Chatlog 2009-03-18

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.

<bcuencagrau> PRESENT: Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Ivan (muted), baojie, msmith, Achille, alan ruttenberg (muted), Michael Schneider, Christine, zimmer, zhe, elisa, bijan, evan
16:49:57 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:49:57 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/03/18-owl-irc
16:50:02 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #owl
<bcuencagrau> Topic: Admin
<bcuencagrau> SubTopic: Agenda Amendments
17:04:55 <bcuencagrau> roll call
<bcuencagrau> SubTopic: Previous Minutes
17:05:20 <bcuencagrau> ianH: previous minutes
17:05:26 <bcuencagrau> ianH: accept them?
17:05:28 <pfps> they are perfect :-)
17:05:34 <bcuencagrau> ianH: accepted
17:05:44 <IanH> RESOLVED: accept previous minutes
<bcuencagrau> Topic: Action item Status
17:05:57 <bcuencagrau> IanH: action item status
17:06:01 <bmotik> That's done
17:06:03 <bcuencagrau> IanH: add new examples
17:06:15 <pfps> all pending appear done to me
17:06:17 <bcuencagrau> IanH: pending review actions
17:06:21 <pfps> (as well as 300)
17:06:37 <bcuencagrau> IanH: fine, move on to due actions
17:06:49 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Sandro, did you talk to RIF?
17:07:03 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Jie, what about Andy Seaborne?
17:07:11 <bcuencagrau> Zhe: he's ok with all our changes
17:07:53 <bcuencagrau> bmotik: it seems that everything in the doc is now OK
17:08:03 <bcuencagrau> bmotik: concerning rdf:text
17:08:18 <bcuencagrau> Jie: he wanted it said more explicitly
17:08:28 <pfps> let's make Andy happy 
17:08:53 <bcuencagrau> sandro: he was also worried about future rdf syntaxes
17:09:11 <bcuencagrau> IanH: none of this is really problematical, so let's make him happy
17:09:31 <pfps>  rdf:text -> LC is fine by me
17:09:54 <pfps> let's schedule a decision on this for next week
17:10:21 <bcuencagrau> ivan: it seems that we are not quite ready to make publication decision on rdf:text doc
17:10:48 <bcuencagrau> IanH: could we be ready next week to vote for last call?
17:11:00 <bcuencagrau> ivan: we should first have reviewers
17:11:04 <pfps> I'll review it.
17:11:12 <bcuencagrau> IanH: volunteers
17:11:31 <bcuencagrau> bmotik: I have seen that the doc contains editorial comments
17:11:40 <bcuencagrau> bmotik: when are they going to be resolved?
17:11:47 <bcuencagrau> bmotik: should they be deleted?
17:12:01 <bcuencagrau> Jie: some of them are not strictly editorial
17:12:40 <bcuencagrau> bmotik: we should delete most of the notes
17:12:51 <bcuencagrau> IanH: can you review the doc?
17:12:55 <pfps> where is the current draft of rdf:text?
17:12:55 <bcuencagrau> bmotik: I am an author
17:13:08 <alanr> I will
17:13:22 <bcuencagrau> IanH: anyone else?
17:13:29 <bcuencagrau> IanH: will 2 be enough?
17:13:29 <pfps> I need a pointer to the document!
17:13:35 <alanr> ditto
17:13:38 <bcuencagrau> sandro: yes, enough
17:13:49 <baojie> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec
17:13:51 <bcuencagrau> ianH: could one of the authors post a pointer?
17:14:16 <pfps> action pfps: review rdf:text document http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec
17:14:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-310 - Review rdf:text document http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2009-03-25].
17:14:27 <alanr> Jie, can you send a note to us when the document is ready for review?
17:14:40 <bcuencagrau> IanH: snadro, fix wiki links
17:14:49 <ivan> action alanr:  review rdf:text document http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec
17:14:54 <bcuencagrau> baojie: I will be off next week
17:15:01 <bcuencagrau> IanH: doesn't matter
17:15:22 <bcuencagrau> sandro: i will do the wiki links when I deal with the publication stuff
17:15:31 <bcuencagrau> IanH: the QRG review?
