17:57:04 RRSAgent has joined #owl 17:57:04 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/01/02-owl-irc 17:57:06 uhm 17:57:17 You have to do /invite Zakim 17:57:17 Ok, you did the /invite thing right? 17:57:23 Ok, you did the /invite thing right?I wonder why that didn't work for me 17:57:23 jjc has joined #owl 17:57:27 I was doing i t:) 17:57:35 Rinke has joined #owl 17:57:39 pfps has joined #owl 17:57:54 zakim, this is owl 17:57:54 ok, bijan; that matches SW_OWL()12:00PM 17:58:17 +Rinke 17:58:27 Zhe has joined #owl 17:58:36 zakim, who is here? 17:58:36 On the phone I see ??P9, Rinke 17:58:37 On IRC I see Zhe, pfps, Rinke, jjc, RRSAgent, Zakim, bmotik, bijan, trackbot-ng 17:58:46 zakim, ??P9 is me 17:58:46 +bijan; got it 17:58:47 +??P12 17:58:56 zakim, mute me 17:58:56 bijan should now be muted 17:59:01 sandro has joined #owl 17:59:05 +??P13 17:59:06 zakim, unmute me 17:59:07 bijan should no longer be muted 17:59:15 RRSAgent, pointer? 17:59:15 See http://www.w3.org/2008/01/02-owl-irc#T17-59-15 17:59:15 msmith has joined #owl 17:59:21 Zakim, ??p13 is me 17:59:21 +bmotik; got it 17:59:21 IanH has joined #owl 17:59:24 zakim, mute me 17:59:24 bijan should now be muted 17:59:36 +Sandro 17:59:47 zakim, who is here? 17:59:47 On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, ??P12, bmotik, Sandro 17:59:47 Zakim, mute me 17:59:48 On IRC I see IanH, msmith, sandro, Zhe, pfps, Rinke, jjc, RRSAgent, Zakim, bmotik, bijan, trackbot-ng 17:59:50 bmotik should now be muted 18:00:01 zakim, ??P12 is IanH 18:00:01 +IanH; got it 18:00:04 +msmith 18:00:22 zakim, who is here? 18:00:22 On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, IanH, bmotik (muted), Sandro, msmith 18:00:25 On IRC I see IanH, msmith, sandro, Zhe, pfps, Rinke, jjc, RRSAgent, Zakim, bmotik, bijan, trackbot-ng 18:00:41 + +1.617.253.aaaa 18:01:09 zakim, who is here? 18:01:09 On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, IanH, bmotik (muted), Sandro, msmith, +1.617.253.aaaa 18:01:11 On IRC I see IanH, msmith, sandro, Zhe, pfps, Rinke, jjc, RRSAgent, Zakim, bmotik, bijan, trackbot-ng 18:01:26 alanr has joined #owl 18:01:44 zakim, who is here? 18:01:44 On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, IanH, bmotik (muted), Sandro, msmith, +1.617.253.aaaa 18:01:46 On IRC I see alanr, IanH, msmith, sandro, Zhe, pfps, Rinke, jjc, RRSAgent, Zakim, bmotik, bijan, trackbot-ng 18:01:52 zakim, aaaa is me 18:01:52 +alanr; got it 18:02:13 +??P1 18:02:21 Zakim, ??P1 is me 18:02:21 +jjc; got it 18:02:26 Zakim, mute me 18:02:26 jjc should now be muted 18:02:46 +Zhe 18:03:10 zakim, who is here? 18:03:10 On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, IanH, bmotik (muted), Sandro, msmith, alanr, jjc (muted), Zhe 18:03:13 On IRC I see alanr, IanH, msmith, sandro, Zhe, pfps, Rinke, jjc, RRSAgent, Zakim, bmotik, bijan, trackbot-ng 18:04:24 or Zhe? 18:04:33 zakim, unmute me 18:04:33 bijan should no longer be muted 18:04:40 +??P17 18:04:50 zakim, ??P17 is me 18:04:50 +pfps; got it 18:05:22 zakim, mute me 18:05:22 pfps should now be muted 18:05:42 Scribe: Bijan Parsia 18:05:48 Scribenick: bijan 18:05:54 is that an action on Zhe? 18:06:03 zakim, mute me 18:06:03 bijan should now be muted 18:06:20 TOPIC: Admin 18:06:28 zakim, who is here? 18:06:28 On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, IanH, bmotik (muted), Sandro, msmith, alanr, jjc (muted), Zhe, pfps (muted) 18:06:30 On IRC I see alanr, IanH, msmith, sandro, Zhe, pfps, Rinke, jjc, RRSAgent, Zakim, bmotik, bijan, trackbot-ng 18:06:49 Elisa has joined #owl 18:06:58 Agenda amendment: Discussion of short