Teleconference.2008.02.20/Minutes

From OWL
Revision as of 18:10, 27 February 2008 by Sandro Hawke (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

These minutes have been approved by the Working Group and are now protected from editing. (See IRC log of approval discussion.)

See also: IRC log



Admin

PROPOSED: accept minutes http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.02.13/Minutes

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1

RESOLVED: accept minutes of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.02.13/Minutes

Pending review actions

action 87 completed.

action 88 completed (punning and owl lite)

action 89 completed--Investigate QA group advised recently to have "as few parts as possible"

Due and overdue actions

action 43 unlikely to happen soon

Ian Horrocks: Action 43 Develop scripts to extract test cases from wiki no action on sandro to update

Peter Patel-Schneider: Action 43 - move due date to three weeks from now

action 86 Send proposal for issue-91 ontology property

Michael Schneider: we are talking about 91 today anyway

Ian Horrocks: jjc to update due date

Discussion: Fragments and Conformance (Continued)

Ian Horrocks: can we get a working agreement

Ian Horrocks: Jim is not here.

Ian Horrocks: everyone see the email from Alan?

Uli Sattler: yes
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1
Carsten Lutz: yes
Michael Smith: yes
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: yes
Michael Schneider: yes
Zhe Wu: yes
Peter Patel-Schneider: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Feb/0120.html
Ivan Herman: -> http://www.w3.org/mid/CEFF86FB-D70A-4DC4-9D14-627841E3644B@gmail.com Alan's last email on the topic

Ian Horrocks: common understanding of fragments

Ian Horrocks: too many fragments is not a good idea

Ian Horrocks: Alan's original email: OWLPrime, EL++, DL Lite for rec track

Carsten Lutz: I like the suggestion


Achille Fokoue: just sent an email. IBM's position is have limited # of fragments. not proposing a new one. need something that suits customer's needs. EL like seems to be nice. ... like OWLPrime rule based approach, not sure if it will scale though

Ivan Herman: -> http://www.w3.org/mid/OF8A909D25.D5959144-ON852573F5.0062248F-852573F5.00623812@us.ibm.com Achille's answer email
Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ to ask about IBM and rec-track status
Ivan Herman: ack Achille

Achille Fokoue: like OWLPrime because it is simple, also care about Alan's 3 point for real scalability, DL Lite + transitivity, translate to pure sql queries, close to Alan's position


Ivan Herman: ack jjc

Jeremy Carroll: consider tradeoffs

Jeremy Carroll: A Box scalability is a good measure

Jeremy Carroll: rationale is limit # of fragments. should have clear commercial interests

Peter Patel-Schneider: ack me
Zakim: pfps_, you wanted to ask about IBM and rec-track status
Bijan Parsia: Substitute "community" interest for "commercial"....commercial viability is one measure of community interest

Peter Patel-Schneider: to HP, whether REC-ness is vital part for way forward?

Peter Patel-Schneider: ... and to IBM
Achille Fokoue: yes I think it does
Achille Fokoue: matter

Ian Horrocks: does it really matter for a fragment to be in rec or note

Michael Smith: I think it does

Jeremy Carroll: not sure.

Jeremy Carroll: q+ to answer a bit better

Achille Fokoue: does matter. encourage tool and people to adopt

Bijan Parsia: users often ask for Rec things; govt agencies sometimes are required to use rec things (as opposed to non-rec things); ISO/ANSI is even stronger
Bijan Parsia: OWL Lite's being rec track *did* help it...people who wouldn't otherwise have used OWL Lite used it because it was a rec.

Jeremy Carroll: a rec should focus on interoperability

Ivan Herman: ack jjc
Zakim: jjc, you wanted to answer a bit better
Bijan Parsia: I wonder if jjc really meant "Commercial" rather than "production quality" implementation
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 to go forward, but adjust if necessary

Ian Horrocks: commercial support on DL fragments is tricky


Ian Horrocks: do we count implementation of DL as implementation for fragments?

