Chatlog 2008-09-24

From OWL
Revision as of 14:57, 6 October 2008 by IanHorrocks (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.

17:01:32 <Carsten> PRESENT: Achille, JeffP, msmith, bmotik, ruttenberg, baojie, pfps, Rinke, pha, Carsten, sandro, Christine, Elisa
17:01:33 <Carsten> REGRETS: Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Martin Dzbor, Markus Krötzsch, Uli Sattler, Evan Wallace
17:01:34 <Carsten> Topic: Admin
17:01:35 <Carsten> CHAIR: Alan Ruttenberg
17:01:36 <Carsten> scribenick: Carsten
17:05:33 <Carsten> alan: agenda amendments?
17:05:54 <Carsten> pfps: discuss Manchester syntax next steps along with other next steps
17:07:36 <Rinke> the minutes look like they have not been edited at all
17:08:39 <Rinke> they are draft minutes?
17:12:17 <msmith> action smith to edit previous minutes to reflect michael sch's complaint
17:12:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-214 - Edit previous minutes to reflect michael sch's complaint [on Michael Smith - due 2008-10-01].
17:11:15 <Carsten> Alan: Minutes not accepted, have to be completed and will be reviewed again next week
17:11:21 <Carsten> Action Item Status
17:12:28 <Carsten> Alan: Actions 211, 205, 213, 212, 210, 208, 209 completed
17:13:13 <Carsten> Alan: Action 188 completed
17:14:12 <Carsten> Reviewing -- all requested reviews were received
17:15:15 <Carsten> Alan: still not very many participants for next F2F, please try to participate
17:15:38 <Carsten> Topic: Proposal to publish working drafts
17:16:30 <alanr>
17:17:35 <Rinke> q+ to ask why
17:17:38 <pfps> as far as I could tell almost all of Jim's comments are minor, and many are editorial
17:17:47 <Carsten> alan: are the comments of the reviewers of profile document of a kind that allows us to publish soon, say within a week?
17:17:47 <alanr> ack rinke
17:17:47 <Zakim> Rinke, you wanted to ask why
17:18:14 <pfps> alan, please answer Rinke's question
17:18:16 <bmotik> q+
17:18:29 <alanr> q?
17:18:32 <alanr> ack bmotik
17:18:36 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:18:36 <Zakim> bmotik was not muted, bmotik
17:18:40 <Carsten> alan: should be up to the editors
17:19:03 <Rinke> s/alan/rinke
17:19:14 <Carsten> boris: will go through them this weekend and address them; there seems nothing special about them.
17:20:04 <baojie> q+
17:20:07 <Carsten> as an editor of the profiles document, I agree with Boris and Rinke.
17:20:17 <sandro> q+ to ask about process/timing here
17:20:25 <Carsten> Boris: when will the actual documents be generated for publication
17:20:36 <JeffP> Jie is in the queue too
17:20:42 <alanr> ack Jie
17:20:48 <alanr> ack baojie
17:20:51 <sandro> q-
17:20:52 <alanr> ack sandro
17:21:04 <Carsten> Jie: Jim's review is mostly editorial, can be easily addressed
17:21:26 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:21:26 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:21:29 <Zakim> -??P16
17:21:33 <Carsten> Ian's is definitely mainly editoral, just read it
17:22:09 <Carsten> Jeff: regarding my review, it may also be helpful if Boris goes through it and responds
17:22:27 <Zakim> +??P0
17:22:35 <cgolbrei> +christine
17:22:46 <bmotik> q+
17:23:08 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:23:08 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
17:23:09 <alanr> ack bmotik
17:23:12 <Carsten> Jeff: how to draw the line between comments that have to be addressed before publication and those that don't
17:23:32 <Rinke> zakim, ??P0 is christine
17:23:32 <Zakim> +christine; got it
17:24:01 <Carsten> boris: no showstopper in any of the reviews. I'll respond.
17:24:03 <Rinke> zakim, christine is cgolbrei
17:24:03 <Zakim> +cgolbrei; got it
17:24:12 <JeffP> q+
17:24:17 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:24:17 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:24:19 <alanr> ack JeffP
17:25:54 <bmotik> Yes
17:26:12 <Carsten> Alan: since Jeff seems uncomfortable, please process his review first
17:26:19 <alanr> q?
