04:59 <Zakim> +??P25
18:05:05 <schneid> zakim, ??P25 is me
18:05:05 <Zakim> +schneid; got it
18:05:09 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:05:09 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:05:21 <ewallace> ewallace has joined #owl
18:05:28 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
18:05:30 <alanr> zakim, who is here?
18:05:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), MarkusK_, ratnesh, Alan, bmotik (muted), pfps, [IBM], Sandro, IanH, msmith, Elisa_Kendall, Zhe, Bernardo (muted), Ivan, uli (muted), schneid
18:05:34 <Zakim> ... (muted), Evan_Wallace
18:05:35 <Zakim> On IRC I see ewallace, schneid, Zhe, uli, ivan, msmith, elisa, Achille, Bernardo, MarkusK_, bmotik, ratnesh, zimmer, bijan, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, MartinD, alanr, IanH, sandro,
18:05:37 <Zakim> ... trackbot
18:06:00 <bijan> Alan: Agenda amendments? No? Ok
18:06:07 <bijan> Alan: Previous minutes
18:06:15 <bijan> zakim,  unmute me
18:06:15 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
18:06:31 <pfps> action 288 doesn't make sense
18:06:31 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 288
18:06:36 <uli> ivan
18:06:58 <pfps> anyone can do the fixup
18:07:12 <pfps> only a few minor problems
18:07:27 <bijan> approve with revisions?
18:07:37 <bijan> PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (11 February) (with minor clean up)
18:07:43 <pfps> fine by me
18:07:58 <bijan> RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes (11 February) (with minor clean up)
18:08:07 <pfps> q+
18:08:07 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:08:08 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:08:11 <alanr> ack pfps
18:08:27 <schneid>  it was only a draft
18:08:55 <schneid> because the action is wrong
18:08:57 <bijan> pfps: Action 287 is not done as written
18:09:16 <bijan> alanr: We read it differently.
18:09:22 <bijan> pfps: Let's change the action text so it is done
18:09:23 <pfps> change action to correspond to what happened
18:09:28 <bijan> IanH:  doing it
18:09:38 <bijan> Oh wait
18:09:42 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:09:42 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
18:10:38 <pfps> there should be a pointer to the rdf:text wiki from our page
18:10:59 <msmith> msmith: action 283 is partially done (the ontology header has been added), but not complete.  I updated it in tracker with status and pushed the date.
18:11:09 <bijan> some chatter involving the scribe wrt 278; bijan will add the new unicode reference and tell jie
18:11:10 <pfps> by the way, the action tracker is bad about interpreting IRIs - don't use (IRI)
18:11:34 <bijan> refresh the agenda
18:11:40 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:11:40 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
18:11:44 <alanr> "Propose a change on the documents"
18:12:39 <bijan> IanH: That's clarified and will be posponed
18:12:49 <bijan> alanr: F2F on mon and tues...questions?
18:13:10 <bijan> elisa: What about dialin?
18:13:17 <bijan> sandro: I'll figure that out and send instructions
18:13:38 <pfps> q+
18:13:41 <bijan> Topic: Last Call Comments 
18:13:43 <alanr> ack pfps
18:13:54 <uli> you?
18:14:01 <alanr> zakim, mute me
18:14:01 <Zakim> sorry, alanr, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
18:14:01 <uli> i don't
18:14:04 <sandro> zakim, who is talking?
18:14:15 <Zakim> sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pfps (52%), Sandro (10%), IanH (4%), Ivan (18%)
18:14:48 <bijan> pfps: What about 51? Is it ready to send?
18:14:54 <schneid> q+
18:14:58 <sandro> maybe ivan causing the echo.
18:14:58 <bijan> pfps: I'm not happn. I'll kill your dog.
18:15:04 <bijan> s/happn/happy
18:15:06 <IanH> It's a fair comment -- sorry.
18:15:58 <bijan> pfps: I prepared a lot based on the agenda sent yesterday. What are we doing now? I'm very very very UPSET
18:16:14 <bijan> alanr: I don't know want to say beyond "sorry".
18:16:19 <ElisaKendall> ElisaKendall has joined #owl
18:16:24 <bijan> pfps: I suppose we muddle on as best as possible.
18:17:21 <bijan> pfps: Listen alanr, I am *not* happy. This is not the right way to run a working group. I expect consideration in other cases in return for my consideration here.
