IRC log of owl on 2008-01-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:54:06 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:54:06 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/01/09-owl-irc
17:54:09 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
17:54:14 [jjc]
Zakim, this is OWL_WG
17:54:14 [Zakim]
sorry, jjc, I do not see a conference named 'OWL_WG' in progress or scheduled at this time
17:54:21 [jjc]
Zakim, this will be OWL_WG
17:54:21 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, jjc
17:54:24 [jjc]
Zakim, this will be SW_OWL_WG
17:54:24 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, jjc
17:54:29 [jjc]
Zakim, this will be SW_OWL
17:54:29 [Zakim]
ok, jjc; I see SW_OWL()12:00PM scheduled to start 54 minutes ago
17:54:29 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #owl
17:54:33 [Rinke]
Zakim, this is #owl
17:54:33 [Zakim]
sorry, Rinke, I do not see a conference named '#owl' in progress or scheduled at this time
17:54:40 [Rinke]
Zakim, this is owl
17:54:40 [Zakim]
Rinke, I see SW_OWL()12:00PM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be owl".
17:54:50 [Rinke]
Zakim, this will be owl
17:54:50 [Zakim]
ok, Rinke; I see SW_OWL()12:00PM scheduled to start 54 minutes ago
17:55:47 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()12:00PM has now started
17:55:58 [Zakim]
+ +8652aaaa
17:56:33 [Zakim]
+??P9
17:56:41 [bijan]
zakim, ??P9 is me
17:56:41 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
17:56:43 [IanH]
zakim, aaaa is me
17:56:43 [Zakim]
+IanH; got it
17:56:44 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:56:44 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:56:52 [Zakim]
+Rinke
17:57:24 [Zakim]
+??P12
17:57:25 [Zakim]
+jar
17:57:30 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has joined #owl
17:57:38 [IanH]
sadly not :-(
17:57:39 [jjc]
Zakim, ??P12 is me
17:57:39 [Zakim]
+jjc; got it
17:57:54 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
17:58:03 [uli]
uli has joined #owl
17:58:04 [bcuencagrau]
bcuencagrau has joined #owl
17:58:20 [jjc]
q-
17:58:24 [Zakim]
+bmotik
17:58:27 [jjc]
Zakim, mute me
17:58:27 [Zakim]
jjc was already muted, jjc
17:58:32 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
17:58:43 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:58:43 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:58:48 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
17:59:12 [Zakim]
+??P16
17:59:22 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #owl
17:59:45 [vojtech]
vojtech has joined #owl
17:59:47 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
17:59:53 [Zakim]
+ +018652aabb
18:00:29 [Zakim]
+Elisa_Kendall
18:00:31 [alanr]
k, will remove from agenda
18:00:39 [ewallace]
ewallace has joined #owl
18:00:45 [Zakim]
+ +016161aacc
18:00:49 [Zakim]
- +018652aabb
18:00:51 [Carsten]
Carsten has joined #owl
18:01:02 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
18:01:05 [hendler]
hendler has joined #owl
18:01:24 [Zakim]
+??P18
18:01:29 [Zakim]
+??P22
18:01:32 [DougL]
DougL has joined #owl
18:01:43 [Zakim]
+??P25
18:01:44 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
18:01:44 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2008/01/09-owl-irc#T18-01-44
18:01:49 [Zakim]
+Evan_Wallace
18:01:53 [Zakim]
+Zhe
18:01:56 [Zakim]
+Carsten
18:01:59 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, ??P22 is me
18:01:59 [Zakim]
+bcuencagrau; got it
18:01:59 [pfps]
zakim, ??p25 is me
18:02:00 [Zakim]
+pfps; got it
18:02:10 [Carsten]
zakim, mute me
18:02:10 [Zakim]
+Sandro
18:02:12 [Zakim]
Carsten should now be muted
18:02:17 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.698.aadd
18:02:24 [uli]
zakim, +016161aacc is me
18:02:24 [Zakim]
+uli; got it
18:02:27 [hendler]
zakim, aadd is me
18:02:27 [Zakim]
+hendler; got it
