Revision as of 18:47, 25 January 2009 by Baojie
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
00:00:00 <scribenick> PRESENT: baojie, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Michael Schneider, MarkusK_, Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan, bmotik , Ivan, uli, Alan Ruttenberg, Zhe, Achille, msmith, sandro 00:00:00 <scribenick> REGRETS: Ian Horrocks, Elisa Kendall, Evan Wallace, Rinke Hoekstra 00:00:00 <scribenick> CHAIR: Alan Ruttenberg 18:02:47 <alanr> alanr has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.01.21/Agenda 18:06:05 <sandro> scribe: jie 18:06:15 <Jie> Topic: Admin 18:06:15 <Jie> Subtopic: Agenda amendments? 18:06:18 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-01-14 18:06:20 <Jie> Sub topic: Preious minutes 18:06:27 <bijan> I have a problem 18:06:47 <bijan> Christine Golbreich: we should vote now becasue last time we postponed it because bijan was not there 18:07:26 <Jie> bijan: problem on vote on Manchester Sytnax as a note 18:07:42 <Jie> bijan: it is not time critical to determine this issue 18:08:01 <Jie> bijan: I suggest to postponed it 18:08:38 <sandro> alan: What Christine meant, I think, is that we had postponed it for only one week. So we postponed because Bijan wasn't there, but we only postponed for one week. 18:08:44 <alanr> ack Achille 18:09:07 <msmith> yes, my recollection matches achille's 18:09:10 <MarkusK_> +1 to Achille, that is what Christine tried to express 18:09:19 <sandro> achille: I was scribe. Christine wanted to vote then because she didn't want it postponed again and again. 18:09:20 <uli> I agree with Achille's memory of this 18:09:53 <Jie> Alan: we will do it next week 18:10:36 <sandro> alan: let's not approve the minutes yet, given no one expressing an opinion, other than this issue about what Christine said. 18:10:41 <Jie> Subtopic: Actions 18:11:14 <alanr> ack pfps 18:11:25 <Jie> Subsubtopic: Action 247 18:11:46 <Jie> Alan: don't have time to do it, will try to finish next week 18:12:17 <sandro> ADD YOURSELF TO http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F5_People 18:12:18 <pfps> pfps: several documents depend on the Manchester syntax, so there soon needs to be a final determination of what is going on here 18:12:23 <Jie> Topic Reivews of LC documents 18:12:31 <Jie> Alan: we don't have many 18:12:40 <Jie> subtopic: F2F5 18:13:05 <bijan> I'm not sure we need it 18:13:23 <pfps> I don't need much (if any) lead time to be there. 18:14:06 <Jie> bijan: i'm not sure if we need it 18:14:21 <Jie> ... it is an expensive trip also 18:14:48 <pfps> hopefully we will be able to get good facilities for remote participation 18:14:48 <sandro> q+ agenda topics 18:15:02 <Jie> bijan: unless we have major changes 18:15:20 <bijan> Tests are easy to do offline 18:15:21 <Jie> Sandro: we have big test cases to go through 18:15:35 <bijan> I definitely wouldn't go to a f2f in the States to do tests :) 18:15:39 <Jie> if nothing else, we can have two days to get the tests done 18:15:42 <sandro> :-) 18:15:45 <bijan> How about a vote mechanism in the wiki for the tests 18:16:12 <sandro> the thing on tests is getting people to spend the time on them. 18:16:19 <Jie> Alan: let decide about F2F5 next week 18:16:25 <Jie> Topic: Last Call comments 18:16:57 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Responses_to_Last_Call_Comments 18:17:10 <Jie> Alan: let's go through the comments page 18:17:27 <Jie> Subtopic: Comment 1: Alan Rector 18:17:27 <alanr> ack pfps 18:17:38 <Jie> Peter: I'm worried about it 18:17:53 <schneid> q+ 18:17:55 <Jie> It includes changes to the spec that is not operational yet 18:18:39 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/ALR1 18:18:42 <sandro> +1 don't say we're changing the spec until the change is fully done. 18:19:34 <Zakim> +Zhe 18:19:45 <Jie> Peter: if there are changes, we need somehow track it 18:21:10 <Jie> bijan: what you want us to do with this page? 18:21:52 <Jie> Peter: if anybody make proposal to change, he/she has to make the change