Chatlog 2009-02-04

From OWL
Revision as of 15:36, 9 February 2009 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.

00:00:00 <scribenick> PRESENT: bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, Michael Schneider (muted), uli (muted), Alan Ruttenberg, Ivan, Bernardo, Christine, Jie, Mike Smith, Peter Patel-Schneider, zhe, Martin
17:52:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:52:54 <RRSAgent> logging to
17:53:01 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #owl
17:53:14 <Rinke> ScribeNick: Rinke
17:54:48 <bijan> zakim, who is here?
17:54:48 <Zakim> sorry, bijan, I don't know what conference this is
17:54:49 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace
17:54:54 <bijan> zakim, this is owl
17:54:55 <Zakim> ok, bijan; that matches SW_OWL()1:00PM
17:55:05 <bijan> zakim, who is here?
17:55:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P1
17:55:07 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace
17:55:12 <bijan> zakim, ??p1 is me
17:55:13 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
17:55:23 <bmotik> bmotik has joined #owl
17:55:32 <bmotik> Zakim, this will be owl
17:55:32 <Zakim> ok, bmotik, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM already started
17:56:29 <Zakim> +??P0
17:56:37 <Zakim> + +86528aaaa
17:56:43 <Rinke> zakim, ??P0 is me
17:56:43 <Zakim> +Rinke; got it
17:56:50 <bmotik> Zakim, +86528aaaa is me
17:56:50 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
17:56:54 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:56:54 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:57:00 <Rinke> zakim, mute me
17:57:00 <Zakim> Rinke should now be muted
17:57:26 <bijan> zakim, mute me
17:57:26 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
17:57:48 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
17:57:53 <IanH> IanH has joined #owl
17:58:07 <alanr> FYI I am traveling and a promised spot for me to chair from did not materialize. I have contacted Ian, who I expect to be here. If not I will chair using sometimes flakey skype connection in hotel room.
17:58:18 <alanr> ah, there you are Ian
17:58:39 <IanH> yes
17:58:56 <alanr> did you get my text/email?
17:58:58 <Zakim> +Ian_Horrocks
17:59:07 <IanH> about chairing? yes
17:59:12 <Zakim> +Sandro
17:59:24 <Achille> Achille has joined #owl
17:59:29 <Rinke> rrsagent, make records public
17:59:30 <alanr> ok. apologies for the late notice (which is less than I got when they didn't cough up the promised room)
17:59:41 <IanH> no prob
18:00:05 <Zakim> +[IBM]
18:00:10 <MarkusK_> MarkusK_ has joined #owl
18:00:12 <Achille> Zakim, IBM is me
18:00:12 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
18:00:17 <IanH> IanH has changed the topic to:
18:00:26 <bcuencagrau> bcuencagrau has joined #owl
18:00:28 <schneid> schneid has joined #owl
18:00:32 <IanH> ScribeNick: Rinke
18:00:51 <IanH> zakim, Ian_Horrocks is IanH
18:00:51 <Zakim> +IanH; got it
18:01:00 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:01:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille
18:01:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace
18:01:14 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:01:21 <Zakim> +??P13
18:01:29 <schneid> zakim, ??P13 is me
18:01:29 <Zakim> +schneid; got it
18:01:32 <Zakim> + +0186528aabb
18:01:33 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:01:33 <uli> uli has joined #owl
18:01:33 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:01:35 <uli_> uli_ has joined #owl
18:01:37 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:01:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), +0186528aabb
18:01:47 <Zakim> On IRC I see uli_, uli, schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace
18:01:52 <Zakim> +??P15
18:01:54 <Zakim> - +0186528aabb
18:02:01 <uli> zakim, ??P15 is me
18:02:01 <Zakim> +uli; got it
18:02:03 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:02:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), uli
18:02:05 <uli> zakim, mute me
18:02:11 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
18:02:13 <Zakim> On IRC I see uli_, uli, schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace
18:02:19 <Rinke> topic: Admin
18:02:27 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:02:27 <Rinke> Roll call
18:02:28 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), uli (muted)
18:02:35 <Zakim> On IRC I see uli_, uli, schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace
18:02:37 <Rinke> subtopic: agenda amendments?
18:02:40 <Zakim> + +0186528aacc
18:02:46 <bijan> me!
18:02:49 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, +0186528aacc is me
18:02:49 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it
18:02:51 <Rinke> no amendments
18:02:53 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
18:02:53 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
18:02:57 <bijan> I ahve an agenda amendment
18:02:57 <Rinke> PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (28 January)
18:03:10 <ivan> ivan has joined #owl
18:03:12 <MarkusK_> +1
18:03:17 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:03:18 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
18:03:19 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
18:03:19 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
18:03:21 <Zakim> +Ivan
18:03:23 <Rinke> RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes (28 January)
18:03:30 <IanH> q?
18:03:44 <Zakim> +??P9
18:03:48 <Rinke> Bijan finished action-275, move to pending
18:03:53 <alanr> zakim, ??P9 is alanr
18:03:53 <Zakim> +alanr; got it
18:03:57 <Rinke> subtopic: action item status
18:04:09 <IanH> q?
18:04:25 <Rinke> IanH: Action-271, Action-276, and Action-277 done?
18:04:26 <msmith> msmith has joined #owl
18:04:35 <Rinke> bijan: Action-265 is done as well...
18:04:35 <IanH> q?
18:04:44 <Rinke> bijan: looking at the wrong agenda
18:04:59 <Rinke> IanH: all of these are done
18:05:10 <Rinke> due and overdue actions
18:05:26 <alanr> 247 done. 264 not (scheduling issues)
18:05:31 <Rinke> bijan: with regard to action-276, I drafted a response, should I send it? 
18:05:44 <Rinke> IanH: discuss this with the last call comments 
18:05:45 <IanH> q?
18:06:08 <alanr> the action is done - a proposal has been made
18:06:17 <Zakim> + +1.202.408.aadd
18:06:22 <Rinke> ianh: Action-247 leave it there, lots of conclusion. 
18:06:28 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
18:06:28 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
18:06:29 <Rinke> IanH: agree, proposal has been made, consider that done
18:06:31 <IanH> q?