name issues 18:07:17 Present: bijan, Rinke, IanH, bmotik, Sandro, msmith, alanr, jjc, Zhe, pfps 18:07:41 +Elisa_Kendall 18:07:57 Meeting: OWL Working Group Teleconference 18:08:02 Chair: Ian Horrocks 18:09:11 Alan: I closed Issue 13 so can be removed from the agenda 18:09:36 zakim, mute me 18:09:36 pfps was already muted, pfps 18:09:40 zakim, unmute me 18:09:40 pfps should no longer be muted 18:09:42 q+ 18:09:50 q? 18:10:03 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.12.19/Minutes 18:10:14 Ian: We're going to be much stricter about enforcing the time limits for discussion listed in the agenda. If you think more time is needed for some item, propose so during the agenda amendments portion of the Admin topics. 18:10:19 also, the previous minutes cleanup was *just* finished 18:10:28 zakim, mute me 18:10:28 pfps should now be muted 18:10:30 Ian: Otherwise, if we run over, it'll go to email. 18:10:38 + +1.518.608.aabb 18:10:43 Topic: Previous minutes 18:11:04 IRC log from Dec 19 http://www.w3.org/2007/12/19-owl-irc is now public. 18:11:06 zakim, unmute me 18:11:06 pfps should no longer be muted 18:11:06 Peter: The irc log wasn't public, so we can't accept yet. 18:11:13 Sandro: we'll take it off line 18:11:13 dlm has joined #owl 18:11:19 Rinke: What about F2F minutes? 18:11:33 hi - I just joined on the phone as well 18:11:43 zakim, mute me 18:11:43 pfps should now be muted 18:11:51 Some discussion between Peter and Ian about F2F minutes. 18:12:11 Ian: We'll ask people to review them again and put them on the agenda for next week 18:12:47 ACTION: Ian to send email reminding people to review the F2F minutes for next week and to put an item on next week's agenda 18:12:47 Created ACTION-59 - Send email reminding people to review the F2F minutes for next week and to put an item on next week's agenda [on Ian Horrocks - due 2008-01-09]. 18:12:47 i am 18:12:48 jeremy has done this adequately 18:12:59 yes 18:13:00 zakim, who is here? 18:13:00 On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, IanH, bmotik (muted), Sandro, msmith, alanr, jjc (muted), Zhe, pfps (muted), Elisa_Kendall, +1.518.608.aabb 18:13:02 On IRC I see dlm, Elisa, alanr, IanH, msmith, sandro, Zhe, pfps, Rinke, jjc, RRSAgent, Zakim, bmotik, bijan, trackbot-ng 18:13:11 Zakim, unmute me 18:13:11 jjc should no longer be muted 18:13:35 TOPIC: Action item review 18:14:01 ACTION-47 delcared accomplished by Jeremy 18:14:24 zakim, unmute me 18:14:24 bijan should no longer be muted 18:14:30 q? 18:14:46 Which reminds: Agenda item - quick check in about having UFDTF documentation meeting this coming monday at usual schedule. 18:15:59 ACTION-38 continued until next week 18:16:33 ACTION-39 continued until imports task force 18:16:36 contineu 18:16:59 ACTION-42 continued until next week 18:17:28 I think that Sandro has done the action 18:19:18 ACTION-44 pretty much done; close when docs are published 18:20:31 ACTION-45 dependant on Sandro's Test related action 18:21:01 ACTION 51 continued until next week 18:22:34 ACTION-53 progress has been made 18:22:55 q? 18:22:59 +jim 18:23:03 q- 18:23:08 Sandro: I have an internal target of next Tues. 18:23:29 but the content is already available for review - why the serialization 18:23:33 hendler has joined #owl 18:23:43 alanr: We have a procedure wherein the chairs take a week 18:23:58 sandro: Why not parallelize the review? 