Chatlog 2009-03-11

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 <sandro> (this RRSAgent log isn't really an RRSAgent log.  We forgot to invite RRSAgent, so I took my xchat log and converted it to RRSAgent format and put it here.)
00:00:00 <scribenick> Present: Peter_Patel-Schneider, Ivan, bmotik, bcuencagrau, bijan, Alan Ruttenberg, Achille, msmith, ewallace, baojie, zimmer, bcuencagrau, Ratnesh, pfps, bmotik, bijan, sandro, Michael Schneider, Zhe, zimmer, markus, Christine Golbreich, Jeff Pan, calvanese
16:49:08 <bmotik> Zakim, this will be owl
16:49:08 <Zakim> ok, bmotik; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes
16:56:26 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
16:56:33 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
16:56:56 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
16:56:56 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
16:56:58 <Zakim> +Ivan
16:57:31 <Zakim> +aliman
16:57:44 <bmotik> Zakim, aliman is me
16:57:44 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
16:57:48 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
16:57:48 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
16:58:13 <Zakim> +bmotik.a
16:58:19 <Zakim> +??P11
16:58:23 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, bmotik.a is bcuencagrau
16:58:23 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it
16:58:26 <bijan> zakim, ??p11 is me
16:58:26 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
16:58:28 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
16:58:28 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
16:58:30 <bijan> zakim, mute me
16:58:30 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
16:59:50 <Zakim> + +03539158aaaa
17:00:17 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aabb
17:01:07 <zimmer> Zakim, +03539158aaaa is mme
17:01:07 <Zakim> +mme; got it
17:01:18 <zimmer> Zakim, +03539158aaaa is me
17:01:18 <Zakim> sorry, zimmer, I do not recognize a party named '+03539158aaaa'
17:01:45 <zimmer> Zakim, 03539158aaaa is me
17:01:45 <Zakim> sorry, zimmer, I do not recognize a party named '03539158aaaa'
17:02:31 <Zakim> +Jonathan_Rees
17:02:59 <alanr> zakim, Jonathan_Rees is me
17:02:59 <Zakim> +alanr; got it
17:04:33 <ivan> scribenick: pfps
17:04:48 <Zakim> + +1.202.408.aacc
17:04:51 <pfps> Topic: Admin
17:04:55 <alanr> zakim, who is here?
17:04:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Ivan, bmotik (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), bijan (muted), mme, +1.518.276.aabb, alanr, +1.202.408.aacc
17:04:57 <Zakim> On IRC I see Achille, msmith, ewallace, baojie, zimmer, alanr, bcuencagrau, ivan, Ratnesh, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, bijan, sandro, trackbot
17:05:10 <pfps> SubTopic: Agenda amendments
17:05:26 <Zakim> +[IBM]
17:05:31 <alanr> zakim, who is here?
17:05:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Ivan, bmotik (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), bijan (muted), mme, +1.518.276.aabb, alanr, msmith, [IBM]
17:05:34 <Zakim> On IRC I see Achille, msmith, ewallace, baojie, zimmer, alanr, bcuencagrau, ivan, Ratnesh, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, bijan, sandro, trackbot
17:05:43 <baojie> Zakim, aabb is baojie
17:05:43 <Zakim> +baojie; got it
17:05:43 <pfps> SubTopic: Minutes
17:05:46 <pfps> q+
17:05:48 <Achille> zakim, ibm is me
17:05:48 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
17:05:57 <alanr> ack pfps
17:06:01 <Zakim> +??P22
17:06:04 <ivan> ack pfps
17:06:09 <Zakim> +Sandro
17:06:11 <pfps> PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (4 March)
17:06:15 <alanr> +1
17:06:17 <pfps> alanr: comprehensible
17:06:17 <ivan> +1
17:06:21 <pfps> pfps: minimally acceptable
17:06:23 <pfps> pfps: +1
17:06:24 <zimmer> +1
17:06:25 <christine> q
17:06:30 <alanr> q?
17:06:59 <Zakim> +??P1
17:07:05 <pfps> christine: minutes cut off
17:07:06 <schneid> zakim, ??P1 is me
17:07:09 <Zakim> +schneid; got it
17:07:09 <pfps> q+
17:07:12 <schneid> zakim, mute me
17:07:19 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
17:07:19 <alanr> ack pfps
17:07:21 <christine> zakim, ??P1 is me
17:07:38 <Zakim> + +1.603.897.aadd
17:07:39 <Zakim> I already had ??P1 as schneid, christine
17:07:40 <pfps> pfps: what is missing
17:07:44 <alanr> q?