18:17:31 <schneid> q+
18:17:37 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:17:37 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:17:39 <alanr> ack schneid
18:17:52 <baojie> baojie has joined #owl
18:18:09 <bijan> alanr: "Responses ready to send" are uncontroversial and should go out
18:18:11 <ElisaKendall_> ElisaKendall_ has joined #owl
18:18:22 <ivan> zakim, mute me
18:18:22 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
18:18:33 <baojie> Sorry for being late. and I can only join IRC.
18:18:41 <IanH> q?
18:18:47 <IanH> q+
18:18:47 <pfps> q+
18:18:52 <bijan> schneid: I disagree esp. on mine, RMI51/1, because it's too early to send. We need to have a slight discussion.
18:19:00 <alanr> ack ianh
18:19:16 <bijan> alanr: I understand that we had a discussion last week on functional properties
18:19:43 <alanr> ack pfps
18:19:46 <bijan> IanH:  I recall deciding it last week and schneid tasked with answering it
18:19:47 <bijan> q+
18:20:38 <bijan> pfps: In prep for this meeting, I went through every response and judged them. This is a WG. We do work. If no one puts their hand up...it goes.
18:20:47 <bijan> schneid: I just wrote it yesterday
18:20:57 <alanr> ack bijan
18:20:59 <bijan> pfps: I read it yesterday and I touch back on the advance agenda
18:21:02 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:21:02 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:21:04 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:21:04 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
18:21:30 <schneid> it's fine by me in this case
18:21:35 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:21:35 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:21:44 <bijan> I read it too, and it was fine
18:21:49 <IanH> q+
18:21:55 <alanr> ack ianh
18:22:05 <bijan> alanr: The responses ready to send should be sent
18:22:06 <bijan> q+
18:22:11 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:22:11 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
18:22:16 <alanr> ack bijan
18:22:59 <pfps> it's not much worse than the other wiki editing stuff - I just import into a text editor
18:23:09 <ivan> q+
18:23:13 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:23:13 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:23:14 <IanH> q?
18:23:16 <alanr> ack ivan
18:23:37 <bijan> bijan: The wiki table is hard to work with, can we break up the table into smaller ones?
18:23:52 <bijan> IanH: That seems reasonable.
18:24:16 <bijan> ivan: Where do we put pointers to long discussion threads?
18:24:25 <bijan> alanr: On the response page. Column 5
18:24:37 <bijan> ivan: Ok, thanks!
18:24:49 <bijan> Topic: Draft responses available for comment
18:24:55 <ivan> zakim, mute me
18:24:55 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
18:25:04 <Zakim> -msmith
18:25:08 <pfps> q+
18:25:11 <alanr> ack pfps
18:25:16 <bijan> alanr: There was a bug in MS4 14  which mike fixed this morning
18:25:31 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS4
18:25:45 <bijan> pfps: IanH sent out a message saying that the response page should be current
18:26:01 <bijan> alanr: I think there's a lag here since the change only went out this morning
18:26:06 <msmith> the wiki page is the initial, incorrect reply.  I will update the page now (while dialing back in)
18:26:07 <alanr> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0165.html
18:26:30 <Zakim> +msmith
18:27:19 <pfps> ship it
18:27:27 <bijan> msmith: I misunderstood. We change it. But it was a good change and I'll update the test cases
18:27:29 <bijan> ship it
18:27:37 <IanH> +1
18:28:13 <alanr> :)
18:28:14 <bijan> alanr: So, should we have him send it or put it on the next one
18:28:19 <bijan> He should send it
18:28:21 <uli> +1
18:28:34 <ivan> zakim, unmute me
18:28:34 <Zakim> Ivan should no longer be muted
18:28:38 <ivan> q+
18:28:42 <alanr> ack ivan
18:28:48 <bijan> ACTION: msmith to send response to MS4 14 
18:28:48 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - msmith
18:28:59 <Zakim> -IanH
18:29:01 <sandro> Ian, I heard you say "Hello" a couple of time.
18:29:03 <msmith> q+
18:29:04 <bijan> ACTION: smith to send response to MS4 14
18:29:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-289 - Send response to MS4 14 [on Michael Smith - due 2009-02-25].
