Chatlog 2009-03-25

From OWL
Revision as of 19:54, 31 March 2009 by Zwu2 (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.


16:59:36 <IanH> IanH has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.03.25/Agenda
17:02:21 <Zhe> scribenick: Zhe
17:02:27 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:02:27 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bmotik (muted), IanH, bparsia (muted), Sandro, Zhe, Ivan, uli (muted), Rinke (muted)
17:02:30 <Zakim> On IRC I see MarkusK_, Rinke, Zhe, uli, bernardo, bmotik, Michael_Schneider, pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, alanr, bparsia, ivan, IanH, sandro, trackbot
17:02:38 <Zakim> +Jonathan_Rees
17:02:45 <alanr> zakim, Jonathan_Rees is alanr
17:02:45 <Zakim> +bernardo
17:02:48 <Zhe> Topic: Admin
17:02:51 <Zakim> +alanr; got it
17:02:53 <bernardo> Zakim, mute me
17:02:55 <ivan> zakim, mute me
17:03:04 <Zakim> sorry, bernardo, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:03:07 <msmith> msmith has joined #owl
17:03:09 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
17:03:18 <pfps> q+
17:03:24 <zimmer> zimmer has joined #owl
17:03:33 <alanr> ack pfps
17:03:40 <Zakim> +msmith
17:03:43 <Zakim> sorry, bernardo, I do not recognize a party named 'bmotik.a'
17:03:50 <alanr> zakim, who is here
17:03:50 <Zakim> alanr, you need to end that query with '?'
17:03:55 <alanr> zakim, who is here?
17:03:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bmotik (muted), IanH, bparsia (muted), Sandro, Zhe, Ivan (muted), uli (muted), Rinke (muted), alanr, bernardo, msmith
17:03:55 <bernardo> Zakim, mute me
17:04:01 <Zakim> sorry, bernardo, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:04:04 <Zakim> On IRC I see zimmer, msmith, MarkusK_, Rinke, Zhe, uli, bernardo, bmotik, schneid, pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, alanr, bparsia, ivan, IanH, sandro, trackbot
17:04:25 <Zhe> PROPOSED: accept previous minutes  http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-03-18
17:04:34 <pfps> minutes are minimally acceptable
17:04:40 <alanr> +1
17:04:41 <Michael_Schneider> sorry, possibly only on IRC today
17:04:42 <bernardo> Zakim, bernardo is bernardo
17:04:42 <Zakim> +bernardo; got it
17:04:48 <bernardo> Zakim, mute me
17:04:48 <Zakim> bernardo should now be muted
17:04:51 <Zhe> RESOLVED: accept minutes of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-03-18
17:04:58 <jar> jar has joined #owl
17:05:00 <pfps> actually they look much better than when I looked at them last time.
17:05:06 <Zhe> Topic: Action items status
17:05:22 <Zakim> +??P9
17:05:34 <pfps> it appears to me that some of these were approved as done last week
17:05:37 <Zhe> alanr: any comments?
17:05:37 <zimmer> Zakim, ??P9 is me
17:05:37 <Zakim> +zimmer; got it
17:05:41 <msmith> yes, I thought 283 was already closed
17:05:43 <ivan> bijan did his review on the quick ref guide. One question to Jie. wasn't clear on 301 status
17:05:51 <ivan> so did christine
17:06:09 <pfps> no one is updating the status
17:06:18 <pfps> 301 was approved as done last week
17:06:31 <sandro> action-301 done
17:06:39 <sandro> action-301?
17:06:39 <trackbot> ACTION-301 -- Jie Bao to contact Andy Seaborn and try to make sure he's happy with our work on rdf:text, and will talk to use about any remaining issues. -- due 2009-03-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:06:39 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/actions/301
17:06:58 <Zhe> SubTopic: Due and Overdue actions
17:07:22 <Zhe> action 309 done
17:07:22 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 309
17:07:29 <sandro> action-292 closed
17:07:29 <trackbot> ACTION-292 Talk to RIF to see what datatypes in OWL must not be in OWL-RL. closed
17:07:34 <Zhe> action-299?
17:07:34 <trackbot> ACTION-299 -- Sandro Hawke to find and fix the to-wiki-links Jeremy complains about -- due 2009-03-03 -- OPEN
17:07:34 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/actions/299
17:07:48 <pfps> last week Sandro said that this would happen at publishing time
17:07:53 <Zhe> action 310?
17:07:53 <trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax
17:07:59 <Zhe> action-310?
17:07:59 <trackbot> ACTION-310 -- Peter Patel-Schneider to review rdf:text document http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec -- due 2009-03-25 -- OPEN
17:07:59 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/actions/310
17:08:40 <pfps> action-307?
17:08:40 <trackbot> ACTION-307 -- Christine Golbreich to review QRG -- due 2009-03-25 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:08:40 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/actions/307
17:08:42 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl
17:08:48 <Zhe> scribenick: Zhe
17:09:03 <alanr> zakim, who is here?
