Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Chatlog 2009-04-08
From OWL
See original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
<ScribeNick> PRESENT: Bijan Parsia, Peter (pfps) Patel-Schneider, Boris Motik, Antoine (zimmer) Zimmermann, Ian Horrocks, Jeff Pan, Markus Krötzsch, Alan (alanr) Ruttenberg, Uli Sattler, Sandro Hawke, Rinke Hoekstra, Zhe Wu, Bernardo (bcuencag2) Cuenca Grau, Achille Fokoue, Ivan Herman, Evan Wallace, Christine Golbreich, Mike Smith, Jie (baojie) Bao 17:04:37 <ScribeNick> REGRETS: Elisa Kendall, Michael Schneider 17:04:37 <ScribeNick> CHAIR: Alan Ruttenberg 17:04:37 <JeffP> ScribeNick: JeffP 17:04:37 <JeffP> subtopic: Agenda amendments? 17:05:06 <JeffP> alanr: if we have time, maybe also cover test annotations 17:05:23 <pfps> minutes OK 17:05:26 <alanr> PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (1 April) 17:05:28 <Rinke> +1 17:05:41 <uli> +1 17:05:44 <alanr> RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes (1 April) 17:05:56 <JeffP> subtopic: Action items status 17:06:18 <JeffP> subsubtopic: Pending Review Actions 17:06:30 <JeffP> subsubtopic: Due and overdue Actions 17:06:47 <bijan> <http://www.w3.org/mid/49DC3E4D.2020501@sandsoft.com>? 17:07:07 <alanr> PROPOSED: WG will send short CR comment to the Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment Working Group and XHTML 2 Working Group of the form "we looked at the CURIE draft, but came to the conclusion that it did not meet our requirements 17:07:28 <ewallace> she did 17:08:12 <JeffP> alanr: any comments? 17:08:16 <sandro> alan: Bijan will send his more-detailed comments as personal comments. 17:08:40 <JeffP> bijan: any objection on more detailed comments? 17:08:47 <sandro> -0 it seems a little rude to not explain ourselves, but I agree it's not worth our time 17:09:52 <sandro> sandro: I should have read Bijan's comment, and it would be nice to have a WG response, but I think we're a little too busy right now. 17:10:02 <JeffP> IanH: it is reasonable to send personal comments 17:10:07 <alanr> +1 17:10:26 <JeffP> ... it will be a pity to throw it away 17:10:37 <JeffP> ... WG does not have time to review it 17:12:18 <sandro> action: sandro send a comment to the CURIE folks about us not using them. 17:12:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-325 - Send a comment to the CURIE folks about us not using them. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-04-15]. 17:12:23 <alanr> PROPOSED: WG will send short CR comment to the Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment Working Group and XHTML 2 Working Group of the form "we looked at the CURIE draft, but came to the conclusion that it did not meet our requirements, with Sandro's fixup to be more friendly. 17:12:30 <bijan> +1 17:12:30 <alanr> +1 17:12:32 <sandro> +0 17:12:33 <IanH> +1 17:12:33 <ivan> 1 17:12:36 <Zhe> +0 17:12:37 <Achille> 0 17:12:38 <uli> +1 17:12:38 <ewallace> +1 17:12:39 <JeffP> +1 17:12:40 <Rinke> +1 17:12:40 <msmith> +1 17:12:40 <MarkusK_> +1 17:12:41 <pfps> +0 17:12:46 <bcuencagrau> +1 17:12:47 <bmotik> +1 17:12:50 <alanr> RESOLVED: WG will send short CR comment to the Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment Working Group and XHTML 2 Working Group of the form "we looked at the CURIE draft, but came to the conclusion that it did not meet our requirements, with Sandro's fixup to be more friendly. 17:12:51 <zimmer> +! 