18:29:07 <alanr> ack msmith
18:29:30 <bijan> ivan: Didn't we say it should be registered as a bug on OWL1?
18:29:31 <Zakim> +IanH
18:29:39 <bijan> msmith:  No, that was ontology headers against test cases
18:29:49 <Zakim> -Elisa_Kendall
18:30:04 <bijan> Topic: JR8 54
18:30:06 <bijan> Ship it
18:30:10 <pfps> q+
18:30:15 <alanr> ack pfps
18:30:28 <bijan> alanr: Peter had a concern
18:30:58 <bijan> pfps: upon reflection, it doesn't promise anything so I'm ok with it. With a little tiny format change "including..."
18:31:04 <bijan> ivan:I'm changing it as we speak
18:31:05 <pfps> my concern is alleviated
18:31:11 <bijan> ship it
18:31:17 <alanr> +1
18:31:28 <pfps> it may be that we get a "I'll wait and see" response
18:31:53 <bijan> ACTION: ivan send response to JR8 54
18:31:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-290 - Send response to JR8 54 [on Ivan Herman - due 2009-02-25].
18:32:04 <bijan> Topic: SS1a & SS1b 26 (37)
18:32:08 <alanr> q?
18:32:09 <bijan> alanr: I like the response
18:32:11 <pfps> ship it :-)
18:32:15 <bijan> ship it
18:32:23 <IanH> I am happy with it.
18:32:25 <bijan> ivan: we had a discussion on the weekend...
18:32:31 <bijan> alanr: Anything of note?
18:32:53 <bijan> ivan: read the thread! More general thing is that we need a more understandable rationale for the profiles
18:32:55 <bijan> q+
18:33:13 <bijan> ...how we do this is a matter of taste so no discussion will be fruitful.
18:33:16 <pfps> q+
18:33:25 <pfps> q-
18:33:28 <bijan> alanr: I hope there'll be discussion in the primer as it develops
18:33:34 <alanr> ack bijan
18:33:37 <pfps> I'm OK adding a mention of Primer
18:33:47 <bijan> ivan: Bijan already has some text there and we can mention it to susie in the response
18:35:03 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:35:03 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:35:21 <bijan> alanr: With mention of primer, good to go?
18:35:41 <bijan> ivan: Very formal question: There were three comments. We have one mail for all three. Is this ok?
18:35:51 <bijan> Judgement call for each case
18:35:54 <bijan> This one is ok by me
18:36:20 <bijan> alanr: Do you have a view about when to split? My view is that when we have distinct work to be done we should split, but here it's fine.
18:36:23 <bijan> ivan: Yeah, its' a ju
18:36:35 <schneid> q+
18:36:35 <bijan> s/its' a ju/it's a judgment call and here it's fine
18:36:49 <bijan> Topic: JR7 53
18:36:51 <schneid> me
18:36:52 <bijan> alanr: I found it reasonable
18:36:55 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:36:55 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:37:38 <bijan> schneid: I cannot accept this answer, for several reasons. This is a non-LC comment but the comment says specific things to be done.
18:37:44 <bijan> q+
18:37:54 <alanr> ack schneid
18:38:37 <bijan> ...can we just say we'll take it at input and see you at LC for that document?
18:39:06 <bijan> ...The *real* problem, however, is a specific sentence in this document, "It is the intention of the WG that in OWL 2 Full such importing produces semantic inconsistency, although this is not yet in the OWL 2 Full Semantics document.""
18:39:10 <bijan> ack, me
18:39:15 <alanr> ack bijan
18:39:46 <bijan> schneid: I would like to redraft this email.
18:39:59 <pfps> q+
18:40:00 <bijan> bijan: I'm fine with that
18:40:02 <alanr> ack pfps
18:40:15 <alanr> q+ alanr
18:40:32 <bijan> pfps: It is my recollection that it is the recorded intent of the working group that my sentence is right
18:40:36 <bijan> q+ to make a point of order
18:40:50 <ivan> zakim, mute me
18:40:50 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
18:42:05 <bijan> pfps: I believe I was recording the will of the working group in that response
18:42:10 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:42:10 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:42:50 <bijan> alanr: On replied to a comment on a non-lc comment: In this case, there's an interaction between an LC and non-LC document so we need to deal with it
18:42:51 <schneid> q+
18:43:03 <bijan> q-
18:43:04 <alanr> ack alanr
18:43:11 <pfps> I'm happy with Bijan's reading
18:43:13 <bijan> it was left over
18:43:40 <bijan> schneid: If we wait until its in LC then many things have changed. If we answer this mail now, it's pointless
18:44:19 <bijan> alanr: I propose we start a discussion over email over it, perhaps a rediscussion, but I want to see what you propos
18:44:24 <bijan> I have a proposal on the table too!