17:26:40 <Carsten> Alan: Reviews of tests and conformance
17:27:42 <Carsten> mike: my review doesn't need to be processed before publication
17:27:55 <pfps> q+
17:28:13 <Carsten> s/my review/the reviews/
17:29:33 <alanr> ack pfps
17:29:53 <pfps> I don't see any show-stoppers in Michael's review (but he should be able to speak for himself)
17:30:32 <Carsten> sandro: awkward to manage to publish in a few week rather than next week with the other documents
17:31:28 <Carsten> alan: will contact Ian and Michael and produce a version until Sunday that people can look at on Monday
17:31:39 <pfps> I'm fine with publishing
17:32:46 <Carsten> discussion of "unknown"
17:33:09 <Carsten> alan: distinguish minimally conforming vs conforming
17:33:15 <alanr> versus "complete"
17:33:22 <Carsten> pfps: first is trivial, second close to impossible
17:33:50 <Carsten> pfps: minimally conforming can return unknown, but should not; conforming must not return unknown
17:34:12 <Carsten> alan: how can anything be conforming with OWL Full?
17:35:05 <Carsten> ???
17:35:33 <sandro> pfps: it's perfectly okay for an OWL Full reasoner to return Unknown -- there are various times it's fine, like it's been 5 days, or it's hit a known incompleteness, etc.
17:36:02 <alanr> q?
17:36:04 <Carsten> zakim, unmute me
17:36:04 <Zakim> carsten should no longer be muted
17:36:38 <Carsten> sandro: how do distinguish in the marketplace a trivial from a "hard working" reasoner trying to avoid unknown?
17:36:57 <Carsten> pfps: you could have an OWL Full reasoner complete for OWL DL
17:36:59 <Carsten> q+
17:37:58 <Carsten> pfps: difficult to distinguish different degrees of completeness
17:38:35 <sandro> Sandro: It's sounds like there's no way -- in the OWL-Full-By-Itself market -- to use Conformance to segment the market, to have different classes of power of Reasoners
17:39:08 <Carsten> pfps: message of recursion theory that the boundary is messy
17:39:12 <pfps> some rationales for should not are in the email I sent out, for OWL Full there can be others, including known incompleteness (actually it would be possible for an OWL 2 DL tool to return unknown and say that it just doesn't implement everything)
17:40:30 <Carsten> pfps: too many possibilities, often unreasonable assumptions
17:40:56 <alanr> ack Carsten
17:41:31 <sandro> Sandro: What I'm hearing, and sounds right to me:    OWL Full is left without useful distinctions inside it, because all the useful distinctions have been pulled out as other profiles.
17:41:34 <pfps> my initial response (minimally conforming) was a reducto ad absurdum
17:42:02 <Carsten> sandro: if as soon as something is complete we pull it out as a profile, owl full will necessarily remain in a not-very-useful condition
17:43:01 <Carsten> sandro: I suggest to take out "should not" and use another phrasing
17:43:07 <Carsten> zakim, mute me
17:43:07 <Zakim> carsten should now be muted
17:43:47 <pfps> this could be a *addition* instead of a *replacement*
17:43:49 <Carsten> sandro: owl full reasoner may be distinguished by the number of cases for which they return unknown; better reasoners will return unknown very rarely
17:43:59 <sandro> Replacein "It SHOULD NOT return Unknown." with "We expect OWL Full reasoners to be characterized and distriinguished in the market by which situations they can handle without returning unknown."
17:44:53 <sandro> Sandro: This isn't a blocker; it's just editorial.
17:45:19 <Carsten> alan: anybody wants to fight for removing "should not"?
17:46:34 <sandro> PROPOSED: Publish OWL 2 Profiles and Test+Conformance as WDs, with editorial changes, subject to approval by Michael Schneider, Peter, and Alan.
17:47:37 <sandro> PROPOSED: Publish OWL 2 Profiles with Boris' editorial changes, and Test+Conformance as WDs, with editorial changes subject to approval by Michael Schneider, Peter, and Alan.
17:47:51 <pfps> +1 to publish Profiles and T&C as suggested
17:47:53 <sandro> PROPOSED: Publish OWL 2 Profiles as WD with Boris' editorial changes, and Test+Conformance as PFWD, with editorial changes subject to approval by Michael Schneider, Peter, and Alan.
17:48:01 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
17:48:03 <Carsten> +1
17:48:04 <pfps> +1 to publish Profiles and T&C as suggested (ALU)
17:48:05 <sandro> PROPOSED: Publish OWL 2 Profiles as WD with Boris' editorial changes, and Test+Conformance as FPWD, with editorial changes subject to approval by Michael Schneider, Peter, and Alan.