Alan Ruttenberg: My threshold is available, correct implementation with correct complexity. Ideal is open source.
Ivan Herman: ack zhe

Zhe Wu: OWLPrime is indeed scalable. Oracle tested inference on LUBM8000 (with over 1 billion triples) on a simple desktop machine

Alan Ruttenberg: owlprime scales, but is incomplete
Carsten Lutz: depends on how you define the semantics, I guess

Alan Ruttenberg: owlprime complements DL lite

Achille Fokoue: Zhe, could you please also send a pointer to paper or a document about your scalability results

Alan Ruttenberg: important to have one ties closely to completeness

Achille Fokoue: thanks!
Ivan Herman: ack bmotik

Boris Motik: requirement on at least 2 interoperable implementations

Boris Motik: not sure if owlprime has 2 (or if they interoperate)

Boris Motik: even entire OWL FULL does not have such implementations

Ian Horrocks: ack Uli

Uli Sattler: can we postpone rec track decision. ... rather, make clear what exactly is scalability... and how incomplete... be happy to study owlprime for example

Achille Fokoue: +1 for Uli's proposal
Carsten Lutz: We seem to have agreement at the moment; should we really defer and wait until agreement vanishes? :-)
Markus Krötzsch: +1 to explain "scalable+incomplete" better

Ian Horrocks: is the decision to postpone all fragments?

Ian Horrocks: or just the one (or ones) that is not totally clear

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ to respond to Uli
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: There is possibly another prior discussion, namely which fragments will at least be included in a note
Carsten Lutz: doubtlessly, each rec-track fragment will require a lot of work from us!
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: those are likely candidates to go rec-track
Ivan Herman: +1 to jeremy
Ivan Herman: ack jjc
Ivan Herman: ack Achille

Achille Fokoue: second Uli's suggestion

Achille Fokoue: no rush here. Different levels of conformance, completeness, not totally clear

Ivan Herman: ack alanr
Zakim: alanr, you wanted to respond to Uli

Alan Ruttenberg: comment on Uli's suggestion. concern about time line. OWLPrime fits into two spots: 1) rule based owl. need to specify clearly; 2) scalable. hard to imagine to have a second fragment like this. ... timeline is a factor to be considered.

Uli Sattler: alanr, I see the motivation and high-level description, I simply want to see some more precise descriptions
Ivan Herman: ack Carsten

Carsten Lutz: if we rec track something, we should do a good job

... try to have maximal DL fragment and FULL fragment

Uli Sattler: me too. Worried that time spent deciding takes time from figuring out things. ... for DL Lite, authors don't know current shape of OWL 1.1... should invest in DL Lite if we want to put it on rec track [Scribe assist by Alan Ruttenberg]
Jeremy Carroll: +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1


Markus Krötzsch: +1 to Carsten: DL Lite before Rec needs to be checked for extensibility with OWL1.1 features
Jeremy Carroll: q+ to suggest Carsten adds new issue to issue list

... OWLPrime, the benefit seems to be scalability

Uli Sattler: +1 with Carsten's aiming at "optimal compromises" re. performance & expressiveness

... hard to maximize it

Ian Horrocks: I don't think that WG can do a lot of research... fragments have to be based on what we know, instead of more research

Ivan Herman: ack bmotik
Alan Ruttenberg: but more power to you, Carsten, if you want to try

Boris Motik: 1) a strong case for rule bases OWL reasoning.... seems to be DLP anyway... Achille's requirement should be accormodated by DLP... believe we should go to maximal subset... if vendors think it is hard to implement, we should not worry much.

Alan Ruttenberg: Note that we decided to *remove* dlp from the fragments document earlier.
Michael Smith: alanr, IIRC, *we* didn't decide to remove dlp - the removal was unilateral and reverted.

