Revision as of 11:01, 7 July 2008 by IanHorrocks
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
00:00:00 <ewallace> PRESENT: ivan, MarkusK, msmith, ratnesh, IanH, bmotik, bcuencagrau, Carsten, MartinD, calvanese, bijan, Rinke, sandro, baojie, ewallace, alan ruttenberg, JeffP, m_schnei, zhe 00:00:00 <ewallace> CHAIR: IanH 00:00:00 <ewallace> REGRETS: Peter Patel-Schneider, Elisa Kendall, AchilleFokoue 16:48:43 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl 16:48:43 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/07/02-owl-irc 16:48:53 <Rinke> Zakim, this will be owl 16:48:53 <Zakim> ok, Rinke; I see SW_OWL()12:00PM scheduled to start 48 minutes ago 16:49:13 <Rinke> RRSAgent, make records public 16:53:30 <bijan> bijan has joined #owl 16:53:47 <bijan> bijan has joined #owl 16:54:24 <calvanese> calvanese has joined #owl 16:54:49 <Zakim> SW_OWL()12:00PM has now started 16:54:56 <Zakim> +??P9 16:55:06 <bijan> zakim, ??P9 is me 16:55:06 <Zakim> +bijan; got it 16:55:12 <bijan> zakim, mute me 16:55:12 <Zakim> sorry, bijan, muting is not permitted when only one person is present 16:56:38 <Zakim> + +31.20.525.aaaa 16:56:44 <Rinke> zakim, aaaa is me 16:56:44 <Zakim> +Rinke; got it 16:56:46 <bijan> zakim, mute me 16:56:46 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted 16:56:49 <MartinD> MartinD has joined #OWL 16:57:18 <Carsten> Carsten has joined #owl 16:57:34 <bcuencagrau> bcuencagrau has joined #owl 16:57:34 <bmotik> bmotik has joined #owl 16:58:00 <Zakim> +calvanese 16:58:02 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace 16:58:05 <IanH> IanH has joined #owl 16:58:07 <ratnesh> ratnesh has joined #owl 16:58:10 <Zakim> +??P12 16:58:12 <calvanese> zakim, mute me 16:58:12 <Zakim> calvanese should now be muted 16:58:14 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P12 is me 16:58:14 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it 16:58:17 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 16:58:17 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 16:58:51 <Zakim> + +49.351.463.3.aabb 16:59:00 <Carsten> zakim, +aabb is me 16:59:00 <Zakim> sorry, Carsten, I do not recognize a party named '+aabb' 16:59:01 <Zakim> +??P14 16:59:08 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, ??P14 is me 16:59:08 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it 16:59:13 <Carsten> zakim, aabb is me 16:59:13 <Zakim> +Carsten; got it 16:59:20 <Carsten> zakim, mute me 16:59:20 <Zakim> Carsten should now be muted 16:59:26 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me 16:59:26 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted 16:59:37 <msmith> msmith has joined #owl 16:59:52 <Zakim> +IanH 17:00:03 <Zakim> +??P17 17:00:04 <MarkusK> MarkusK has joined #owl 17:00:11 <Zakim> +baojie 17:00:24 <IanH> zakim, who is here? 17:00:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, Evan_Wallace, calvanese (muted), bmotik (muted), Carsten (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), IanH, ??P17, baojie 17:00:25 <ratnesh> zakim, ??P17 is ratnesh 17:00:27 <Zakim> On IRC I see MarkusK, msmith, ratnesh, IanH, bmotik, bcuencagrau, Carsten, MartinD, calvanese, bijan, RRSAgent, Zakim, Rinke, sandro, baojie, ewallace, trackbot 17:00:28 <m_schnei> m_schnei has joined #owl 17:00:29 <Zakim> +ratnesh; got it 17:00:29 <Zakim> + +0190827aacc 17:00:38 <Zakim> +msmith 17:00:43 <MartinD> zakim, aacc is me 17:00:43 <Zakim> +MartinD; got it 17:00:53 <MartinD> zakim, mute me 17:00:53 <Zakim> MartinD should now be muted 17:01:26 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 17:01:57 <ivan> ivan has joined #owl 17:02:19 <ewallace> scribeNick: ewallace 17:02:30 <ewallace> Topic: admin 17:02:34 <IanH> zakim, who is here? 17:02:34 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, Evan_Wallace, calvanese (muted), bmotik (muted), Carsten (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), IanH, ratnesh, baojie, MartinD (muted), msmith, 17:02:37 <Zakim> ... MarkusK 17:02:38 <Zakim> On IRC I see ivan, MarkusK, msmith, ratnesh, IanH, bmotik, bcuencagrau, Carsten, MartinD, calvanese, bijan, RRSAgent, Zakim, Rinke, sandro, baojie, ewallace, trackbot 17:02:56 <m_schnei> m_schnei has joined #owl 17:03:03 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip 17:03:03 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made 17:03:05 <Zakim> +Ivan 17:03:12 <alanr> alanr has joined #owl 17:03:26 <alanr_> alanr_ has joined #owl 17:03:42 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 17:03:49 <Zakim> +Sandro 17:03:57 <m_schnei> zakim, [IPcaller] is me 17:03:58 <Zakim> +m_schnei; got it 17:04:02 <bijan> zakim, mute me 17:04:02 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted 17:04:05 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me 17:04:05 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted 17:04:13 <Zakim> + +1.617.278.aadd 17:04:17 <alanr> zakim, aadd is alanr 17:04:17 <Zakim> +alanr; got it 17:04:21 <ewallace> Zakim, this will be owlwg 17:04:21 <Zakim> ok, ewallace; I see SW_OWL()12:00PM scheduled to start 64 minutes ago 17:04:26 <ivan> zakim, mute me 17:04:26 <Zakim> sorry, ivan, I don't know what conference this is 17:04:31 <ivan> ??? 17:04:46 <JeffP> JeffP has joined #owl 17:04:50 <Rinke> zakim, this is owl 17:04:50 <Zakim> ok, Rinke; that matches SW_OWL()12:00PM 17:04:52 <ewallace> subtopic: accept previous minutes 17:04:54 <msmith> the scribee thinks they look good 17:05:01 <ivan> zakim, mute me 17:05:02 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted 17:05:17 <IanH> PROPOSED: accept previous minutes http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-06-25 17:05:20 <msmith> +1 to accept 2008-06-25 minutes 17:05:23 <Rinke> +1 17:05:26 <calvanese> +1 17:05:26 <MartinD> +1 17:05:27 <ivan> +1 17:05:28 <ewallace> +1 17:05:30 <IanH> +1 17:05:34 <Zakim> +JeffP 17:05:48 <ewallace> RESOLVED: accept previous minutes http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-06-25 17:05:49 <JeffP> +1 17:06:20 <ewallace> subTopic: Action Items status 17:07:02 <ewallace> subsubtopic: Pending Review Actions 17:07:05 <ewallace> subsubsubtopic: Action 163 Update the structural spec according to the resolution of ISSUE 21 and ISSUE 24 / Boris Motick 17:07:07 <ewallace> Act 163 completed 17:07:10 <ewallace> subsubtopic: Due and overdue Actions 17:07:15 <ewallace> subsubsubtopic: Action 42 Improve examples for rich annotations / Bijan Parsia 17:07:29 <bijan> Done and closed 17:07:50 <bijan> zakim, unmute me 17:07:50 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted 17:08:42 <msmith> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Annotation_System 17:08:50 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Annotation_System#Simple_Syntax_Example 17:08:51 <ewallace> Action-42 done 17:08:51 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 156 17:09:20 <ewallace> subsubsubtopic: Action 156 Respond to the email along the lines Bijan suggests above / Alan Ruttenberg 17:09:25 <ewallace> continued 17:09:46 <ewallace> subsubsubtopic: action 157 Confer with chairs list about how to get more information about what we need to do wrt accessibility / Alan Ruttenberg 17:10:03 <ewallace> continued 17:10:03 <bijan> zakim, mute me 17:10:03 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted 17:10:34 <ewallace> subsubsubtopic: action 158 Create first draft of requirements Document / Evan Wallace 17:10:42 <ewallace> done and closed 17:11:00 <ewallace> subsubsubtopic: action 159 Work wih M_schnei to collect, propose how to address issues in making rdf list vocabulary / Alan Ruttenberg 17:11:02 <ewallace> continued 17:11:02 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 159 17:11:10 <calvanese> zakim, unmute me 17:11:11 <Zakim> calvanese should no longer be muted 17:11:12 <m_schnei> i step back from 