17:13:49 <JeffP> ivan: I won't be around till next Wed 17:14:27 <JeffP> Topic: Documents and Reviewing 17:14:48 <JeffP> subtopic: Primer now ready for review -- thanks to Markus, Pascal & Sebastian 17:15:07 <JeffP> alanr: need more reviewers 17:15:18 <MarkusK_> ok, I did not see Chrsitine's review yet 17:15:44 <uli> too soon 17:16:04 <IanH> I think Christine means short notice 17:16:09 <pfps> I'm confused, what review is being discussed? 17:16:14 <bijan> It's not ready as a WD? 17:16:15 <alanr> primer 17:16:19 <JeffP> christine: I could review it if it is not too urgent 17:16:43 <JeffP> ... I like Bijan's version 17:16:44 <bijan> I'm not surprised! Christine is fair. 17:17:03 <JeffP> ... anyway, I need more time 17:17:05 <IanH> Just shows that you can't please all of the people all of the time :-) 17:17:24 <MarkusK_> Actually, we tried to not "throw away" content, but mostly restructure it. I need to see detailed comments. 17:18:02 <baojie> +1 17:18:30 <JeffP> Bijan: will we publish Primer soon? 17:18:44 <bijan> E.g., after this publicaiton, we could revert entirely 17:18:46 <bijan> Nothing blocks us 17:18:49 <JeffP> Ivan: publish as a draft is fine with me 17:18:59 <christine> for what reason to publish it now ? 17:19:15 <pfps> Primer is OK to publish as WD 17:19:18 <JeffP> alanr: I notice that we spent less time on this doc than others 17:19:35 <bijan> Just to get all publishing in synch. Publishing is cheap so we might as well. 17:19:42 <Rinke> +1 to publishing as draft, because the previous WD was of 11 April 2008 17:19:58 <JeffP> MarkusK: we are still working on the doc 17:20:20 <bijan> My default is to publish things as WDs often. 17:20:27 <pfps> Has anyone seen a review by Christine on Primer? 17:20:31 <JeffP> christine: why do we need to publish it now? 17:21:08 <JeffP> alanr: in the f2f, I agreed that we publish the docs at the same time 17:21:09 <Rinke> What about the reviews by Deborah and Michel... are they in yet? 17:21:29 <JeffP> christine: I don't agree to publish it now 17:21:36 <christine> was there reviewers assigned already ? 17:21:45 <MarkusK_> q+ re missing features and syntax 17:21:54 <uli> I would think that missing features in Primer is fine! It doesn't (and shouldn't) be comprehensive! 17:22:07 <ewallace> Primer is not intended to be comprehensive for language features. 17:22:17 <bijan> Indeed! 17:22:21 <Rinke> I agree with Evan... 17:22:22 <JeffP> ivan: the previous version was published one year ago 17:22:28 <JeffP> ... i.e. a long time ago 17:22:49 <bijan> I'm consistent: Publish early and often. There's should be no bar to pubbing a wd 17:22:55 <JeffP> ... we need to prove to the community that this work is as serious as others 17:23:23 <IanH> +1 to Ivan 17:23:43 <JeffP> alanr: we could postpone the vote till next week 17:23:53 <JeffP> Markus: agree with Ivan 17:24:43 <JeffP> christine: I agree with Ivan's comment 17:24:56 <JeffP> ... that's the reason that we should not publish it now 17:25:04 <JeffP> ... as we concern the quality of the doc 17:25:20 <JeffP> ... otherwise, it could give bad impression 17:25:23 <sandro> (I have a compromise for Christine) 17:25:46 <JeffP> Bijan: I appreciate both points 17:25:56 <JeffP> ... the point is that WD is cheap 17:26:00 <MarkusK_> +1 to Bijan 17:26:08 <JeffP> ... that's my default 17:26:18 <sandro> It's not unwritten. It's a rule. 17:26:27 <bijan> Er...Ivan is confused: It's a rule...the heartbeat rule 17:26:30 <ewallace> Heartbeat? 