Ivan Herman: we should worry

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 to ivan. At least for part of the spec
Ivan Herman: ack bijan
Jeremy Carroll: +1 to bijan
Carsten Lutz: I agree with Bijan
Alan Ruttenberg: yup
Ivan Herman: +1 to bijan
Achille Fokoue: +1 for Bijan
Alan Ruttenberg: grist for owl 1.2
Carsten Lutz: But we should make *some* attempt
Ian Horrocks: this is what we are doing now isnt it?
Ian Horrocks: with OWL 1.1 I mean

Bijan Parsia: production quality implementation.... more importantly, inter-operable implementations.

Jeremy Carroll: +1 to bijan
Michael Schneider: q-
Alan Ruttenberg: resource bound attempt
Ivan Herman: ack jjc
Zakim: jjc, you wanted to suggest Carsten adds new issue to issue list

Jeremy Carroll: agree with bijan totally

Carsten Lutz: DLP??
Boris Motik: That's trivial jeremy.
Alan Ruttenberg: I think he misspoke. Dl-lite

Jeremy Carroll: maybe not research, but some quick check

Jeremy Carroll: on DL Lite fragment

Bijan Parsia: I don't understand it
Boris Motik: Sorry jeremy -- I thought you meant DLP.

Ian Horrocks: I did not mean not to do any investigation

Carsten Lutz: we basically all seem to agree

Ian Horrocks: do not want lengthy research

Jeremy Carroll: sanity check DL Lite in the context of OWL 1.1

Ivan Herman: ack Uli

Ian Horrocks: anybody?

Boris Motik: What does sanity check mean?
Carsten Lutz: is afraid that this might be true

Uli Sattler: don't think a simple sanity on DL Lite is sufficient

Boris Motik: +1 to Uli

Ian Horrocks: it could be that we cannot add anything.

Markus Krötzsch: +1 to Uli, DLP is much easier to extend
Bijan Parsia: And we can always ask the DL Lite community to do a sanity check


Jeremy Carroll: jjc is happy if this idea of sanity check is withdrawn
Boris Motik: In fact, DLP already contains the maximal set of OWL 1.1 features that obeys the "no existentials and no disjunctions" principle

Ian Horrocks: do we think it makes sense now to make decisions on fragments?

Boris Motik: +1
Jeremy Carroll: +1
Ivan Herman: +1
Carsten Lutz: +1
Achille Fokoue: +1
Bijan Parsia: +1
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1
Uli Sattler: +1
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1
Michael Smith: +1
Michael Schneider: +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +
Elisa Kendall: +1

Ian Horrocks: make some provisional decision on which fragments

Ian Horrocks: Do we think it makes sense, now, to decide about fragments now? Before asking which fragments.... Is it sensible to make some decision about rec track fragments now? [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Alan Ruttenberg: +1
Ian Horrocks: Okay, so which fragments, in Alan's order, should be provisionally rec-track? [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Uli Sattler: yes
Ian Horrocks: (btw we need a name other than "OWL Prime", I think!) [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Michael Schneider: RDFS3.0
Peter Patel-Schneider: -1
Alan Ruttenberg: we should do a second run to give fragments marketable names
Ivan Herman: -1
Bijan Parsia: -2

Ian Horrocks: first one OWLPrime. maybe we want to rename?

Alan Ruttenberg: forget about names right now
Michael Schneider: RDFS Deluxe ;-)
Ian Horrocks: (Since OWL Prime is the name of Oracle's product) [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1
Bijan Parsia: rOWL
Jeremy Carroll: +1
Alan Ruttenberg: OWL Pro
Sandro Hawke: grOWL?