159 17:11:15 <ewallace> subsubsubtopic: action 161 Top and Bottom Role in various Profiles / Uli Sattler 17:11:17 <ewallace> action 161 continued 17:11:17 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 161 17:11:48 <ewallace> subsubsubtopic: action 162 Investigate top/bottom roles in DL-Lite / Diego Calvanese 17:11:57 <bmotik> OK, I'll just add it right away. 17:12:47 <ewallace> Diego will write up what his investigation revealed and send to WG 17:12:59 <bijan> Subject line containing ACTION-Number will be found by tracker 17:15:01 <ewallace> jeffP: cmt on inconsistancy 17:15:32 <bcuencagrau> you need the data to have the inconsistency 17:16:03 <ewallace> subsubsubtopic: action 165 Investigate easy keys in DL-Lite / Diego Calvenese 17:16:20 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me 17:16:20 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted 17:16:30 <ewallace> Diego: Easy keys are compatible with key notion in DL-Lite 17:16:54 <ewallace> Diego: we need to restict these keys in the same way 17:17:01 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl 17:17:11 <ewallace> Diego: the keys cannot be subtyped 17:17:16 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me 17:17:16 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted 17:17:28 <Zakim> +Zhe 17:17:35 <Zhe> Zakim, mute me 17:17:35 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted 17:17:53 <ewallace> diego to write up how easy-keys could be used in DL-lite 17:18:01 <Zakim> -Sandro 17:18:03 <Zakim> +Sandro 17:18:53 <ewallace> msmith: asked if we described unique names assumption in the profile document 17:18:57 <msmith> I see, I didn't realize this had changed 17:19:21 <ewallace> Boris: it is described 17:19:38 <ewallace> subsubsubtopic: action 164 Send email re: suggestions for unnamed individuals *in addition* to bnodes / Alan Ruttenberg 17:19:39 <calvanese> zakim, mute me 17:19:39 <Zakim> calvanese should now be muted 17:19:47 <ewallace> done 17:19:53 <ewallace> topic: Issues 17:19:54 <ewallace> subtopic: Other Issue Discussions 17:20:42 <ewallace> subsubtopic: Issue 16 Entity Annotations 17:20:42 <alanr_> could we get a review of what the issue was? 17:21:17 <bijan> Peter's not here, and he's the issue raiser? 17:21:41 <ewallace> IanH: the issue was - could you annotate annotations? 17:22:32 <ewallace> boris: problem - you can annotate entity annotations, because they are axioms, but not other kinds of annotation, because they are not axioms 17:23:07 <ewallace> ... peter proposed various solutions, including one where annotations could contain a set of other annotations 17:24:35 <ewallace> boris: having an axiom that contains another axiom is hard in RDF 17:25:04 <ewallace> ... my proposal is to can the issue because both proposed solutions are quite hard 17:25:24 <ewallace> alanr: I wonder if the question might go away with rich annotations 17:26:01 <ewallace> ... there are motivating use cases for this 17:26:27 <bijan> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data:_URI_scheme 17:26:29 <bijan> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Reification_Alternatives 17:26:41 <ewallace> alanr: How is the reification in one of the proposed solutions harder than where we have done this elsewhere? 17:26:58 <bijan> zakim, unmute me 17:26:58 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted 17:28:00 <alanr_> Mcdermott was convincing to me.... 17:28:13 <alanr_> one + level of indirection 17:29:31 <ewallace> bijan: may need to recommend how to construct annotations for meta-annotations 17:29:55 <ewallace> bijan: set up your structure of annotations so that you always reify in a nice way 17:30:05 <ewallace> ... we could work out the pattern for this 17:30:06 <bijan> zakim, mute me 17:30:06 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted 17:30:39 <ewallace> alan: the idea of structuring annotations works for new annotation but not for old rdf annotations 17:30:47 <bijan> data: uris could solve this 17:30:51 <bijan> But they are ugly 17:30:57 <bijan> Literals as well 17:31:40 <ewallace> ianH: are annotations inside annotations asserted in the KB? 17:32:45 <ewallace> boris: the problem is that there is no way in rdf to say this axiom contains an axiom 17:33:04 <ewallace> ... as soon as its in a bag of triples in rdf it is asserted 17:33:43 <bijan> there's a queue! 