17:09:03 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bmotik (muted), IanH, bparsia (muted), Sandro, Zhe, Ivan (muted), uli (muted), Rinke (muted), alanr, bernardo (muted), msmith, zimmer
17:09:06 <Zakim> On IRC I see Zhe, jar, zimmer, msmith, Rinke, uli, bernardo, bmotik, Michael_Schneider , pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, alanr, bparsia, ivan, IanH, sandro, trackbot
17:09:09 <Zhe> alanr: action-321 postponed
17:09:11 <pfps> the due date should have been later - I'll move it
17:09:16 <Zhe> Topic: Documents and Reviewing
17:09:29 <Zhe> alanr: the only one not ready is rdf text. There is one involves our group.
17:09:52 <ivan> is the rdf semantics ready for review? I am not sure
17:10:21 <bmotik> q+
17:10:23 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:10:23 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
17:10:34 <bparsia> I am!
17:10:36 <pfps> why are we hearing this at TC time?
17:10:38 <Zhe> bmotik: who is arguing against making it infinite. RDF or RIF foks?
17:10:39 <bparsia> q+
17:10:45 <ivan> ack bmotik 
17:10:48 <ivan> addison
17:11:02 <Zhe> It is the i18n folks
17:11:02 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
17:11:02 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
17:11:03 <bmotik> q+
17:11:07 <alanr> ack bparsia
17:11:12 <ivan> ack bparsia 
17:11:36 <Zhe> bparsia: want to reuse existing regular expression libraries. Allow people to indicate which unicode version 
17:11:54 <pfps> I'm confused, why can't regular regexp libraries be used?
17:12:07 <alanr> q?
17:12:30 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:12:49 <Michael_Schneider> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
17:12:49 <Zakim> +schneid; got it
17:12:54 <Michael_Schneider> zakim, mute me
17:12:54 <Zakim> Michael_Schneider should now be muted
17:12:55 <MarkusK_> MarkusK_ has joined #owl
17:13:01 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
17:13:01 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
17:13:21 <Zakim> +??P1
17:13:27 <Zhe> alanr: goal is that we want to move forward with rdf text. I don't want it be a technical discussion. The focus is on how to resolve it asap.
17:13:28 <alanr> ack bmotik
17:13:39 <bparsia> Toolkit I want to use: http://www.brics.dk/automaton/
17:13:40 <Zhe> bmotik: a few technical questions. I did not understand bijan, what is the semantics if you indicate unicode version?
17:13:57 <bparsia> I meant in OWL
17:14:05 <bparsia>  rdf:text:unicode3.1
17:14:12 <bparsia> Oh! Nice!
17:14:35 <ivan> q+
17:14:39 <Zhe> ... if we go with finite alphabet, do we really know how many is in the unicode version.
17:14:46 <bparsia> q+
17:14:48 <alanr> ack ivan
17:15:10 <Zhe> ivan: there is an upper limit for unicode characters. Some of those are not properly defined.
17:15:25 <bmotik> q+
17:15:27 <sandro> "The largest Unicode code point is 0x10FFFF. Period. There is not an infinity of Unicode code points. "    
17:15:33 <alanr> ack bparsia
17:15:40 <ivan> zakim, mute me
17:15:40 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
17:15:51 <Zhe> bparsia: it is nice to know about the libraries. makes me happy. My proposal is that in the ontology, when I define a class, I am using a particular unicode version. However, if it is finite, then all problems are solved
17:15:59 <sandro>   -- from Addison Phillips, Chair -- W3C Internationalization WG
17:16:23 <alanr> q?
17:16:27 <alanr> ack bmotik
17:17:12 <bparsia> We need to know the number
17:17:15 <IanH> An ecstatic Boris -- scary prospect
17:17:16 <alanr> q?
17:17:28 <Zhe> alanr: bmotik communicate with Jie to get the issue resolved
17:17:33 <bparsia> Pointer to that rdf:text emial?
17:17:49 <Michael_Schneider> zakim, unmute me
17:17:49 <Zakim> Michael_Schneider should no longer be muted
17:17:53 <Zhe> alanr: RDF semantics
17:18:09 <Zhe> Michael_Schneider: 3 or 4 more days. Should be done this weekend.
17:18:44 <Zhe> alanr: will you notify your reviewers
17:18:55 <Zhe> Michael_Schneider will send out email once it is done
17:19:00 <alanr> q?
17:19:03 <Michael_Schneider> zakim, mute me
17:19:03 <Zakim> Michael_Schneider should now be muted
17:19:18 <Zhe> SubTopic: Changes since last call
17:19:24 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Reviewing#Documents_and_Reviewers
17:19:46 <Zhe> sandro: does not show correct deadline about n-ary
17:19:54 <bparsia> n-ary is not ready right now
17:20:02 <bparsia> Probablynext week
17:20:07 <Zhe> alanr: can we talk about n-ary? Bjian mentioned that we can put in a small example.  When is it going to be ready? Next meeting or weekend?
