Chatlog 2009-06-03

See original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.

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

16:50:06 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:50:06 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/06/03-owl-irc
16:53:00 <ivan> ivan has joined #owl
16:54:14 <zimmer> zimmer has joined #owl
16:54:22 <bmotik> bmotik has joined #owl
16:54:29 <bmotik> Zakim, this will be owl
16:54:29 <Zakim> ok, bmotik; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
16:56:10 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
16:56:17 <Zakim> +??P1
16:56:30 <IanH> IanH has joined #owl
16:57:00 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
16:57:00 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
16:57:01 <Zakim> +Ivan
16:57:21 <bijan> scribe: bijan
16:57:28 <Zakim> +Ian_Horrocks
16:57:38 <bijan> zakim, ??p1 is me
16:57:38 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
16:58:04 <bijan> scribenick: bijan
16:58:07 <IanH> zakim, this is OWL
16:58:07 <Zakim> IanH, this was already SW_OWL()1:00PM
16:58:08 <Zakim> ok, IanH; that matches SW_OWL()1:00PM
16:58:20 <IanH> zakim, Ian_Horrocks is IanH
16:58:21 <Zakim> +IanH; got it
16:58:49 <MarkusK_> MarkusK_ has joined #owl
16:58:56 <IanH> IanH has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.06.03/Agenda
16:59:03 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
16:59:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan, Ivan, IanH
16:59:08 <Zakim> On IRC I see MarkusK_, IanH, bmotik, zimmer, ivan, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, sandro, trackbot
16:59:21 <IanH> RRSAgent, make records public
17:00:06 <Zakim> +??P9
17:00:16 <msmith> msmith has joined #owl
17:00:40 <Zakim> + +03539149aaaa
17:00:48 <uli> uli has joined #owl
17:00:52 <Zakim> +Sandro
17:01:09 <Zakim> +??P12
17:01:09 <zimmer> Zakim, +03539149aaaa is me
17:01:10 <Zakim> +zimmer; got it
17:01:12 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P12 is me
17:01:13 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
17:01:17 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:01:17 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:01:27 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:01:27 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan, Ivan, IanH, MarkusK_, zimmer, Sandro, bmotik (muted)
17:01:29 <Zakim> On IRC I see uli, msmith, MarkusK_, IanH, bmotik, zimmer, ivan, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, sandro, trackbot
17:01:47 <bcuencagrau> bcuencagrau has joined #owl
17:01:47 <Zakim> +??P2
17:01:48 <msmith1> msmith1 has joined #owl
17:01:53 <uli> zakim, ??P2 is me
17:01:53 <Zakim> +uli; got it
17:01:55 <alanr> alanr has joined #owl
17:01:57 <bijan> Topic: Admin
17:02:02 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:02:02 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan, Ivan, IanH, MarkusK_, zimmer, Sandro, bmotik (muted), uli
17:02:04 <Zakim> On IRC I see alanr, msmith1, bcuencagrau, uli, msmith, MarkusK_, IanH, bmotik, zimmer, ivan, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, sandro, trackbot
17:02:23 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl
17:02:26 <bijan> IanH: No agenda amendments. Previous minutes?
17:02:26 <uli> yes
17:02:29 <uli> look fine
17:02:30 <baojie> baojie has joined #owl
17:02:31 <Zakim> + +0186528aabb
17:02:40 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, 0186528aabb is me
17:02:40 <Zakim> sorry, bcuencagrau, I do not recognize a party named '0186528aabb'
17:02:51 <bijan> IanH:  Hearing no objection, they are approved.
17:02:51 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, +0186528aabb is me
17:02:51 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it
17:02:52 <Zakim> +Alan
17:02:54 <Zakim> + +1.603.897.aacc
17:02:57 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
17:02:57 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:02:58 <IanH> RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-05-27
17:03:04 <Zhe> zakim, +1.603.897.aacc is me
17:03:04 <Zakim> +Zhe; got it
17:03:08 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
17:03:10 <Zhe> zakim, mute me
17:03:10 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted
17:03:24 <pfps> pfps has joined #owl
17:03:32 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aadd
17:03:37 <bijan> IanH: action item review...pending ones are done.