17:15:37 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Christine?
17:15:42 <bcuencagrau> christine: next week
17:15:55 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Bijan is not on the call
<bcuencagrau> Topic: Document Review
17:16:25 <bcuencagrau> IanH: the other docs are ready to be reviewed before the next publication
17:16:37 <bcuencagrau> IanH: structural spec?
17:16:42 <pfps> I think that SS&FS is ready for review
17:17:07 <bcuencagrau> bmotik: there is still a problem with the HasKey syntax
17:17:18 <bcuencagrau> bmotik: will post an email when it is ready for review
17:17:34 <bcuencagrau> alanr: there is an unresolved issue concerning numeric datatypes
17:17:42 <bcuencagrau> IanH: what is the issue?
17:18:06 <bcuencagrau> alanr: the docs point to XML Schema, but the XML docs are not clear enough
17:18:25 <bcuencagrau> alanr: we should make the model theory explicit for those datatypes
17:18:36 <bcuencagrau> ivan: we should refer to XML Schema docs
17:18:49 <bcuencagrau> ivan: if something is not clear, we should let them know
17:19:19 <pfps> we are completely compatible with XML Schema
17:19:21 <bcuencagrau> ivan: It is not up to us to fix those problems
17:19:35 <bcuencagrau> alanr: by referring to that doc we expose ourselves to changes
17:20:09 <bcuencagrau> alanr: we didn't agree to be dependent on XML schema
17:20:30 <bcuencagrau> ivan: we said that we would use xsd datatypes
17:20:49 <bcuencagrau> IanH: we shouldn't spend more time on it now and we should review the docs
17:21:22 <bcuencagrau> IanH: the deadline is 15th april for publication
17:21:35 <bcuencagrau> IanH: the reviews should be done before
17:21:50 <bcuencagrau> IanH: ivan
17:21:53 <bcuencagrau> me
17:22:14 <sandro> I think 2 is okay
17:22:19 <bcuencagrau> IanH: two reviewers is enough?
17:22:35 <pfps> action bernardo: review SS&FS by 1 April
17:22:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-311 - Review SS&FS by 1 April [on Bernardo Cuenca Grau - due 2009-03-25].
17:22:39 <schneid> me : mapping
17:22:42 <pfps> action ivan : review SS&FS by 1 April
17:22:42 <trackbot> Created ACTION-312 - : review SS&FS by 1 April [on Ivan Herman - due 2009-03-25].
17:22:44 <sandro> syntax reviewer - ivan and bernardo
17:22:46 <bcuencagrau> IanH: mapping to RDF graphs
17:22:53 <pfps> i think that it is ready
17:23:06 <pfps> action michael: review RDF mapping
17:23:06 <bcuencagrau> IanH: michael will review it
17:23:17 <pfps> action msmith: review RDF mapping
17:23:17 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - msmith
17:23:24 <bcuencagrau> IanH: anybody else?
17:23:33 <schneid> me : direct
17:23:38 <bcuencagrau> IanH: direct semantics
17:23:39 <schneid> (really both!)
17:23:40 <pfps> action mike: review RDF mapping
17:23:40 <trackbot> Created ACTION-313 - Review RDF mapping [on Michael Smith - due 2009-03-25].
17:23:42 <msmith> !
17:23:49 <pfps> direct semantics ready to go
17:23:51 <msmith> msmith should have been schneid
17:23:52 <msmith> 1+
17:24:07 <pfps> action schneid: review RDF mapping
17:24:07 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - schneid
17:24:08 <bcuencagrau> IanH: anyone else?
17:24:13 <alanr> can we solicit one of the previous reviewers by mail?
17:24:20 <schneid> yes, because the both documents are important for my work on OWL Full
17:24:37 <IanH> ack msmith
17:24:50 <msmith> yes. that's right
17:25:09 <bcuencagrau> IanH: schneid will review direct semantics and RDF mapping
17:25:23 <bcuencagrau> IanH: I'll take this procedure offline
17:25:33 <alanr> Markus and Tom Schneider were previous reviewers
17:25:43 <bcuencagrau> ivan: what are the docs ready to review
17:25:55 <bcuencagrau> IanH: what about RDF semantics?