18:46:03 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:46:03 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:46:06 <bijan> alanr: This one is clearly not ready to go
18:46:32 <bijan> Topic: JR5 50 
18:46:53 <bijan> alanr: No comment so it goes
18:46:55 <pfps> q+
18:47:06 <alanr> ack schneid
18:47:07 <bijan> ACTION: pfps  to send out reply to JR5 50 
18:47:07 <trackbot> Created ACTION-291 -  to send out reply to JR5 50  [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2009-02-25].
18:47:10 <alanr> ack pfps
18:47:46 <bijan> pfps: LC 37 is not on the list but it's an "I agree with 26", should I respond to both?
18:47:49 <uli> this sounds like a good idea
18:48:04 <bijan> alanr: It's fine to reply to both in the same mail.
18:48:06 <bijan> pfps: I shall do that
18:48:08 <ivan> q+
18:48:14 <alanr> ack ivan
18:48:21 <pfps> q-
18:48:22 <schneid> schneid: I do not want to have model-theoretic semantics for owl:incompatibleWith in Full, when there are no model-theoretic semantics in the Direct Semantics
18:48:33 <bijan> ivan: We agreed that we would make responses "in thread"
18:48:34 <bijan> q+
18:48:38 <bijan> ...we will break some thread
18:48:40 <alanr> ack bijan
18:48:42 <pfps> ooh - OK I'll send an "extra" message pointing to the other thread
18:50:25 <sandro> The question is who is going to produce the Disposition of Comments?!?!
18:50:48 <bijan> bijan: It's not working for me.
18:50:58 <bijan> ivan: It's making it less work for me
18:51:21 <bijan> sandro: it's trivial, retrieve all the [LC comment] and follow the first link
18:51:32 <bijan> Right!
18:51:35 <bijan> It's broken by design
18:51:44 <bijan> No
18:51:46 <IanH> It hardly ever works properly for me in any case
18:52:39 <IanH> Abandon shit
18:52:45 <IanH> Sorry, ship
18:52:45 <pfps> q+
18:52:47 <bijan> alanr: can we do "those who can should, and those who can't shouldn't|
18:52:50 <bijan> q+
18:52:56 <alanr> ack pfps
18:53:13 <bijan> sandro: But we need to generate a report.
18:53:17 <bijan> pfps: What about the table?
18:53:29 <bijan> sandro: Maybe.
18:53:36 <alanr> ack bijan
18:54:02 <bijan> pfps: We're even to have a pointer to the final reply
18:54:21 <bijan> alanr: It seems like it's a lot of extra effort and if ivan signs off on it
18:54:46 <bijan> Topic: Responses being drafted (FYI)
18:54:54 <bijan> alanr: No need to discuss these...actions are out.
18:55:05 <bijan> Topic: Comments that may require policy decisions
18:55:18 <bijan> Topic: FH2 28, SWD1
18:55:30 <bijan> alanr: Ian has a proposal in an email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0006.html
18:56:04 <bijan> alanr: One proposal is to audit the documents to use OWLDL/Full as appropriate and other terms
18:56:24 <alanr> q?
18:56:31 <IanH> q+
18:56:33 <pfps> q+
18:56:34 <bijan> ...In order to address the needs of several communities we make the multiple syntaxes available across all documents
18:56:35 <bijan> q+
18:56:36 <alanr> ack ianh
18:56:53 <alanr> ack pfps
18:56:55 <pfps> I'm happy with the "name" one
18:56:58 <ewallace> +1 on Ian's impression
18:57:01 <bijan> IanH: I think, from last week, everyone seemed on board. It was down to implementation
18:57:06 <ivan> +1 to IanH
18:57:21 <bijan> pfps: I'mhappy with the "name" one but not so much about every syntax everywhere
18:58:32 <bijan> alanr: In the chairs meeting, we wanted to generate a "unified view of owl". Where there are distinctions, we should highlight it. Where there are no-distinctions, we should avoid any impressions that there are.