18:06:33 <Rinke> action-264
18:06:40 <alanr> 264 scheduling snafus
18:06:41 <Rinke> IanH: any progress on that one? Alan?
18:06:41 <alanr> not done
18:06:52 <Rinke> IanH: ok, push that till next week
18:06:55 <Rinke> action-269
18:07:00 <bijan> It was mooted long agao
18:07:05 <bijan> It's moot
18:07:07 <bijan> Kill it
18:07:10 <alanr> closed last week
18:07:13 <IanH> q?
18:07:20 <ewallace> +1 
18:07:22 <Rinke> bijan: moot after we assigned it
18:07:27 <Rinke> IanH: consider it closed
18:07:29 <Rinke> action-270
18:07:50 <Rinke> bmotik: would prefer a revision of the whole document, will be a bunch of other changes. Prefer to do them all at once
18:07:53 <alanr> this makes tracking much harder. 
18:08:00 <alanr> Better to do them incrementally where possible.
18:08:03 <Zakim> + +1.603.897.aaee
18:08:07 <Rinke> bmotik: decide at F2F, one action, and I'll do it.
18:08:14 <baojie> baojie has joined #owl
18:08:19 <alanr> q+
18:08:25 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl
18:08:26 <IanH> q?
18:08:29 <Rinke> IanH: hm, ok, we'll leave it until you build up the necessary amendments that need to be made
18:08:31 <IanH> ack alanr
18:08:36 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:08:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan, Rinke (muted), bmotik, Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), Ivan, alanr, msmith,
18:08:42 <Zakim> ... +1.603.897.aaee
18:08:44 <Zakim> On IRC I see Zhe, baojie, msmith, ivan, uli_, uli, schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace
18:08:51 <bijan> q+
18:08:53 <bmotik> q+
18:08:56 <Rinke> alanr: there are items that can be incrementally done, more easily, that would make identifying changes to people more easy
18:09:00 <alanr> q-
18:09:03 <IanH> q?
18:09:07 <alanr> q?
18:09:33 <Christine> Christine has joined #owl
18:09:33 <Zakim> +??P4
18:09:39 <IanH> q?
18:09:43 <IanH> ack bijan
18:09:49 <Rinke> IanH: I take that point as well. I see Boris' point as well. Where there are clear isolated changes, doing them directly can be done as well
18:09:56 <Christine> zakim, ??P4 is christine
18:09:56 <Zakim> +christine; got it
18:10:09 <Rinke> bijan: these are not at odds, we can do them incrementally in one go.
18:10:29 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aaff
18:10:33 <Rinke> bijan: editorial changes... would be more sensible to make them part of one big rereview
18:10:41 <IanH> q?
18:10:44 <baojie> Zakim, aaff is baojie
18:10:44 <Zakim> +baojie; got it
18:11:03 <Rinke> IanH: we can take it on a case-by-case basis. The key-thing can be done, respond to jim, cross it of the list
18:11:08 <IanH> q?
18:11:10 <bmotik> q-
18:11:13 <Rinke> IanH: it doesn't make sense to do global comments in isolation
18:11:14 <IanH> ack boris
18:11:20 <Rinke> bmotik: exactly
18:11:39 <alanr> +1
18:11:42 <Rinke> IanH: case-by-case basis. For this particular comment, doing it right now does not make much sense
18:11:49 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:11:49 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:11:49 <Rinke> IanH: we'll leave it open
18:12:03 <bmotik> -)
18:12:07 <Rinke> IanH: would be good for you to have the pressure of an open action
18:12:09 <alanr> "it will do you good"
18:12:10 <Rinke> aciton-275
18:12:21 <IanH> q?
18:12:22 <Rinke> IanH: that's done, bijan?
18:12:28 <Rinke> bijan: all parts of it are done
18:12:36 <Rinke> action-273
18:12:42 <Rinke> IanH: have not finished it yet
18:12:50 <Rinke> IanH: (that's me slapping my own wrist)
18:12:53 <IanH> q?
18:12:54 <Rinke> IanH: done by next week
18:13:00 <Rinke> bijan: would you like to reassign it?
18:13:07 <Rinke> IanH: would be happy to work with you on it
18:13:15 <Rinke> action-272
18:13:25 <IanH> q?
18:13:33 <Rinke> IanH: wiki page by christine to deal with comments on new features and rationale. Is christine here?
18:13:40 <IanH> q?
18:13:46 <Rinke> Christine: it was too early to do it, I changed the due date
18:13:52 <Rinke> IanH: ok, fine.
18:14:07 <Rinke> subtopic: f2f5
18:14:23 <Rinke> IanH: make clear participation and non-participation wrt f2f5
18:14:28 <Zakim> -Ivan
18:14:37 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
18:14:37 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
18:14:38 <Zakim> +Ivan
18:14:50 <IanH> q?
18:14:53 <Rinke> IanH: 14 people in all, that's not a lot. There should be more people who know whether they can make it or not
18:14:57 <Rinke> topic: last call comments
18:15:32 <Rinke> IanH: some responses have already been drafted, for us to say yay or nay
18:15:49 <Rinke> Subtopic: MS1
18:15:49 <Rinke> IanH: MSI just a bug, changes were made to fix the bug
18:15:52 <ivan> pointer to the entry?
18:15:56 <IanH> q?
18:16:00 <IanH>
18:16:09 <alanr> +1
18:16:13 <alanr> to close
18:16:16 <msmith> +1
18:16:16 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
18:16:19 <ivan> +1
18:16:23 <Rinke> IanH: happy to accept the change?
18:16:31 <bijan> +1
18:16:41 <IanH> q?
18:16:49 <pfps> pfps has joined #owl
18:16:51 <IanH>
18:16:54 <Rinke> IanH: peter, perhaps you can briefly explain the changes you made in response to MS1
18:17:37 <Rinke> pfps: under the last call version of the mapping from RDF back to the  FS, it did not check for lists that shared tails, or crossed or looped. I changed the wording to forbid these kinds of situations.
18:17:47 <IanH> q?
18:17:55 <Rinke> pfps: requires all lists to be separate
18:18:10 <msmith> I'm ok without getting an email :)
18:18:11 <alanr> right
18:18:18 <Rinke> IanH: given that this is an internal LC comment... do we need to send an official message to msmith 
18:18:28 <Rinke> pfps: but we should list it as a post LC change
18:18:48 <uli> +1
18:18:49 <alanr> emoting positively towards Mike for finding a bug.