17:26:01 <bcuencagrau> schneid: not quite
17:26:13 <bcuencagrau> schneid: some editorial notes to do
17:26:19 <bcuencagrau> schneid: next week
17:26:24 <pfps> action schneider: review direct semantics
17:26:39 <pfps> action mschneid: review direct semantics
17:26:39 <trackbot> Created ACTION-314 - Review direct semantics [on Michael Schneider - due 2009-03-25].
17:26:52 <pfps> action mschneid: review RDF mapping
17:26:52 <trackbot> Created ACTION-315 - Review RDF mapping [on Michael Schneider - due 2009-03-25].
17:27:33 <bcuencagrau> ivan: I can review RDF semantics
17:27:36 <pfps> action ivan: review RDF semantics
17:27:36 <trackbot> Created ACTION-316 - Review RDF semantics [on Ivan Herman - due 2009-03-25].
17:27:42 <alanr> I can review that
17:27:44 <bcuencagrau> IanH: conformance and test cases?
17:27:46 <schneid> schneid: RDF-Based Semantics will be finished someday next week, but I can't tell /when exactly/ next week; worst case end of next week, but not later
17:28:18 <bcuencagrau> msmith: next monday will be ready
17:28:31 <pfps> action alanr: reivew conformance
17:28:33 <IanH> ack msmith
17:28:33 <bcuencagrau> IanH: alan will be a reviewer
17:28:45 <pfps> action alan: review conformance
17:28:45 <trackbot> Created ACTION-317 - Review conformance [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2009-03-25].
17:28:50 <bcuencagrau> IanH: anyone else?
17:28:56 <bcuencagrau> IanH: profiles?
17:29:01 <bmotik> +1
17:29:04 <bcuencagrau> profiles should be ready
17:29:12 <Achille> I can review the Profiles. I'll have my review ready in two weeks
17:29:12 <bcuencagrau> IanH: profiles is ready
17:29:30 <bcuencagrau> alanr: there is an issue with sameAs in OWL QL
17:29:57 <bcuencagrau> alanr: there is a paragraph to be inserted
17:29:57 <pfps> I'll review RDF semantics (when it is ready)
17:30:03 <pfps> action pfps: review RDF semantics
17:30:03 <trackbot> Created ACTION-318 - Review RDF semantics [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2009-03-25].
17:30:20 <bcuencagrau> bmotik: did we promise to do that?
17:30:28 <bcuencagrau> IanH: it may be useful
17:30:57 <alanr> ok
17:31:00 <bcuencagrau> IanH: this should be done by the end of the week
17:31:01 <baojie> I can review profile too, but can not finish until the first week of April
17:31:05 <bmotik> s/did we promies to do that?/Uli promise to do that.
17:31:11 <Achille> I'll review it
17:31:18 <alanr> and jie
17:31:22 <bcuencagrau> IanH: achille will review it
17:31:24 <pfps> action achille: review Profiles
17:31:24 <trackbot> Created ACTION-319 - Review Profiles [on Achille Fokoue - due 2009-03-25].
17:31:30 <bcuencagrau> IanH: jie as well
17:31:35 <pfps> action baojie: review profiles
17:31:43 <pfps> action jie: review profiles
17:31:43 <trackbot> Created ACTION-320 - Review profiles [on Jie Bao - due 2009-03-25].
17:31:45 <Achille> I will review it in two weeks
17:31:49 <bcuencagrau> IanH: manchester syntax
17:31:51 <pfps> ready to review in my opinion
17:32:03 <alanr> can review it, but 1st week of april
17:32:04 <bcuencagrau> IanH: anyone volunteering?
17:32:13 <alanr> agreed
17:32:19 <bcuencagrau> IanH: let's get this offline
17:32:36 <bcuencagrau> IanH: what about NF&R?