17:26:30 <JeffP> Ivan: there is a rule that each group should publish something every three months 17:26:32 <sandro> (but it can be ANY wd.) 17:26:34 <bijan> And it's not per document, it's for the group 17:26:43 <bijan> It's not a big deal eithe rway 17:27:18 <ewallace> Didn't Sandro have a compromise to propose? 17:27:25 <MarkusK_> Could we have an action for Christine to send an email with the issues she perceives to be blocking publication? 17:27:26 <sandro> I'm waiting patiently 17:27:29 <JeffP> alanr: shall we vote for it next week? 17:27:33 <bijan> There is no rule that we need to publish the primer 17:27:36 <bijan> at this time 17:27:48 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to address Christine's point about present scope and structure 17:27:55 <JeffP> Jie: can we add anchors into the docs? 17:28:18 <MarkusK_> yes, we can add more anchors. I though of this before, too. 17:28:47 <bijan> +1 to sandro 17:28:51 <MarkusK_> Jie, if you have particular subjects for which you need anchors, please sent an email. 17:28:53 <baojie> Markus: the current available "anchors" are in 17:28:56 <baojie> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Talk:Quick_Reference_Guide 17:28:57 <JeffP> sandro: it is only a WD 17:29:05 <MarkusK_> Jie, ok 17:29:38 <sandro> sandro: Let's add an editor's note saying we're looking for feedback on this different style. 17:29:39 <baojie> However, many of them are not very fine-grained, better to have anchor to each feature 17:29:46 <bijan> Another ednote! 17:29:50 <Rinke> I don't think it's fair to keep Markus et al. in the dark on the publication track. If we don't publish next week, they could have spent their effort more usefully on other documents. 17:29:50 <JeffP> christine: still have some concern 17:30:21 <sandro> alan: Let's do the ednote sandro suggests 17:30:22 <ewallace> It looks like the appendix is gone. 17:30:34 <JeffP> ... at this point we should remove the section 17:30:45 <bijan> Sounds good! 17:30:57 <JeffP> MarkusK: we can remove the Appendic section if people oppose 17:30:57 <sandro> markus: agreed -- we're removing appendix. 17:31:30 <JeffP> bijan: is this the only concern from christine? 17:32:03 <MarkusK_> The OWL-1-changes appendix is not removed yet; it will be removed for publication. 17:32:15 <JeffP> alanr: Jie, christine what do you think? 17:32:27 <JeffP> Jie: put it off 17:32:30 <MarkusK_> Jie, could you also send an email with your main concerns? 17:32:46 <JeffP> ... I mean put off the vote 17:32:53 <bijan> Ok, we're putting off. Thanks alan 17:33:00 <baojie> Markus: will do 17:33:22 <MarkusK_> Christine, we will publish this outside of W3C space 17:33:28 <JeffP> alanr: christine, what is your position about Primer, vote publication now or next week? 17:33:33 <JeffP> christine: up to you 17:33:34 <bijan> Yep 17:33:35 <MarkusK_> ... it wil not go into any document or note of the WG. 17:33:41 <JeffP> alanr: easy to postpone 17:34:22 <alanr> PROPOSED: SS&FS, Mapping to RDF, Direct Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics, Conformance & Test Cases, Profiles and XML Serialization are ready for publication as Last Call Working Drafts (modulo outstanding review discussions) 17:34:25 <JeffP> subtopic: Publication Schedule 17:34:37 <pfps> are there any outstanding review discussions? 17:34:56 <JeffP> alanr: I am impressed by the reviews and responses 17:35:14 <IanH> +1 -- huge kudos due to whole WG for the amount and quality of work over the past couple of weeks! 