17:03:39 <baojie> Zakim, aadd is baojie
17:03:39 <Zakim> +baojie; got it
17:03:55 <mschneid> mschneid has joined #owl
17:04:16 <Zakim> + +1.202.408.aaee
17:04:19 <bijan> IanH: Bijan's overdue action item. When should it be do?
17:04:30 <bijan> bijan: would like to do it by PR
17:04:37 <bijan> IanH: Any problem with that? Ivan?
17:04:41 <bijan> ivan: no
17:04:50 <bijan> Topic: Advancing documents to Last Call and Candidate Recommendation
17:05:14 <zimmer> q+
17:05:16 <bijan> IanH: PlainLiteral seems to be in good shape. yay to shapers
17:05:34 <IanH> q?
17:05:49 <Zakim> +??P18
17:05:57 <bijan> Sandro: Last week, Peter and I became editors. And it seems that there is consensus. SPARQL and RIF are ok. Axel has a little issue.
17:05:57 <mschneid> zakim, ??P18 is me
17:05:57 <Zakim> +mschneid; got it
17:06:01 <mschneid> zakim, mute me
17:06:01 <Zakim> mschneid should now be muted
17:06:01 <IanH> q?
17:06:27 <bijan> ...RIF approved it as ready for LC2 or CR, whichever we go for. We should go for CR.
17:06:29 <pfps> CR all the way!
17:06:47 <IanH> q?
17:06:47 <bijan> IanH: We've gotten the positive email from SPARQL
17:06:48 <ivan> q+
17:07:00 <IanH> ack zimmer
17:07:15 <IanH> q?
17:07:38 <uli> could we see this sentence?
17:08:08 <sandro> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-text/2009AprJun/0295.html
17:08:12 <alanr> minimizing objections suggests accepting his wording. no one objected.
17:08:15 <bijan> zimmer: Repping Axel: He said that he would not like the document published without the issue resolved. There were 3 proposed solutions to changing the sentence. But he won't accept leaving at as it is. DERI would vote against publication without some change.
17:08:22 <zimmer> Therefore, typed literals with rdf:PlainLiteral as the datatype do not occur in syntaxes for RDF graphs, nor in syntaxes for SPARQL.
17:08:43 <uli> zakim, mute me
17:08:43 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
17:08:45 <ivan> q-
17:08:51 <sandro> in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/PlainLiteral#Syntax_for_rdf:PlainLiteral_Literals
17:09:25 <uli> which is your preferred option?
17:09:52 <uli> 3?
17:09:52 <IanH> q?
17:10:51 <bijan> IanH: What are we supposed to do? If we decide which one we want, then do we have to wait for the RIF people, and then for the SPARQL people? And the heat death of the universe?
17:11:00 <bijan> sandro: Ok to defer to the rdf-text list.
17:11:20 <bijan> ...It's really an editorial change.
17:11:44 <alanr> +1 to bijan
17:12:06 <IanH> q?
17:12:09 <bijan> s/bijan/sandro/
17:12:30 <bijan> q+
17:12:48 <IanH> ack bijan
17:13:28 <pfps> I suggest that we vote, and say that any of the 3 options are OK.
17:13:37 <bijan> +1 to pfps 
17:13:40 <sandro> +1 pfps
17:14:00 <ivan> +1 pfps
17:14:04 <IanH> q?
17:15:27 <sandro> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-text/2009AprJun/0295.html
17:15:42 <IanH> PROPOSED: The OWL WG will defer to the editors or rdf:PlainLiteral to resolve the issue described in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-text/2009AprJun/0295.html
17:15:48 <sandro> +1
17:15:48 <bijan> +1
17:15:50 <zimmer> +1
17:15:52 <uli> +1
17:15:52 <Zhe> +1
17:15:53 <MarkusK_> +1
17:15:54 <pfps> +1
17:15:55 <bmotik> +1
17:15:55 <msmith1> +1
17:15:56 <IanH> +1
17:15:57 <mschneid> +1
17:16:01 <baojie> +1
17:16:09 <ivan> +1
17:16:33 <IanH> RESOLVED: The OWL WG will defer to the editors of rdf:PlainLiteral to resolve the issue described in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-text/2009AprJun/0295.html
17:16:43 <alanr> +1
17:16:56 <IanH> PROPOSED: rdf:PlainLiteral is ready for publication as a Candidate Recommendation
17:16:57 <pfps> +1 ALU
17:17:00 <bmotik> +1 Oxford
17:17:04 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
17:17:08 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
17:17:09 <sandro> +1 (W3C)
17:17:10 <alanr> +1 Science Commons
17:17:10 <msmith1> +1 C&P
17:17:15 <baojie> +1
17:17:17 <uli> +1 Manchester
17:17:21 <baojie> +1 RPI
17:17:27 <zimmer> +!1Only if the sentence aforementioned is changed (DERI)
17:17:45 <IanH> RESOLVED: rdf:PlainLiteral is ready for publication as a Candidate Recommendation 
17:18:08 <pfps> q+
17:18:12 <IanH> Q?