trackable 18:22:08 <Jie> Peter: voteable 18:22:37 <Jie> Peter: the WG has to vote for a change 18:23:58 <sandro> agenda- 18:24:07 <sandro> q=schneid 18:24:08 <Jie> bijan: I think we should reject 18:24:12 <sandro> queue=schneid 18:24:57 <uli> q+ 18:25:43 <Jie> the workaround is sufficient 18:25:49 <alanr> ack schneid 18:26:20 <Jie> Schneid: No change 18:26:47 <Jie> no need to introduce a new language feature 18:26:49 <bijan> One could even annotate the naming axiom saying "this is for annotation purposes, not modeling" 18:26:50 <alanr> q+ to ask whether named class workaround has performance impact 18:26:58 <alanr> ack uli 18:27:13 <Jie> Uli: I chatted with Alan Rector 18:27:39 <alanr> q- 18:27:40 <bijan> If the change doesn't address his use cases, we should reject it 18:28:38 <Jie> Alan: then we should respond that there is a workaround to this issue 18:29:05 <schneid> schneid: I would keep things as they are, since naming class expressions is possible anyway, and can be used. Maybe we put an informative note in our spec to inform people about the nameing "trick" 18:29:09 <uli> I had a chat with Alan Rector and he seemed to be willing to accept that his proposed change would only help him to make work-arounds, but not really provide a solution. As a consequence, he indicated that he wouldn't insist on this change 18:29:25 <uli> ? 18:29:28 <alanr> PROPOSED: Respond to ALR1 on the basis of Ian suggestions for using named classes as a workaround 18:29:34 <pfps> q+ 18:29:56 <alanr> ack pfps 18:30:20 <alanr> PROPOSED: Respond to ALR1 on the basis of the suggestions for workarounds 18:30:29 <pfps> ok 18:30:37 <ivan> +1 18:30:39 <pfps> +1 18:30:40 <Bernardo> +1 18:30:41 <alanr> +1 18:30:41 <Jie> +1 18:30:42 <bmotik> +1 18:30:43 <Zhe> +1 18:30:43 <MarkusK_> +1 18:30:44 <Achille> +1 18:30:45 <uli> +1 18:30:46 <bijan> +! 18:30:49 <msmith> +1 18:30:55 <sandro> +1 18:30:59 <schneid> +1 18:31:04 <alanr> RESOLVED: Respond to ALR1 on the basis of Ian suggestions for using named classes as a workaround 18:31:12 <bijan> I'm writing one right now 18:31:25 <bijan> on the page 18:31:27 <bijan> Already 18:31:52 <bijan> not saved yet :) 18:32:00 <Jie> Subtopic: comment COL1 18:32:05 <alanr> Action: Bijan to draft response to ALR1 18:32:05 <trackbot> Created ACTION-265 - Draft response to ALR1 [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-01-28]. 18:32:18 <alanr> q? 18:32:20 <Jie> Subtopic: comment MS1 18:32:28 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1 18:32:53 <pfps> q+ 18:32:58 <alanr> ack pfps 18:34:00 <alanr> action: pfps to provide fix to MS1 in RDF Mapping and put diff on http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1. 18:34:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-266 - Provide fix to MS1 in RDF Mapping and put diff on http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1. [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2009-01-28]. 18:34:03 <pfps> process is then to change the document and put a diff into the reponse page (along with rationale, I guess) 18:34:20 <pfps> q+ 18:34:23 <alanr> ack pfps 18:35:01 <alanr> PROPOSED: Peter will propose fix for MS1 in the form of edits to the RDF Mapping Document 18:35:02 <Jie> Peter: we need to vote on it, if I gonna to work on it 18:35:06 <pfps> +1 18:35:10 <msmith> +1 18:35:11 <Jie> +1 18:35:11 <alanr> +1 18:35:11 <ivan> +1 18:35:12 <MarkusK_> +1 18:35:13 <Bernardo> +1 18:35:14 <Achille> 0 18:35:18 <uli> +1 18:35:19 <sandro> +1 18:35:21 <bijan> +! 18:35:22 <bmotik> +1 18:35:23 <bijan> +1 18:35:26 <alanr> RESOLVED: Peter will propose fix for MS1 in the form of edits to the RDF Mapping Document 18:35:28 <Zhe> +1 18:35:45 <Jie> Subtopic: MD1 18:35:52 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1 18:36:24 <alanr> lost my connection 18:36:24 <Jie> Alan: anybody knows the difference between Unicode 3.0/5.0? 18:36:26 <alanr> back in a sec 18:36:37 <bijan> Lots and lots of characters 18:36:40 <pfps> Was there a response from Martin? 