17:35:35 <bijan> Mike Grove has approved the XML Syntax as well 17:35:47 <msmith> ... assuming you are ok with T&C 17:36:10 <JeffP> Ivan: Michael says he didn't address one of the reviews 17:36:15 <alanr> PROPOSED: SS&FS, Mapping to RDF, Direct Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics, Conformance & Test Cases, Profiles and XML Serialization are ready for publication as Last Call Working Drafts (modulo outstanding review discussions) 17:36:15 <bijan> * RDF-Based Semantics review by Zhe: 17:36:15 <bijan> I have sent a complete response as of today (late), but no answer yet 17:37:03 <sandro> only outstanding review discussions we know of is Zhe's to Michael. 17:37:04 <JeffP> Zhe: I didn't read the email yet 17:37:05 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons) 17:37:06 <bijan> zakim, mute me 17:37:06 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted 17:37:06 <pfps> +1 ALU 17:37:07 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford) 17:37:07 <Rinke> +1 (University of Amsterdam) 17:37:07 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI) 17:37:09 <zimmer> +1 (DERI) 17:37:09 <sandro> +1 (W3C) 17:37:13 <msmith> +1 (C&P) 17:37:14 <JeffP> 0 (Aberdeen) 17:37:15 <ewallace> 0 17:37:20 <Achille> +1 (IBM) 17:37:23 <Zhe> +1 17:37:27 <baojie> +1 17:37:31 <alanr> RESOLVED: SS&FS, Mapping to RDF, Direct Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics, Conformance & Test Cases, Profiles and XML Serialization are ready for publication as Last Call Working Drafts (modulo outstanding review discussions) 17:37:39 <bijan> +1 Manchester 17:37:40 <sandro> Awesome work, folks. 17:37:45 <ivan> +1 17:37:53 <christine> +1 17:38:15 <alanr> PROPOSED: Document Overview, NF&R, QRG are ready for publication as OWD (modulo outstanding review discussions) 17:38:30 <bijan> Please, can we not use OWD 17:38:33 <bijan> WD is sufficent 17:38:35 <bijan> And standadrd 17:38:39 <pfps> +1 ALU 17:38:43 <baojie> +1 RPI 17:38:45 <ewallace> +1 17:38:47 <alanr> +1 Science Commons 17:38:48 <zimmer> +1 (DERI) 17:38:49 <christine> +1 17:38:49 <Zhe> +1 ORACLE 17:38:49 <bijan> +1 Manchester 17:38:50 <MarkusK_> +1 FZI 17:38:50 <Achille> +1 17:38:51 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford) 17:38:55 <ivan> +1 w3c 17:39:01 <Rinke> +1 (University of Amsterdam) 17:39:03 <msmith> +1 (C&P) 17:39:05 <JeffP> +1 (Aberdeen) 17:39:11 <sandro> +1 (W3C) 17:39:40 <sandro> OWD == Ordinary Working Draft (WD that is not FPWD or LCWD) 17:39:46 <alanr> RESOLVED: Document Overview, NF&R, QRG are ready for publication as OWD (modulo outstanding review discussions) 17:39:54 <sandro> woo hoo. :-) 17:40:16 <sandro> yeah, probably soon, peter. 17:40:18 <ivan> clap clap clap clap 17:40:22 <alanr> PROPOSED: Manchester Syntax and Data Range Extension are ready for publication as OWD 17:40:44 <ewallace> Is Data Range Extension what formerly called N-ary? 17:40:49 <bijan> Yes 17:40:50 <sandro> yes, ewallace 17:40:52 <alanr> PROPOSED: Manchester Syntax is ready for OWD and Data Range Extension is read for FPWD 17:41:01 <Achille> 0 (IBM) 17:41:03 <ivan> s/read /ready / 17:41:03 <bijan> Data Range Extension: Linear (In)Equations 17:41:04 <baojie> 0 17:41:04 <pfps> +1 ALU 17:41:08 <ivan> +1 w3c 17:41:08 <bijan> +1 Manchester 17:41:09 <JeffP> 0 (Aberdeen) 17:41:12 <ewallace> +1 NIST 17:41:13 <alanr> +1 Science Commons 17:41:13 <Zhe> 0 ORACLE 17:41:14 <MarkusK_> +1 FZI 17:41:16 <christine> 0 17:41:17 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford) 17:41:18 <zimmer> 0 DERI 