17:20:10 <bparsia> I couldn't last week
17:20:17 <bparsia> But I can do it for next week
17:20:37 <alanr> q?
17:20:38 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
17:20:38 <Zakim> bparsia was not muted, bparsia
17:20:55 <Zhe> bparsia: not sure. 
17:21:09 <ivan> q+
17:21:18 <alanr> ack ivan
17:21:18 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
17:21:19 <Zhe> alanr: I will update that page with right due dates
17:21:20 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
17:21:53 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:21:53 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:22:05 <Zhe> sandro: it will be published Friday.
17:22:31 <Zhe> ivan: this means we do have something that we want to change on that document, until that is done, the document is not ready for reviewing
17:22:37 <alanr> q?
17:23:08 <IanH> Anticipated changes vis a vis naming should be very small
17:23:31 <Zhe> ivan: the bottom line is that that document is not ready for reviewing
17:23:51 <Zhe> alanr: hopefully it is a small change. Any more for document set?
17:24:12 <Zhe> Topic: Last Call Comments
17:24:41 <Zhe> alanr: AR1 is delegated to Jonathan
17:25:03 <bparsia>  BTW: http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.0.0/ch01.pdf 
17:25:05 <bparsia> page 2
17:25:15 <pfps> Isn't this the sort of thing that should be done by email?
17:25:19 <bparsia> "The Unicode Standard contains 1,114,112 code points,"
17:25:36 <IanH> I'm doing it now
17:25:39 <uli> q+
17:25:44 <alanr> ack uli
17:26:06 <Zhe> uli: a few changes have been made. I can post the diff I have made
17:26:11 <IanH> I looked -- looks fine to me
17:26:24 <Zhe> alanr: these are ready to go
17:26:26 <uli> zakim, mute me
17:26:26 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
17:26:52 <Zhe> alanr: one more related to this. Ivan suggested that we add some text to the intro in profiles document
17:27:09 <Zhe> ivan: it is all in the email. The introduction to QL is very technical oriented. Need to have more understandable rationale in profiles.
17:27:10 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/mid/49C350F4.6000200@w3.org
17:27:55 <pfps> Document editor discretion seems to cover this point.
17:27:57 <alanr> q?
17:27:59 <Zhe> alanr: any objection?
17:28:05 <uli> i think i added a bit
17:28:20 <Zhe> alanr: Ivan can communicate with editors to get it done. Can one editor stand up?
17:28:42 <pfps> -> Ian
17:28:58 <IanH> I'm 
17:28:59 <Zhe> ... zhe, can you do it?
17:29:01 <Zhe> Zhe ok
17:29:06 <IanH> I'm willing to help
17:29:06 <alanr> q?
17:29:17 <Zhe> thanks Ian
17:29:25 <bparsia> +1
17:29:26 <Zhe> alanr: comment on XML syntax, looks ready to me
17:29:37 <Michael_Schneider>  q+
17:29:53 <ivan> q+
17:29:54 <Zhe> alanr: one on rdf semantics, one on OWL DL the language. 
17:29:54 <Michael_Schneider>  q-
17:29:57 <alanr> q?
17:30:11 <Michael_Schneider>  JR6a should be checked by people
17:30:15 <Zhe> ivan: on the rdf semantics, michael did more than required. It is not even last call document.
17:30:34 <alanr> q?
17:30:39 <alanr> ack ivan
17:30:41 <pfps> the response is fine - ship it
17:30:48 <alanr> +1
17:30:53 <Zhe> ivan: I think Michael's reponse is great and ready to go
17:30:55 <Michael_Schneider>  ah, I understand! ok
17:31:09 <Zhe> alanr: not hearing object to sending out these two responses, JR6a, 6b can be sent as is
17:31:33 <alanr> q?
17:31:40 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
17:31:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bmotik (muted), IanH, bparsia (muted), Sandro, Zhe, Ivan, uli (muted), Rinke (muted), alanr, bernardo (muted), msmith, zimmer, Michael_Schneider 
17:31:40 <Zhe> Jonathan: regarding AR1, looks like there are some extension point to define new data types in new namespaces as long as they are compatible with other SPECs. Question is if there are some risk, you will get incompatibility. XML try to address it through namespaces. Here it seems that we are reusing an existing namespace
17:31:43 <Zakim> ... (muted), MarkusK_
17:31:44 <Zakim> On IRC I see MarkusK_, Zhe, jar, zimmer, msmith, Rinke, uli, bernardo, bmotik, Michael_Schneider , pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, alanr, bparsia, ivan, IanH, sandro, trackbot
17:31:54 <ivan> zakim, alanr has jonathan
17:31:54 <Zakim> +jonathan; got it
17:32:14 <bparsia> q+
17:32:16 <pfps> q+
17:32:18 <sandro> q+
17:32:31 <bmotik> (Aside: Bijan and I managed to convince ourselves that Unicode indeed has 1,114,112 code points)
17:32:49 <sandro> :-) bmotik 
17:32:51 <ivan> zakim, mute me
17:32:54 <bmotik> (Aside: For all I care, we can have a vote right now to change the value space of rdf:text)
17:32:58 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
17:33:31 <alanr> q?