17:33:05 <christine> NF&R ready for review
17:33:19 <bcuencagrau> alanr: I disagree with Christine
17:33:31 <bcuencagrau> alanr: I reviewed the doc and it is not quite ready
17:33:48 <bcuencagrau> alanr: there should be a run of editing
17:34:10 <bcuencagrau> christine: we should still have reviewers
17:34:42 <bcuencagrau> IanH: I don't think NF&R is in so much worse shape than other docs
17:34:57 <Zakim> alanr should no longer be muted
17:35:03 <bcuencagrau> Ianh: alan, could you fix those little editorial issues?
17:35:10 <bcuencagrau> alanr: some of them are not so minor
17:35:24 <bcuencagrau> alanr: the doc is long and there is a lot of repetition
17:35:36 <christine> please send it as review
17:35:41 <bcuencagrau> alanr: the content is good but the presentation should be improved
17:36:21 <alanr> I've said what I need to.
17:36:38 <bcuencagrau> christine: could alan entr his comments? we should not delayed too much
17:36:52 <bcuencagrau> christine: Elisa has already volunteered
17:37:05 <alanr> ok
17:37:22 <bcuencagrau> IanH: alan and Elisa will review it
17:37:28 <pfps> action elisa: review NF&R (perhaps after some editing)
17:37:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-321 - Review NF&R (perhaps after some editing) [on Elisa Kendall - due 2009-03-25].
17:37:32 <bcuencagrau> IanH: XML serialization
17:37:37 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Bijan is not here
17:37:42 <pfps> action alan: review NF&R
17:37:42 <trackbot> Created ACTION-322 - Review NF&R [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2009-03-25].
17:38:03 <bcuencagrau> pfps: it needs to get pushed
17:38:25 <bcuencagrau> IanH: last one is also a Bijan's issue, but it is only a note
17:38:42 <bcuencagrau> IanH: we should not spend too much time on this one
17:38:43 <pfps> again, we need to make sure that it is ready for some pub by mid-Apr
<bcuencagrau> Topic: OWL 2 RL Datatypes
17:39:09 <bcuencagrau> IanH: xsd: double and sxd:float supported in OWL 2 RL?
17:39:39 <bcuencagrau> IanH; we agreed that xsd;float and xsd:doable should be added to OWL 2 RL
17:39:47 <IanH> PROPOSED: add xsd:float and xsd:double to datatypes supported in OWL RL
17:39:55 <bmotik> +1
17:39:55 <pfps> +1 ALU
17:40:01 <alanr> Thought we don't add action items for people who are not here
17:40:02 <baojie> +1 
17:40:06 <ivan> +1
17:40:06 <alanr> we have added one for elisa
17:40:06 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:40:08 <alanr> +1
17:40:09 <schneid> +1
17:40:11 <sandro> +1
17:40:11 <msmith> +1
17:40:15 <zimmer> +1
17:40:21 <pfps> Zhe's position is in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Mar/0271.html
17:40:38 <Achille> +0
17:40:48 <bcuencagrau> IanH: resolved
17:40:48 <IanH> RESOLVED: add xsd:float and xsd:double to datatypes supported in OWL RL
17:41:13 <elisa> elisa has joined #owl
<bcuencagrau> Topic: Last Call Comments
17:41:14 <bcuencagrau> IanH: last call comments
17:41:22 <alanr>  Reviewers: Actions are default due next week. Please set the due date to be realistic.
17:41:23 <bcuencagrau> IanH: some of the comments are ready to send
17:41:35 <bcuencagrau> IanH: any objections?
17:41:57 <bcuencagrau> schneid: MS8 comment, I am not happy with one of the sentences
17:42:18 <bcuencagrau> schneid: one of the sentences concerning named dataranges should be removed
17:42:32 <bcuencagrau> schneid: modulo that I am happy with it
17:42:35 <pfps> I'll fix the wording for MS8
17:42:53 <pfps> I should have removed the sentence when I added point 3
17:43:00 <schneid> schneid: happy with MS8, but remove sentence about "contemplating about named data ranges"
17:43:05 <bcuencagrau> IanH: anything else to say?
17:43:16 <bcuencagrau> IanH: those should then be sent
17:43:51 <alanr> yes, kudos to Peter for the number of responses he authored!