17:41:18 <Rinke> +1 (University of Amsterdam) 17:41:18 <msmith> +1 (C&P) 17:41:48 <alanr> RESOLVED: Manchester Syntax is ready for OWD and Data Range Extension is read for FPWD 17:42:15 <alanr> PROPOSED: rdf:text is ready for publication as a Last Call Working Draft 17:42:40 <bijan> +1 Manchester 17:42:42 <pfps> +1 ALU 17:42:42 <baojie> +1 RPI 17:42:43 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford) 17:42:43 <alanr> +1 Science Commons 17:42:47 <zimmer> 0 17:42:48 <JeffP> 0 (Aberdeen) 17:42:50 <Achille> 0 17:42:52 <Rinke> +1 (University of Amsterdam) 17:42:53 <Zhe> +1 Oracle 17:42:54 <ewallace> +1 17:42:55 <sandro> +1 (W3C) 17:42:58 <msmith> +1 (C&P) 17:43:00 <christine> +1 17:43:02 <MarkusK_> +1 FZI 17:43:19 <alanr> RESOLVED: rdf:text is ready for publication as a Last Call Working Draft 17:43:29 <IanH> Thanks to everyone! (Virtual) drinks are on me :-) 17:43:41 <JeffP> :-) 17:43:48 <uli> feierabend! 17:43:58 <JeffP> Topic: (Technical) Issues Arising 17:44:13 <alanr> PROPOSED: owl:versionIRI will be used to store the version IRI 17:44:14 <JeffP> subtopic: RDF-Based Semantics and n-ary dataranges (see Michael's email) 17:45:14 <JeffP> subtopic: owl:versionInfo (see Uli's email and thread) 17:45:18 <alanr> PROPOSED: owl:versionIRI will be used to store the version IRI 17:45:21 <sandro> sandro: So these changes are considered part of the "modulo open reviews", since we're already at LC? 17:45:24 <pfps> This is one of the "modulos". Fortunately all changes for these are very localised. 17:45:28 <Rinke> +1 17:45:29 <baojie> +1 17:45:29 <zimmer> +1 17:45:30 <MarkusK_> +1 17:45:30 <uli> +1 17:45:30 <alanr> +1 Science Commons 17:45:31 <ivan> 0 17:45:31 <JeffP> +1 17:45:34 <ewallace> 0 17:45:34 <Achille> +1 17:45:35 <pfps> +1 17:45:35 <Zhe> 0 17:45:38 <christine> 0 17:45:45 <msmith> 0 17:45:45 <bijan> +1 17:45:53 <alanr> RESOLVED: owl:versionIRI will be used to store the version IRI 17:45:56 <sandro> 0 17:45:57 <pfps> Editor's should probably report back to the WG on the changes they made for these "modulos" 17:46:28 <pfps> q+ 17:46:29 <bmotik> I've already started changing it. 17:47:08 <IanH> I can look at it too 17:47:30 <sandro> action: boris to implement changes for owl:versionIRI 17:47:30 <trackbot> Created ACTION-326 - Implement changes for owl:versionIRI [on Boris Motik - due 2009-04-15]. 17:47:36 <JeffP> ivan: there is a change in RDF semantics too 17:47:43 <bmotik> Sure 17:47:57 <pfps> action: pfps to review changes for owl:versionIRI 17:47:57 <trackbot> Created ACTION-327 - Review changes for owl:versionIRI [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2009-04-15]. 17:47:58 <JeffP> alanr: Boris, could you check with Michael? 17:48:00 <sandro> action: peter to review and signal approval of changes made for owl:versionIRI 17:48:00 <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - peter 17:48:00 <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ppatelsc, phaase) 17:48:04 <bmotik> No need for an axiom: I've already started changing everything. 17:48:08 <sandro> action: pfps to review and signal approval of changes made for owl:versionIRI 17:48:08 <trackbot> Created ACTION-328 - Review and signal approval of changes made for owl:versionIRI [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2009-04-15]. 17:48:10 <bmotik> s/aximo/action 17:48:14 <sandro> action: ian to review and signal approval of changes made for owl:versionIRI 17:48:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-329 - Review and signal approval of changes made for owl:versionIRI [on Ian Horrocks - due 2009-04-15]. 