17:18:18 <IanH> ack pfps
17:18:31 <ivan> q+
17:18:42 <bijan> pfps: We need to make some slight adjustments to our docs to accommodate PlainLiteral.
17:18:53 <bijan> ...e.g., RDF mapping.
17:18:57 <IanH> q?
17:19:24 <bijan> ...Also in Structural Spec to align Literals there to PlainLiterals
17:19:56 <bijan> ACTION: pfps to align RDF Mapping with the PlainLiteral spec
17:19:56 <trackbot> Created ACTION-339 - Align RDF Mapping with the PlainLiteral spec [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2009-06-10].
17:20:16 <bijan> ACTION: boris to align structural spec with the PlainLiteral spec
17:20:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-340 - Align structural spec with the PlainLiteral spec [on Boris Motik - due 2009-06-10].
17:20:27 <IanH> q?
17:20:30 <IanH> ack ivan
17:20:48 <bijan> ivan: With all these resolutions, do we still  need to keep PlainLiteral at risk?
17:20:51 <alanr> not at risk any more
17:20:53 <bijan> IanH: Hopefully not.
17:21:00 <IanH> q?
17:21:04 <sandro> yeah, let's take them out of "at risk"
17:21:05 <mschneid> we did never add an "At-Risk" comment to our documents for rdf:text
17:21:45 <IanH> q?
17:21:46 <bmotik> q+
17:21:52 <IanH> q?
17:21:56 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:21:56 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
17:21:59 <IanH> ack bmotik
17:22:06 <mschneid> there is no such AtRisk comment in the RDF-based semantics
17:22:16 <alanr> ambiguity
17:22:23 <bijan> boris: I don't think the syntax document needs changing. So perhaps I should talk with pfps off line.
17:22:24 <alanr> q+
17:22:37 <bijan> pfps: it's purely editorial, so we can discuss off line
17:22:40 <IanH> ack alanr
17:22:50 <msmith1> q+ about this
17:22:51 <bijan> IanH: No change is ok under boris's action.
17:22:55 <IanH> qq?
17:22:58 <IanH> q?
17:23:06 <bijan> alanr: I don't think it's editorial. Since you can't tell something.
17:23:37 <IanH> q?
17:23:38 <bijan> boris: SS never had a notion of plain literals. SS uses an abbreviation, which should stay.
17:23:44 <msmith1> q-
17:24:01 <bijan> alanr: The problem is that the abbreviation abbreviates xsd:string or PlainLiteral, hence ambiguity.
17:24:34 <bijan> boris: This is not true. The current wording is unambiguous. But we could make it even more clear.
17:24:37 <msmith1> this was discussed in thread http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009May/0329.html and not resolved
17:24:40 <bijan> IanH: Take it off line, perhaps?
17:25:07 <bijan> ...Now on to Status Reports. Modulo the few changes, i think we're ready. Sandro?
17:25:07 <IanH> q?
17:25:21 <bijan> sandro: I think so. Couple little things, but generally ok.
17:25:36 <mschneid> *when* will transition happen?
17:25:45 <bijan> IanH: CR transition meeting occurs next Wed. 
17:25:59 <bijan> sandro: if we are approved, we'll publish the next day.
17:26:11 <bijan> IanH: If this works out then we can do a press push at SemTech
17:26:14 <mschneid> q+
17:26:18 <IanH> q?