17:07:48 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
17:07:49 <Zhe> zakim, +1.603.897.aadd is me
17:07:49 <pfps> christine: IRC occured after end
17:07:51 <pfps> q+
17:07:56 <Zakim> +Zhe; got it
17:07:56 <alanr> ack pfps
17:08:19 <pfps> pfps: discussion was not part of the meeting
17:08:27 <msmith> I don't see anything else at http://www.w3.org/2009/03/04-owl-irc
17:08:38 <pfps> q+
17:08:45 <alanr> ack pfps
17:09:26 <zimmer> zakim, mme is really zimmer
17:09:26 <Zakim> +zimmer; got it
17:09:50 <pfps> alanr: things that happen after the meeting are not part of the meeting
17:10:05 <pfps> q+
17:10:16 <sandro> I guess we're talking about these lines in the irc: 
17:10:16 <sandro> 19_36_45 [uli_] am i scribing this?
17:10:16 <sandro> 19_36_55 [uli_] i thought so
17:10:16 <sandro> 19_41_28 [msmith] msmith has left #owl
17:10:16 <sandro> 19_52_01 [uli_]     DisjointUnion(A B1 B2 ...Bk)
17:10:16 <sandro> 19_53_10 [uli_]     HasSelf(R)
17:10:16 <sandro> 19_53_41 [uli_]     MaxCardinality(n R C)
17:10:35 <sandro> (that was from http://www.w3.org/2009/03/04-owl-irc)
17:10:49 <sandro> (and rightfully cut from http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-03-04 )
17:10:37 <pfps> Resolved: accept minutes of Mar 4
17:11:27 <pfps> sandro: discussion from last week is added to records of this meeting
17:11:32 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:11:34 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
17:11:36 <pfps> Subtopic: Action item status
17:11:50 <pfps> alanr: pending review actions
17:12:14 <pfps> alanr: what about 301 - is Andy happy?
17:12:25 <pfps> baojie: didn't hear anything back
17:12:26 <bijan> Perhaps I should take it
17:12:31 <pfps> alanr: keep open?
17:12:31 <bijan> I'm interacting with andy via sparql
17:12:55 <pfps> sandro: please ping andy and tell him we want to republish soon
17:13:10 <pfps> alanr: please adjust status of 301
17:13:23 <pfps> baojie: OK
17:13:23 <alanr> q?
17:13:26 <alanr> ack pfps
17:13:27 <pfps> q-
17:13:42 <pfps> SubTopic: Due and Overdue Actions
17:14:10 <pfps> q+
17:14:49 <pfps> boris: 270 will be picked up in current edits
17:15:01 <pfps> boris: currently in progress
17:15:19 <pfps> sandro: ongoing discussion with RIF on 292
17:15:28 <pfps> alanr: 300 is done
17:15:39 <pfps> sandro: waiting on 299 until publication
17:15:49 <pfps> alanr: 283 is done
17:15:58 <pfps> Topic: Datatypes
17:16:13 <pfps> alanr: several (draft) proposals on the table
17:16:20 <bijan> I'm good with it
17:16:25 <bmotik> +1
17:16:28 <alanr> Proposal: Add named datatypes to OWL 2 - one definition per datatype not in the datatype map, acyclic, as per email from Boris and mentioned in LC Comments 51 and 62.
17:16:36 <ewallace> +1
17:16:37 <bmotik> +1
17:16:37 <ivan> +1
17:16:39 <alanr> +1
17:16:40 <bijan> +1
17:16:40 <msmith> +1
17:16:41 <schneid> +1
17:16:42 <christine> +1
17:16:43 <zimmer> +1
17:16:45 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:16:47 <pfps> pfps: +1
17:16:47 <baojie> +1
17:16:47 <Ratnesh> +1
17:16:48 <Achille> +1
17:16:48 <Zhe> +1
17:16:51 <sandro> +1
17:16:59 <pfps> Resolved: Add named datatypes to OWL 2 - one definition per datatype not in the datatype map, acyclic, as per email from Boris and mentioned in LC Comments 51 and 62.
17:17:33 <pfps> alanr: datatype disjointness - Sandro will moderate
17:17:44 <pfps> Draft Proposal: OWL 2 datatypes will have disjointness as in XML Schema (i.e., the datatypes xsd:string, xsd:boolean, owl:real, xsd:float, xsd:double, xsd:dateTimeStamp, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary, and xsd:anyURI are pairwise disjoint), as requested in LC Comments 22 and 24.
17:18:02 <alanr> q+
17:18:15 <ivan> ack pfps
17:18:26 <pfps> sandro: discussed at F2F5 - Alan and Zhe wanted to wait
17:18:36 <pfps> sandro: Zhe seems to be comfortable now
17:18:45 <pfps> q-
17:19:13 <pfps> alanr: communicated with Chris Welty (RIF chair)
17:19:25 <Zhe> q+
17:19:26 <schneid> alan, if we *keep* disjointness?