17:33:34 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
17:33:34 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
17:33:56 <Zhe> bparsia: we should not worry about the "risk."  I dont' think there is a real risk that people are stepping into OWL namespace. Given that the community has matured, there should not be a problem
17:33:58 <Michael_Schneider>  I will nevertheless wait another 24 hours with sending 52a, so people can check
17:34:24 <alanr> q?
17:34:27 <alanr> ack bparsia
17:35:13 <alanr> q?
17:35:17 <alanr> ack pfps
17:35:21 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
17:35:21 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
17:35:23 <uli> Ivan, to make "a mountain out of a mole hole"? 
17:35:26 <Zhe> pfps: I agree with bijan on this.
17:35:27 <alanr> ack sandro
17:35:32 <Zhe> sandro: I see two questions. 1) on the issue that bijan addressed. I think extensibility point is properly architected.  2) interop problem. 10 well defined datatypes, 5 are required by OWL. I suspect users will find their tool support more datatypes which creates interoperability problem
17:35:35 <bmotik> q+
17:37:16 <bparsia> ?
17:37:22 <alanr> q?
17:37:30 <bparsia> q+
17:37:39 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:37:39 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
17:37:42 <alanr> ack bmotik
17:37:45 <pfps> q+
17:37:46 <Zhe> ... Tools use extension should get user attention/ok
17:37:58 <Zhe> bmotik: I am a bit lost. Is this about xml schema datatypes? You cannot define new datatypes in XML schema namespace anyway. I don't see any issue
17:38:26 <alanr> q?
17:38:27 <pfps> q-
17:38:40 <alanr> ack bparsia
17:38:47 <jar> q?
17:38:52 <Zhe> bparsia: I agree with boris. It is clearly SPECed. I don't feel the need as a tool vendor that we need user permission to extend. I haven't seen troubles in the past
17:39:49 <alanr> q?
17:40:52 <Zhe> sandro: you don't think WG should give this advice 
17:41:11 <Zhe> bparsia: not sure it is a good advice. Tool vendors should decide by themselves 
17:41:43 <pfps> +1
17:42:08 <Zhe> sandro: I am persuaded by bijan. The worst case is that extension is used unexpectedly
17:42:15 <pfps> In many cases there may be *no* user to warn.
17:42:45 <bparsia> q=
17:42:48 <bparsia> q+
17:42:49 <Zhe> Jonathan: it affects ontology consistency
17:42:57 <bmotik> q+
17:43:13 <Zhe> sandro: tool can tell you that this part is not OWL, it is extension. It is not our job to tell tools to pop up warnings
17:43:42 <jar> q?
17:44:11 <Zhe> bparsia: Pellet has a mode that approximates things that it cannot handle. We define what is mandatory. It is not the WG's job to define behavior for things beyond.
17:44:25 <jar> q+ jar
17:44:41 <alanr> ack bparsia
17:44:53 <alanr> ack bmotik
17:45:14 <pfps> q+
17:45:30 <Zhe> bmotik: in non-default mode, HermiT can approximate and does it best
17:45:31 <alanr> ack jar
17:45:32 <bparsia> And, if the spec told me not to do that? I would ignore that spec
17:45:32 <sandro> sandro: I'm okay with the situation where a consumer system simply detects the situation where an extension is used and either gives a clear error message or (as per Bijan) offers to try some approximations.    The right social/market forces are in play to avoid fragmenting the market, I think.
17:45:47 <Zhe> Jonathan: looking at conformance doc
17:45:58 <pfps> The question at hand is how to answer AR66, which states: I believe that it is our intention that implementation specific datatype maps don't define behavior for, e.g. future datatypes added to XML Schema (or datatypes we have rejected). AFAIK, there is no proscription against this and I would like to have there be.
17:46:03 <Zhe> pfps: I don't see how the current discussion is relevant to the Agenda
17:46:04 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:46:04 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:46:11 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
17:46:11 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
17:46:47 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Conformance_and_Test_Cases#Datatype_Map_Conformance
17:47:05 <Zhe> sandro: I pointed out that was in error, 
17:47:33 <Zhe> alanr: Jonathan do you have more comments?
17:47:54 <sandro> FWIW I think it was real error to every accept "comments" from WG members...    :-/   They should be issues instead.
17:48:03 <Zhe> GRDDL TM1 17 GRDDL
17:48:07 <bparsia> ship it
17:48:11 <ivan> ship it
17:48:14 <alanr> +1
17:48:14 <Zhe> alanr: everyone comfortable?
17:48:22 <pfps> +1
17:48:46 <Zhe> alanr: RM1, Michael, have you sent the response out?