18:58:38 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:58:38 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
18:58:41 <pfps> q+
18:58:46 <alanr> ack bijan
18:58:56 <ivan> q+
19:00:01 <alanr> ack pfps
19:00:17 <bijan> pfps: I'm not even prepared to discuss this topic today. It's not on the agenda at all.
19:00:51 <alanr> ack ivan
19:00:59 <bijan> ...I'm not comfortable discussing these together, at all. Why are we discussing them?
19:01:21 <bijan> ivan: An answer to bijan: in my mind, I only had the functional syntax in mind.
19:01:29 <pfps> q+
19:01:41 <bijan> ...The syntax is the key one. (And the primer). The quick ref has it already.
19:02:42 <alanr> ack pfps
19:02:50 <bijan> ...It's good to try to make the Syntax document as the description of the language "as a whole" which might result from a name change, this would require multiple syntax
19:03:08 <ivan> q+
19:03:19 <bijan> pfps: What I recall from the FS, it could be the *most* harmed by multiple syntaxes. It's big; it has a grammar...ouch.
19:03:25 <bijan> ...It could kill it hard!
19:03:26 <alanr> ack ivan
19:03:44 <bijan> ivan: We already have the mechanism in that document to hide or show the examples. We can use that along the lines of the primer
19:03:48 <pfps> q+
19:04:05 <pfps> q-
19:04:09 <bijan> alanr: Let's stop it here and pick it up at the F2F
19:04:50 <bijan> alanr: What I hear is that a least on the naming we have agreement to move forward. Boris has suggested that he wants to make a lot of changes all at once
19:04:50 <bijan> q+
19:04:54 <pfps> q+
19:04:59 <alanr> ack bijan
19:05:00 <bmotik> +q
19:05:04 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
19:05:04 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
19:05:14 <pfps> q-
19:05:26 <alanr> scrupulososity :)
19:05:52 <alanr> ack bmotik
19:06:13 <bijan> bijan: Let's not do so much work for such little gain over an editorial point
19:06:34 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
19:06:34 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
19:06:43 <bijan> bmotik: I find it very difficult to produce exact diffs. I don't think it's so valuable and its a huge amount of work.
19:06:53 <bmotik> +q
19:07:05 <bijan> alanr: I'll give up if no one else supports it, but it doesn't seem so hard
19:07:09 <bijan> q+
19:07:11 <alanr> ack bmotik
19:07:12 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
19:07:12 <Zakim> bmotik was not muted, bmotik
19:07:29 <bijan> bmotik: When you are editing, it's very hard to keep focus on this piece of work.
19:07:35 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
19:07:35 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
19:07:38 <alanr> ack bijan
19:08:11 <bijan> bijan: it's more work than you think; it's not our style; other things need our attention
19:08:17 <sandro> q+
19:09:13 <alanr> ack sandro
19:10:20 <bijan> some exchange between sandro and bijan about it
19:10:45 <bijan> alanr: I'm going to discuss this with the chairs to determine the appropriate burden
19:10:50 <sandro> sandro: Is it really a problem to make all the edits involved in a particular compound change in a period of time separate from all other changes?
19:10:53 <sandro> bijan: YES!
19:11:04 <bijan> Topic: BP2 40 (Redesign XML syntax)
19:12:31 <pfps> bijan wants to change the schema to help in querying the dom model of documents 
19:12:44 <sandro> Bijan: This change does not affect the set of legal documents -- it only changes how the schema is written, to add more info into the PSVI.
19:13:06 <pfps> q+
19:13:11 <alanr> ack pfps
19:13:15 <bijan> alanr: My only concern is that we already have a some tension with the XML syntax with people pushing back on it
19:14:10 <bijan> pfps: There's good use and bad use of xml schema. Bijan is proposal to make it good! We have comments from some people against XML, but even understanding their world view I don't undertand their comments
19:14:11 <bijan> q+
19:14:36 <alanr> ack bijan
19:14:41 <sandro> +1 in principal, yes, making the schema nicer is a good thing.
19:14:55 <ivan> q+
19:16:02 <alanr> ack ivan
19:16:23 <bijan> ...If it improves the schema with out changing the set of legal documents, go for it. But it's up to Bijan to show this.