17:48:10 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
17:48:11 <msmith> +1 (C&P)
17:48:12 <sandro> +1 (W3C)
17:48:15 <Rinke> +1 (Amsterdam)
17:48:16 <Carsten> +1 to all four proposals
17:48:21 <alanr> +1 (sciencecommons)
17:48:33 <JeffP> -0 (need to check the changes)
17:49:03 <Elisa> +1 Sandpiper
17:49:15 <baojie> +1 (RPI)
17:49:30 <cgolbrei> +1 (versailles)
17:49:34 <dlm> dlm has joined #owl
17:49:36 <sandro> RESOLVED: Publish OWL 2 Profiles as WD with Boris' editorial changes, and Test+Conformance as FPWD, with editorial changes subject to approval by Michael Schneider, Peter, and Alan.
17:50:53 <Carsten> sandro: need to know more details; when to publish
17:50:55 <bmotik> I'll do stuff over the weekend.
17:50:59 <bmotik> As much as I can do
17:51:11 <bmotik> It's all yours on Monday.
17:51:14 <JeffP> The resolution does not seem to match precisely what Alan said
17:51:37 <Carsten> sandro: last minute scrambling on monday, publish on tuesday
17:51:46 <sandro> Alan: Editors and Constributors will need to be updated, too.
17:52:43 <Carsten> alan: editor order will be in order of how much was done; contributors alphabetically
17:53:03 <pfps> as I hope I had indicated earlier, I am uneasy about this assignment of editorship
17:54:11 <Carsten> pfps: alternative is negotiation with the involved people
17:54:37 <Carsten> alan: we will contact people if anything is unclear, there will be a chance to object
17:55:32 <sandro>
17:55:50 <Rinke> q+ to say something about the number of votes
17:56:00 <sandro> winner on survey is: LATE ADDITION: "Standard First Order Semantics" and "RDF-Based Semantics"
17:56:18 <alanr> ack Rinke
17:56:18 <Zakim> Rinke, you wanted to say something about the number of votes
17:56:40 <Carsten> rinke: number of votes casts on different proposals differ
17:56:47 <JeffP> some of them are negative votes
17:57:30 <sandro> NOT clear winner: "Direct Semantics" and "RDF-Based Semantics" -- also has strong showing.
17:58:00 <alanr> 1 = Direct Semantics
17:58:24 <alanr> 2= Standard First Order Semantics
17:58:28 <sandro> PROPOSED:  1="Direct Semantics" 2 ="Standard First-Order Semantics" .  Pick one.    
17:58:43 <bmotik> 2 (Oxford)
17:58:45 <pfps> 1 (ALU) - I picked "one" :-)
17:58:46 <Rinke> 1 (Amsterdam)
17:58:52 <JeffP> 1 (Aberdeen)
17:58:52 <Achille> 2 (IBM)
17:58:56 <baojie> 1 (RPI)
17:58:59 <Elisa> 1 (Sandpiper)
17:59:13 <alanr> 0 (sciencecommons)
17:59:22 <sandro> 0 (W3C)
17:59:33 <pfps> (which option is "0"?)
17:59:34 <sandro> winner - Direct Semantics
17:59:36 <bmotik> q+
17:59:38 <sandro> 0 == abstain
17:59:40 <bmotik> Zakim unmute me
17:59:45 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:59:45 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
17:59:46 <alanr> ack bmotik
17:59:47 <msmith> 1 (C&P)
17:59:55 <sandro> RESOLVED: "Direct Semantics" and "RDF-Based Semantics"
18:00:05 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:00:05 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:00:23 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
18:00:23 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
18:01:33 <Carsten> Topic: Status reports: Other documents 
18:01:34 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:01:34 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:02:44 <Carsten> jie: made some reorganizations addressing Uli's concerned; added some new terms; still incomplete
18:02:57 <Carsten> (Quick reference guide status update)
18:03:10 <Carsten> Requirements document
18:03:12 <Rinke> s/concerned/concerns
18:03:32 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to:
18:04:32 <Carsten> Christine: we need to complete some subsections in section 5, some other questions need to be decided, most pressing to know if there is agreement with the structure
18:06:45 <Carsten> christine: missing mainly implementation stuff and features still under discussion
18:07:49 <Carsten> elisa: can look at it until October 1st, will also ask Evan to also do that
18:08:05 <cgolbrei> evan knows it
18:08:28 <Carsten> alan: more (informal) reviews would be good. anyone?
18:09:35 <Carsten> Manchester Syntax
18:10:37 <Carsten> alan: document looks in good formal shape, but I suggest a change: 
18:10:52 <Carsten> didn't get it
18:12:12 <Carsten> display labels instead of URIs unless label empty 
18:12:22 <Carsten> or ambiguou
18:12:23 <Carsten> s
18:12:25 <Carsten> :)
18:12:28 <Rinke> display label where?