18:36:43 <schneid> q+ 18:37:18 <bijan> No 18:37:22 <Jie> schneid: I wonder if it is necessary to have Unicode version mentioned 18:37:23 <alanr> q? 18:37:30 <schneid> q- 18:37:45 <sandro> I guess it should be latest version, otherwise we will have 18:37:45 <sandro> some people wondering whether they can use the latest characters. 18:37:45 <sandro> For more details, please see http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-RefUnicode. 18:37:50 <Jie> Sandro: I talked with Martin Duerst 18:38:02 <schneid> schneid: wonders whether it would be allowed to generically refer to the "latest Unicode version" 18:38:19 <Jie> Alan: we need somebody to read this 18:38:19 <msmith> q+ to respond to michael about a specific version 18:38:24 <bijan> I'm finished my Alan Rector action 18:38:24 <alanr> ack msmith 18:38:24 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to respond to michael about a specific version 18:38:30 <sandro> (I was quoting from private e-mail from Martin Duerst there) 18:38:54 <bmotik> q+ 18:39:08 <alanr> ack bmotik 18:39:10 <alanr> q? 18:39:11 <Jie> Msmith: we need address a specific version of Unicode for datatype implementation 18:39:37 <Jie> Boris: one problem is whether the set of characters is infinite 18:40:11 <Jie> if the number of characters in Unicode changes across versions 18:40:46 <Jie> it is possible that one consistent ontology to be inconsistent when using a different version of Unicode 18:40:52 <bijan> q+ 18:40:53 <msmith> ok, it seems I remembered it incompletely then. thanks for clarifying Boris. 18:41:32 <schneid> hey, we have a new testcase :) 18:42:13 <alanr> ack bijan 18:42:40 <schneid> but referring to the "latest version" will also refer to a finite alphabet (at every time) 18:42:43 <Jie> bijan: at two places we deal with Unicode 18:42:48 <bmotik> yes 18:42:52 <Jie> Datatype, and syntax 18:43:03 <schneid> IRIs refer also to Unicode, right? 18:43:36 <Jie> in the syntax, if we don't address unicode version, there may be gap between functional syntax and other syntaxes 18:44:19 <Jie> e.g., XML only allows certain versions of Unicode 18:44:25 <ivan> q+ 18:44:28 <alanr> ack ivan 18:45:12 <bijan> q+ 18:45:13 <Jie> Ivan: Martin's question is what version we use, and he suggests 5.0 18:45:26 <alanr> ack bijan 18:45:32 <Jie> We just need to respond we use the latest version 18:46:07 <Jie> Bijan: XML is tied to Unicode 3 18:46:45 <alanr> q? 18:46:53 <ivan> [[[C064 [S] All generic references to the Unicode Standard [Unicode] must refer to the latest version of the Unicode Standard available at the date of publication of the containing specification.]]] 18:46:59 <Jie> Sandro: is it the latest version for now, or latest version ever? 18:47:30 <alanr> q+ to ask why not make is finite but 2^32 18:49:12 <Jie> alan: we need list on the page the points we need address 18:49:40 <Jie> ... on Bijan, Boris, Sandro 18:50:16 <bijan> working on it 18:50:39 <bijan> Er..dunno 18:50:43 <bmotik> q+ 18:50:45 <bijan> I'll write and see what happens ;) 18:50:50 <alanr> ack alanr 18:50:50 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to ask why not make it finite but 2^32 18:50:57 <alanr> ack bmotik 18:51:18 <sandro> ACTION: Bijan to write about unicode versioning issue 18:51:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-267 - Write about unicode versioning issue [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-01-28]. 18:51:27 <ivan> q+ 18:51:36 <Jie> Boris: after reading the note, I agree that the infinite supply of characters is not relevant 18:51:47 <bmotik> q+ 18:52:02 <bijan> q+ 18:52:03 <bmotik> -q 18:52:10 <alanr> ack ivan 18:52:37 <bijan> I've got it, ivan 18:52:41 <alanr> ack Bijan 18:53:11 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JH1 18:53:13 <Jie> Subtopic: JH1 18:53:35 <Jie> Alan: it is about better documentation of key 18:53:50 <Jie> ... Syntax editors 18:53:54 <alanr> q? 18:54:29 <bmotik> q+ 18:54:32 <Jie> bijan: Jim is over-stating. I don't know if to put it into Syntax 18:54:35 <alanr> ack bmotik 18:54:37 <Jie> ... maybe Rationale 