18:18:50 <ivan> +1
18:18:50 <Zhe> +1
18:18:52 <alanr> +1
18:19:01 <baojie> +1
18:19:13 <alanr> and peter for fixing :)
18:19:18 <msmith> +1
18:19:20 <sandro> :-)
18:20:03 <IanH> PROPOSED: Changes described in are an adequate response to comment MS1
18:20:05 <Achille> +1
18:20:06 <MarkusK_> +1
18:20:08 <ewallace> +1
18:20:15 <bijan> +1
18:20:15 <Rinke> Rinke: +1
18:20:19 <uli> +1
18:20:23 <Zhe> +1
18:20:23 <schneid> +1
18:20:23 <ivan> +1
18:20:30 <bcuencagrau> +1
18:20:33 <IanH> RESOLVED: Changes described in are an adequate response to comment MS1
18:20:37 <pfps> +1
18:20:47 <pfps> q+
18:20:54 <Rinke> IanH: now MD1 (unicode), comment from Martin Duerr
18:21:03 <IanH> ack pfps
18:21:11 <Rinke> pfps: backtrack a sec, do we now send out a response?
18:21:39 <schneid> I think, people from outside watching this list will wait for a response
18:21:49 <Rinke> IanH: no, not on this one. Actually this was sent to public-owl-comments. It might be good to send an official response to public-owl-comments.
18:22:01 <ivan> s/Duerr/Duerst/
18:22:26 <Rinke> IanH: peter, can you take the task of sending a response to mike on the public-owl-comments list
18:23:20 <Rinke> (some discussion on where the response will be archived)
18:23:52 <Rinke> IanH: if decide we should try to respond "in thread" then we should modify the page..
18:24:33 <Rinke> sandro: don't know whether it's worth making changes to the ones we already responded to.
18:25:07 <Rinke> bijan: isn't it enough to have everything in one place (Rinke: rough paraphrase)
18:25:15 <Rinke> IanH: we should decide whether we respond in thread
18:25:23 <Rinke> sandro: people should, but not must, respond in thread
18:25:38 <IanH> q?
18:25:40 <Rinke> IanH: if you can respond in thread, that's a good thing. Ok, we're done with that?
18:26:04 <Rinke> bijan: I think that's just dumb. I like having straightforward directions for sending responses.
18:26:39 <Rinke> sandro: there's only one done that was not done in thread
18:26:54 <Rinke> IanH: if anything else went wrong, then there was something wrong with the list
18:27:10 <Rinke> IanH: then we come back to MD1 (unicode) Martin Duerst
18:27:25 <ivan> +1 to the response
18:27:27 <alanr> +1 to respond
18:27:29 <Rinke> IanH: response drafted by bijan, discussed by email. Anyone would like to object?
18:27:43 <alanr> yes, already agreed to be formal
18:27:45 <Rinke> IanH: do we need to do formal proposals, sandro, ivan?
18:27:51 <IanH> q?
18:27:56 <Rinke> sandro: we don't need to vote on it, if nobody cares
18:28:04 <alanr> remember peter's discussion ?
18:28:08 <Rinke> sandro: if hearing no objections, it's resolved
18:28:13 <Rinke> IanH: you wanted to be formal?
18:28:39 <bijan> q+
18:28:43 <IanH> q?
18:28:52 <IanH> ack bijan
18:28:56 <Rinke> alanr: if I remember correctly, peter asked that any changes we made to the documents should be formally approved. There should be something in the record. Hearing no objections, but putting a resolved in would be good.
18:29:07 <alanr> I'll go with what pfps thinks on this issue
18:29:23 <pfps> no document change (so far) so no need to vote, I think
18:29:23 <Rinke> bijan: are we voting on the text I sent in? I only located the references, and sent an email: no documents have been changed yet. What are we voting on?
18:29:25 <schneid> q+
18:29:26 <alanr> ok
18:29:29 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:29:29 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:29:29 <IanH> q?
18:29:32 <IanH> ack schneid
18:29:52 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:29:52 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:29:54 <Rinke> schneid: I suggest we vote or not, but keep it on the list, on the queue, and flush the queue in one go.
18:30:04 <Rinke> bijan: not send the response before the work has been done
18:30:18 <ivan> we need to action the editors
18:30:19 <Rinke> IanH: we are happy with the response, but we need to make the changes in question
18:30:26 <Rinke> bijan: we need to action people appropriately
18:30:30 <ivan> :-) with the response
18:30:31 <bijan> I am!
18:30:33 <Rinke> IanH: are we happy with the response? I was happy
18:30:35 <schneid> +1
18:30:59 <Rinke> RESOLVED: the response to MD1 is appropriate,
18:31:14 <bijan> +1
18:31:17 <IanH> RESOLVED: is an appropriate response to MD1
18:31:32 <Zhe> noise
18:31:38 <ivan> noise noise noise
18:31:38 <bijan> zakim, who is talking?
18:31:39 <sandro> zakim, who is talking?
18:31:44 <uli> pfew!
18:31:45 <ivan> yes
18:31:51 <Zakim> bijan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: IanH (59%), Sandro (5%)
18:31:53 <schneid> for comparison, I got a whole bunch of answers to my SKOS LC comments all on the same day
18:31:56 <IanH> q?
18:32:03 <Zakim> sandro, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: bijan (46%), IanH (47%), Sandro (5%)
18:32:06 <Rinke> IanH: bijan, which documents need changing here?
18:32:32 <Rinke> bijan: syntax, I can do that... actually there's an issue. I know what to do for the unicode reference.
18:32:50 <Rinke> bijan: but for XML and RDF there is still the question on how to draft what we're going to do
18:33:14 <Rinke> bijan: for unicode, syntax, ms, and internationalized string, and ... needs changing
18:33:44 <Rinke> bijan: i believe we're inconsistent with references to unicode. 
18:34:01 <Rinke> IanH: if we are happy with that, and it answers his actual comment, then we should do that
18:34:33 <Rinke> bijan: we now have syntax pointing to XML 1.1, which I think is wrong. And then it also refers to the RDF syntax, which it shouldn't. Everything else is actually fine
18:34:38 <Rinke> IanH: only syntax?