17:43:59 <bcuencagrau> IanH: comments with some ongoing discussion
17:44:13 <bcuencagrau> IanH: disjointness of xsd: datatypes comments
17:44:33 <bcuencagrau> alanr: I wanted to remove one of the lines in the response concerning implementation experience
17:45:09 <pfps> I will acceed to the change.
17:45:28 <bcuencagrau> IanH: peter will make that change and send it
17:45:39 <bcuencagrau> ianH: OWL 2 RL datatypes
17:45:53 <bcuencagrau> IanH: the questionnable part is...?
17:45:57 <alanr> are we not waiting for sandro?
17:46:14 <bcuencagrau> pfps: we had no decision at the time on those datatypes
17:46:48 <bcuencagrau> IanH: then, it should be ready to go, right?
17:47:01 <bcuencagrau> IanH: we are ready to go
17:47:21 <bcuencagrau> pfps: we should write an addendum to oracle
17:47:32 <bmotik> I'd just like to point out that the Profiles document has already been updated with float and double
17:47:32 <bcuencagrau> IanH: could you do that peter?
17:47:58 <bcuencagrau> IanH: responses to TopQuadrant
17:48:15 <bcuencagrau> IanH: they seem ready to go
17:48:24 <pfps> I concur - we expect some squawking, of course
17:48:41 <schneid> "GRDDL: The working group has resolved to add GRDDL support to the OWL XML syntax (see [15]). "
17:48:47 <bcuencagrau> ivan: the GRDDL thing seems to be open
17:49:08 <bcuencagrau> IanH: that issue is closed
17:49:09 <pfps> from 34b response GRDDL: The working group has resolved to add GRDDL support to the OWL XML syntax (see [15]). 
17:49:50 <bcuencagrau> IanH: anybody else?
17:50:41 <bcuencagrau> IanH: we discuss 34 and 35 first
17:50:57 <bcuencagrau> ianH: 40: restructuring of XML Schema
17:50:59 <pfps> wait until done
17:51:08 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Bijan is doing the restructuring
17:51:12 <alanr> i agree
17:51:18 <bcuencagrau> IanH: we cannot send it until the restructuring is done
17:51:24 <bcuencagrau> IanH: 66
17:51:42 <bcuencagrau> alanr: I have some concerns
17:52:01 <bcuencagrau> alanr: the text has changed so conformance says that we are relying with XML schema
17:52:13 <bcuencagrau> alanr: there is an issue with n-ary datatypes
17:52:47 <bcuencagrau> alanr: I am also not comfortable to rely completely on XML Schema
17:53:18 <bcuencagrau> alanr: we should think about it again before drafting a response
17:54:48 <bcuencagrau> ianH;: ypur issues are architectural
17:55:00 <bcuencagrau> IanH: it is not our reponsibility
17:55:12 <bcuencagrau> alanr: it is not covered by Web Architecture
17:56:09 <bcuencagrau> schneid: why should we not be in sync with XML Schema?
17:56:18 <bcuencagrau> alanr: because of interoperability issues
17:57:44 <bcuencagrau> schneid: if they do something wrong is their problem
17:58:10 <bcuencagrau> ivan: my understanding is that n-ary datatypes are not a part of the core language
17:58:20 <bcuencagrau> ivan: why are they a discussion issue?
17:58:32 <bcuencagrau> alanr: becuase we will have at least one implementation
17:58:54 <bcuencagrau> ivan: we should not be discussing this
17:59:21 <bcuencagrau> ivan: there are interoperability issues because the hooks will be implemented differently anyway
17:59:33 <bijan> What?!
17:59:41 <bcuencagrau> alanr: we hould revise then the conformance
18:00:02 <schneid> IMHO, general extensibility of the core datatype map is a major market aspect
18:00:25 <bcuencagrau> bijan: why are extensions non-confromant?
18:00:34 <msmith> the objection is only w.r.t. the *name* of the nary predicate
18:00:54 <msmith> alan wants to be sure its not in owl: , xsd: ,  etc.