18:54:39 <bijan> q+ 18:54:45 <alanr> ack bijan 18:54:52 <Jie> Boris: I don't understand the problem of this comment 18:54:59 <alanr> they didn't grok the feature 18:55:27 <Jie> bijan: The problem is that they assume key is global 18:55:34 <alanr> q? 18:55:36 <uli> ...but they have been now convinced, haven't they? 18:55:50 <alanr> yes, they want some documentation so someone else doesn't make the same mistake 18:56:32 <ivan> q+ 18:56:37 <alanr> ack ivan 18:56:46 <uli> I'd prefer new features and rationale 18:56:50 <Jie> Alan: maybe document it in Primer or Rationale 18:57:10 <schneid> +1 to Ivan, this is the document meant to be read if one wants to know about the new features 18:57:20 <uli> a simple "please note that "keyfor(C P)" only concerns instances of C, not everything 18:57:35 <msmith> editors of that doc? 18:57:46 <alanr> PROPOSED: Respond to JH1 by adding documentation in F&R and then sending that documentation in the response. 18:57:50 <bmotik> +1 18:57:54 <ivan> +1 18:57:57 <Bernardo> +1 18:57:58 <alanr> +1 18:57:59 <schneid> +1 18:58:00 <Zhe> +1 18:58:00 <MarkusK_> +1 18:58:02 <pfps> +1 18:58:02 <Achille> +1 18:58:02 <Jie> 0 18:58:03 <sandro> +1 18:58:10 <alanr> RESOLVED: Respond to JH1 by adding documentation in F&R and then sending that documentation in the response 18:58:11 <uli> +1 18:58:11 <msmith> +0 (neither christine or evan is here) 18:58:15 <bijan> Rereading the syntax, I can see how o ne *might* find "A key axiom of the form HasKey( owl:Thing OPE ) is similar to the axiom InverseFunctionalProperty( OPE ); the main difference is that the first axiom is applicable only to individuals that are explicitly named in an ontology, while the second axiom is also applicable to individuals whose existence is implied by existential quantification. The structure of such axiom is shown in Figure 17." 18:58:17 <bijan> a bit misleading 18:58:23 <bijan> I can add a bit of clarificatory text 18:59:23 <Jie> bijan: I can add a single sentence in Syntax 19:00:11 <alanr> PROPOSED: also address JH1 by Bijan adding a clarificatory sentence to the syntax specification and passing that on in the response. 19:00:13 <bmotik> I'd add this sentence in the example that Jim identified. 19:00:25 <Jie> +1 19:00:26 <bmotik> +1 19:00:27 <ivan> +1 19:00:29 <MarkusK_> +1 19:00:31 <Zhe> +1 19:00:34 <Bernardo> +1 19:00:34 <Achille> +1 19:00:37 <pfps> +1 19:00:38 <sandro> +1 19:00:38 <uli> +1 19:00:40 <schneid> +1 19:00:41 <bijan> +1 19:00:43 <msmith> +1 19:00:45 <alanr> RESOLVED: also address JH1 by Bijan adding a clarificatory sentence to the syntax specification and passing that on in the response 19:01:18 <alanr> Action: Bijan to add sentence to address JH1. Add diff to http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JH1 19:01:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-268 - Add sentence to address JH1. Add diff to http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JH1 [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-01-28]. 19:01:41 <bijan> what's up with features and rationales? 19:01:55 <bijan> Oh sorry, I see 19:02:27 <alanr> Action: Alan to mail Christine & Evan about resolution to JH1 19:02:27 <trackbot> Created ACTION-269 - Mail Christine & Evan about resolution to JH1 [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2009-01-28]. 19:02:40 <Jie> Subtopic: MS2 19:02:48 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS2 19:03:11 <schneid> q+ 19:03:34 <alanr> ack schneid 19:04:26 <Jie> schneid: I do not understand the meaning of the phrase "arbitrary object" here 19:05:18 <bmotik> q+ 19:06:04 <alanr> ack bmotik 19:06:45 <Jie> Boris: I phrased like this because the values are not from a datatype 19:07:16 <Jie> ... but it is hard to say where they are from 19:07:24 <alanr> It has to be serialized, at least 19:08:00 <Jie> Boris: datatypes can be extended 19:08:13 <Jie> ... it can't be predefined 19:08:38 <pfps> the question (I think) is whether the value can be an object identifier (as opposed to a literal) 19:09:05 <Jie> schneid: is OWL 