18:02:31 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
18:02:32 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
18:02:33 [Zakim]
+msmith
18:02:35 [Zakim]
+DougL
18:02:36 [bcuencagrau]
zakim, mute me
18:02:36 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted
18:03:51 [hendler]
scribenick:hendler
18:04:03 [hendler]
ScribeNick: hendler
18:04:33 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
18:04:33 [Zakim]
On the phone I see IanH (muted), bijan (muted), Rinke, jjc (muted), jar, bmotik (muted), MarkusK (muted), Elisa_Kendall, uli (muted), ??P18, bcuencagrau (muted), pfps (muted),
18:04:36 [Zakim]
... Evan_Wallace, Zhe, Carsten (muted), Sandro, hendler, msmith, DougL
18:04:37 [Zakim]
On IRC I see DougL, hendler, Zhe, Carsten, ewallace, pfps, vojtech, Elisa, alanr, msmith, bcuencagrau, uli, bmotik, MarkusK, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, jjc, sandro, Rinke, bijan,
18:04:40 [Zakim]
... trackbot-ng
18:04:56 [hendler]
Alanr: calls the role
18:05:00 [IanH]
zakim, unmute me
18:05:00 [Zakim]
IanH should no longer be muted
18:05:23 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #owl
18:05:31 [sandro]
Zakim, ??P18 is Vojtech,
18:05:31 [Zakim]
+Vojtech,; got it
18:05:55 [sandro]
RRSAgent, make record public
18:05:58 [IanH]
zakim, mute me
18:05:58 [Zakim]
IanH should now be muted
18:05:59 [hendler]
Topic: role call and background
18:06:04 [sandro]
Rinke, just do what I just did, if you like.
18:06:33 [hendler]
vojtech: new to W3C, interested in ontology patters/matching
18:06:34 [DougL]
welcome, Vojtech.
18:06:43 [hendler]
... worked some on the rich annotations
18:07:00 [hendler]
alanr: agenda ammendments? [none received]
18:07:11 [pfps]
+1 to 12/19 minutes
18:07:11 [Zakim]
+JeffP
18:07:13 [hendler]
PROPOSED: accept minutes of 2007-12-19
18:07:21 [DougL]
+1
18:07:31 [hendler]
RESOLVED: accept minuts of 2007-12-19
18:07:48 [hendler]
PROPOSED: accept minutes of 2008-01-02
18:07:49 [pfps]
+1 to 1/2 minutes
18:07:58 [hendler]
RESOLVED: accept minutes of 2008-01-02
18:08:03 [bijan]
+1 to 1/2 minutes
18:08:16 [hendler]
PROPOSED: accept minutes of manchester face to face
18:08:20 [hendler]
+0
18:08:21 [pfps]
+0 to F2F (there are still missing pointers to presentations)
18:08:27 [bmotik]
+1
18:08:41 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
18:08:41 [Zakim]
pfps should no longer be muted
18:09:00 [DougL]
Jim, why +0?
18:09:05 [jjc]
ahh, I didn't understand that
18:09:05 [Elisa]
+1 - for the part I attended by phone
18:09:09 [alanr]
-1
18:09:13 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
18:09:13 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
18:09:22 [bijan]
Do we have a list of the presetnations?
18:09:45 [bijan]
q+
18:10:04 [jjc]
Zakim, unmute me
18:10:04 [Zakim]
jjc should no longer be muted
18:10:32 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
18:10:32 [Zakim]
pfps was already muted, pfps
18:10:32 [hendler]
general discussion of minutes and presentations
18:10:58 [hendler]
alanr: let's postpone to next week and we have time to make sure presentations are linked right
18:11:21 [hendler]
alanr: ok, please fix this up during the week - I could put presentation pointers in
18:11:44 [jjc]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/att-0097/dl-and-full.pdf
18:11:49 [jjc]
were my slides
18:12:11 [pfps]
PDF is OK for now
18:12:12 [hendler]
ACTION: alanr will try to get links as best as possible, and to get slides right
18:12:12 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - alanr
18:13:01 [hendler]
ACTION:Alan will try to get links updated and link slides int
18:13:21 [hendler]
ACTION: Alan will try to get links updated and link slides int
18:13:21 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-61 - Will try to get links updated and link slides int [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-01-16].