18:01:01 <schneid> and I understand this to be the idea behind the RDF datatype map: it is (almost) empty, and vendors can add to it whatever they want
18:01:04 <bcuencagrau> ivan: I said that the core spec is silent wrt n-ary datatypes except for the hooks
18:01:17 <bcuencagrau> alanr: they can also appear on teh datatype maps
18:01:27 <bcuencagrau> bijan: the datatype map is part of the hook
18:02:14 <bcuencagrau> msmith: I think alan's concerns are related to certain namespaces
18:02:40 <pfps> How is this germane to LC Comment 66, which reads I believe that it is our intention that implementation specific
18:02:42 <pfps> datatype maps don't define behavior for, e.g. future datatypes added
18:02:44 <pfps> to XML Schema (or datatypes we have rejected). AFAIK, there is no
18:02:46 <pfps> proscription against this and I would like to have there be.
18:02:46 <schneid> we only guarantee interop on systems that have our spec'ed datatype map, for everything else, it's the business of the vendor
18:03:30 <bcuencagrau> bijan: we can say that some namespaces are reserved
18:03:51 <pfps> we no longer reserve the XSD namespace
18:04:06 <bcuencagrau> bijan: we should stick with standard mechanisms
18:04:07 <pfps> we just say "be nice to XML Schema datatypes"
18:04:28 <bcuencagrau> IanH: let's get this one offline
18:05:11 <bcuencagrau> IanH: responses to 34
18:05:55 <bcuencagrau> alanr: there is an unresolved issue concerning how we refer to OWL 2 Full anf DL
18:06:08 <bcuencagrau> alanr: whether we refer to syntax or to semantics or both
18:06:39 <bcuencagrau> IanH: we agreed to use the term OWL 2 Full as little as possible
18:07:34 <bcuencagrau> alanr: the note doesn't state what OWl 2 Full referred to before
18:07:46 <bcuencagrau> alanr: could we rewrite this very clearly?
18:08:20 <bcuencagrau> schneid: I did a poll in my institutwe
18:08:48 <pfps> having at least some email notice of objections to LC responses before the TC would be *very* nice
18:08:51 <bcuencagrau> schneid: almost everyone daid `the combination of syntax and semantics'
18:09:33 <bcuencagrau> schneid: there seems to be clear objection to use OWL 2 Full and DL only as `Syntax'
18:10:17 <bcuencagrau> IanH: we were just suggesting that we could use OWL 2 instead of OWL 2 Full
18:10:46 <bcuencagrau> IanH: there is no consensus on this
18:11:09 <bcuencagrau> IanH: let's have an email discussion then
18:11:31 <bcuencagrau> IanH: GRDDL discussion
18:12:52 <bcuencagrau> ivan: we could create a GRDDL file that would refer to several implementations
18:13:14 <schneid> I cannot tell what the people in my institute department will say, if I tell them that we decide to call the syntax "OWL 2 DL", so I cannot talk about formal objections here; I can only tell you what I have learnt to be the general opinion in my institute department
18:13:35 <bcuencagrau> ivan: we also need a pure XLST GRDDL transformation
18:13:51 <bcuencagrau> ivan: that transformation should be done by someone
18:14:27 <bcuencagrau> pfps: what about the non-executable GRDDL?
18:15:41 <alanr> so we have to get one. qed.
18:15:45 <pfps> ivan: TQ will not be happy if there is no XSLT transform
18:16:06 <pfps> +1 to asking TQ to provide same
18:16:09 <bcuencagrau> ivan: peter is right
18:16:38 <pfps> OK
18:17:02 <sandro> ian: Suggestion is to tell TQ: if you want one, please help us provide one
18:17:03 <bcuencagrau> bcuencagrau has joined #owl
18:17:16 <alanr> and i to help
18:17:43 <bijan> +1 to Sandro
18:17:53 <bcuencagrau> bcuencagrau has joined #owl
18:17:54 <pfps> sandro: asking TQ may not be effective
18:18:00 <bcuencagrau> I am back
18:18:08 <bcuencagrau> but lost
18:18:21 <pfps> ianh: but if TQ says no, that may weaken their case
18:18:22 <sandro> sandro: Sure, it's worth a try, asking TQ to provide one.