17:19:31 <bijan> q+
17:19:44 <pfps> alanr: Rees unhappy if we have the extra disjointness
17:19:44 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:19:44 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:20:10 <pfps> alanr: XML Schema has issues for us and is not unhappy with our current design
17:20:22 <pfps> alanr: so no need to change and little gain
17:20:22 <schneid> alanr: jonathan rees considers formally objecting against disjointness
17:20:26 <sandro> ack Zhe
17:20:46 <sandro> (Gary Hallmark)
17:20:55 <sandro> (the Oracle rep in RIF)
17:21:18 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
17:21:18 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
17:21:18 <sandro> ack bijan
17:21:19 <pfps> zhe: talked to Oracle's RIF rep and team - want to be aligned with XML schema
17:21:22 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:21:22 <Zakim> bmotik was already muted, bmotik
17:22:02 <pfps> bijan: SC is likely to object if disjointness changed, Manchester likely to object if not changed
17:22:20 <pfps> bijan: I think that we made a mistake and we should change
17:22:21 <Zhe> Oracle wants OWL spec to be aligned with XML schema in terms of datatype disjointness
17:22:27 <msmith> q+
17:22:33 <pfps> sandro: what about the binary DTs
17:22:49 <pfps> bijan: because all primitives are disjoint
17:23:01 <msmith> q- bijan covered it
17:23:04 <msmith> q-
17:23:13 <pfps> bijan: so no conversion/coersion is needed
17:23:14 <alanr> I don't think it's right but I wouldn't object.
17:23:45 <bijan> zakim, mute me
17:23:45 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
17:24:04 <pfps> sandro: other objections?
17:24:13 <schneid> q+
17:24:13 <pfps> pfps: not object but strong for disjoint
17:24:19 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
17:24:19 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
17:24:21 <sandro> ack schneid
17:24:36 <pfps> schneid: need to talk to my institute for objection
17:24:45 <pfps> q+
17:24:49 <sandro> ack pfps
17:25:18 <pfps> pfps: for an objection, only?
17:25:21 <pfps> schneid: right
17:25:32 <alanr> q+
17:25:39 <bmotik> 1+
17:25:41 <bmotik> q+
17:25:46 <pfps> sandro: no need to wait on vote
17:25:48 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:25:48 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
17:25:48 <sandro> ack alanr
17:25:48 <bijan> +1 to sandro's assessment
17:25:50 <ivan>  ack alanr
17:25:57 <bijan> q+
17:26:02 <pfps> alanr: what about discussion with RIF
17:26:16 <alanr> q+
17:26:19 <pfps> sandro: most opinions don't depend on RIF, I think
17:26:36 <schneid> schneid: All I said is that I will consult with my institute to see where we stand, and how strong, since compatibilty questions are generally relevant for us
17:26:41 <bijan> I wouldn't change my mind
17:26:47 <sandro> q?
17:26:50 <sandro> ack bmotik
17:26:51 <pfps> sandro: if RIF changes, then this might trigger some more discussion
17:27:01 <pfps> boris: vote on numerics or all?
17:27:11 <sandro> PROPOSED: OWL 2 datatypes will have disjointness as in XML Schema (i.e., the datatypes xsd:string, xsd:boolean, owl:real, xsd:float, xsd:double, xsd:dateTimeStamp, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary, and xsd:anyURI are pairwise disjoint), as requested in LC Comments 22 and 24.
17:27:17 <pfps> sandro: proposal is as in XML Schema
17:27:37 <sandro> ack bijan
17:27:38 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
17:27:40 <sandro> q?
17:27:41 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
17:27:48 <schneid> zakim, mute me
17:27:48 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
17:28:02 <pfps> bijan: could SC change depending on RIF discussion?
17:28:07 <sandro> q?
17:28:09 <sandro> ack alanr
17:28:30 <pfps> alanr: can't rule it out
17:28:43 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:28:43 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:28:48 <pfps> alanr: is there new information?
17:28:51 <bijan> q+
17:28:52 <alanr> q+
17:28:53 <pfps> q+
17:29:02 <pfps> sandro: implementation report is new information
17:29:10 <sandro> ack bijan
17:29:22 <alanr> disagree that they were strongest champion
17:29:50 <pfps> bijan: and also change from Oxford, Oracle
17:29:58 <sandro> ack alanr
17:30:16 <sandro> ack pfps
17:30:27 <alanr> good point
17:30:30 <pfps> pfps: we also have LC comments on the issue
17:30:42 <sandro> PROPOSED: OWL 2 datatypes will have disjointness as in XML Schema (i.e., the datatypes xsd:string, xsd:boolean, owl:real, xsd:float, xsd:double, xsd:dateTimeStamp, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary, and xsd:anyURI are pairwise disjoint), as requested in LC Comments 22 and 24.