17:33:45 <ewallace> ... can't tell after whether the triple occured at the top level or inside another triple 17:34:59 <ewallace> alan: I'd be happy to work through the example with Boris over email 17:35:15 <alanr_> Note: I will have to leave at 2pm. 17:35:44 <ewallace> bijan: this problem of not having syntactic context is something I considered 17:36:17 <ewallace> ... people who are tracking this should look at the reification table 17:36:33 <bijan> zakim, mute me 17:36:33 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted 17:37:30 <ewallace> skipping Issue 67 17:37:54 <ewallace> subsubtopic: issue 126 Normative datatypes 17:38:35 <ewallace> alan: it seemed like there was clear consensus on an underlying Real datatype 17:38:41 <msmith> q+ to disagree on type promotion 17:38:56 <ewallace> ... and floating point is promoted to this for reasoning 17:39:16 <bijan> +1 to disagree with type promotion 17:39:35 <ewallace> ... there was a question on whether or not non-numeric values of float like +inf were also promoted 17:40:14 <ewallace> msmith: I agree we want an underlying real datatype, but disagree promoting xsd: float 17:40:15 <alanr_> is it clear what "promotion" means? Perhaps Boris should explain. 17:40:15 <bijan> I also thing Reals shouldn't have NaN. Those aren't reals! Why make a clean datatype and then crude it up! 17:40:38 <alanr_> the argument is that floats are there to represent machine computations. 17:40:39 <ewallace> ... don't understand the point of having both xsd:float and xsd:decimal 17:41:03 <alanr_> This is an important use case for Science Commons 17:41:04 <alanr_> 1+ 17:41:10 <alanr_> not 1+ 17:41:16 <MartinD> +1 17:41:42 <ewallace> boris: promotion means to restrict float values 17:42:06 <ewallace> boris: I'm pretty happy with ditching float and double, but this will look bad 17:42:12 <bijan> "Ditching"? Isn't it that we "aren't adding" 17:42:23 <ewallace> boris: you might want to store these in an efficient way 17:42:50 <bijan> Floats aren't continuous 17:42:52 <Carsten> +1000 17:42:55 <bijan> I'm confused 17:43:17 <ewallace> boris: I would bet if we keep the continuous aspects of float, then now implementation will be correct 17:43:20 <bijan> It's arbitrary sized decimals 17:43:34 <MarkusK> yes, I also think that xsd:decimal supports no exponent notation 17:44:01 <bijan> It can't ! 17:44:13 <bijan> There's too much here 17:44:16 <alanr_> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#decimal 17:44:20 <bijan> Can we chunk the discussion a littl 17:44:52 <ewallace> boris: a possible way out is to define an owl:float and owl:real 17:45:15 <bijan> http://www.java2s.com/Code/Oracle/Data-Type/IS-NAN.htm 17:45:28 <ewallace> alan: wrt continuous aspect: 17:45:33 <MarkusK> (for the minutes) xsd:float also has non-numerical values, NaN and infinite 17:46:17 <bijan> zakim, mute me 17:46:17 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted 17:47:08 <ewallace> alan: effect on floats, the only consequence to considering them real would be 17:47:26 <ewallace> ... 17:47:46 <ewallace> alan: asked some folk, they would prefer real 17:47:53 <m_schnei> (for the minutes, too) IEEE floats also have +/- 0, do xsd:float have too? 17:48:05 <ewallace> alan: also asked about +-inf and NaN 17:48:18 <ewallace> alan: they considered these to be essential 17:48:46 <bijan> zakim, unmute me 17:48:46 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted 17:48:57 <ewallace> alan: the objective is to be able to transmit and contain numeric data in an OWL file 17:49:18 <ewallace> bijan: the first step I have is if we are going to talk about something with a binary rep. 17:49:50 <ewallace> bijan: we can't avoid rounding, we can't separate the value space from the representation 17:49:53 <alanr_> OWL does not produce new floats in the course of reasoning. 