17:26:18 <mschneid> zakim, unmute me
17:26:19 <Zakim> mschneid should no longer be muted
17:26:25 <sandro> queue=
17:26:58 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:26:58 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:27:47 <IanH> q?
17:27:53 <mschneid> zakim, mute me
17:27:53 <Zakim> mschneid should now be muted
17:28:28 <bijan> Topic: Moving Forward
17:29:29 <bijan> IanH: It was suggested by XML Schema co-chair that we should make a comment about our use of XSD 1.1.
17:29:31 <alanr> was our experience positive?
17:29:39 <bijan> yes.
17:29:39 <IanH> q?
17:29:51 <IanH> q?
17:29:52 <pfps> 1.1 >> 1.0 !!!
17:29:56 <ivan> q+
17:29:59 <bijan> IanH: I think we decided that as far as we were concerned 1.1 was much better than 1.0.
17:30:00 <IanH> ack ivan
17:30:08 <bijan> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/XSD_1.1_Comment_draft
17:30:28 <bijan> ivan: I suggest a push for you to keep on schedule.
17:30:31 <bijan> q+
17:30:32 <pfps> How about a stronger-than-gentle push!
17:30:40 <alanr> I would like the objection noted
17:30:44 <bijan> IanH: That's the point :)
17:30:47 <alanr> q+
17:30:49 <bijan> q-
17:30:59 <IanH> q?
17:31:33 <IanH> ack alanr
17:31:37 <bijan> q+
17:31:47 <IanH> q?
17:31:51 <IanH> ack bijan
17:32:01 <pfps> I am very strongly against including anything like that.
17:32:07 <IanH> q?
17:32:15 <ivan> q+
17:32:25 <pfps> +1 to bijan
17:32:25 <bijan> bijan: I object to that. It's irrelevant.
17:32:26 <IanH> ack ivan
17:32:43 <IanH> q?
17:32:59 <IanH> q?
17:33:25 <IanH> q?
17:33:31 <alanr> I will take that under consideration
17:33:34 <bmotik> +1000 to Ivan and Ian
17:33:43 <pfps> +111111 to Ivan and Ian
17:33:54 <pfps> q+
17:34:02 <IanH> q?
17:34:06 <IanH> ack pfps
17:34:17 <bijan> pfps: I suggest we vote to send the message as is.
17:34:26 <bijan> +1 to pfps
17:35:18 <IanH> q?
17:35:20 <bijan> IanH: How do we deal with remaining or new issues?
17:35:57 <IanH> q?
17:36:07 <pfps> q+
17:36:12 <IanH> ack pfps
17:36:15 <bijan> alanr: We have a response to our comment from Grosof requesting editorial change
17:36:27 <bijan> IanH: Proposal is to continue as we've been doing.
17:36:43 <bijan> pfps: We shouldn't use the current LC comment page. We should freeze that.
17:36:57 <bijan> bijan has left #owl
17:37:02 <bijan> bijan has joined #owl
17:37:02 <bijan> bijan has left #owl
17:37:08 <bijan> bijan has joined #owl
17:37:09 <IanH> q?
17:37:41 <bijan> IanH: So we'll use the issue list to track new issues raised
17:38:06 <alanr> letter on xml schema: Would like to remove " and operations  on data values such as comparison of dates;"
17:38:09 <msmith1> q+
17:38:18 <IanH> q?
17:38:23 <bijan> IanH: Implementation and testing. Any progress on implementation? I had some positive feedback from Pascal Hitzler on OWL RL.
17:38:31 <alanr> letter on xml schema remove point 4
17:38:34 <MarkusK_> q+
17:38:50 <alanr> letter on xml schema add thanks for responsiveness to our inquiries and issues
17:39:53 <sandro> re HP: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/29/hp_labs_closure/
17:39:55 <bijan> ivan: I've been in contact with Franz Inc on Allegrograph, aduna, HP. They were positive subject to resource contraints. (HP labs is being shut down.) Also had feedback from Axel. No firm commitments.
17:40:45 <bijan> ...Mid July is a tight timeline.
17:40:52 <IanH> ack msmith
17:41:00 <uli> I have talked to Racer, Quonto, CEL
17:41:02 <bijan> IanH: These folks are not strictly necessary, but nice to have
17:41:17 <bijan> msmith: CEL people contact me about the test harness so they might help.