17:31:01 <sandro> (formal vote by organization, expecting objection from Science Commons.)
17:30:53 <ewallace> +1 (NIST)
17:30:54 <pfps> pfps: +1 ALU
17:30:59 <bijan> +1 (Manchester)
17:31:00 <schneid> +1 (FZI)
17:31:01 <alanr> -1 (Science Commons)
17:31:02 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
17:31:03 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
17:31:04 <baojie> +1 (RPI)
17:31:07 <Zhe> +1 ORACLE
17:31:07 <christine> +1
17:31:11 <zimmer> +1 (DERI)
17:31:11 <ivan> +1 (W3C)
17:31:12 <Ratnesh> +1
17:31:23 <msmith> +1 C&P
17:31:54 <sandro> RESOLVED: (over one objection) OWL 2 datatypes will have disjointness as in XML Schema (i.e., the datatypes xsd:string, xsd:boolean, owl:real, xsd:float, xsd:double, xsd:dateTimeStamp, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary, and xsd:anyURI are pairwise disjoint), as requested in LC Comments 22 and 24.
17:32:44 <sandro> PROPOSED: OWL 2 datatypes will be as in Last Call draft (non-disjoint)  -- the inverse of the above resolution
17:32:45 <bijan> And Manchester would formally object if this resolution was overturned
17:32:51 <alanr> q+
17:32:54 <bijan> -1 (formal object) (Manchester)
17:32:56 <pfps> pfps: -0
17:33:04 <msmith> 0 C&P
17:33:05 <bmotik> 0
17:33:06 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons)
17:33:08 <sandro> -0
17:33:10 <ewallace> -0
17:33:17 <Achille> -1 (IBM)
17:33:21 <schneid> -0
17:33:25 <ivan> -1
17:33:26 <Zhe> -0 (depends on RIF)
17:33:27 <christine> 0
17:33:28 <baojie> 0
17:33:33 <zimmer> 0
17:33:36 <Ratnesh> 0 (DERI)
17:33:57 <sandro> proposal fails, as expected -- clarifying need to override one objections.
17:34:12 <schneid> (might become a -1, depending on outcome with talking to my institute)
17:34:57 <pfps> alanr: what about owl:real - it seems to be not useful now
17:34:58 <bmotik> q+
17:35:02 <ivan> ack alanr
17:35:10 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:35:10 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
17:35:15 <bijan> Email
17:35:20 <alanr> q?
17:35:25 <sandro> ack bmotik
17:35:28 <ivan> ack bmotik
17:35:39 <pfps> boris: owl:realPlus is useless now
17:35:42 <pfps> q+
17:35:44 <bijan> That was my understanding
17:35:45 <sandro> ack pfps
17:35:46 <msmith> yes, realPlus is out
17:35:57 <pfps> pfps: there is a draft proposal to remove realPlus
17:36:06 <sandro> PROPOSED: Remove the datatype owl:realPlus from OWL 2, as it was introduced to unify floats, doubles, and other numbers.
17:36:23 <ivan> +1
17:36:24 <msmith> +1 (C&P)
17:36:24 <zimmer> +1
17:36:26 <pfps> bijan: do it
17:36:27 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
17:36:30 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
17:36:33 <pfps> boris: it goes
17:36:34 <ewallace> +1 (NIST)
17:36:36 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:36:36 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:36:37 <bijan> +1 (Manchester)
17:36:39 <schneid> +1 (FZI)
17:36:39 <Ratnesh> +1 (DERI)
17:36:40 <pfps> pfps: +1 ALU
17:36:43 <alanr> 0 (Science Commons) only if previous proposal stands.
17:36:55 <sandro> RESOLVED: Remove the datatype owl:realPlus from OWL 2, as it was introduced to unify floats, doubles, and other numbers.
17:37:10 <baojie> +1
17:37:14 <Achille> +1
17:37:41 <pfps> alanr: if the previous proposal is overturned, then realPlus should rise from the grave
17:37:51 <alanr> q?
17:38:14 <pfps> Topic: Document plans
17:38:28 <bmotik> Zakum, unmute me
17:38:37 <pfps> alanr: status of changes to syntax?
17:38:49 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:38:49 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
17:39:10 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:39:10 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:39:13 <pfps> boris: probably tomorrow is the end of the big changes, but maybe Friday
17:39:14 <bijan> q+
17:39:21 <alanr> ack bijan
17:39:28 <pfps> alanr: rdf:text
17:39:49 <pfps> baojie: <scribe needs help here>
17:40:11 <pfps> bijan: sparql may have something to say, but there is sufficient player overlap
17:40:23 <pfps> bijan: I'll ping axel
17:40:39 <ivan> q+
17:40:40 <pfps> sandro: we want rdf:text to go to LC ASAP, ask them for review
17:41:04 <baojie> baojie: I have done changes per Andy's comment. I'm not aware of other comments
17:41:13 <alanr> q?