17:50:40 <ewallace> ianH: it seems to me that we are proposing in owl to have a virtual float that is continuous 17:50:59 <alanr_> So precision issues are external to OWL - OWL would not disturb any precision or do any rounding. 17:51:09 <ewallace> bijan: so you are just treating the float rep as an idiosyncratic rep of reals 17:51:31 <ewallace> boris: the value space is the set of real numbers between the min and max of float 17:52:30 <alanr_> Ian asked my question 17:53:12 <alanr_> 2.0 float is not considered different than int float 17:53:46 <Carsten> zakim, unmute me 17:53:46 <Zakim> Carsten should no longer be muted 17:54:02 <ewallace> carsten: I like this proposal 17:54:24 <ewallace> ... either dropping float completely, or treating them as reals for reasoning 17:54:51 <alanr_> no float predicate, I think. 17:54:54 <bijan> zakim, unmute me 17:54:54 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan 17:55:14 <ewallace> boris: floats are a subset of reals 17:55:49 <ewallace> carsten: treat float as a property of a real number? 17:56:04 <msmith> q+ to ask about the benefit of this proposal 17:56:13 <ewallace> boris: the reason for doing this is so that you can ship data around as reals 17:56:22 <Carsten> perfect 17:56:27 <Carsten> zakim, mute me 17:56:27 <Zakim> Carsten should now be muted 17:56:28 <alanr_> consider: oracle than answers between a and b, how many values. For float we decide to answer: Infinity , always 17:56:29 <bijan> One question at a time! 17:56:32 <bijan> Please!@ 17:56:43 <alanr_> q+ to mention nan as data bottom 17:56:46 <bijan> I wanted to respond to the carsten questiona nd now we're off track 17:56:54 <bijan> zakim, unmute me 17:56:54 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan 17:56:57 <ewallace> boris: if you have something like 1 / 0 then the ontology is unsatisfiable 17:59:13 <ewallace> bijan: there are 3 options for the predicate thing 17:59:38 <alanr_> comment: Lexical float doesn't work - because of defined rounding. 17:59:42 <ewallace> ... no predicate 18:02:31 <ewallace> alan: we want to capture the result of an experiment and that may include NaN values 18:02:55 <Zakim> -alanr 18:02:59 <Zakim> alanr_, you wanted to mention nan as data bottom 18:03:03 <ewallace> ... they don't care about how many discrete values between here and there 18:03:27 <bijan> the �value space�s of all �primitive� datatypes are disjoint (they do not share any values) 18:03:32 <ewallace> msmith: people using XSD already make the choice between xsd:float and xsd:decimal 18:03:36 <bijan> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#rf-fund-facets 18:03:50 <bijan> (double and decimal are primitive datatypes in xsd) 18:03:59 <ewallace> ... given the fact that they chose xsd:float, we ought to respect the choice 18:04:00 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to ask about the benefit of this proposal 18:04:22 <bijan> q+ to point to 4.2 18:04:38 <bijan> zakim, unmute me 18:04:38 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan 18:04:44 <ewallace> boris: the reason that float is not put under decimal in xsd may be because of the 3 special values 18:05:12 <Zakim> bijan, you wanted to point to 4.2 18:05:19 <JeffP> the spec is somehow inconsistent 18:05:19 <msmith> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#equal 18:05:38 <alanr> alanr has joined #owl 18:06:07 <ewallace> bijan: the spec says the value spaces of float and decimal are disjoint 18:06:44 <alanr> Does it actually say they are disjoint, or does it not say