18:35:01 <Rinke> bijan: no, all the ones I mentioned before, and rdf:text
18:35:03 <ivan> +1
18:35:06 <ivan> q+
18:35:14 <Rinke> bijan: just give me a global action to do all the unicode changes
18:35:19 <IanH> q?
18:35:27 <bijan> Unicode The Unicode Consortium, The Unicode Standard, Version  5.1.0, ISBN 0-321-48091-0, as updated from time to time by the publication of new versions. (See for the latest version and additional information on versions of the standard and of the Unicode Character Database).
18:35:35 <Rinke> ivan: just a very small issue on the rdf:text, please contact the RIF person to take on this.
18:35:43 <Rinke> bijan: could Jie take this on?
18:36:14 <Rinke> IanH: are you able to take on the action to take on the change to the rdf:text document. 
18:36:26 <Rinke> baojie: I can do that
18:36:41 <Rinke> yes
18:37:15 <Rinke> ACTION, baojie to make the necessary changes to the rdf:text document, given the response to MD1 (
18:38:20 <Rinke> action: baojie to make the necessary changes to the rdf:text document, given the response to MD1 (
18:38:20 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - baojie
18:38:30 <Rinke> action: jie to make the necessary changes to the rdf:text document, given the response to MD1 (
18:38:31 <trackbot> Created ACTION-278 - Make the necessary changes to the rdf:text document, given the response to MD1 ( [on Jie Bao - due 2009-02-11].
18:39:00 <Rinke> subtopic: JH1
18:39:00 <Rinke> IanH: JH1 (keys), where bijan drafted a proposed response
18:39:02 <IanH> q?
18:39:15 <Rinke> IanH: needed an additional example to the document
18:39:25 <IanH> q?
18:39:27 <Christine> +q
18:39:31 <IanH> ack ivan
18:39:31 <ivan> ack ivan
18:39:32 <Rinke> bijan: Jim was happy with the additional line to the document, that I sent to the mailing list
18:39:37 <IanH> ack Christine
18:40:01 <Rinke> ACTION: bijan to make the necessary changes to the documents given the response to MD1  (
18:40:01 <trackbot> Created ACTION-279 - Make the necessary changes to the documents given the response to MD1  ( [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-11].
18:40:21 <Rinke> IanH: no general agreement on whether this is the appropriate response
18:40:37 <IanH> q?
18:40:38 <Rinke> IanH: I don't want that discussion on the teleconf (waste of time). Bring this back next week.
18:40:41 <alanr> recommend discuss on chairs before that
18:40:48 <alanr> q+
18:40:55 <Rinke> IanH: after we have discussed the response via email
18:41:02 <IanH> q?
18:41:07 <Rinke> bijan: can I add the change to the document?
18:41:09 <IanH> ack alanr
18:41:16 <Rinke> IanH: is this affected by the critique on the response?
18:41:16 <uli> "Please note that we have added more extensive documentation of hasKey feature in the Syntax,  a better explanation in the RDF-Based Semantics, and more documentation in the N"
18:41:25 <uli> the suggested rephrasing
18:41:56 <bijan> Current text: """Please note that we will have a more extensive documentation of the rationale behind this design in the NF&R as well as some discussion in the primer. The working group will contact you when they reach last call to see if the overall solution meets your concerns. "
18:41:57 <Christine> +q
18:42:07 <Rinke> alanr: discuss on chairs list
18:42:12 <IanH> q?
18:42:28 <Rinke> bijan: I don't agree. We only need to say that the response is acceptable. The new features and rationale doc is not in LC
18:42:32 <IanH> ack Christine
18:43:00 <bijan> q+
18:43:01 <alanr> q+
18:43:05 <Rinke> Christine: there was one point in the draft that I did not agree, is the notion of feature. but we make change in the feature document. The change has already been done in the document. The rationale as well.
18:43:18 <Rinke> IanH: your point is that the text can be changed to state that we /have/ made some changes.
18:43:26 <IanH> ack bijan
18:43:29 <alanr> there is certainly not consensus on that. I disagree  concurring with Bijan
18:44:00 <Rinke> bijan: the changes thusfar do not address the comment. They do not even take notice of the comment. I would object to doing that. I already explained this to christine on the list.
18:44:03 <IanH> q?
18:44:06 <IanH> ack alanr
18:44:20 <Rinke> IanH: I understand what the dispute there is then. 
18:44:33 <Rinke> alanr: this is why I think we should moderate it. 
18:44:34 <Christine> +q
18:44:39 <alanr> +1
18:44:45 <Rinke> IanH: I don't really see the usefulnes of carrying on with this discussion right now
18:44:47 <Christine> +1
18:45:07 <Rinke> IanH: push this on the mailinglist for discussion.
18:45:13 <IanH> q?
18:45:15 <Rinke> IanH: let's do this via email, and move on.
18:45:17 <IanH> ack Christine 
18:45:43 <Rinke> bijan: can we just decide? this is the smallest wordsmithing... if this is the level of detail we're taking in then it's going to take forever. 
18:45:54 <Rinke> bijan: I don't want to have this discussion. I want it to be over. 
18:46:03 <Rinke> bijan: my text doesn't say anything wrong. 
18:46:03 <Christine> +q
18:46:04 <alanr> Bijan, I don't think you need to participate in the discussion further. I understand your point.
18:46:07 <alanr> I care
18:46:10 <Rinke> bijan: why not just vote.
18:46:27 <IanH> q?
18:46:34 <Rinke> IanH: I've got sympathy with what you say. this is going to produce more heat than light.
18:46:43 <ivan> ack Christine
18:46:44 <IanH> ack Christine
18:46:45 <Rinke> Christine: I agree to move on.
18:46:52 <alanr> I vote +1
18:46:58 <Rinke> bijan: can I add my sentence to the syntax document?
18:46:58 <alanr> for Bijan to take this action
18:47:06 <Rinke> IanH: this additional explanation-thing that Jim wanted
18:47:12 <alanr> there is no contest on that
18:47:26 <Rinke> IanH: why don't you go ahead on that
18:47:54 <Rinke> IanH: we need to find some better, faster way of dealing with these things.