18:13:49 <alanr>
18:16:51 <pfps> q+
18:16:55 <alanr> ack pfps
18:17:56 <Carsten> pfps: I have prepared the document for review; we should know assign reviewers so that, after the reviews, a public working draft can be published. I am disappointed that this didn't happen.
18:18:09 <msmith> q+
18:18:14 <alanr> ack msmith
18:18:48 <Carsten> msmith: there are benefits other than accessibility
18:18:50 <sandro> q+
18:19:20 <Carsten> sandro: let's publish as soon as we can; I don't see any reason not to publish
18:19:28 <Carsten> sandro: put an issue in there and move on
18:19:52 <pfps> I wasn't asking for a decision to publish - I was only asking for assignment of reviewers.
18:19:56 <Carsten> alan: any volunteers for reviews?
18:19:57 <Rinke> when would the review be due?
18:20:20 <pfps> The "usual" timing is two or three weeks.
18:20:20 <Rinke> I am willing to review
18:20:28 <Rinke> that sounds reasonable
18:20:30 <msmith> I will review.  due Oct 8?
18:20:37 <cgolbrei> i am too
18:20:56 <Rinke> think so
18:20:57 <msmith> action smith to review manchester syntax doc by oct 8
18:20:58 <trackbot> Created ACTION-215 - Review manchester syntax doc by oct 8 [on Michael Smith - due 2008-10-01].
18:21:09 <Rinke> action hoekstra to review manchester syntax doc by oct 8
18:21:10 <trackbot> Created ACTION-216 - Review manchester syntax doc by oct 8 [on Rinke Hoekstra - due 2008-10-01].
18:21:35 <Carsten> Topic: Issues
18:21:42 <Carsten> SubTopic: ISSUE 138
18:22:20 <alanr> q?
18:22:25 <alanr> ack sandro
18:22:49 <Carsten> no comments
18:23:16 <pfps> q+
18:23:27 <Carsten> sandro: what was response from xml schema WG
18:23:33 <Carsten> pfps: thanks for sending in a comment
18:23:56 <msmith> q+
18:24:29 <pfps> q-
18:24:39 <alanr> q?
18:24:44 <msmith> q-
18:26:09 <alanr>
18:27:17 <bmotik> q+
18:27:20 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
18:27:20 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
18:27:22 <alanr> ack bmotik
18:27:30 <Carsten> SubTopic: ISSUE 144
18:27:42 <pfps> q+
18:27:58 <alanr> ack pfps
18:28:02 <Carsten> boris: If we include the base triple, we don't know when an axiom has an annotation and when not, etc. It's so much cleaner the way it is now.
18:28:26 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:28:26 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:28:27 <Carsten> boris: easier to parse, what do you do if you only find the reified triples?
18:28:45 <dlm> dlm has left #owl
18:28:57 <Carsten> pfps: this asks to make a technical change to our system in response to a misconception by somebody else
18:29:03 <bmotik> q+
18:29:13 <Carsten> alan: there are different views on how OWL is used
18:29:39 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
18:29:39 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
18:30:07 <pfps> rdf users are free to also have the base triple if they so desire
18:30:21 <sandro> q+
18:30:23 <Carsten> boris: nobody said that the RDF user has to retract the existing triple; there is just some redundancy
18:30:34 <pfps> this doesn't even change the DL status of the ontology
18:30:41 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:30:42 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:30:54 <JeffP> thanks, bye
18:30:56 <Zakim> -msmith
18:30:57 <Rinke> thanks, bye
18:30:58 <sandro> Short answer to Boris:
18:30:58 <Zakim> -bmotik
18:30:59 <Zakim> -Achille
18:30:59 <Zakim> -JeffP
18:31:01 <Zakim> -Elisa_Kendall
18:31:02 <msmith> msmith has left #owl
18:31:02 <Carsten> zakim, unmute me
18:31:03 <Zakim> carsten should no longer be muted
18:31:05 <Zakim> -Rinke
18:31:11 <Zakim> -pha
18:31:12 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
18:31:14 <Zakim> -Alan_Ruttenberg
18:31:58 <Zakim> -Sandro
18:31:59 <sandro> Short answer to Boris: it's about the RDF user and the OWL user interacting.... 
18:32:01 <Zakim> -carsten
18:32:02 <Zakim> -baojie
18:32:25 <Zakim> -cgolbrei
18:32:26 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
18:32:27 <Zakim> Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, +49.351.463.3.aaaa, +31.20.525.aabb, Rinke, Alan_Ruttenberg, bmotik, +1.202.408.aacc, pha, msmith, carsten, +1.518.276.aadd, +1.518.276.aaee,
18:32:29 <Zakim> ... baojie, +0122427aaff, JeffP, Achille, Sandro, Elisa_Kendall, cgolbrei