they have a shared value space (negation or naf) 18:06:54 <msmith> it says disjoint 18:06:57 <ewallace> subsubtopic: Issue 131 Single OWL-R profile 18:07:07 <Zhe> yes 18:07:18 <Zhe> let boris go first 18:07:38 <Zhe> zakim, unmute me 18:07:38 <Zakim> Zhe should no longer be muted 18:07:52 <ewallace> boris: the problem with OWL R profile is that OWL R full version is not a syntactic fragment 18:08:43 <ewallace> ... the idea is to have basically 1 OWL R profile 18:09:18 <ewallace> boris: if the ontology is written in triples it is in OWL R if it is parseable as OWL R 18:10:00 <ewallace> Zhe: Yes. I do agree with Boris on this. It seems a bit odd to have these two versions. 18:10:14 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me 18:10:14 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted 18:10:17 <ewallace> ... I see the value of combining the syntactic restriction into the profile 18:10:51 <ewallace> Michael Schneider: regarding confusion - it is not confusing from an rdf point of view because 18:11:04 <ewallace> ... any sublanguage is a semantic sublanguage 18:11:09 <bijan> q+ to talk about user perspective 18:11:16 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me 18:11:16 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted 18:11:17 <ewallace> ... I don't share the argument. 18:11:36 <ewallace> boris: I think what is confusing is from an ontology point of view. 18:11:57 <ewallace> ... you don't know what it means. You can't interpret it in an unambiguous way. 18:12:08 <Zakim> bijan, you wanted to talk about user perspective 18:12:17 <bijan> I'm still on the queue! 18:12:20 <bijan> No no! 18:12:25 <ewallace> ... what is the point also from a user's perspective, when the meaning is ill-defined. 18:12:57 <ewallace> bijan: In my experience users find the semantic subsetting confusing. 18:13:20 <bcuencagrau> zakim, unmute me 18:13:20 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should no longer be muted 18:13:20 <bijan> zakim, mute me 18:13:21 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted 18:13:26 <ewallace> ... In our spec.s, all the other profiles are syntactic subsets 18:13:50 <ewallace> bernardo: I totally agree with Bijan on this. The purpose of OWL R is to define a language 18:14:11 <ewallace> ... that is easily implementable using production rules. 18:14:35 <ewallace> ... What people real care about is this ability to implement the reasoning using a rule engine. 18:14:36 <bcuencagrau> zakim, unmute me 18:14:36 <Zakim> bcuencagrau was not muted, bcuencagrau 18:14:40 <bcuencagrau> zakim, mute me 18:14:40 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted 18:14:53 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me 18:14:53 <Zakim> m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei 18:14:54 <bijan> Yes 18:14:57 <JeffP> y 18:15:24 <ewallace> IanH: to M_schnei - what if they use some rdfs syntax and no rdfs interpretation is made 18:15:34 <ewallace> ... wouldn't the user be surprised? 18:15:42 <Rinke> +q to ask about relation with DLP 18:16:37 <ewallace> Michael Schneider: you would restrict the reasoning to rdf in a tool like Jena, you would be explicitly aware of this 18:17:05 <ewallace> Michael Schneider: run the reasoning and see what inference graph is produced 18:17:24 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me 18:17:24 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted 18:17:26 <ewallace> ... you of course have to know which reasoner you are using 18:18:23 <ewallace> Bijan: you will still be able to do the RDF style reasoning 18:18:59 <Zakim> Rinke, you wanted to ask about relation with DLP 18:19:06 <ewallace> ... In OWL-land people are used to having certain syntax indicate the reasoning features in the interpretation 18:19:30 <bijan> (DLP and hornSHIQ are also syntactic fragments) 18:19:34 <ewallace> rinke: when we started we had DLP, and hornSHIQ and