18:18:28 <bcuencagrau> ok
18:18:58 <bcuencagrau> alanr: We should approach TopQuadrant offline
18:19:05 <sandro> alan: Let's not imply "if you don't provide it, no one will".
18:19:10 <bcuencagrau> alanr: to see if they support the proposal
18:19:52 <bcuencagrau> IanH: we should determine whether we can send the responses to TopQuadrant
18:20:14 <bcuencagrau> ivan: we could be more specific about certain issues than we were at the F2F
18:20:44 <bcuencagrau> bijan: we shouldn't sollicit from TopQuadrant
18:20:58 <bcuencagrau> bijan: they could use that to beat us
18:21:33 <bcuencagrau> bijan: we should be as minimalist as possible
18:22:01 <alanr> In any case JC1a can go through as it doesn't depend on this issue
18:22:01 <bcuencagrau> ivan: we are short of manpower to do this
18:22:15 <bcuencagrau> ivan: to have the XSLT transformation
18:22:27 <alanr> say "we're not sure we can do it" rather than "we can't do it"
18:22:28 <bcuencagrau> ivan: we could ask the community to produce it
18:22:57 <bcuencagrau> IanH: I feel nervous about that
18:23:09 <bcuencagrau> IanH: it would mean that we are not done until we have it
18:23:18 <bcuencagrau> IanH: we should not have external dependencies
18:23:36 <bcuencagrau> bijan: I could do it even if I do not want to do it
18:23:52 <alanr> what is the difference between proof of concept and real thing?
18:24:16 <alanr> then we should do it
18:24:26 <bcuencagrau> bijan: it is not that we are saying that it is `too hard'; it is just tedious
18:24:36 <alanr> can you not delegate some to sandro and I?
18:24:46 <bcuencagrau> bijan: I don't think it is useful anyway
18:25:05 <bcuencagrau> IanH: would you still be willing to do it?
18:25:35 <bcuencagrau> sandro: the problem is that I don't know XSLT
18:25:51 <bcuencagrau> sandro: if you can produce an example of a feature, i could produce the rest
18:26:19 <bcuencagrau> bijan: this is a reasonable compromise
18:26:46 <alanr> sounds good!
18:26:54 <bcuencagrau> bijan: I can provide advise on XSLT but not do it myself
18:27:05 <IanH> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/97
18:27:14 <bcuencagrau> IanH: bijan will produce an example and sandro will do the rest
18:27:15 <alanr> we're on the same page.
18:28:05 <bijan> ACTION: bijan help sandro
18:28:05 <trackbot> Created ACTION-323 - Help sandro [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-03-25].
18:28:11 <sandro> rofl
18:28:23 <bcuencagrau> IanH: it seems that we have a concrete action plan wrt to GRDDL
18:28:33 <bcuencagrau> IanH: and there are a few responses dependent on that
18:28:39 <pfps> LC 17 is 'what about GRDDL?"
18:28:52 <pfps> LC 17 *is* TM1
18:29:03 <pfps> q?
18:29:11 <pfps> ack ivan
18:29:31 <bcuencagrau> ivan: we should say that the WG is planning to provide a GRDDL tranformation
18:29:39 <bcuencagrau> IanH: I will fix up those responses
18:29:45 <pfps> ready by me
18:29:55 <bcuencagrau> IanH: other than that, are we ok with 34a and 34b?
18:30:03 <bcuencagrau> pfps: ok by me
18:30:07 <bijan> I'm fine
18:30:07 <schneid>  /I/ am ready to go, now :) sorry, have to get my train
18:30:09 <bijan> Ship it
18:30:10 <alanr> They are as good as we can do
18:30:20 <alanr> so ship
18:30:24 <pfps> ship them
18:32:07 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
18:32:08 <Zakim> Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau, Sandro, bmotik, IanH, Ivan, baojie, msmith, Achille, +1.212.239.aaaa, alanr, zimmer, schneid, christine, Elisa_Kendall, bijan
18:32:08 <evan> evan has joined #owl
18:35:13 <msmith> msmith has left #owl
18:41:37 <bmotik> bmotik has left #owl
19:39:25 <bijan> bijan has joined #owl
21:36:50 <Zakim> Zakim has left #owl
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000758