17:41:30 <uli> ...and they are all looking into some testing.  
17:41:33 <bijan> ivan: Snorocket?
17:41:49 <bijan> IanH: The only issue is about putting an OWL front end on it.
17:42:11 <ivan> snocrocket is by CSIRO, Brisbane
17:42:14 <IanH> ack MarkusK_
17:42:16 <IanH> q?
17:42:37 <alanr> http://code.google.com/p/cel/
17:42:49 <msmith1> q+ about this...
17:42:51 <IanH> q?
17:43:01 <bijan> MarkusK_: Need the OWL API.
17:43:02 <bijan> q+
17:43:13 <IanH> ack bijan
17:43:34 <IanH> bijan: OWL API is close to being ready
17:43:49 <msmith1> q- about
17:43:51 <msmith1> q- this...
17:43:53 <msmith1> q+
17:43:54 <IanH> ... were last minute changes to syntax (as we know) that causes some hassles
17:44:04 <ivan> +1 to Bijan!
17:44:12 <MarkusK_> Markus: The CEL people also contacted me. The implementation reported by Pascal is developed by STI Innsbruck, and might be usable for RL and EL.
17:44:13 <IanH> ... but will finish job soon (modulo ISWC deadline)
17:44:16 <IanH> q?
17:44:21 <IanH> ack msmith
17:44:38 <MarkusK_> Markus: Many implementors hope for the OWL API to be available.
17:44:59 <bijan> msmith: I want to clarify that I don't think we can *count* on all of the OWL API stuff being ready. E.g., OWL API 2 to OWL API 3 shifts might not happen.
17:45:03 <IanH> q?
17:45:11 <IanH> q?
17:45:12 <MarkusK_> ok, that sound good
17:45:16 <bijan> ...There are some ripple effects.
17:45:22 <MarkusK_> s /sound/sounds/
17:45:27 <IanH> q?
17:45:29 <msmith1> +1 to this concern
17:46:04 <IanH> bijan: maybe; trying to get other efforts going; e.g., to adapt/update Jena
17:46:26 <IanH> ... working on RDF/XML --> OWL/XML translator
17:46:43 <msmith1> yes.
17:46:50 <MarkusK_> good
17:47:06 <bijan> IanH: We need profile validators!
17:47:14 <IanH> q?
17:47:39 <alanr> yes
17:47:49 <IanH> bijan: is intending to have a species validation implementation not dependent on the OWL API
17:48:11 <alanr> could add lsw
17:48:15 <ivan> q+
17:48:15 <bijan> IanH: can we add information about these pending implementation to the implementation page?
17:48:19 <ivan> q-
17:48:19 <IanH> q?
17:48:27 <alanr> I can add it for my system
17:48:48 <IanH> q?
17:49:00 <ivan> q+
17:49:09 <IanH> q?
17:49:15 <IanH> ack ivan
17:49:23 <bijan> q+
17:49:31 <alanr> protege depends on owlapi
17:49:32 <bijan> ivan: how about protege?
17:49:32 <uli> half way
17:49:38 <IanH> q?
17:49:40 <IanH> ack bijan
17:50:37 <ivan> q+
17:51:08 <IanH> bijan: Protege 4 already pretty good; working on upgrading; also have another editing tool
17:51:24 <msmith1> keys and annotations
17:51:24 <uli> why?
17:51:25 <IanH> q?
17:51:33 <uli> DatatypeDefinition
17:51:42 <uli> AnnotationPropertyRange
17:52:00 <msmith1> the datatype set ops (e.g., union)
17:52:08 <IanH> bijan: lots of little things; will make progress -- hopefully enough for CR
17:52:11 <IanH> ack ivan
17:52:27 <bijan> ivan: I was wondering if it's worth reporting about all the various implementations that we're hearing about at semtech
17:52:46 <bijan> IanH: Can do any harm, yes? Let's do it!
17:52:55 <IanH> q?
17:53:04 <msmith1> +1 to the idea, let's take off-line
17:54:03 <IanH> q?