17:48:52 <Michael_Schneider> zakim, unmute me
17:48:52 <Zakim> Michael_Schneider should no longer be muted
17:49:15 <Zhe> Michael_Schneider: the second was drafted by peter, I am out of it
17:49:20 <Michael_Schneider>  zakim, mute me
17:49:20 <Zakim> Michael_Schneider should now be muted
17:49:29 <pfps> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Responses_to_Last_Call_Comments clearly indicates that a 2nd response has been sent
17:49:48 <Zhe> Topic: Technical Issues
17:50:07 <Zhe> alanr: xsd:dateTimeStamp, shall we follow XML schema
17:50:20 <bparsia> ?
17:50:26 <bmotik> Zaakim, unmute me
17:50:30 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:50:30 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
17:50:30 <alanr> ack bmotik
17:50:41 <alanr> q?
17:50:50 <alanr> ack pfps
17:50:57 <bparsia> +1 to my other self
17:51:02 <ivan> +1 to boris
17:51:06 <Zhe> bmotik: the issue is that the current SPEC use a prioteray handling of dataTime, we should align with XML schema. Change is not that big. the only thing is that timezone is disjoint. I don't think users will get lots of problems
17:51:13 <alanr> q+ to ask why timezone but not the other elements of the 7 tuple
17:51:30 <sandro> q+
17:51:39 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:51:39 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:51:51 <ivan> ack alanr 
17:51:51 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to ask why timezone but not the other elements of the 7 tuple
17:52:00 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:52:00 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
17:52:02 <Zhe> alanr: I have a question, XML schema has 7 tuple, how is that aligned?
17:52:06 <alanr> q?
17:52:32 <Zhe> bmotik: the 7 tuple can map to a particular time you cannot tell the difference
17:52:38 <alanr> q+ to clarify that this means we can't have functional properties with dateTimeStamps as values?
17:52:43 <sandro> boris: you can map 7-tuple to time-on-timeline, with different time line for each time zone.
17:52:52 <ivan> ack sandro 
17:53:00 <Zhe> sandro: this is sounding like a bug in XML schema. The  point is to reason different times in different zones. This behavior is not what I want as a user
17:53:04 <bmotik> q+
17:53:08 <pfps> q+
17:53:18 <bparsia> I recommend avoiding timezones in ontologies ;)
17:53:22 <bparsia> Preprocess!
17:53:28 <alanr> q?
17:53:36 <pfps> the are equal, just not identical
17:53:37 <alanr> ack alanr
17:53:37 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to clarify that this means we can't have functional properties with dateTimeStamps as values?
17:53:54 <pfps> nope
17:54:04 <ivan> ack bmotik 
17:54:08 <Zhe> alanr: so the consequence is that we cannot have a functional property with a dateTime as its range?
17:54:35 <Zhe> bmotik: if you have a functional property p, s p t1, s p t2, and t1 and t2 are two values pointing to the same time point in two timezones, they violate the constraint. XML schema wants to keep this time zone information in the value space. Because they have functions to compare, it is not a bug in my opinion
17:54:39 <bparsia> Discussion of identity vs. equality I just wrote: <http://www.w3.org/mid/0E611C17-39DC-4509-8002-3E684C345C45@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
17:55:13 <pfps> q-
17:55:33 <bparsia> q+ to propose at riskiness
17:55:43 <alanr> q+ to ask one last question - why con consider this extralogical and answer queries against syntax
17:55:55 <alanr> ack bparsia
17:55:56 <Zakim> bparsia, you wanted to propose at riskiness
17:56:02 <Zhe> sandro: I agree now it is not a bug
17:56:10 <sandro> (in xml schema)
17:56:16 <Zhe> bparsia: two principles, 1) to align with XML schema. it is always possible to normalize all timestamp values with respect to timezones
17:57:40 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
17:56:17 <sandro> sandro: but it's a pain for users.
17:57:24 <ivan> +1 to bijan, make the choices clear and put it into the document as a feedback request from the community
17:57:28 <IanH> Seems similar to the numerics: could imagine arguments on both sides but being consistent with XML schema sounds like the winning argument.
17:57:31 <alanr> ack alanr
17:57:31 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to ask one last question - why con consider this extralogical and answer queries against syntax
17:57:31 <msmith> +1 to bparsia
17:57:35 <IanH> And +1 to Bijan
17:57:40 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
17:58:04 <Zhe> alanr: boris, why do we need to put it in the valuespace?
17:58:39 <Zhe> bmotik: for the case RIF wants to implement some functions (give back timezones) Anyone use XQuery with OWL will find it difficult
17:59:03 <bparsia> One can do that as a preprocessing phase..if you wanted that
17:59:09 <alanr> q?
17:59:37 <bparsia> q+
17:59:37 <bmotik> q+
17:59:45 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
17:59:45 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
17:59:46 <Zhe> sandro: RIF is struggling with this and will have identity operator and equality operator
17:59:47 <alanr> ack bparsia
17:59:53 <ivan> ack bparsia 
18:00:02 <sandro> s/will/will probably/
18:00:13 <alanr> q+ to ask why we couldn't use equality across OWL
18:00:16 <Zhe> bparsia: unlike RIF, we don't have luxury to have two operators because counting defines on top of identity. I am scared to use equality
18:00:24 <sandro> bparsia: OWL doesn't have the luxury of two operators, since counting works with identity.