19:16:42 <uli> ?
19:16:46 <bijan> ivan: These are separate issues. Even if we make it a note, we still want the document to be as good as possible!
19:16:59 <bijan> alanr: I'm hearing support and no objections
19:17:20 <ewallace> me/ Go Bijan, go!
19:18:15 <sandro> Bijan, I'd be interested in the technical details of what you're doing with schema, if you want someone to bounce ideas off of.
19:18:18 <ivan> zakim, mute me
19:18:18 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
19:18:27 <bijan> sandro: yay! I'll send you my stuff
19:18:38 <IanH> q?
19:18:44 <Zakim> -Alan
19:18:51 <alanr> caling back in.
19:19:12 <alanr> yes
19:19:22 <bijan> Topic: RIF1 24 (Disjoint numeric datatypes)
19:19:30 <Zakim> +Alan_Ruttenberg
19:19:32 <IanH> q?
19:19:44 <IanH> q?
19:20:02 <ivan> :-) :-)
19:20:06 <IanH> q?
19:20:14 <bijan> q+
19:20:19 <IanH> ack bijan
19:20:22 <alanr> q+
19:20:25 <pfps> I don't care (anymore)
19:20:33 <IanH> ack alanr
19:20:34 <bijan> bijan: I think we should make them disjoint
19:20:45 <IanH> q?
19:20:53 <bijan> alanr: Disjointness is not the desired goal of RIF. 
19:21:14 <sandro> alan: the goal in RIF was be able to use existing software for datatype handling.
19:21:26 <bijan> ...They want to use the numeric operators. There's a problem with numeric operators without disjointness. So we have a deeper issue.
19:21:41 <IanH> q?
19:21:41 <bijan> ...It's probably not going to end well for RIF.
19:21:43 <bijan> q+
19:21:44 <pfps> q+
19:22:08 <IanH> ack bijan
19:22:52 <IanH> ack pfps
19:23:03 <bijan> ...It doesn't address the rif document, it's just Bijan pushing an agenda
19:23:40 <IanH> q?
19:23:45 <bijan> pfps: It's not that RIF is using these operators, it's that they want to use imprecise inputs. If they gave that up, everything would be better and it would fit in with the stuff in OWL
19:24:13 <IanH> q?
19:24:19 <bijan> ...That's one reason. The other reason is that XPath is broken. Perhaps we should protest bad decisions. Promoting from decimal to float is nuts.
19:24:32 <pfps> q-
19:24:41 <IanH> q?
19:24:42 <bijan> alanr: I'd like to complain about XPath
19:24:57 <bijan> IanH: We shouldn't entangle ourself with RIF's problems. We have our own problems.
19:25:04 <ivan> q+
19:25:15 <bijan> alanr: We should let RIF got its own way.
19:25:18 <IanH> q?
19:25:20 <IanH> ack ivan
19:25:36 <bijan> IanH: Bijan says we should revisit the design on the merits.
19:25:52 <IanH> q?
19:26:00 <alanr> q+
19:26:01 <bijan> ivan: +1 to Bijan. And while there might be problems with full compatibility with RIF, but anything we *can* do we should do.
19:26:36 <IanH> q?
19:27:19 <bijan> alanr: I'm not sure it gets us anywhere. We don't have the same model.
19:27:20 <bijan> q+
19:27:20 <IanH> q?
19:27:25 <IanH> ack alanr
19:27:39 <IanH> ack bijan
19:27:52 <sandro> Alan: I don't see how this solves any problem RIF has, so I oppose it.
19:27:56 <ivan> q+
19:27:57 <IanH> q?
19:28:13 <bmotik> q+
19:28:24 <alanr> I think we should focus on current issues, not revisit old ones
19:28:31 <sandro> Bijan: It does get it CLOSER to RIF and XSD, and I think it's how the OWL implementors will want things.
19:28:35 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
19:28:35 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
19:28:43 <IanH> ack ivan
19:29:13 <alanr> rif will lose on equal because of implementation dependant rounding in xpath!
19:29:15 <bijan> ivan: A very simple case is just the question of equality. RIF wants to look at things being equal. So does out. We give two different answers. This is nuts.