18:48:03 <Rinke> IanH: that's something for me and alan to discuss offline
18:48:19 <bijan> q+
18:48:28 <alanr>  group: for your information we have already started discussing that (how to make this more efficient)
18:48:36 <Rinke> IanH: next is a list of all comments that I thought were significantly nontrivial, that required us to make some decision on the design.
18:48:36 <IanH> q?
18:48:42 <IanH> ack bijan
18:49:04 <Rinke> bijan: I have drafted an initial response to jeremy, and I would like feedback on whether this direction is ok (had some feedback from ivan)
18:49:07 <alanr> q+
18:49:16 <Rinke> IanH: sure, it isn't on this list at the moment. 
18:49:18 <IanH> q?
18:49:20 <IanH> ack alanr
18:50:03 <Rinke> alanr: my judgment is that I wouldn't abandon the draft, rather than refining it right now. There's discussion on the **** list right now, it's very much appreciated. Let's wait until that progresses
18:50:13 <alanr>  *** = chairs list
18:50:17 <ivan>  -:)
18:50:18 <Rinke> IanH: coming back to the list
18:50:38 <bijan> q+
18:50:42 <IanH> q?
18:50:44 <Rinke> subtopic: Naming issues
18:50:44 <Rinke> IanH: grddl, several comments referring to OWL, OWL DL and OWL Full (being more clear in the documents)
18:50:50 <IanH> ack bijan
18:51:25 <Rinke> bijan: I have a question. Looking at comments, not all of them about the design of the language. Just wondering whether the ones that are literally editorial could be moved to a different category (e.g. the use of OWL DL, OWL etc...)
18:51:33 <ivan> it is on the borderline...
18:51:51 <Rinke> IanH: it could be dealt with in an editorial way, perhaps... it could potentially require major restructuring of the documents
18:52:10 <Rinke> bijan: let me put it another way, what triggers another last call at this point.
18:52:11 <IanH> q?
18:52:12 <alanr> Can we postpone this discussion for the moment (of what triggers last call)
18:52:20 <Rinke> bijan: do we have some sens on that?
18:52:25 <Rinke> s/sens/sense
18:52:33 <schneid> "OWL 2" --> "OWL 2 DL" will certainly not justify another LC, but it's important anyway
18:52:34 <alanr> A subject of current discussion on chairs list. We are trying to understand issues.
18:52:38 <IanH> q?
18:52:47 <Rinke> IanH: how we decide to deal with them will determine the answer to bijan's question
18:52:52 <schneid> q+
18:53:12 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:53:12 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:53:13 <IanH> q?
18:53:17 <IanH> ack schneid
18:53:18 <Rinke> IanH: see whether we have a rough agreement on these... see whether we can get a high-level plan on what to do
18:53:19 <MartinD> MartinD has joined #OWL
18:53:38 <Rinke> schneid: we should have a clear story about the OWL names. 
18:53:46 <IanH> q?
18:53:51 <Rinke> schneid: what do the names signify, only syntax, only semantics?
18:54:07 <Rinke> schneid: I understood OWL 2 Full only as semantics, but now realize that's a bad idea.
18:54:21 <Rinke> schneid: it's very unclear at the moment. We should have a clear story on this.
18:54:25 <IanH> q?
18:54:33 <Rinke> IanH: I agree, this is also what the commenters ask.
18:54:42 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:54:42 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:54:58 <Rinke> schneid: we should state "that's the name of the syntax, that's the name of the semantics, that's the name of the whole language"
18:55:00 <IanH> q?
18:55:09 <ivan> -> Ian's mail
18:55:18 <Rinke> IanH: I sent an email summarising. A couple of people have been working on diagrammatic responses
18:55:30 <IanH> q?
18:55:47 <bijan> Ok, "RIF1 (Disjoint numeric datatypes)", I think we should make them disjoint
18:55:48 <uli> +1
18:55:50 <Rinke> IanH: we need to be clearer about all of these things. I don't think we'll succeed in doing this in the next 5 minutes. Unless anyone really objects...
18:56:11 <Rinke> IanH: let's leave FH2, SWD1 for the moment
18:56:18 <bijan> q+
18:56:23 <Rinke> subtopic: XML and GRDDL
18:56:23 <Rinke> IanH: skipped over XML and GRDDL (TM1, FH3, BP2)
18:56:25 <IanH> q?
18:56:32 <IanH> ack bijan
18:56:39 <Rinke> bijan: I drafted some text in response to Frank's email.
18:57:03 <Rinke> bijan: which provided extensive rationale for the XML syntax. Jonathan Rees liked those, but still wanted GRDDL.
18:57:24 <Rinke> IanH: I agree, motivating the XML stuff isn't too difficult, but the GRDDL point is still there.
18:57:34 <IanH> q?
18:57:44 <alanr> chocolate?
18:57:44 <ivan> two beers?
18:57:47 <Rinke> IanH: I had the idea that you might have come round, and perhaps even be the man to take on GRDDL.
18:57:48 <alanr> hugs
18:57:55 <alanr> genuine gratitude?
18:58:42 <Rinke> bijan: I am negotiating... I'm unsure what my official position would be if the discussion went the other way...
18:58:58 <IanH> q?
18:59:12 <Rinke> bijan: I am negotiating with the pro-GRDDL people on the group. But I'm not there yet.
18:59:13 <schneid> IMHO, asking for dropping XML is very exaggerated, but I think the commenters believe that OWL/XML MUST be supported --> point them to the Conformance document!
18:59:16 <ivan> q+
18:59:22 <IanH> q?
19:00:17 <bijan> q+
19:00:26 <Rinke> ivan: I think there is a general feeling that the exact whole of OWL/XML in the whole framework is heavily misunderstood. There have been several comments, some came only a few days ago, is the feeling that RDF/XML is abandoned. This is not true, but it seems the messaging on this has gone wrong.
19:00:33 <IanH> q?
19:00:39 <IanH> ack ivan
19:00:39 <Rinke> ivan: one remark about all different syntaxes in the examples. 
19:00:41 <IanH> q?
19:00:42 <bmotik> +q
19:00:46 <Rinke> ivan: it's part of the same set of comments.
19:01:10 <Rinke> IanH: more related to what we discussed previously, but next on the list, misunderstanding on the whole messaging thing.