18:00:45 <alanr> q?
18:00:58 <alanr> ack bmotik
18:00:59 <ivan> ack bmotik 
18:01:00 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
18:01:01 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
18:01:16 <Zhe> bmotik: don't think this is crucial for users. It is not that often that two (same) values use different timezones
18:01:27 <bparsia> I agree with boris to some extent
18:01:38 <alanr> q?
18:01:39 <bparsia> It's work aroundable
18:01:52 <jar> q+ jar to wonder about calendar merging
18:02:09 <sandro> boris: Come on -- how many users will actually want to use a use functional properties to say there is one time, and then provide the time in multiple time zones?
18:02:12 <alanr> q?
18:02:20 <alanr> ack alanr
18:02:20 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to ask why we couldn't use equality across OWL
18:02:38 <IanH> Let's vote now!
18:02:39 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
18:02:39 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
18:02:41 <sandro> sandro: I think it'll a real problem, boris, but I think it's a very small issue and I'd like to move on?
18:03:38 <Zhe> bparsia: we cannot put this under user control with respect to counting
18:03:51 <jar> q- jar
18:04:02 <Zhe> alanr: why cannot we use equality in OWL as the single choice
18:04:45 <Zhe> bparsia: we discussed and decided to go with XML schema identity. Tools can normalize xsd:dateTimeStamp values in different zones
18:05:07 <sandro> bparsia: This all comes back to us having to chose between XS Identity and XS Equality as our Identity, and the compelling evidence is on the side of XS Identity.
18:05:32 <alanr> PROPOSED: OWL will use the standard XML Schema definition of xsd:dateTimeStamp (i.e., time zones are carried into the semantics of OWL). We will mark this "at risk" and solicit feedback on the choice.
18:05:35 <sandro> bparsia: Tools can route around this, by comparing them as identiical if they need to -- let's be conservative and consistent.
18:05:48 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
18:05:48 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
18:06:17 <Zhe> bmotik: dateTime should be the same
18:06:37 <pfps> we need to resolve the "at risk" later
18:06:37 <bparsia> I don't care
18:06:38 <alanr> +1
18:06:38 <IanH> Minimising "at risk" has to be good.
18:06:40 <bparsia> I'm fine not
18:06:48 <pfps> 0
18:06:51 <ivan> 0
18:06:54 <Rinke> 0
18:06:55 <bparsia> Are we voting?
18:06:55 <bmotik> I'd prefer just being done with this.
18:06:56 <Zhe> Zhe 0
18:07:02 <bmotik> I.e., no at risk.
18:07:04 <bparsia> -1
18:07:07 <uli> no at risk
18:07:08 <bernardo> 0
18:07:10 <MarkusK_> 0
18:07:11 <Michael_Schneider>  0 
18:07:20 <alanr> PROPOSED: OWL will use the standard XML Schema definition of xsd:dateTimeStamp (i.e., time zones are carried into the semantics of OWL).
18:07:23 <sandro> +1
18:07:24 <bmotik> +1
18:07:24 <pfps> +1 ALU
18:07:25 <ivan> +1
18:07:25 <bparsia> +1
18:07:27 <alanr> 0
18:07:31 <Zhe> Zhe +1
18:07:32 <msmith> +1
18:07:39 <MarkusK_> 0
18:07:42 <bernardo> +1
18:07:45 <Michael_Schneider>  0 (no opinion)
18:07:49 <Rinke> +1
18:08:03 <uli> +1
18:08:06 <alanr> RESOLVED: OWL will use the standard XML Schema definition of xsd:dateTimeStamp (i.e., time zones are carried into the semantics of OWL).
18:08:22 <Zhe> alanr: boris, we can discuss dateTime next week
18:08:27 <Zhe> alanr: CURIEs
18:08:40 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
18:08:40 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
18:09:00 <Michael_Schneider>  q+ on question about relevance for RDF-Based Semantics
18:09:01 <sandro> q+
18:09:09 <alanr> ack Michael_Schneider 
18:09:10 <Michael_Schneider>  zakim, unmute me
18:09:11 <Zakim> Michael_Schneider, you wanted to comment on question about relevance for RDF-Based Semantics
18:09:13 <Zakim> Michael_Schneider was not muted, Michael_Schneider 
18:09:30 <ivan> none
18:09:30 <bparsia> q+
18:09:38 <Zhe> Michael_Schneider: point from me is that what is the relevance to us. CURIE is used only for representation purpose. I wonder what is the implication
18:09:48 <pfps> RDF-semantics should not be affected
18:10:01 <ekw> ekw has joined #owl
18:10:02 <alanr> ack bparsia
18:10:04 <ivan> Michael_Schneider: do not worry! Nothing
18:10:23 <alanr> ack sandro
18:10:24 <Zhe> bparsia: we just change the references of CURIE.