19:29:17 <sandro> Ivan: simple case: equality.       should OWL and RIF give different answers about whether things are equal?
19:29:19 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:29:21 <alanr> they have already lost!
19:29:22 <IanH> q?
19:29:25 <alanr> q+
19:29:47 <ivan> +1 to boris
19:29:48 <alanr> it is completely clear
19:29:57 <sandro> boris: There is a pressing implementation burden.   I'm not sure our implementation in hermit is correct -- complaring floats and ints -- I don't know if we got it right.
19:30:00 <bijan> bmotik: I really sympathize with Bijan's point of view and it was very hard to implement, and I'm not sure our implementation is correct. There are lots of problems.
19:30:20 <IanH> q?
19:30:21 <pfps> if we change to disjoint, we should be careful to tell RIF why
19:30:28 <alanr> if you think doing this is hard, try working with the actual XML specs
19:30:33 <bijan> ...I suggested it in the first place. Well, I was hoping to eliminate floats, because they are hairy.
19:30:37 <sandro> boris: From an implementation point of view, there is a real problem here.     At first, I wanted to get rid of floats, because they are hairy, but I don't see how to do that any more.
19:30:47 <IanH> STRAWPOLL: numeric datatypes should be disjoint
19:30:50 <bijan> I work with them all the time. I'm teaching a class on them. I comment on them
19:30:51 <bijan> +Q
19:30:54 <bijan> +1
19:30:55 <alanr> -1
19:30:58 <bijan> qq-
19:30:58 <sandro> STRAWPOLL:  disjoint (like XSD) or non-disjoint
19:30:59 <bijan> q-
19:30:59 <ewallace> +1
19:31:00 <ivan> +1
19:31:01 <bijan> +1
19:31:02 <uli> undecided
19:31:03 <bmotik> +1
19:31:04 <Bernardo> +1
19:31:07 <MarkusK_> +1
19:31:07 <Zhe> undecided
19:31:08 <pfps> +0.x for some x > 3
19:31:08 <schneid> 0 
19:31:11 <sandro> +1
19:31:43 <uli> bye
19:31:46 <zimmer> 0
19:31:49 <Zakim> -uli
19:31:50 <Zakim> -msmith
19:31:52 <MarkusK_> bye
19:31:52 <Zakim> -bijan
19:31:53 <Zakim> -Bernardo
19:31:57 <Zakim> -Ivan
19:31:59 <Zakim> -MarkusK_
19:31:59 <ratnesh> bye
19:31:59 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
19:32:01 <Zakim> -pfps
19:32:01 <Zakim> -Sandro
19:32:02 <zimmer> bye
19:32:02 <Zakim> -[IBM]
19:32:02 <Zakim> -bmotik
19:32:04 <Zakim> -Alan_Ruttenberg
19:32:05 <Zakim> -IanH
19:32:06 <Zakim> -ratnesh
19:32:06 <bijan> I take it that the minutes will show up somewhere for me to edit?
19:32:09 <Zakim> -schneid
19:32:15 <msmith> msmith has left #owl
19:32:56 <Zakim> -Zhe
19:32:57 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
19:32:58 <Zakim> Attendees were bijan, MarkusK_, Alan, ratnesh, bmotik, pfps, [IBM], Sandro, IanH, msmith, Elisa_Kendall, Zhe, Ivan, Bernardo, uli, schneid, Evan_Wallace, Alan_Ruttenberg
19:32:59 <IanH> Not necessarily
19:33:17 <IanH> RRSAgent, make records public
19:33:22 <baojie> baojie has left #owl
19:33:23 <bijan> RRSAgent pointer
19:33:30 <bijan> I made them public earlier
19:33:35 <bijan> rrsagent, pointer
19:33:35 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/02/18-owl-irc#T19-33-35
19:33:44 <IanH> OK -- see http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Scribe_Conventions
19:33:54 <IanH> That tells you how to process them
19:33:57 <bijan> New fangled style minutes
19:34:00 <IanH> May the force be with you
19:34:29 <bijan> Oh jeezus
19:36:22 <MartinD> MartinD has left #OWL
19:45:14 <pfps> pfps has joined #owl
20:07:53 <pfps> pfps has joined #owl
21:16:42 <IanH> IanH has joined #owl
21:56:38 <Zakim> Zakim has left #owl