17:48:30 <JeffP> subtopic: negative class and property assertions: should they be supported in OWL RL? (see Jos de Bruijn's LC comment and Achille's review of Profiles) 17:48:44 <sandro> action: boris to communicate with Michael Schneider about doing the changes to RDF-Based Semantic in support of owl:versionIRI 17:48:44 <trackbot> Created ACTION-330 - Communicate with Michael Schneider about doing the changes to RDF-Based Semantic in support of owl:versionIRI [on Boris Motik - due 2009-04-15]. 17:49:09 <JeffP> bmotik: we could easily add both of them 17:49:25 <JeffP> ... the change in OWL2RL RDF is minimum 17:49:47 <bijan> E.g., a:notC 17:50:07 <uli> but we don't have "negClassAssertion(a C)" 17:50:41 <uli> only ClassAssertion(a not(C)) 17:50:51 <JeffP> Zhe: for negative properties are fine 17:51:06 <bmotik> +q 17:51:14 <uli> could you explain, Zhe? 17:52:29 <JeffP> bmotik: we are talking about the right hand side 17:53:12 <JeffP> achille: if it is simply syntactic sugar, there is no reason that we should reject that 17:53:34 <alanr> PROPOSED: negative property assertions will be added to the OWL 2 RL profile 17:53:52 <JeffP> Zhe: I am convinced, no big deal 17:54:39 <bmotik> +1 17:54:46 <JeffP> bijan: jeremy is oppose to the negative properties in general 17:54:52 <alanr> "at risk"? 17:55:30 <uli> you can even translate them out (using disjointclasses) 17:55:42 <JeffP> bmotik: we should vote anyway 17:55:55 <uli> (the above relates to negative class assertions 17:55:59 <bijan> +1 to bmotik 17:56:09 <IanH> bijan: adding them (NPAs) to RL is thus good because it reinforces their importance 17:56:20 <bijan> IRI everywhere 17:57:00 <alanr> PROPOSED: negative class and property assertions will be added to the OWL 2 RL profile 17:57:07 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford) 17:57:07 <Achille> +1 (IBM) 17:57:08 <pfps> -0 ALU (worry about late changes, and rationale for doing this) 17:57:10 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI) 17:57:13 <alanr> 0 Science Commons 17:57:15 <bijan> +1 (Manchester) 17:57:18 <ewallace> 0 NIST 17:57:19 <msmith> +1 (C&P) 17:57:19 <baojie> 0 17:57:21 <Rinke> 0 17:57:22 <Zhe> +0 (ORACLE) 17:57:22 <zimmer> 0 17:57:22 <JeffP> -1 need more time thinking 17:57:26 <christine> 0 17:57:28 <ivan> 0 17:57:30 <alanr> fwiw, I'm sympathetic to pfps 17:57:32 <sandro> 0 (concerned about size of RL) 17:58:48 <sandro> let's make it at risk for being in RL 18:00:29 <Achille> JeffP, NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion(R, a, b) = DisjointClasses(ObjectSomeValueFrom(R, ObjectOneOf(b)), ObjectOneOf(a))). It is just a syntactic sugar. 18:01:17 <uli> Jeff, see Achille's comment above - and you can do the same with NegClassAssertion 18:01:25 <sandro> +1 bijan -- put it in the documents for now -- decide next week, 18:01:46 <MarkusK_> +1 to Bijan; the more time the editors get for the changes the better (also re peter's concerns) 18:01:53 <uli> +1 to Boris 18:01:56 <sandro> bmotik: I am 100,000% sure there is no problem here. [[ and I am wrong 103% of the time. ]] 18:01:58 <JeffP> I trust bmotik, ok to put At Risk 18:02:36 <Zhe> Achille, is that expression representable by RL syntax? 