18:10:27 <alanr> q?
18:10:48 <Zhe> sandro: this change does not affect RDF/XML
18:10:49 <ivan> exactly
18:10:52 <alanr> +1
18:10:53 <Michael_Schneider>  zakim, mute me
18:10:53 <Zakim> Michael_Schneider should now be muted
18:11:00 <bmotik> +q
18:11:10 <alanr> ack bmotik
18:11:48 <ivan> +1 to Boris
18:11:54 <alanr> are we allowing abbreviations without namespace
18:11:55 <bparsia> +1
18:11:57 <Michael_Schneider> Michael_Schneider: RDF-Based Semantics refers to CURIE spec, but only uses CURIEs for presentational reasons, to have the particular IRIs in the document being presented in an abbreviated form
18:11:58 <alanr> q?
18:12:34 <sandro> q+
18:12:37 <Zakim> + +1.301.351.aabb
18:12:37 <Zhe> alanr: are we allowing no colon 
18:12:40 <ivan> q+
18:12:54 <alanr> ack sandro
18:12:56 <Zhe> bparsia: we can choose to enforce it. will check with SPARQL
18:13:10 <ivan> ack ivan
18:13:12 <alanr> ack ivan
18:13:14 <Zhe> sandro: having a no colon name is bad because it is hard to evolve
18:13:19 <ekw> zakim, ++1.301.351.aabb is me
18:13:19 <Zakim> sorry, ekw, I do not recognize a party named '++1.301.351.aabb'
18:13:21 <Zhe> ivan: we should not have that
18:13:38 <bmotik> q+
18:13:40 <Zhe> alanr: do we want to wait for SPARQL comment?
18:13:41 <bmotik> q-
18:13:49 <Zhe> bmotik: SPARQL mandates it
18:14:02 <calvanese> calvanese has joined #owl
18:14:10 <pfps> let's go for PREFIX, just like SPARQL
18:14:17 <alanr> +1
18:14:17 <bmotik> q+
18:14:19 <ivan> ship it:-)
18:14:24 <alanr> ack bmotik
18:14:31 <ekw> zakim, 1.301.351.aabb is me
18:14:31 <Zakim> sorry, ekw, I do not recognize a party named '1.301.351.aabb'
18:14:35 <ivan> eliminate
18:14:35 <Zhe> bmotik: final question, do we still call it CURIEs, 
18:14:38 <pfps> use prefixed name, just like SPARQL
18:14:48 <ivan> +1 to pfps 
18:14:49 <Zhe> alanr: I suggest not
18:14:52 <Zhe> bmotik: agree
18:14:58 <Zakim> +calvanese
18:15:00 <Zhe> bparsia: agree as well
18:15:01 <Michael_Schneider>  "abbreviated IRIs"
18:15:08 <pfps> SPARQL syntax says  	IRIref  	  ::=    	IRI_REF | PrefixedName
18:15:13 <Zhe> bparsia: don't know CURIE will continue
18:15:23 <alanr> PROPOSED: OWL will not rely on CURIEs spec but will define it's own IRI abbreviation mechanism compatible with the one used by SPARQL 
18:15:38 <pfps> +1 ALU
18:15:39 <alanr> +1
18:15:39 <bmotik> +1
18:15:40 <ivan> +1
18:15:41 <bparsia> +1
18:15:43 <MarkusK_> +1
18:15:43 <bernardo> +1
18:15:44 <msmith> +1
18:15:46 <Rinke> +1
18:15:47 <uli> +1
18:15:48 <Michael_Schneider>  0
18:15:49 <zimmer> +1
18:15:52 <sandro> +0 (haven't studied it enough)
18:15:55 <ekw> +0
18:16:06 <Zhe> Zhe +1
18:16:00 <alanr> RESOLVED: OWL will not rely on CURIEs spec but will define it's own IRI abbreviation mechanism compatible with the one used by SPARQL
18:16:32 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Naming
18:16:36 <sandro> scribe: sandro
18:16:48 <sandro> alanr: Ian has written up how he understand we use Names
18:17:03 <calvanese> zakim, mute me
18:17:03 <Zakim> calvanese should now be muted
18:17:08 <sandro> alanr: Question 1 -- does this match your sense of the names
18:17:15 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl
18:17:17 <sandro> alanr: Question 2 -- where and how should we document this.
18:17:18 <alanr> q?
18:17:27 <Zhe> I am back. thanks sandro!
18:17:29 <ivan> q+
18:17:33 <alanr> ack ivan
18:17:55 <alanr>  circular: OWL 2 ontology - any OWL 2 ontology
18:18:03 <sandro> ivan: When the conf. document talks about "OWL 2 Full", it speaks of RDF graphs in general.