18:24:20 general acclaim and agreement from IanH and alanr 18:24:51 zakim, mute me 18:24:51 bijan should now be muted 18:25:20 Zakim, jim is hendler 18:25:20 +hendler; got it 18:25:53 alanr: some issues with status 18:26:08 sandro: some issues with abstract 18:26:25 I like the way the abstracts read. 18:27:12 q+ 18:27:15 jim: I don't like the abstracts 18:27:17 q? 18:27:20 q+ 18:28:01 alanr: We shouldn't touch the abstracts now. Jim can file an issue and then we'll link to the issue. 18:28:12 s/jim/hendler/ 18:28:15 q? 18:28:17 q+ to suggest Jim does a review after publication 18:28:19 ack alanr 18:28:27 hendler: it's a document review issue not a content issue. 18:28:51 q+ re abstract and status 18:29:10 IanH: We're just acting on the resolution of the F2F and the current text is already agreed to. 18:29:12 +1 to no changes now. 18:29:18 q? 18:29:19 zakim, unmute me 18:29:19 bijan should no longer be muted 18:29:21 +1 to no changes now 18:29:37 zakim, mute me 18:29:37 bijan should now be muted 18:29:40 ack jjc 18:29:40 jjc, you wanted to suggest Jim does a review after publication 18:29:40 q? 18:29:52 q+ to address status of this document 18:29:53 Sandro: I apologize for bringing up the edit-the-abstract question -- it's out of order for right now. 18:29:57 sandro: whoops, I was sorta out of order 18:30:15 q? 18:30:21 jjc: review after publication, but yes, we're off order 18:30:27 q- 18:30:33 ack hendler 18:30:33 hendler, you wanted to comment re abstract and status 18:30:38 q? 18:30:58 hendler: I withdraw on abstract, but I have qualms about status. 18:31:18 status of this document is perogative of w3c team liason 18:31:19 Jeremy-to-jim: the status belongs to W3C staff contact not the WG 18:31:27 IanH: Status is not done. 18:31:37 q? 18:31:41 ack alanr 18:31:41 alanr, you wanted to address status of this document 18:31:45 zakim, mute me 18:31:45 pfps was already muted, pfps 18:31:49 hendler: We've approved a document without knowing what it is? Don't we need to review that text? 18:32:20 +1 to alanr re: status 18:32:21 IanH: No..as jeremey pointed out, status is a team contact thing not a wg thing 18:32:27 alanr: though feedback is welcome 18:32:56 zakim, unmute me 18:32:56 bijan should no longer be muted 18:33:10 q? 18:34:15 pfps has joined #owl 18:34:47 q? 18:34:55 ACTION-56 continued until next week 18:35:19 ACTION-55 is closed 18:35:20 q? 18:35:32 zakim, unmute me 18:35:32 pfps should no longer be muted 18:36:18 zakim, unmute me 18:36:18 pfps was not muted, pfps 18:36:24 zakim, mute me 18:36:24 pfps should now be muted 18:36:31 +1 18:36:31 q? 18:36:38 TOPIC: Proposals to resolve issues 18:36:39 +1 18:36:45 +1 to merge 18:36:47 +1 to reject 20 18:36:58 Merge issue 20 into 16 18:37:01 concur 18:37:18 IanH: WE'll reject issue 20 for issue 16 18:37:33 q? 18:37:37 +1 18:37:44 +1 18:37:46 +1 18:37:47 +1 to consider 43 accomplished 18:37:50 +1 18:38:11 IanH: ISSUE-43 is resolved 18:39:02 PROPOSED: close (as RESOLVED) Issue 13 as described in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/0181.html (see Section 4.2 of Syntax) 18:39:14 no - this had been done 18:39:28 q+ 18:39:33 zakim, unmute me 18:39:33 pfps should no longer be muted 18:39:44 zakim, mute me 18:39:44 pfps should now be muted 18:39:57 RESOLVED: close (as RESOLVED) Issue 13 as described in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/0181.html (see Section 4.2 of Syntax) 18:40:10 PROPOSED: close (as REJECTED) Issue 20 and absorb it into Issue 16 18:40:13 zakim, unmute me 18:40:13 pfps should no longer be muted 18:41:16 Already resolved: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/0181.html 18:41:20 officially 18:42:59 PROPOSED: close (as REJECTED) Issue 20 and absorb it into Issue 16 18:43:08 +0 18:43:10 objectons? 