17:41:14 <pfps> alanr: we don't want to formally link to sparql because of timing
17:41:17 <alanr> ack ivan
17:41:43 <bijan> q+
17:42:07 <pfps> ivan: sparql is very early so we may not get any good information from them, any feedback is likely only andy
17:42:07 <alanr> ack bijan
17:42:45 <sandro> q+
17:42:54 <pfps> bijan: i share these concerns, but ... we would like sparql to do sparql owl and sparql has new virtuous people
17:43:10 <pfps> bijan: sparql should implement rdf:text
17:43:14 <alanr> ack sandro
17:43:17 <alanr> q?
17:43:25 <ivan> q+
17:43:31 <pfps> sandro: maybe not, i would be unhappy if it would
17:43:42 <pfps> sandro: andy had last comments that were editorial
17:43:43 <alanr> that was my understanding
17:43:51 <pfps> bijan: then no worries
17:44:08 <pfps> sandro: lets address comments (andy) and go to LC when sparql can review
17:44:11 <alanr> ack ivan
17:44:12 <ivan> q-
17:44:21 <pfps> sandro: Are we happy? Is RIF happy? If so, proceed.
17:44:40 <pfps> alanr: need schedule for LC on rdf:text
17:45:10 <pfps> baojie: need andy happy - I also have extra comments that may need some time
17:45:13 <pfps> alanr: schedule?
17:45:31 <christine> irc frozen ?
17:45:31 <pfps> baojie: depends on andy responding
17:45:41 <pfps> ivan: andy did just reply
17:46:09 <christine> q
17:46:24 <pfps> alanr: want to ensure progress - please get firm schedule by next week
17:46:33 <bijan> q+
17:46:35 <pfps> baojie: andy doesn't have time to review
17:46:41 <ivan> his reply is: We have not had time to review the changes.  I was not aware there was a time scale and will endeavour to review the changes soon.
17:46:49 <pfps> alanr: can we press the issue?
17:46:51 <alanr> ack bijan
17:47:39 <pfps> bijan: editors can make a good attempt.  if they think that the changes are OK, then we can proceed, even without responses
17:47:55 <pfps> alanr: by next week we  want a firm schedule
17:48:05 <pfps> baojie: OK - I'll talk to the parties
17:48:19 <pfps> alanr: Quick Reference Guide
17:48:24 <ivan> q+
17:48:29 <alanr> ack ivan
17:48:39 <pfps> alanr: we need reviewers for this - not a LC publication
17:48:46 <pfps> ivan: I'll review
17:48:47 <bijan> I can secure a reviewer from Manchester
17:48:48 <alanr> q?
17:48:52 <bcuencagrau> I can
17:48:56 <pfps> christine: I'll review
17:49:10 <pfps> action: ivan review QRG
17:49:10 <trackbot> Created ACTION-306 - Review QRG [on Ivan Herman - due 2009-03-18].
17:49:12 <bcuencagrau> A week is fine
17:49:21 <pfps> action: christine review QRG
17:49:21 <trackbot> Created ACTION-307 - Review QRG [on Christine Golbreich - due 2009-03-18].
17:49:32 <pfps> action: bijan review QRG
17:49:32 <trackbot> Created ACTION-308 - Review QRG [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-03-18].
17:49:35 <alanr> q?
17:49:54 <ivan> q+
17:49:58 <alanr> ack ivan
17:49:59 <pfps> action: bernardo review QRG
17:49:59 <trackbot> Created ACTION-309 - Review QRG [on Bernardo Cuenca Grau - due 2009-03-18].
17:50:09 <pfps> bijan: review what form?
17:50:28 <pfps> ivan: review wiki, other versions may look somewhat different
17:50:48 <alanr> q?
17:50:53 <pfps> bijan: what about making the QRG look really nice - i've done some work
17:51:17 <pfps> alanr: review document for content and HTML presentation
17:51:33 <pfps> bijan: but QRG is supposed to have HTML look like PDF
17:51:49 <pfps> baojie: HTML is 10 pages PDF will be much less
17:52:02 <ivan> q+
17:52:12 <pfps> bijan:  I sent out a css method that makes the HTML and the PDF look the same
17:52:13 <alanr> q?