18:18:21 <sandro> "#  OWL 2 ontology - any OWL 2 ontology "
18:18:29 <bparsia> Works for me
18:18:37 <sandro> q?
18:18:38 <IanH> As in, without qualification!
18:18:47 <pfps> works fine for me "OWL 2 ontology" is any OWL 2 ontology
18:18:53 <bparsia> That's big enough!
18:18:57 <uli> me too
18:19:03 <sandro> q+
18:19:14 <alanr> q+ jar
18:19:18 <alanr> ack sandro
18:19:27 <Zhe> sandro: don't have a concrete proposal, 
18:19:28 <ivan>  noooo:-(
18:19:45 <uli> why?
18:19:55 <IanH> q+
18:20:06 <alanr> ack jar
18:20:19 <msmith> +1 to sandro.  the two of us can agree to not use the informal terminology :)
18:20:48 <alanr> ack IanH
18:21:21 <alanr> q+
18:21:56 <Zhe> IanH: could you please put what you said in IRC?
18:22:12 <alanr> +1
18:22:16 <sandro> q+ to propose we explain the informal extended terminology, labeling it as "legacy"
18:22:35 <alanr> ack alanr
18:22:39 <sandro> ian: And we agree in the spec to minimize the use of the the informal tech.
18:22:51 <IanH> q+
18:22:58 <alanr> ack sandro
18:22:58 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to propose we explain the informal extended terminology, labeling it as "legacy"
18:22:59 <sandro> alanr: OWL 2 ontology == OWL 2 structure or RDF graph
18:23:17 <Zhe> sandro: what about "legacy", deprecation is too strong
18:23:34 <pfps> +1
18:23:38 <Zhe> alanr: we agree that we will minimize in the spec
18:24:29 <alanr> q+ to advocate that we explain these terms in the document overview
18:24:32 <alanr> ack IanH
18:24:48 <Zhe> IanH: we are consistent when using the term
18:25:03 <alanr> q?
18:25:13 <Zhe> sandro: I understand we should not say it. maybe we should imply
18:25:15 <pfps> tender sensibilities will be bruised by Sandro's proposal
18:25:23 <sandro> :-)
18:25:26 <Zhe> IanH: won't be hostile to some wordsmithing
18:25:30 <alanr> ack alanr
18:25:30 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to advocate that we explain these terms in the document overview
18:25:37 <sandro> never tickle sleeping dragons?
18:25:59 <ivan> q+
18:26:10 <alanr> ack ivaan
18:26:16 <Zhe> alanr: I like to see this in the document overview
18:26:23 <IanH> +1 to Ivan
18:26:40 <sandro> "We have avoided use of the term "OWL 2 Full", which is sometimes used to mean, ..., favoring separate terms for RDF Graph and RDF-Based Semantics"
18:26:44 <Zhe> ivan: the current introduction is clear and the conformance is very clear
18:27:18 <pfps> Sandro is again underestimating the tenderness of sensibilities
18:27:33 <IanH> It's possible, but still suggest to take this off line
18:27:50 <Zhe> alanr: haven't heard any objection, make sure our usage in the document set follows this
18:28:10 <IanH> Peter (very kindly) check schema conformance already
18:28:20 <IanH> s/check/checked/
18:28:35 <Zakim> -Ivan
18:28:53 <Michael_Schneider>  bye
18:28:56 <Rinke> bye
18:28:57 <Zakim> -bernardo
18:28:58 <Zakim> -msmith
18:28:59 <uli> bye
18:28:59 <Zakim> -alanr
18:29:01 <Zakim> -bparsia
18:29:02 <MarkusK_> bye
18:29:03 <Zakim> - +1.301.351.aabb
18:29:03 <Zhe> bye
18:29:04 <Zakim> -Sandro
18:29:04 <Zakim> -Rinke
18:29:10 <Zakim> -bmotik
18:29:13 <Zakim> -Michael_Schneider
18:29:14 <zimmer> bye
18:29:15 <Zakim> -uli
18:29:16 <calvanese> bye
18:29:18 <Zakim> -MarkusK_
18:29:19 <Zakim> -IanH
18:29:22 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
18:29:26 <Zakim> -Zhe
18:29:31 <Zakim> -calvanese
18:29:39 <calvanese> calvanese has left #owl
18:29:53 <Zakim> -zimmer
18:29:55 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
18:29:56 <Zakim> Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, bmotik, IanH, +0161868aaaa, Zhe, Sandro, Ivan, uli, bparsia, Rinke, msmith, bernardo, zimmer, Michael_Schneider, MarkusK_, jonathan, +1.301.351.aabb,
18:29:59 <Zakim> ... calvanese
18:38:33 <msmith> msmith has left #owl
19:55:37 <ekw> ekw has joined #owl
20:51:32 <Zakim> Zakim has left #owl
22:21:34 <ekw> ekw has joined #owl
22:49:00 <sandro> sandro has joined #owl
23:01:45 <IanH> IanH has joined #owl
23:20:54 <IanH_> IanH_ has joined #owl
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000762