18:02:41 <JeffP> won't insist 18:02:49 <Achille> yes Zhe 18:03:04 <bijan> No 18:03:14 <alanr> PROPOSED: negative class and property assertions will be added to the OWL 2 RL profile unless problem are uncovered in then next week in which case revert 18:03:15 <bijan> (er...not ot Zhe) 18:03:21 <bijan> +1 Manchester 18:03:24 <pfps> 0 ALU 18:03:30 <ewallace> +1 NIST 18:03:31 <Achille> +1 (IBM) 18:03:32 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford) 18:03:34 <alanr> 0 Science Commons 18:03:34 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI) 18:03:35 <sandro> +1 18:03:36 <christine> 0 18:03:38 <JeffP> 0 (Aberdeen) 18:03:40 <Rinke> 0 18:03:40 <Zhe> +0 ORACLE 18:03:43 <zimmer> 0.5 18:03:44 <baojie> 0 18:03:44 <msmith> +1 (C&P) 18:04:03 <alanr> RESOLVED: negative class and property assertions will be added to the OWL 2 RL profile unless problem are uncovered in then next week in which case revert 18:04:24 <JeffP> subtopic: owl:real -- do we still want/need it? 18:04:36 <ewallace> +1 to Bijan 18:04:36 <JeffP> bijan: yes, we want and need it 18:04:43 <JeffP> ... necessary for n-ary 18:04:45 <MarkusK_> +1 to Bijan 18:04:52 <msmith> +1 to bijan 18:05:02 <uli> +1 to Bijan as well 18:05:05 <pfps> +1 to Bijan (at least that rational is not adequate) 18:05:49 <pfps> what we really might want is geometric numbers (I think that this is what we need) but real is better 18:06:01 <bijan> algebraic numbers is what you mean 18:06:04 <JeffP> subtopic: Figure 2 in Overview -- to be or not to be? 18:06:09 <bijan> And I think we want transcendentals 18:07:26 <sandro> we're talking about http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/images/4/4d/Owl2-profiles-4-muted-small.png 18:07:33 <JeffP> christine: is the figure correct? 18:07:44 <JeffP> sandro: just about syntax 18:07:50 <uli> and for syntax it's correct 18:08:33 <JeffP> Hi uli, how about on semantics? 18:08:44 <msmith> +1 to removing the "(Full)" 18:08:57 <uli> Jeff, what would the sets stand for? 18:09:08 <JeffP> uli, thanks 18:09:40 <Rinke> +1 to Bijan... the picture is potentially really really confusing 18:09:50 <christine> +1 to Bijan! 18:09:52 <JeffP> bijan: could lead to confusion 18:10:00 <Rinke> (at least, if we have a picture for syntax, we should have one for semantics as well) 18:10:53 <alanr> STRAW POLL: write "in" for keeping the diagram and "out" for removing it 18:11:17 <Rinke> out 18:11:21 <bijan> out 18:11:22 <JeffP> christine: can we simply keep the profiles without full? 18:11:24 <ivan> in 18:11:27 <alanr> in 18:11:30 <sandro> in 18:11:36 <baojie> out 18:11:37 <uli> don't know 18:11:43 <pfps> out, out, out 18:11:50 <Zhe> not sure 18:11:51 <zimmer> in 18:12:02 <christine> leaning for out 18:12:03 <MarkusK_> unsure 18:12:03 <msmith> ou 18:12:05 <bcuencagrau> not sure 18:12:08 <JeffP> not sure 18:12:09 <Achille> not sure 18:12:17 <ewallace> not sure 18:13:01 <pfps> misleading, for sure 18:13:04 <baojie> Is RL really a subset of DL? it only has RDF semantics 18:13:05 <alanr> ack christine 18:13:10 <bijan> I don't think it's correct 18:13:12 <bijan> But I have no idea 18:13:17 <ivan> baojie: this is not true I believe 18:13:18 <baojie> +q 18:13:18 <alanr> ack uli 18:13:25 <Rinke> baojie ... it's syntax, not semantics 18:13:31 <baojie> i see 18:13:32 <JeffP> uli: the syntactic features of RL, EL, and QL overlap, but none is an extension of another 18:13:37 <MarkusK_> baojie, all syntqactic profiles support either semantics 18:13:42 <Rinke> ... and *that's* the confusing bit 18:13:55 <IanH> As an alternative, how about adding http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/03/04/puppy.jpg to soothe people who are worried about profiles? 