19:01:37 <Rinke> ivan: the whole OWL/XML made people feel that this was the exchange syntax. I had the discussion with some of my colleagues this week.
19:01:41 <IanH> q?
19:01:45 <IanH> ack bijan
19:01:50 <Rinke> IanH: not directly related to the whole OWL/XML GRDDL thing.
19:02:01 <Rinke> bijan: I agree, I think people have lashed on the Functional Syntax and XML
19:02:05 <IanH> q?
19:02:06 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
19:02:06 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
19:02:12 <alanr> +1
19:02:18 <alanr> to what Bijan says
19:02:31 <IanH> q?
19:02:35 <Rinke> bijan: we haven't changed how OWL was specified. Putting the two semantics in two documents confused people who thought there was only one semantics.
19:02:37 <schneid> actually, in OWL 1 there have been even three different semantics...
19:02:42 <Rinke> bijan: that does need to be dealt with.
19:02:55 <Rinke> IanH: there's a whole presentation issue that needs to be dealt with. 
19:03:09 <bmotik> -q
19:03:25 <Rinke> IanH: there isn't one specific comment that says this. but we need a response to such a comment.
19:03:29 <IanH> q?
19:03:38 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
19:03:38 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
19:04:06 <bmotik> +q
19:04:10 <Rinke> subtopic: RIF1
19:04:10 <Rinke> IanH: ok, what about the RIF1 related to numeric datatypes
19:04:11 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
19:04:11 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
19:04:12 <IanH> q?
19:04:17 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:04:32 <alanr> missed that
19:04:35 <Rinke> bmotik: I have a proposal, we make the datatypes exactly as they are in XML
19:04:38 <sandro> +1 stoning
19:04:40 <IanH> q?
19:04:41 <bijan> q+
19:04:45 <alanr> -1
19:04:53 <Rinke> bmotik: throw a stone at me at the F2F5 for starting this in the first place
19:04:59 <ivan> +1 stoning (in virtual space, will not be at the f2f...)
19:05:13 <IanH> NO -- I want to see blood
19:05:16 <alanr> I'm not sorry yet
19:05:18 <Rinke> bmotik: there is also a practical reason, non-disjointness really difficult to implement.
19:05:19 <sandro> rofl
19:05:26 <Rinke> bmotik: I'm sorry
19:05:40 <ewallace> Why are disjoint types now acceptable?
19:05:51 <IanH> q?
19:05:53 <msmith> q+
19:05:55 <IanH> ack bijan
19:05:56 <alanr> q+
19:05:57 <Rinke> IanH: Boris proposes that we change our decision on disjointness because of conformance with XML, and implementation issues
19:06:05 <msmith> q-
19:06:15 <IanH> q?
19:06:15 <Rinke> bijan: I am happy to have disjointness as well (we should throw stones at Rob as well)
19:06:23 <Rinke> msmith: would this require another last call?
19:06:38 <Rinke> IanH: I'm just not wanting to talk about whether or not that requires another last call
19:06:53 <Rinke> IanH: deal with each comment, then look at the totality of changes.
19:07:01 <Rinke> IanH: welcome to have comments from sandro, ivan
19:07:06 <IanH> q?
19:07:24 <ivan> q+
19:07:30 <Rinke> sandro: I agree. And: not another LC, it's a corner issue that people just haven't thought about enough.
19:07:31 <msmith> q+ to request more detail from Boris
19:07:39 <IanH> ack alanr
19:07:57 <bijan> q+
19:08:10 <Rinke> alanr: Im not ready to cave on this yet. We do have a meeting with RIF on this, next week. I want to discuss this with Jonathan (my colleague).
19:08:14 <alanr> understood. just chiming in.
19:08:23 <IanH> q?
19:08:25 <Rinke> IanH: we don't have a unanimous plan on this
19:08:27 <bijan> q-
19:08:28 <alanr> yes. more than that even :)
19:08:37 <Rinke> IanH: we;ll ask you again after the RIF meeting
19:08:37 <IanH> ack ivan
19:08:40 <IanH> q?
19:08:58 <bijan> Given all the feedback, I think Manchester (pace Uli) might formally object to non-disjoint double
19:09:08 <bijan> So it's not just to satisfy rif
19:09:14 <IanH> q?
19:09:17 <Rinke> ivan: wrt. the LC or non-LC issue. We have a number of documents that are not LC. A second LC is not the end of the world. I agree we should not spend time on this issue. It is not a huge issue.
19:09:18 <Zakim> +Tony
19:09:25 <IanH> q?
19:09:28 <IanH> ack msmith
19:09:28 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to request more detail from Boris
19:09:35 <bmotik> +q
19:09:35 <ewallace> +1 to Mike suggestions
19:09:37 <Rinke> msmith: If boris could write an email that more explicitly specifies the change he's proposing to make
19:09:41 <IanH> q?
19:09:41 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
19:09:41 <alanr> uli is ready to drop rational too?
19:09:42 <Zakim> bmotik was not muted, bmotik
19:09:42 <Rinke> msmith: that would be helpful
19:09:46 <Rinke> sandro: test cases test cases
19:09:49 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:09:51 <IanH> q?
19:09:53 <alanr> q+
19:09:57 <schneid> q+
19:10:01 <Rinke> bmotik: this is already specified in the 1.1 XML schema. It's very precise on this.
19:10:14 <msmith> q+
19:10:18 <bijan> +1 to what boris just said
19:10:24 <IanH> q?
19:10:27 <Rinke> bmotik: float disjoint from double would be disjoint from decimal, but integer and all that crap wouldn't be
19:10:28 <uli> alanr, I am not sure...
19:10:38 <IanH> q?
19:10:42 <IanH> ack alanr
19:10:42 <msmith> but where does that leave owl:realPlus?
19:10:43 <ivan> ack alanr
19:10:52 <msmith> q-
19:11:03 <Rinke> alanr: how would that impact ... 
19:11:05 <IanH> q?
19:11:05 <alanr> thanks
19:11:09 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
19:11:09 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
19:11:13 <IanH> ack schneid
19:11:17 <Rinke> IanH: that's a different issue, because those are new datatypes
19:11:52 <Rinke> schneid: there was months of discussion about this. Would like the ramifications of this change. There were reasons for not having this disjointness. 
19:11:55 <alanr> the ramifications are bad :)
19:11:58 <IanH> q?