17:52:17 <alanr> ack ivan
17:52:26 <pfps> bijan: there appears to be two documents, is there, what am I reviewing
17:52:44 <pfps> baojie: content is the same, layout is a bit different - PDF is three columns
17:52:54 <pfps> bijan: but css can to multi-column
17:53:05 <bijan> This isn't current? http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/images/8/8b/Owl2-refcard_2008-10-01.pdf
17:53:11 <cgolbrei> struggling with IRC frozen!
17:53:27 <pfps> ivan: this document is going to REC, so the W3C HTML version is authoritative
17:53:29 <bijan> q+
17:53:30 <baojie> No, it is obsolete
17:53:34 <alanr> ack bijan
17:53:44 <pfps> ivan: other display methods are not authoritative
17:53:55 <pfps> bijan: I didn't expect this
17:54:28 <pfps> alanr: review content (correctness, wording) but consider presentation as well
17:54:36 <pfps> bijan: fair enough
17:54:38 <bijan> zakim, mute me
17:54:38 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
17:54:55 <pfps> alanr: Document Overview
17:55:03 <pfps> alanr: appears to be decent shape
17:55:30 <pfps> alanr: need decision to publish as FPWD, some minor comments outstanding
17:56:11 <pfps> sandro: i'm not aware of any blockers, some bibliography fixes, nothing major
17:56:12 <alanr> ack cgolbrei
17:56:12 <ewallace> What about Venn diagram?
17:56:29 <pfps> christine: what is the version we should look at
17:56:36 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Document_Overview
17:56:39 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:56:39 <Zakim> bmotik was already muted, bmotik
17:56:51 <msmith> I would like to see the sentence reference OWL Full Semantics removed before publish
17:56:55 <pfps> sandro: the current Wiki page, as always
17:57:04 <bijan> oh...
17:57:13 <bijan> Figure 1 contains GRDDL
17:57:17 <pfps> christine: will roadmap be moved?
17:57:17 <bijan> That's a bit controversial
17:57:33 <pfps> sandro: we should decide now
17:57:37 <bijan> q+
17:57:40 <msmith> q+
17:57:40 <pfps> alanr: any blockers?
17:57:41 <alanr> ack bijan
17:58:03 <pfps> bijan: diagram has GRDDL but we are not completely resolved on this
17:58:03 <schneid> ok, to take out GRDDL for the moment
17:58:11 <pfps> sandro: question mark on GRDDL?
17:58:15 <pfps> bijan: would be OK
17:58:22 <alanr> prefer editorial note over "?"
17:58:27 <alanr> q?
17:58:43 <ivan> q+
17:58:58 <pfps> msmith: what about OWL 2 Full?
17:59:03 <pfps> sandro: forgot about that
17:59:11 <alanr> ack ivan
17:59:19 <alanr> ack msmith
17:59:23 <pfps> ivan: what about the diagram?
17:59:50 <alanr> q?
17:59:55 <bijan> I suggest "EdNote: The exact nature of the GRDDL relation is still an open issue."
18:00:26 <alanr> to resolve: roadmap placement, OWL 2 Full, alan's minor edits
18:00:49 <Zakim> + +39.047.101.aaee
18:01:11 <calvanese> zakim, aaee is me
18:01:11 <Zakim> +calvanese; got it
18:01:13 <Zakim> +??P3
18:01:15 <pfps> ivan: what about names? OWL Full?
18:01:24 <calvanese> zakim, mute me
18:01:24 <Zakim> calvanese should now be muted
18:01:27 <alanr> "This semantics for OWL 2 Ontologies is sometimes called the “OWL 2 Full” semantics and “OWL 2 Full” is also used to refer to the entire OWL 2 language, particularly when expressed as RDF graphs."
18:01:28 <pfps> sandro: only thing about OWL 2 Full is in semantics section
18:02:06 <pfps> ivan: its a FPWD so details don't matter too much
18:02:09 <sandro> agreed -- we'll adopt msmith's proposal
18:02:16 <alanr> ack cgolbrei
18:02:31 <ivan> q+
18:02:41 <schneid> q+
18:02:46 <pfps> christine: need to consider longer
18:03:01 <pfps> alanr: we already extended the decision
18:03:12 <pfps> christine: lots of discussion has happened
18:03:28 <alanr> ack sandro
18:03:37 <cgolbrei> why bijan laugh?
18:03:52 <alanr> ack ivan
18:03:56 <pfps> sandro: it will take a couple of days to get out the door, so we do have a bit of time to wait for objections
18:03:59 <cgolbrei> ah!
18:04:09 <JeffP> Sorry for the late
18:04:18 <cgolbrei> q
18:04:18 <Zakim> + +0122427aaff
18:04:31 <alanr> ack schneid
18:04:33 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:04:33 <Zakim> schneid was not muted, schneid
18:04:33 <pfps> ivan: this is only a FPWD, so it doesn't have to be near perfect
18:04:48 <pfps> michael: OWL 2 Full?