18:14:04 <Rinke> +1 to IanH 18:14:09 <JeffP> ... it could make the context right 18:14:23 <bijan> Size of langauge 18:14:27 <JeffP> :-) 18:14:28 <bijan> Size of overlap 18:14:36 <sandro> nice, IanH :-) 18:15:09 <Zhe> RL circile should be bigger :) 18:15:17 <alanr> I'm thinking http://www.wristwatches.tv/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/zidane-head-butt.jpg 18:15:36 <alanr> but perhaps that's idiosyncratic to chairing ;-) 18:15:41 <sandro> q? 18:15:43 <sandro> q+ 18:15:48 <alanr> ack bijan 18:16:17 <alanr> ack sandro 18:16:27 <uli> zakim, mute me 18:16:43 <bijan> Yes! 18:16:46 <bijan> Put it on your blog 18:16:52 <bijan> I'll link to it 18:16:58 <bijan> And you can link to me 18:17:19 <JeffP> Topic: Test Cases 18:17:29 <sandro> sandro: I suggest we leave it out of the next publication of Overview, and see if we get comments on it. I can put it in my blog or something. :-) 18:18:16 <sandro> sandro: (and since that's what's in the version on the wiki right now, I think we don't need a resolution about it at this point.) 18:18:18 <sandro> alan: okay. 18:18:38 <JeffP> msmith: we need test running tools 18:19:12 <msmith> the current tests around new features are listed at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test_Wrangler_Notes#New_Feature_Test_Cases 18:19:57 <JeffP> bijan: it will take a while till we have the updated OWL API 18:20:32 <msmith> http://github.com/msmithcp/owlwg-test/tree/master 18:21:06 <JeffP> bijan: Robert Steven has some expressive ontologies and some tutorials 18:21:09 <bijan> E.g., http://owl.cs.manchester.ac.uk/repository/download?ontology=http://www.co-ode.org/roberts/family-tree.owl&version=0&format=RDF/XML 18:21:16 <IanH> We also have a bunch of unit tests and an expanding set of test ontologies. 18:21:36 <IanH> But I know that Birte is already in touch with Mike on testing. 18:21:40 <bijan> Also, we'll have about 18 OWL EL -- reasoners in a few weeks :) 18:21:42 <msmith> I think those were using OWLAPI, yes? 18:21:45 <alanr> thanks ian 18:21:55 <JeffP> http://dipper.csd.abdn.ac.uk:8080/OWL2ProfileChecker/ 18:22:30 <bijan> Test parties! 18:22:31 <JeffP> alanr: msmith could check with Jeff 18:23:35 <msmith> [...] not true 18:23:43 <MarkusK_> +1 to mike 18:24:42 <MarkusK_> Note that there are other syntaxes, see e.g. http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/Test:FUNCTIONAL 18:24:52 <msmith> See http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/New-Feature-DisjointObjectProperties-001 18:26:30 <JeffP> alanr: how can we test annotation functioning? 18:26:44 <JeffP> ... we should discuss more in emails 18:27:05 <uli> Alan, load, safe, and check whether annotations are still there? 18:27:24 <alanr> uli: how? 18:27:47 <MarkusK_> +1 to Mike that normative syntax transformations need not be generated for *all* tests 18:27:48 <uli> Alan, use grep? 18:28:36 <sandro> mike: I don't think we can hand-check syntax tests for every test case. 18:29:20 <sandro> bijan: round-trip testing. 18:30:06 <JeffP> IanH: a test can be an ontology that consists all language constructs 18:30:10 <sandro> ian: mutual-entailing as a translation test. 18:30:12 <msmith> +1 to doing this mostly in 1 large test 18:30:17 <sandro> alan: yes, modulo annotations. 18:30:25 <JeffP> Topic: Any other business 18:30:31 <uli> bye bye 18:30:32 <JeffP> thx, bye 18:30:34 <Zhe> bye 18:30:35 <Rinke> bye # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000835