19:11:59 <Rinke> schneid: would it be very bad?
19:12:11 <Rinke> schneid: would like to see the non-obvious ramifications
19:12:24 <bijan> I note again, Pellet (and Jena) have supported disjointness here
19:12:41 <IanH> q?
19:12:44 <Rinke> IanH: would be the kind of ones that when you have integers and doubles in an inference, you would have different answers for your inferences.
19:12:51 <alanr> instance classification issues as well
19:12:56 <uli> Michael, I see (1) less tricky to implement (2) possibly strange inferences (3) comformance to Schema
19:12:58 <IanH> q?
19:13:07 <Rinke> IanH: all those guys are overlapping and derived from decimal
19:13:30 <Rinke> schneid: there was this idea to have overlapping value spaces, and this must have a good reason.
19:13:48 <bmotik> q+
19:13:55 <Rinke> IanH: the good reason was that logicallly speaking the double 1 should be interpreted in the same way as the integer 1
19:14:00 <alanr> or that the different 0's are different
19:14:04 <IanH> q?
19:14:17 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:14:34 <Rinke> bmotik: because of that, there is no need for owl:realPlus .. just an umbrella for the doubles etc.
19:14:39 <schneid> zakim, mute me
19:14:39 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
19:15:05 <IanH> q?
19:15:06 <Rinke> IanH: we can see how the meeting with RIF goes. It's possible to resolve this by doing what they asked us to do?
19:15:10 <bmotik> q+
19:15:18 <schneid> thanks, uli
19:15:24 <IanH> q?
19:15:28 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:15:29 <Rinke> subtopic: RIF2
19:15:29 <Rinke> IanH: what to do with RIF2 (same set of supported datatypes). They don't support some of the derived string-types.
19:15:37 <bijan> q+
19:15:39 <Rinke> bmotik: are they complaining about OWL 2 RL, or in general?
19:15:52 <Zakim> -Achille
19:15:55 <IanH> q?
19:16:01 <IanH> ack bijan
19:16:09 <Rinke> IanH: they wouldn't object to profiles to support only a subset of datatypes. I think they'd like both languages as a whole to support the same set of datatypes.
19:16:14 <alanr> q+
19:16:18 <bmotik> q+
19:16:43 <IanH> q?
19:17:12 <Rinke> bijan: we should resolve this to say that we're happy if they support all datatypes we have. I'm not convinced with the exhange argument... 
19:17:47 <Rinke> bijan: least-common denominator approach does not really match with the development of a language that allows people to express what they need to express.
19:17:51 <pfps> +1 to 1/3-full cups (+2 to 2/3-full cups)
19:18:05 <bijan> Sure
19:18:07 <ivan> q+
19:18:11 <Rinke> IanH: I understood the argument and sympathise, will put your argument forward on the OWL/RIF meeting
19:18:13 <alanr> is the cup 1/3 full or 2/3 empty?
19:18:15 <IanH> q?
19:18:19 <sandro> do you think RIF should have built-ins for rational math?
19:18:24 <bijan> I just think we need a better prima facie argument to budge
19:18:26 <IanH> q?
19:18:28 <IanH> ack alanr
19:18:34 <bijan> sandro, I don't care. That's up to them
19:19:00 <Rinke> alanr: there are two cases we may consider. Wrt the string derived types, we don't have a lot of demand for them, we could drop some of them: some negotiating room for horse trading. 
19:19:11 <bijan> Why give up what can be defined? What's the harm of having names for types that are expressively available?
19:19:11 <sandro> q?
19:19:19 <Rinke> IanH: that supports the notion that we need the same set
19:19:37 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:19:44 <Rinke> alanr: I understand bijan's point.. i have sympathy for harmonisation, see how far we can go.
19:20:04 <Rinke> bmotik: but we would need to extend our set of datatypes as well (e.g. from XQuery, and one that has to do with datetime).
19:20:10 <Rinke> bmotik: we would both need to change
19:20:17 <Rinke> IanH: would they be difficult to support
19:20:21 <Rinke> bmotik: I don't think so.
19:20:29 <Rinke> IanH: what about the issue with time zones
19:20:55 <bijan> q+
19:20:56 <Rinke> bmotik: there is a diversion with datetime as well. We are interpreting timezones in OWL in a different way as well
19:21:08 <ewallace> I think there is some confusion in RIF wg about dateTime
19:21:09 <IanH> ack ivan
19:21:24 <Rinke> IanH: we don't support XML datetime, but have a subtype with an explicit timezone.
19:22:06 <IanH> q?
19:22:06 <Rinke> ivan: we should stop the discussion now, and see where we can go from the RIF/OWL meeting. What I don't see is the issue with the rdf:text on the LC page. I haven't seen any move on this over the past few weeks.
19:22:10 <Rinke> IanH: what do you suggest?
19:22:17 <Rinke> ivan: we should have it on the LC comments page.
19:22:24 <Rinke> sandro: but rdf:text is not in last call.
19:22:35 <Rinke> ivan: oh, ok. but it may come up on the meeting with RIF
19:22:42 <IanH> q?
19:22:45 <Rinke> IanH: it seems to be a completely separate issue
19:22:55 <IanH> ack bijan
19:23:05 <Rinke> bijan: What does RIF require conformant systems to support in terms of the datatypes
19:23:12 <Rinke> bmotik: do you want a list? I can recite it...
19:23:27 <sandro>
19:23:27 <Rinke> bijan: I'm not clear that you have to support them all (i'm looking at conformance clauses)
19:23:35 <Rinke> IanH: take this to email?
19:23:38 <IanH> q?
19:23:43 <Rinke> bijan: i concede
19:23:54 <Rinke> IanH: discuss this by email before the meeting with RIF
19:24:18 <Rinke> subtopic: FH4
19:24:18 <Rinke> IanH: close to running out of time. Try to tackle one more of these: anonymous individuals (FH4)
19:24:25 <bijan> Clarify rationale and reject the change
19:24:31 <IanH> q?
19:24:32 <bmotik> +q
19:24:36 <pfps> +1 to bijan
19:24:44 <Rinke> IanH: Frank didn't like the new way in which we deal with anonymous individuals?