18:04:50 <pfps> q+
18:05:04 <pfps> q-
18:05:13 <pfps> michael: agree to removing
18:05:21 <cgolbrei> is there no risk of reaction even on a FPWD
18:05:27 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:05:27 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:05:32 <pfps> q+
18:05:33 <bijan> I do!
18:05:37 <pfps> pfps: me too
18:05:40 <alanr> ack pfps
18:05:56 <bijan> I totally agree with what Peter just said
18:06:08 <sandro> q?
18:06:10 <pfps> pfps: roadmap first is cart before the horse
18:06:19 <schneid> +1 to peter, we have the diagram at the beginning, that's perfectly fine
18:06:31 <cgolbrei> usualy Table of Contents is first
18:06:37 <pfps> bijan: document roadmap is not user friendly at the beginning
18:06:37 <ivan> +1 to peter and bijan
18:06:41 <alanr> q?
18:06:48 <bijan> q+
18:07:00 <alanr> q?
18:07:02 <pfps> sandro: roadmap is like the ToC so it should be first
18:07:05 <alanr> ack bijan
18:07:18 <cgolbrei> present TOC is not explicit
18:07:26 <pfps> bijan: roadmap is not like a ToC - it is like a ... roadmap!
18:07:39 <sandro> rofl
18:07:39 <pfps> sandro: I hate those (but I don't hate the roadmap)
18:07:44 <schneid> it's not a TOC, it's a list of references
18:07:54 <alanr> straw poll: I like the roadmap at the top
18:07:57 <pfps> pfps: -1
18:07:57 <Achille> +0.5
18:07:58 <schneid> -1
18:07:59 <baojie> 0
18:07:59 <cgolbrei> +1
18:08:00 <bijan> -1
18:08:01 <ewallace> 0
18:08:01 <alanr> 0
18:08:01 <sandro> 0
18:08:04 <Zhe> 0
18:08:04 <ivan> -1
18:08:04 <JeffP> 0
18:08:05 <bcuencagrau> 0
18:08:09 <msmith> 0
18:08:09 <zimmer> 0.5
18:08:25 <cgolbrei> should we add 0.5 ?
18:08:47 <MarkusK_> -0
18:08:53 <sandro> alan: keep in its current place in this draft; maybe revisit.
18:08:53 <pfps> alanr: keep roadmap were it is (for now)
18:09:06 <pfps> alanr: changes about QL and RL
18:09:09 <bijan> I'll also note that the roadmap is *not* a table of contents *for this document*.
18:09:12 <ivan> q+
18:09:18 <alanr> ack ivan
18:09:20 <pfps> pfps: QL and RL OK by me
18:09:54 <bijan> Who do we direct comments to?
18:09:57 <bijan> "OWL 2 adds new functionality with respect to OWL 1. Some of the new features are syntactic sugar (e.g., disjoint union of classes) while others offer new reasoning capabilities, including:"
18:10:03 <pfps> alanr: sandro start the process
18:10:09 <bijan> The features don't add reasoning capabilities, but expressivity 
18:10:17 <bijan> Can we have de facto editors?
18:10:23 <bijan> i.e., "pester victims"
18:10:28 <pfps> sandro: agreed that this is a WG document
18:10:38 <pfps> sandro: I'm the victim this week
18:10:11 <sandro> PROPOSED: Publish http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Document_Overview as a FPWD, with changes agreed to in this meeting, and give folks 24 hours to object in case there's something critical they missed.
18:10:53 <pfps> pfps: +1 ALU
18:10:55 <ivan> +1
18:10:57 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons)
18:11:01 <sandro> +1 (W3C)
18:11:02 <ewallace> +1
18:11:03 <Zhe> +1
18:11:05 <msmith> +1
18:11:05 <bijan> +1
18:11:14 <Achille> +0
18:11:14 <schneid> +1
18:11:17 <JeffP> 0
18:11:34 <pfps> Resolved:  Publish http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Document_Overview as a FPWD, with changes agreed to in this meeting, and give folks 24 hours to object in case there's something critical they missed.
18:12:21 <pfps> alanr: NF&R - is it ready for publication (not LC) in April
18:12:30 <ewallace> When did we agree that UF docs wouldn't go to last call?
18:12:35 <alanr> at the f2f
18:12:42 <alanr> (I hope)
18:13:04 <bijan> q+
18:13:33 <sandro> (Yikes, RRSAgent isn't here.    Fortunately, I have an xchatlog, which we can use.....    I'll do that Peter.)
18:13:56 <ewallace> Not that I heard or saw in minutes. But don't want to disrupt the meeting.