2 datatype map close to that? 19:09:20 <bmotik> q+ 19:09:58 <alanr> ack bmotik 19:11:22 <alanr> q+ 19:12:03 <bmotik> q+ 19:12:06 <Jie> schneid: the problem is that if there is no domain, in semantics we don't have an interpretation function 19:12:24 <Zakim> -Alan 19:12:32 <alanr> phone dropped. calling back in 19:12:39 <bijan> q+ 19:12:42 <Zakim> +Alan 19:12:43 <alanr> back 19:13:01 <ivan> ack alanr 19:13:26 <alanr> ack bmotik 19:14:38 <Jie> Boris: schneid: your suggestion may lead to a family of semantics 19:15:29 <Jie> Alan: it is rather technical, maybe go on on mail list 19:16:53 <Jie> bijan: can we close this comment with a new comment that is closer to what you thought? 19:17:57 <Jie> Subtopic: test cases 19:18:02 <bijan> profile validation? 19:18:04 <bijan> Or species? 19:18:14 <bijan> A profile recognizer is coming 19:18:17 <bijan> well, I didn't know ;) 19:18:27 <Jie> Subtopic: IH1 19:18:49 <Jie> Alan: on global restrictions 19:19:12 <bijan> Why? 19:19:14 <bijan> q+ 19:19:24 <Jie> Alan: I'm not against adding examples 19:19:30 <alanr> ack Bijan 19:20:04 <Jie> bijan: OK, it is editorial 19:20:06 <pfps> q+ 19:20:36 <alanr> ack pfps 19:21:26 <bijan> Seriously? 19:21:38 <bijan> q+ 19:21:42 <Jie> Peter: editorial changes could cause problems 19:22:01 <alanr> ack bijan 19:22:55 <Jie> bijan: examples are not normative, I don't think they will cause problems 19:25:22 <alanr> PROPOSAL: Editors of syntax document will add examples for section 11, in coordination with Ivan. To be reviewed by WG after done. 19:25:30 <bmotik> +1 19:25:32 <Jie> Bernardo: I can work with Boris offline on examples 19:25:33 <pfps> +1 19:25:34 <uli> +1 19:25:34 <ivan> +1 19:25:35 <Jie> =1 19:25:37 <Jie> +1 19:25:37 <Zhe> +1 19:25:48 <sandro> +1 19:25:57 <MarkusK_> +1 19:26:03 <alanr> +1 19:26:03 <Achille> 1 19:26:09 <msmith> +1 19:26:13 <alanr> RESOLVED: IH1 to be resolved by editors of syntax document will add examples for section 11, in coordination with Ivan. To be reviewed by WG after done. 19:26:49 <bmotik> ACTION: bmotik2 to Add new examples in response to IH1 19:26:49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-270 - Add new examples in response to IH1 [on Boris Motik - due 2009-01-28]. 19:27:13 <Jie> Subtopic: IH2 19:27:09 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/IH2 19:28:05 <ivan> q+ 19:28:09 <alanr> ack ivan 19:28:16 <Jie> Alan: it says abstract should be stand-alone 19:29:05 <bijan> +1 to making abstract applicable to people who don't know about OWL 1 and don't need to 19:29:57 <alanr> PROPOSAL: Address IH2 by chairs + others interested writing a new abstract that stands on it's own to introduce OWL 2. Keep info from the current abstract for another section. 19:30:10 <Jie> +1 19:30:12 <ivan> +1 19:30:16 <pfps> +1 19:30:17 <MarkusK_> +1 19:30:17 <msmith> +1 19:30:19 <bijan> +1 19:30:19 <alanr> +1 19:30:19 <uli> +1 19:30:21 <Achille> +1 19:30:22 <bmotik> +1 19:30:24 <Zhe> +1 19:30:29 <sandro> +1 19:30:33 <Bernardo> +1 19:30:36 <alanr> RESOLVED: Address IH2 by chairs + others interested writing a new abstract that stands on it's own to introduce OWL 2. Keep info from the current abstract for another section. 19:30:48 <Jie> Topic: adjourn 19:30:50 <Zakim> -uli 19:30:53 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider 19:30:54 <MarkusK_> bye 19:30:54 <uli> bye 19:30:55 <Zakim> -msmith 19:30:56 <Zakim> -bijan 19:30:57 <Zakim> -Zhe 19:30:57 <Zakim> -Sandro 19:30:58 <uli> uli has left #owl 19:30:58 <Zakim> -MarkusK_ 19:30:58 <Zakim> -Alan 19:31:00 <Zakim> -Ivan 19:31:01 <Zakim> -Bernardo 19:31:03 <Zakim> -bmotik 19:31:05 <Zakim> -baojie 19:31:07 <schneid> missed RDF-Based the third time, sigh... 19:31:15 <schneid> quit 19:31:24 <Zakim> -schneid 19:31:25 <msmith> msmith has left #owl 19:31:29 <Zakim> -Achille 19:31:30 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended 19:31:32 <Zakim> Attendees were baojie, Bernardo, schneid, MarkusK_, Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan, bmotik, Ivan, uli, Alan, msmith, Sandro, Achille, Zhe