Ian Horrocks: don't worry about names for now

Achille Fokoue: 0
Sandro Hawke: +1
Carsten Lutz: 0
Ivan Herman: +1
Markus Krötzsch: 0
Michael Schneider: +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1
Uli Sattler: 0
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: 0
Rinke Hoekstra: 0
Peter Patel-Schneider: 0

Ian Horrocks: do we think it is a good candiate for rec track

Boris Motik: +1
Michael Smith: +1
Zhe Wu: +1
Bijan Parsia: 0
Ian Horrocks: Is "OWL Prime" a sensible candidate for a rec track fragment. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Jeremy Carroll: +1
Elisa Kendall: +1
Bijan Parsia: q+
Peter Patel-Schneider: 0 - needs definition
Ivan Herman: ack bijan
Alan Ruttenberg: sensible there is more work to do for OWL Prime

Ian Horrocks: OWLPrime folks need to do more convince work

Sandro Hawke: (Um - NO. A 0 doesn't need convincing.)

Bijan Parsia: need a proposal before make a decision

Jeremy Carroll: (There were a lot of 0s, that does suggest there is a need for convincing)
Ian Horrocks: Me too -- I want to see a worked-out proposal in the owl-prime space. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Alan Ruttenberg: this is straw poll - non binding. So say "ok, as long as ....." is perfect

Ian Horrocks: want to see a proposal for rule based fragment like OWLPrime before go forward

Ian Horrocks: EL++

Achille Fokoue: +1
Boris Motik: +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1
Michael Smith: +1 on EL++
Uli Sattler: +1
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1
Bijan Parsia: +1
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1
Carsten Lutz: +1 (surprise)
Alan Ruttenberg: +1
Michael Schneider: +0
Rinke Hoekstra: +1
Ivan Herman: +1
Jeremy Carroll: +0
Zhe Wu: +0
Elisa Kendall: +1
Achille Fokoue: +1

Ian Horrocks: DL Lite kind of fragment? Scalable Abox space?

Ian Horrocks: DL-Lite (Scalable A-box) [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Achille Fokoue: +1
Michael Smith: +1 on DL-Lite or very similar
Alan Ruttenberg: scalable *complete*
Ivan Herman: 0
Alan Ruttenberg: +1
Jeremy Carroll: +0
Carsten Lutz: +1
Michael Schneider: +0
Markus Krötzsch: +0.5
Zhe Wu: +0
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1
Boris Motik: 0 to DL-lite as such
Uli Sattler: +1
Elisa Kendall: +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +0
Bijan Parsia: +1
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1/2 - the target is not quite defined
Alan Ruttenberg: bit better than owlprim
Uli Sattler: or even HornShiq?
Boris Motik: Should we call it OWL Peime/DLP?
Alan Ruttenberg: I think the characterization is *rule based* however it turns out
Boris Motik: s/Peime/Prime

Ian Horrocks: what about DLP?

Jeremy Carroll: -1
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: DLP, Horn-SHIQ and OWL Prime should merge
Ivan Herman: ack ivan
Boris Motik: Not much.
Alan Ruttenberg: 0 unless it turns out equivalent to OWL Prime
Markus Krötzsch: +1 to bcuencagrau if this should work out ...

Ivan Herman: how much additional to merge DLP and OWLPrime

Carsten Lutz: And how comprehensible will our documents be?
Boris Motik: q+ to answer to Ivan
Achille Fokoue: 0 because I am not sure that DLP or HornSHIQ could be defined in a simple way (i.e. non dl-expert can easily understand the restrictions).
Michael Schneider: I would rather spend time for the relationship between OWL-Prime and pD*
Rinke Hoekstra: wondering about the relation between LP and DLP, and eg RIF... or is that silly?

Ian Horrocks: yes it involves quite some work.

Ian Horrocks: it was an important link to make

Carsten Lutz: It can have a corresponding fragment, but do *we* have to make that explicit on rec?
Bijan Parsia: It would be *nice*

Ian Horrocks: who think it is important to have a correspondance between rule based fragment and DL fragment

Uli Sattler: +1 to bijan
Alan Ruttenberg: imo, not important. nice to have.
Jeremy Carroll: +0
Peter Patel-Schneider: +x, where x is more than 0 but less than 1
Ivan Herman: ack bmotik
Zakim: bmotik, you wanted to answer to Ivan
Ian Horrocks: Is it important to have a DL fragment which corresponds roughly to whatever we have on the rules side (NOT rec-track) ? [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Boris Motik: to answer ivan, with minor work, we can come up with a clear definition when these two fragments coincide... this is something we really should look into... don't believe it is a lot of work.... pD* is not that far away from DLP anyway

Ivan Herman: ack bijan


Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik

Bijan Parsia: is the correspondence a requirement?