18:13:56 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:13:56 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
18:13:56 <alanr> ack bijan
18:13:58 <pfps> christine: nearly finished
18:14:16 <pfps> bijan: outstanding comment from about one use case
18:14:25 <pfps> alanr: please send a note to me
18:14:36 <ewallace> I think that Bijan's comment is on a use case table
18:15:37 <pfps> alanr: we need to take bijan at his word as to whether his comment was addressed
18:15:50 <pfps> bijan: I haven't heard anything
18:16:28 <pfps> christine: reviewers for NF&R?
18:16:49 <pfps> alanr: for next meeting
18:17:02 <pfps> alanr: Manchester syntax
18:17:23 <pfps> alanr: I have objected to removal of editorial notes and not addressing issue 146
18:17:25 <pfps> q+
18:17:29 <alanr> ack pfps
18:17:45 <pfps> pfps: objections have to be public
18:17:56 <pfps> alanr: i object now
18:18:20 <pfps> pfps: I object to pocket vetos
18:18:27 <pfps> alanr: I need to wait for Ian
18:18:37 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:18:37 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
18:18:45 <pfps> alanr: Data Range Extensions
18:19:16 <pfps> bijan: delayed because of XML syntax - when is next round
18:19:30 <pfps> alanr: finish by end of month - publlish for mid-April
18:19:40 <pfps> bijan: sounds doable
18:19:51 <pfps> bijan: this is a note
18:19:58 <pfps> alanr: but we want it to be good
18:20:07 <pfps> bijan: doesn't need to be LC (ever)
18:20:13 <pfps> sandro: right
18:20:32 <ivan> q+
18:20:38 <alanr> ack ivan
18:20:44 <pfps> sandro: roadmap points to it, so it would be good to have a FPWD
18:20:53 <alanr> q+
18:20:54 <pfps> bijan: any problem with current status as FPWD
18:20:58 <ivan> q-
18:21:13 <ivan> q+
18:21:27 <pfps> alanr: want a full thing before FPWD
18:21:28 <alanr> ack alanr
18:21:33 <alanr> ack ivan
18:22:00 <pfps> ivan: no problem because it will be a note
18:22:07 <pfps> ivan: at CR time we want a good version
18:22:18 <bijan> q+
18:22:42 <pfps> ivan: roadmap should state note status of notes
18:23:04 <pfps> sandro: this is intentional
18:23:31 <alanr> q+ alanr
18:23:34 <alanr> ack bijan
18:24:10 <alanr> ack alanr
18:24:13 <pfps> bijan: agree with Ivan - should be good, but timeline isn't so tight - FPWD can be a bit sketchy
18:24:45 <pfps> alanr: want at least something about RDF mapping and one example for FPWD
18:24:58 <pfps> bijan: OK, can be done soon
18:25:09 <pfps> alanr: Document Overview (again)
18:25:39 <schneid> q+
18:25:39 <pfps> ivan: just want to make situation clear
18:25:50 <bijan> I'd prefer being ambiguous
18:25:56 <pfps> sandro: I'm fine as long as it's not *IN YOUR FACE*
18:26:03 <bijan> But I'm not hard for it
18:26:08 <schneid> q-
18:26:21 <bijan> yep
18:26:26 <pfps> alanr: OK, lets do it
18:26:53 <schneid> RDF-Based?
18:26:57 <pfps> Topic: LC Comments
18:27:06 <ivan> i think it is too short
18:27:11 <schneid> q+
18:27:18 <pfps> alanr: can we mass-approve quick approval ones
18:27:18 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:27:18 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:27:20 <alanr> ack schneid
18:27:50 <ivan> and there is a discussion thread there...
18:28:31 <pfps> schneid: not 28
18:28:40 <ivan> and 48 and 58
18:29:03 <bmotik> q+
18:29:04 <Zakim> -Achille
18:29:07 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
18:29:07 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
18:29:12 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:29:12 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:29:21 <pfps> alanr: we are out of time
18:29:25 <alanr> q?
18:29:28 <pfps> alanr: we will bring all this up next week
18:29:30 <alanr> ack bmotik
18:30:03 <Zakim> -Zhe
18:30:04 <Zakim> -bmotik
18:30:04 <Zakim> - +0122427aaff
18:30:08 <Ratnesh> bye
18:30:10 <Zakim> -msmith
18:30:11 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
18:30:11 <Zakim> -alanr
18:30:15 <Zakim> -baojie
18:30:15 <Zakim> -MarkusK_
18:30:15 <Zakim> -Sandro
18:30:16 <Zakim> -Ivan
18:30:16 <Zakim> -calvanese
18:30:24 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
18:31:35 <Zakim> -schneid
18:32:08 <Zakim> -zimmer
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000685