17:54:06 <bijan> I'll note that OWL/XML tools will be quite robust :)
17:54:42 <bijan> q+
17:55:13 <IanH> ack bijan
17:56:15 <IanH> bijan: could layer an owl full implementation on top of a DL one with punning
17:56:53 <IanH> ... will tools that only accept OWL/XML will count as a useful category of tool?
17:57:40 <alanr> +1
17:57:43 <IanH> q?
17:58:13 <IanH> q?
17:58:33 <alanr> higher
17:58:50 <msmith1> q+ to discourage the profile validator
17:59:02 <IanH> q?
17:59:07 <IanH> ack msmith
17:59:07 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to discourage the profile validator
17:59:44 <IanH> q?
17:59:47 <Zakim> -Alan
18:00:34 <alanr> calling back
18:00:58 <Zakim> +Alan_Ruttenberg
18:01:01 <bijan> IanH: Let's get back to the vote about the XML Schema message
18:01:15 <IanH> q?
18:01:25 <IanH> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/XSD_1.1_Comment_draft
18:01:35 <bijan> IanH: Alan?
18:01:52 <bijan> alanr: I would be ok with a few tweaks
18:02:53 <Zakim> -MarkusK_
18:02:58 <sandro> (I need to run.    Ciao, all.)
18:02:58 <pfps> q+
18:03:04 <Zakim> -Sandro
18:03:25 <IanH> q?
18:03:27 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:03:30 <IanH> ack pfps
18:03:45 <IanH> q?
18:05:06 <ekw> ekw has joined #owl
18:05:11 <bijan> I think the current draft is fine. The changes proposed make it worse. But who cares.
18:05:22 <uli> +1 to bijan
18:05:42 <pfps> +1 even the modified version is much better than nothing
18:06:01 <IanH> PROPOSED: send email to XML Schema group as per draft http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/XSD_1.1_Comment_draft modulo minor edits
18:06:09 <ivan> +1
18:06:09 <bijan> +1
18:06:10 <alanr> +1
18:06:11 <bmotik> +1
18:06:13 <msmith1> +1
18:06:14 <pfps> +1
18:06:15 <uli> +1
18:06:15 <Zhe> +1
18:06:17 <baojie> +1
18:06:17 <MarkusK_> +1
18:06:17 <bcuencagrau> +1
18:06:31 <IanH> RESOLVED: send email to XML Schema group as per draft http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/XSD_1.1_Comment_draft modulo minor edits
18:06:33 <zimmer> +1
18:06:52 <msmith1> q+ to bring up public-owl-wg discussion about rl test cases
18:07:08 <bijan> IanH: Nearly done. Tests seem to be going well without us.
18:07:15 <IanH> ack msmith
18:07:15 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to bring up public-owl-wg discussion about rl test cases
18:07:48 <bijan> msmith: What are we supposed to be testing with OWL RL test cases?
18:08:11 <bijan> IanH: First, can we decide wrt to validating test cases. I'd be happy to delegate to the editors.
18:08:14 <ivan> +1 to Ian
18:08:15 <bijan> +1 to ian
18:08:20 <MarkusK_> +1 to Ian
18:08:21 <msmith1> +1
18:08:26 <pfps> +1
18:08:49 <bijan> IanH: Good. Struck from the agenda. back to RL
18:09:19 <IanH> q?
18:09:32 <bijan> msmith: I'm ok with adding metadata about whether the RL test is complete wrt TH1, but there is a suggestion that other tests "will work out ok" even though we have no text in a document anywhere about what it is to "work out"
18:10:20 <bijan> q+
18:10:22 <uli> However, even identifying some tests that are in this category and some "Full" tests that are outside of this category would be a useful addition to the test set. Note that conforming RL systems are *not* obliged to "fail" the latter kind of test - they are simply not *obliged* to pass them.
18:10:26 <IanH> ack bijan
18:10:27 <uli> the above?
18:10:43 <uli> (as quoted from Ian's email)
18:11:04 <IanH> q?
18:11:22 <IanH> q?
18:11:28 <alanr> zhe?
18:11:46 <bijan> bijan: Do we need to go there for CR? It's ok to poke in dark corners, but let's not make our life harder than necessary now.
18:12:21 <bijan> ivan: I think i agree. My main issue was a marked RL test that can't be handled by the rules. I don't want that to block.