Michael Smith: +1 to bijan, this is a goal, not a rqmt
Alan Ruttenberg: for fragments: objective
Bijan Parsia: +1

Ian Horrocks: it is an objective

Jeremy Carroll: +0
Rinke Hoekstra: +1
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1
Michael Smith: +1
Alan Ruttenberg: 0
Michael Schneider: -0
Achille Fokoue: 0
Zhe Wu: 1
Elisa Kendall: +1
Uli Sattler: +0
Boris Motik: +1 to establishing a link between OWL Prime and DLP
Carsten Lutz: -0 (depends very much on where it goes and in which form)
Ivan Herman: +1 (if put it that way)


Bijan Parsia: Why should we restrict the future?
Ian Horrocks: Are these mentioned fragments ALL the ones we should consider? [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Ian Horrocks: do we cover all fragments (for rec track candidates)?

Jeremy Carroll: +1
Sandro Hawke: Was OWL Full considered?
Alan Ruttenberg: that's it for now. Barring new information.
Alan Ruttenberg: OWL Full isn't a fragment
Michael Schneider: not a DL fragment
Rinke Hoekstra: and DL?
Ian Horrocks: No, OWL Full wasn't considered but it's not a fragment, so the question doesn't apply. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Peter Patel-Schneider: -0, there could be some reason to add something, but I don't see it now
Jeremy Carroll: +1
Alan Ruttenberg: Dl not considered a fragment either
Michael Schneider: 1.0-DL is a fragment, yes! :)
Uli Sattler: do we need to *rule* others out now?
Zhe Wu: +1
Achille Fokoue: +1 with maybe some minor modifications
Sandro Hawke: +0.5
Ivan Herman: +1
Michael Smith: +1 to *focusing our energy* on these fragments
Alan Ruttenberg: +1
Michael Schneider: +1
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1
Uli Sattler: +1 to Mike!
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to michael
Bijan Parsia: I think what we have is a starting point, but feel no need to rule stuff out
Markus Krötzsch: +1 to michael
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 to michael
Carsten Lutz: +1 michael
Bijan Parsia: +1 to mike
Elisa Kendall: +1 to Michael
Boris Motik: +1 to michael
Ivan Herman: +1 to michael

Ian Horrocks: time is up. follow up with emails... in particular, we need specification for rule based fragment

Alan Ruttenberg: q+
Alan Ruttenberg: to ask - target date for vote?
Sandro Hawke: Names for ALL the fragments, please.  :-) ... suggestion for a new name :)
Alan Ruttenberg: peter

Ian Horrocks: hand over chair to pfps

Issue Discussions

Peter Patel-Schneider: go over issues list

issue 3

two proposals. most current one from bmotik

Boris Motik: allow bnode in funtional spec... could use freely just like in rdf... regarding semantics. could interpret them as unique, or through existential

Ivan Herman: -> http://www.w3.org/mid/006201c86e7b$1cd19870$d012a8c0@wolf Boris' proposal
Bijan Parsia: "distinct" not "unique"
Ivan Herman: ack alanr

Alan Ruttenberg: isn't this what we had before?... what is the difference

Jeremy Carroll: q+ to articulate some difficulties
Alan Ruttenberg: but not wrt anonymous individuals?
Ivan Herman: ack jjc
Zakim: jjc, you wanted to articulate some difficulties
Uli Sattler: I understand Boris as saying that the "skolem" proposal is far better than people might have thought...
Boris Motik: divergence between DL and Full [Scribe assist by Peter Patel-Schneider]

jjc, can you please put a summary in IRC?