19:24:51 <msmith> +1 to bmotik, I didn't understand the comment
19:24:53 <uli> I don't
19:24:56 <Rinke> IanH: yes, bijan is right....
19:25:00 <IanH> q?
19:25:06 <Rinke> bmotik: did anyone understand the comment?
19:25:06 <bmotik> -q
19:25:09 <alanr> q+
19:25:10 <schneid> Frank talks about "deviation" of OWL 1, I believe
19:25:13 <IanH> q?
19:25:20 <Rinke> IanH: that's my feeling as well, we should clarify
19:25:35 <bmotik> +q
19:25:45 <IanH> q?
19:25:49 <IanH> ack alanr
19:26:00 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:26:01 <Rinke> alanr: I was wondering whether the anon individuals in OWL 1 had different syntax where the name wasn't mentioned. perhaps boris could think of a way to deal with this with minimal impact (Syntactic change)
19:26:20 <bijan> +1 to Boris
19:26:26 <Rinke> bmotik: there is no way to do this. I thought long and hard. This didn't play along well with the axiom based view on OWL.
19:26:26 <schneid> q+
19:26:32 <bijan> q+
19:26:36 <pfps> +1 to Boris, as well, the RDF form hasn't changed
19:26:36 <IanH> q?
19:26:44 <Rinke> IanH: we do have backwards compatibility don't we?
19:26:53 <ivan> q+
19:26:56 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
19:26:56 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
19:27:00 <bijan> q-
19:27:01 <IanH> ack schneid
19:27:10 <Rinke> bmotik: we do. It is only the problem with the Abstract syntax vs. the functional syntax.
19:27:41 <IanH> q?
19:27:42 <Rinke> schneid: I think that if he is coming more from the RDF/web view... working with anonymous individuals is very common (e.g. in foaf).
19:27:42 <alanr> on the motivation issue we can certainly response coherently
19:27:47 <IanH> ack ivan
19:27:48 <alanr> s/response/respond/
19:27:58 <bijan> q+
19:28:00 <Rinke> ivan: I am lost actually, can somebody explain in one minute what the problem is?
19:28:01 <IanH>
19:28:09 <Rinke> IanH: it's not that easy, his email is very short. 
19:28:14 <IanH> q?
19:28:21 <IanH> ack bijan
19:28:26 <Rinke> ivan: I don't understand what problem he's responding to
19:28:32 <bmotik> In OWL 1 you had Individual( value(p "bla") )
19:28:43 <schneid> ClassAssertion(foaf:Agent _:x)
19:28:45 <schneid> PropertyAssertion(foaf:knows _:x Alice)
19:28:50 <bmotik> In OWL 2 you have PropertyAssertion( p _:1 "bla" )
19:29:03 <bmotik> It is the same from the expressivity point of view, but the syntax is different.
19:29:09 <alanr> there is also more expressivity in owl 2, no?
19:29:11 <Rinke> bijan: in OWL 1 AS anon individuals were represented using blank nodes (no node id's). We have to use node id's because of the syntax. Frank is confused by this.
19:29:15 <alanr> that's what I thought, ian
19:29:20 <schneid> We can now share
19:29:33 <schneid> the same anon in different axioms
19:29:34 <IanH> q?
19:29:35 <Rinke> IanH: isn't it so that we could deal with more RDF with this change
19:29:45 <Rinke> ivan: seems to be syntactic sugar only in the functional syntax.
19:29:57 <Rinke> bijan: seems to be about presentation, not a technical comment. 
19:29:58 <alanr> q+
19:30:00 <bijan> I can write a draft
19:30:03 <IanH> q?
19:30:06 <Rinke> IanH: probably isn't a big deal
19:30:06 <IanH> ack alanr
19:30:10 <msmith> @schneid, we can only share in careful ways (see the global restrictions)
19:30:14 <Rinke> alanr: I didn't understand that last comment 
19:30:27 <Rinke> bijan: it's not a substantive change, change in the presentation, not technical.
19:30:27 <IanH> q?
19:30:30 <schneid> ah, there was this fine print again ;-)
19:30:53 <Rinke> bijan: I explain why we make the change, it's an editorial manner.
19:31:32 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
19:31:39 <Rinke> IanH: we have to carry on with the rest of this list next week. Alan and I will discuss on how to deal with carrying forward with responding to the comments
19:31:41 <alanr> And pfps be earnest?
19:31:50 <Rinke> topic: anny additional business?
19:31:57 <Rinke> IanH: no? ok, we're done
19:31:57 <bijan> yes please!
19:32:03 <msmith> thanks all. bye
19:32:04 <Zakim> -msmith
19:32:08 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
19:32:11 <Zakim> -MarkusK_
19:32:14 <uli> bye
19:32:17 <Zhe> bye
19:32:17 <alanr> thanks everyone! Particularly Ian. No thanks to my hosts.
19:32:18 <Rinke> action: bijan to draft a response to FH1 (anonymous individuals)
19:32:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-280 - Draft a response to FH1 (anonymous individuals) [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-11].
19:32:18 <uli> uli has left #owl
19:32:19 <Zakim> -bmotik
19:32:22 <Zakim> - +1.603.897.aaee
19:32:23 <Zakim> -Ivan
19:32:24 <Zakim> -uli
19:32:25 <Zakim> -alanr
19:32:26 <Zakim> -christine
19:32:27 <Zakim> -bijan
19:32:27 <Zakim> -baojie
19:32:28 <Zakim> -schneid
19:32:29 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
19:32:31 <Zakim> -Sandro
19:32:33 <Zakim> -Tony
19:32:35 <Zakim> -IanH
19:32:41 <Zakim> -Rinke
19:32:42 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
19:32:43 <Zakim> Attendees were bijan, Rinke, bmotik, Evan_Wallace, Sandro, Achille, IanH, MarkusK_, schneid, +0186528aabb, uli, bcuencagrau, Ivan, alanr, +1.202.408.aadd, msmith, +1.603.897.aaee,
19:32:46 <Zakim> ... christine, +1.518.276.aaff, baojie, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Tony
19:33:17 <Rinke> RRSAgent, pointer?
19:33:17 <RRSAgent> See
19:55:22 <MartinD> MartinD has left #OWL
21:34:56 <Zakim> Zakim has left #owl
21:37:20 <alanr> alanr has joined #owl