18:12:34 <msmith1> yes
18:12:35 <msmith1> q+ to propose that we add metadata for thm pr1
18:12:35 <IanH> q?
18:12:39 <Zhe> which particular test case?
18:12:40 <bijan> IanH: Mike pointed out that the entailed ontology didn't meet the conditions of TH1
18:12:40 <bijan> q+
18:12:46 <IanH> ack msmith
18:12:46 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to propose that we add metadata for thm pr1
18:13:06 <bijan> msmith: I think it's reasonable to mark all tests that are in RL also meet TH1
18:13:09 <Zhe> ivan, could you cut & paste the test case's URL?
18:13:10 <IanH> q?
18:13:19 <bijan> ivan: I would chose a different wording. Going offline for that.
18:13:22 <IanH> ack bijan
18:13:49 <msmith1> b/c extra credit would impact more than rl reasoners
18:13:59 <ivan> zhe: http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/DisjointClasses-001
18:14:13 <IanH> q?
18:14:35 <bijan> bijan: use extra credit status to distinguish the TH1 tests from the more than TH1 tests
18:14:48 <bijan> 1+
18:14:49 <bijan> er
18:14:50 <bijan> q+
18:14:52 <Zhe> thanks ivan
18:14:54 <msmith1> @ivan, I've just moved all zhe's owl 2 rl tests to proposed status
18:14:54 <IanH> q?
18:15:12 <IanH> q?
18:15:20 <ivan> http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/Test:RL
18:15:34 <IanH> ack bijan
18:16:15 <IanH> q?
18:17:17 <IanH> q?
18:17:25 <bijan> IanH: we seem to agree. We need more RL tests. We need to mark different categories of RL tests appropriately.
18:17:34 <IanH> q?
18:18:15 <ivan> q+
18:18:22 <IanH> ack ivan
18:18:38 <bijan> ivan: We already have some implementation that went through the tests and I wonder if the XMLLiteral issue we should keep at risk.
18:18:40 <IanH> q?
18:18:52 <IanH> q?
18:19:35 <IanH> q?
18:19:54 <pfps> +1 to Bijan
18:20:08 <IanH> q?
18:20:32 <bmotik> XMLLiteral is a pain to implement, but not impossible. Furthermore, I'd be fine with removing "At-Risk".
18:20:51 <bmotik> XMLLiteral is a pain to implement, but not impossible. Furthermore, I see it difficult to get rid of from a political point of view. I'd be fine with removing "At-Risk".
18:20:55 <IanH> q?
18:21:41 <bijan> IanH: It could be worth removing it to lower some eyebrows?
18:21:50 <bijan> ivan: Eyebrows out of the bag.
18:22:02 <IanH> q?
18:22:10 <bijan> IanH: And we can respond to the eyebrows with our likely positive outcome.
18:23:28 <Zakim> -bijan
18:23:30 <Zakim> -Ivan
18:23:30 <Zhe> bye
18:23:31 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
18:23:31 <Zakim> -baojie
18:23:32 <uli> bye
18:23:32 <ivan> ivan has left #owl
18:23:33 <Zakim> -msmith1
18:23:33 <Zakim> -zimmer
18:23:33 <alanr> bye
18:23:34 <Zakim> -IanH
18:23:35 <Zakim> -MarkusK_
18:23:35 <Zakim> -uli
18:23:38 <Zakim> -Alan_Ruttenberg
18:23:38 <zimmer> bye
18:23:40 <Zakim> -bmotik
18:23:46 <uli> uli has left #owl
18:23:51 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
18:23:54 <Zakim> -mschneid
18:24:38 <bmotik> bmotik has left #owl
18:29:14 <MarkusK_> MarkusK_ has left #owl
18:32:58 <Zakim> -Zhe
18:32:59 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
18:33:00 <Zakim> Attendees were Ivan, bijan, IanH, MarkusK_, Sandro, zimmer, bmotik, uli, bcuencagrau, Alan, Zhe, Peter_Patel-Schneider, +1.518.276.aadd, baojie, +1.202.408.aaee, msmith1, schneid,
18:33:03 <Zakim> ... Alan_Ruttenberg
20:24:26 <Zakim> Zakim has left #owl
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000501