Jeremy Carroll: syntax bnodes are existentials, object bnodes are skolems? [Scribe assist by Peter Patel-Schneider]

ACTION: jjc send out email clarify

Markus Krötzsch: +1 to Boris, Skolmes just are a weakened semantic way for DL-tools to work on it

ACTION: jeremy to summarise problem with bnodes in ISSUE-3 vs bnodes in OWL list


issue 91

want to defer because of the action item?

Boris Motik: Could Jeremy actually summarize whast the problem is/
Alan Ruttenberg: Can michael take either of these?
Alan Ruttenberg: schneider
Michael Schneider: i will think about this... later :)

issue 95

issue 95 No compatibility restrictions between the datatype being restricted and the facets in the DatatypeRestriction construct

Michael Smith: +1 to boris's suggestion restricting datarange to just datatypeURIs
Bijan Parsia: +1

Boris Motik: DatatypeRestriction takes data types

Boris Motik: change syntax a little bit

Uli Sattler: +1

Peter Patel-Schneider: looks like this can be resolved next week.

ACTION: bmotik2 to Update the spec to resolve ISSUE-95

Boris Motik: can I update it now and send out an email for the resolution

Alan Ruttenberg: :
Alan Ruttenberg: :) good

issue 68

issue 68: mapping rules are non-monotonic


Peter Patel-Schneider: I don't quite understand.

Alan Ruttenberg: I also thought it was not being understood
Carsten Lutz: have to leave, sorry. bye
Michael Schneider: and for me
Michael Schneider: and for owl-full
Alan Ruttenberg: problem for monotonicity principle

Jeremy Carroll: is a problem for Jena

Uli Sattler: Jeremy, what is the problem due to?
Peter Patel-Schneider: ack bijan

Bijan Parsia: a proposal may solve the problem

Peter Patel-Schneider: this is not about QCR,

Michael Schneider: q+ to clarify what the problem is in owl-full
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 property punning is the issue
Boris Motik: Could Jeremy explain why this is a problem for Jena?
Alan Ruttenberg: a solution that works is extremely acceptable :)
Alan Ruttenberg: write it up?
Alan Ruttenberg: motivation was backwards compatibility, as I understand it


Sandro Hawke: m_schnei, try pressing 41#
Sandro Hawke: okay try pressing 61#
Bijan Parsia: Is the relevant jeremey email linked from the tracker page?
Bijan Parsia: This one? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0262.html

Peter Patel-Schneider: to m_schnei, this is a different issue

Alan Ruttenberg: effectively dropping triples
Jeremy Carroll: q+ to try and explain why this is a problem for Jena

Peter Patel-Schneider: QCR is a separate issue

Peter Patel-Schneider: ack m_schnei
Zakim: m_schnei, you wanted to clarify what the problem is in owl-full
Peter Patel-Schneider: ack [IPcaller]

Jeremy Carroll: why it is a problem for Jena

Peter Patel-Schneider: ack jjc
Zakim: jjc, you wanted to try and explain why this is a problem for Jena

Jeremy Carroll: knowledge is stored in triples

Bijan Parsia: It must! Or editors can't be based on Jena!

Jeremy Carroll: as you add more knowledge to Jena model, you don't retract triples... it is a fundamental design

Jeremy Carroll: the problem here is that as you add triples, some of the old triples are supposed to be changed -- and that's not how Jena wants things to work. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]


Alan Ruttenberg: reasoning != editing

Boris Motik: if Jena is a triple based, do we really need to retract triples?... I don't see why these mapping rules will require you to retract triples?

Jeremy Carroll: not clear

Bijan Parsia: alanr... I don't understand the relevance of that comment

Peter Patel-Schneider: bijan proposed to do something?

Michael Smith: I was going to agree with Bijan, which is what I understand boris to have done as well
Alan Ruttenberg: can answer bijan, if necessary

Bijan Parsia: has no clue about the problem. not sure which email is relevant.

Alan Ruttenberg: great!