18:43:11 +1 to reject 18:43:15 +1 18:43:20 +1 18:43:27 +1 18:43:41 Re: Issue 55, +1 to close, but resolution would not be Peter's email, rather further action as voted up during f2f. Method of accomplishing is yet to be determined. 18:44:08 RESOLVED: close (as REJECTED) Issue 20 and absorb it into Issue 16 18:44:35 PROPOSED: close (as RESOLVED) Issue 43 as per email http://www.w3.org/mid/BDC59251-1FB7-4F70-8900-E7E38FC86BA4%2540comlab.ox.ac.uk 18:45:02 +0 18:45:06 +1 to resolve 18:45:21 +1 to resolve as proposed 18:45:39 +1 (agree with stronger statement) 18:45:46 RESOLVED: close (as RESOLVED) Issue 43 as per email http://www.w3.org/mid/BDC59251-1FB7-4F70-8900-E7E38FC86BA4%2540comlab.ox.ac.uk issue is already addressed by OWL 1.1 18:46:01 +1 to close as resolved 18:46:02 +1 18:46:05 +1 18:46:11 PROPOSED: close (as REJECTED) Issue 55 as per email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/0188.html 18:46:21 q+ re: issue 55 18:46:26 q+ 18:46:28 q? 18:46:29 q- 18:46:36 q- 18:46:54 ack 18:46:55 ack sees 18:46:59 q- re: 18:47:04 q- issue 18:47:06 q- issue 18:47:08 q- 55 18:47:19 q- sees 18:47:20 q+ to discuss issue 55 18:47:36 ack alanr 18:48:15 q? 18:48:23 alanr: Reiterating what I posted in IRC. We agreed that some sort of effort by the working group to allow more RDF into OWL is a good idea, but I don't want the specific solution of Peter to be part of the resolution since this is an ongoing thing. 18:48:59 q? 18:49:21 q+ 18:49:34 hendler: RPI will official object to rejecting but will abstain to postponed. 18:49:38 q? 18:49:49 q+ to suggest otu of scope 18:49:51 q+ 18:49:59 ack hendler 18:49:59 hendler, you wanted to discuss issue 55 18:50:06 I don't mind postponing, personally 18:50:10 IanH: I believe I saw that email but I wanted more detail. 18:50:24 +1 to jim 18:50:42 hendler: I don't want to say that this will never be fixed. 18:50:56 +1, Ian. Let's table it, and not take the queue 18:50:57 q? 18:51:22 q? 18:51:23 q- 18:51:25 in the interest of time, request to not take up the issue 18:51:27 IanH: pretty clear that we won't resolve this as it is proposed to be resolved, so we should put it back to the email 18:51:33 q- 18:51:36 q- 18:51:50 alanr: and will go to issue discussion for next week 18:51:59 PROPOSED: close (as RESOLVED) Issue 83 as per email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/0028.html 18:52:28 Adjourned to next week 18:52:37 Depends on an open action 18:52:55 (not adjourned .... a meeting gets adjourned ...)!! 18:52:57 Regarding ISSUE-55: At the F2F we said that we might produce a document with typical repairs that might allow for more RDF into OWL. IMHO, the distinction between owl:Class and rdfs:Class should be handled there. 18:53:16 Topic: agenda amendement item: Short name issue 18:53:19 q? 18:54:29 q? 18:55:13 sandro: [reluctantly] There is a uri for each document with a date embedded, but there is also a "short name" or "latest uri". Problem: does the owl (1.1) semantics override the old one? Where will people want to end up 5 years from now 18:55:31 q+ 18:55:46 q? 18:56:19 q? 18:56:28 IanH: That's clear, but it would be strange if people wanted to go to the older semantics. 18:56:49 q? 18:56:50 alanr: but isn't this exactly why we went for the owl11 short name? So that we wouldn't shadow? 18:57:20 q+ is this maybe something to raise in status section? 18:57:20 IanH: How irrevocable is the current decision wrt recommendation? 18:57:30 q? 18:57:30 at the f2f it was pointed out the working draft shouldn't shadow the 1.0 docs, and we had to avoid that 18:57:31 +1 to Ian 18:57:34 ack 18:57:38 ack alanr 18:57:42 q+to ask is this maybe something to raise in status section? 