others 18:20:08 <ewallace> ... How will this impact people who use DLP like stuff 18:20:17 <m_schnei> Motivation for OWL R was RDFS 3.0 / OWL-Prime 18:20:30 <ewallace> boris: HornSHIQ was dropped because there were too many fragments 18:20:37 <bijan> And a champion in the working group :) 18:20:48 <ewallace> ... we just kept those that had larger user bases 18:21:04 <m_schnei> All the fragments in the beginning were *DL* fragments --> HENCE syntactic fragments 18:21:34 <bijan> All the fragments in the beginning were *OWL* fragments --> HENCE syntactic fragments 18:21:39 <ewallace> Boris: what remains is OWL R. You can still use production rules or other similar tools for it. 18:21:59 <bijan> OWL lite is a syntactic fragment of OWL DL which is a syntactic fragment of OWL Full 18:22:04 <m_schnei> Full fragements are always semantic fragments, they are always applyable on every RDF graph 18:22:14 <ewallace> Boris: We are just saying there is a syntactic check that can indicate which profile is being used. 18:22:43 <bijan> OWL DL and OWL Lite *are* fragments of full. What you say is false. And I'll stop the back chat ;) 18:22:44 <ewallace> Zhe: Oracle is planning to support this profile in the future and it is probable that we 18:23:06 <ewallace> ... will include the capability to bypass the syntax check. 18:23:29 <ewallace> ivan: what I would like to understand is if we go with Boris' proposal and I'm in RDF-land 18:23:35 <ewallace> ... what exactly do I lose? 18:24:01 <ewallace> IanH: I guess you lose the ability to consider some graphs as OWL R. 18:24:31 <ewallace> IanH: Like if you include SomeValuesFrom constructs. 18:25:04 <ewallace> Boris: you don't lose anything. The rules will work exactly as they are. You don't lose any 18:25:55 <ewallace> ... expressive power. The syntax forbidden doesn't have rules for the corresponding reasoning. 18:26:22 <ewallace> bijan: in a way the fragment is saying these are the things we know how to do something interesting with. 18:27:08 <m_schnei> what is with the RDFS axiomatic triples? 18:27:21 <Zhe> zakim, unmute me 18:27:21 <Zakim> Zhe was not muted, Zhe 18:27:22 <bcuencagrau> zakim, unmute me 18:27:23 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should no longer be muted 18:27:26 <ewallace> Zhe: to Ivan's point, expressivity is not lost. Just some ontologies will be rejected, if syntactic checking is on. 18:27:50 <ewallace> bernardo: we have an additional benefit from specifying this as a syntactic fragment 18:28:25 <bcuencagrau> zakim, mute me 18:28:25 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted 18:28:26 <ewallace> ... you can know if you are in the fragment. 18:28:40 <ewallace> subtopic: Additional other business 18:28:41 <ewallace> None 18:28:42 <ewallace> Meeting Adjourned 18:29:13 <Zakim> -Ivan 18:29:17 <Zakim> -Carsten 18:29:18 <Zakim> -JeffP 18:29:19 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau 18:29:19 <Zakim> -msmith 18:29:20 <Zakim> -bmotik 18:29:21 <Zakim> -baojie 18:29:23 <Zakim> -MarkusK 18:29:25 <Zakim> -ratnesh 18:29:25 <ewallace> rrsagent, draft minutes 18:29:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/02-owl-minutes.html ewallace 18:29:27 <Zakim> -MartinD 18:29:29 <Zakim> -bijan 18:29:31 <Zakim> -Rinke 18:29:33 <Zakim> -Zhe 18:29:35 <Zakim> -IanH 18:29:37 <Zakim> -calvanese 18:29:39 <Zakim> -Sandro 18:29:41 <Zakim> -m_schnei 18:29:43 <ewallace> rrsagent, make log world-readable 18:29:50 <MartinD> MartinD has left #OWL 18:29:56 <ewallace> rrsagent, make log public 18:30:55 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace 18:30:56 <Zakim> SW_OWL()12:00PM has ended 18:30:57 <Zakim> Attendees were bijan, +31.20.525.aaaa, Rinke, calvanese, Evan_Wallace, bmotik, +49.351.463.3.aabb, bcuencagrau, Carsten, IanH, baojie, ratnesh, +0190827aacc, msmith, MartinD, 18:30:59 <Zakim> ... MarkusK, Ivan, Sandro, m_schnei, +1.617.278.aadd, alanr, JeffP, Zhe