Peter Patel-Schneider: take an action to write up an email summarizing... my understanding of this problem

Bijan Parsia: I also don't understand the assertion that Jena can't delete

ACTION: pfps to Write up his understanding of ISSUE-68 (nonmonotonic mapping rules)

ACTION: patelschneider to Write up his understanding of ISSUE-68 (nonmonotonic mapping rules)

Alan Ruttenberg: in the sense that pellet (used to?) be unable to retract without doing a lot of work
Bijan Parsia: TopQuadrent is based on Jena and handles OWL 1.1 (by extending Jena)...isn't this an existence counterproof?

ACTION: peter to Write up his understanding of ISSUE-68 (nonmonotonic mapping rules)

pre (guest): incremental reasoning [Scribe assist by Alan Ruttenberg]

ACTION: patel-schneider to Write up his understanding of ISSUE-68 (nonmonotonic mapping rules)


action 16

Peter Patel-Schneider: defer it

issue 69

issue 69 punning is incompatible with OWL Full

Alan Ruttenberg: how so?
Boris Motik: q+
And (guest): http://jena.sourceforge.net/javadoc/index.html [Scribe assist by Bijan Parsia]
Bijan Parsia: I meant: http://jena.sourceforge.net/javadoc/com/hp/hpl/jena/rdf/model/Model.html#remove(com.hp.hpl.jena.rdf.model.Statement)
Boris Motik: I do
Bijan Parsia: How is it that Jena can't delete triples?
Ivan Herman: ack bmotik
Jeremy Carroll: Jena can delete triples, but not as part of the process of adding other triples

Boris Motik: it is incompatible with owl full semantics.... in owl 1.0, DL and FULL are not completely aligned.

Alan Ruttenberg: property punning is the only issue that I see
Peter Patel-Schneider: note for scribe - the IRC messages should be moved into the previous topic
Alan Ruttenberg: cardinality
Bijan Parsia: I really don't understand why that does...
Bijan Parsia: er...matters
Ivan Herman: ack alanr

Boris Motik: don't see it as a show stopper

Boris Motik: Alan, this issue is much more than about cardinality.
Uli Sattler: also, since punning makes more ontologies falls into OWL 1.1/DL, we might also lose some more theorems?
Ivan Herman: ack bijan
Uli Sattler: Alan, can you write this comment into IRC?

Bijan Parsia: have all sorts of punning in pellet... encountered no problems so far

Alan Ruttenberg: property punning causes more problems than other punning [Scribe assist by Peter Patel-Schneider]
Jeremy Carroll: that's a nice point
Uli Sattler: ok, but what was the point about cardinality?
Alan Ruttenberg: I've used pellet a lot. I would be surprised about cardinality issues. ymmv.


Bijan Parsia: able to handle more graphs is really important... don't think punning is a really issue


Jeremy Carroll: zakim aaff -s me
Jeremy Carroll: zakim aaff is me
Michael Schneider: as boris said: there is only one "compatibility" aspect in 1.0, and this will be maintained in 1.1 with punning: 1.1-Full will have every 1.1-DL entailment (for legal 1.1-DL onts)

Alan Ruttenberg: change the way owl dl works.

Michael Schneider: see sec 5.4 in AS&S
Michael Schneider: +1 to close/rejected
Bijan Parsia: +1
Boris Motik: +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1

Peter Patel-Schneider: close to our time

Peter Patel-Schneider: I don't know the way forward on this. I leave it to the chairs to make a decision. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Peter Patel-Schneider: ack bmotik
Boris Motik: I wanted to say something as well about punning.
Ivan Herman: ack jjc
Peter Patel-Schneider: ack jjc
Jeremy Carroll: bijan's comments about different compatability useful, will consult [Scribe assist by Peter Patel-Schneider]

Other Business

Monday meeting

Peter Patel-Schneider: Monday meeting will be UFDTF

Alan Ruttenberg: ok

Peter Patel-Schneider: defer that UFD meeting.