18:58:19 sandro: [still reluctantly] The current drafts will contain a latest draft url and we need to do right by that. But it's still flexible. 18:58:22 zakim, mute me 18:58:22 pfps should now be muted 18:58:30 IanH: well, we can't shadow recs with our current *drafts* 18:58:57 IIRC we *can* change short name later, but it is a pain. 18:58:58 hendler: There are different documents. Syntax and semantics seem intended to shadow S&AS, but other documents may be additive. 18:59:03 q? 18:59:06 the syntax doc is not a replacement for S&AS as it has neither the RDF mapping nor any formal semantics 18:59:10 My guess is that pain is preferable to resolution now 18:59:41 IanH: We can weasal like minks and avoid committing now. 19:00:25 sandro: It's not clear that we can. Whatever draft we publish will have urls that change overtime but we need to make sure we manage that change sensibly 19:01:00 "owl11-semantics" or "owl-semantics-latest-draft" or "owl1-semantics" 19:01:05 ... E.g., syntax and semantics documents point to each other...but I think maybe it's ok. 19:01:25 alanr: isn't htis what we resolved in the f2f 19:01:28 +1 to owl11-semantics 19:01:51 "owl-semantics" 19:02:10 can we get around this like html? e.g. there is latest version of html and latest version of html4. xhtml 1.0 shadows html, but not html4 19:02:46 q? 19:02:50 sandro: But there's new information. We can't use owl-semantics since that would make our drafts shadow recs (BAD WEASAL). "owl-semantics-latest-draft" is very future proof and handy 19:02:53 +1 for sandro and alanr to settle this 19:02:58 just get it done something this millenium :-) 19:03:00 Alan says team-owl-chairs will resolve 19:03:18 +1 to sandro and alanr handling 19:03:35 q? 19:03:38 q+ to suggest e-mail 24 hr review 19:03:39 ack 19:03:46 ack me# 19:03:49 IanH: Yet another chair complaining about IRC comments with preference for people going to speaker queue 19:03:49 ack me 19:03:50 jjc, you wanted to suggest e-mail 24 hr review 19:03:52 q? 19:04:03 +1 to jjc 19:04:28 jjc: Once sandro has the solution can he give us 24 hours review? 19:04:38 24 hours == 1 business day 19:04:40 24 hours review if not owl11 19:04:42 alanr: can we make it only if short name owl11 19:04:52 jjc: yes 19:05:00 q? 19:05:08 q- hendler 19:05:13 ack hendler 19:05:16 q? 19:06:06 Topic: Raised Issues 19:06:18 Issue 90 class and property deprecation 19:06:27 q? 19:06:55 Rinke: These are in OWL 1.0 but not in OWL 1.1 docs, so we should deal with it. 19:07:07 q+ to ask whether anyone ever found this useful? 19:07:31 q+ 19:07:37 zakim, unmute me 19:07:37 pfps should no longer be muted 19:07:39 q? 19:08:04 zakim, mute me 19:08:04 pfps should now be muted 19:08:17 q? 19:08:21 ack alanr 19:08:21 alanr, you wanted to ask whether anyone ever found this useful? 19:08:25 +1 to open 19:08:26 q- 19:08:28 q? 19:08:33 zakim, mute me 19:08:33 pfps was already muted, pfps 19:08:48 IanH: we'll open Issue-90 19:09:06 +1 to open 19:09:32 Issue 91 ontology properties 19:09:59 q+ 19:10:02 there is another issue re: meaning 19:10:06 ack bmotik 19:10:06 zakim, mute me 19:10:08 pfps was already muted, pfps 19:10:11 Rinke: Boris and I talked about this and some properties are now annotation properties but what do they mean? 19:10:22 q+ to support this as issue 19:10:26 q? 19:10:27 q+ to explain meaning 19:10:47 boirs: What do you mean by meaning? In the old spec they didn't have meaning either. 19:10:49 q+ 19:10:52 question before us is whether to open 19:10:59 Zakim, mute me 19:10:59 bmotik should now be muted 19:11:07 q? 19:11:07