18:13:45 [bmotik_]
bmotik_ has joined #owl
18:13:50 [hendler]
Topic: working drafts are out, Alan thanks everyone
18:14:01 [bmotik_]
Zakim, bmotik_ is bmotik
18:14:01 [Zakim]
sorry, bmotik_, I do not recognize a party named 'bmotik_'
18:14:05 [ewallace]
Thanks to editors.
18:14:12 [hendler]
and there is much rejoicing
18:14:17 [bmotik_]
bmotik_ has left #owl
18:14:25 [hendler]
Alanr: review actions - I'd like to consider these closed
18:14:36 [bmotik_]
bmotik_ has joined #owl
18:15:46 [hendler]
ACTION: Alan to add test guidelines to working group to agenda for next week
18:15:46 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-62 - Add test guidelines to working group to agenda for next week [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-01-16].
18:16:59 [hendler]
RESOLVED: all pending review actions on the WIKI are closed [Alan will close]
18:17:14 [hendler]
scribe notes thee are actions 51,52, and 53
18:17:23 [alanr]
Adding a datatype to represent rational numbers
18:17:30 [hendler]
TOPIC: Action Review
18:17:49 [msmith]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/OWL_Rational
18:18:19 [hendler]
Ul: working on this, problem is we still are slightly unclear about
18:18:34 [hendler]
s/Ul/Uli
18:18:44 [bijan]
And algebreic numbers
18:18:49 [hendler]
... do we want rationals, rationals and reals, or what?
18:19:02 [alanr]
issue x^2=2 unsatisfiable for rationals.
18:19:24 [hendler]
... we're currently looking at a way to go that is a little simpler
18:19:32 [bijan]
q+
18:19:57 [hendler]
... I think we can go further, but I would like some feedback
18:19:58 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:19:58 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:20:13 [hendler]
Alanr: we need a proposal so we can discuss it
18:20:22 [jjc]
q+ to propose accepting action is done
18:20:44 [msmith]
+1 to closing the *action*
18:20:58 [alanr]
q?
18:21:14 [alanr]
ack 016161
18:21:17 [alanr]
q-
18:21:20 [pfps]
ack aacc
18:21:27 [alanr]
q- +016161aacc
18:21:50 [hendler]
bijan: I'm unclear on where things stand, and there's some related issues - I'd like time to review
18:22:12 [hendler]
alan: action is postponed, Bijan will work w/Uli
18:22:27 [msmith]
q+
18:22:35 [ewallace]
I like rationals
18:22:39 [hendler]
bijan: need to discuss in context of n-ary. Can we discuss with that aproach
18:23:13 [msmith]
q-
18:23:18 [jjc]
q-
18:23:21 [hendler]
Bijan will lead discussion on WG email, action 56 is postponed
18:23:22 [bijan]
ack me
18:23:40 [hendler]
alanr: who would like to be on a task force on imports
18:23:43 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:23:43 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:23:51 [hendler]
re: action58
18:23:57 [pfps]
+1 import - no more evenings CET please
18:24:02 [alanr]
+1
18:24:06 [bmotik]
+1(no restrctions to time)
18:24:12 [jjc]
+1
18:24:16 [Rinke]
+1 (no evenings)
18:24:28 [IanH]
+1 and agree about CET evenings
18:24:34 [msmith]
+1 for import TF
18:24:58 [hendler]
alanr: will set up TF
18:24:59 [bijan]
+1 (but oh I'm sad to do so)
18:25:26 [hendler]
Sandro: suggests use of WBS for surveying times
18:25:38 [hendler]
alanr and sandro will discuss
18:25:49 [hendler]
action58 postponed
18:26:18 [bijan]
-1 to being on imports task force (changed my mine)
18:26:34 [jjc]
please continue action-48 - I have finally scheduled time to do it
18:26:59 [hendler]
action46 continued
18:27:12 [hendler]
TOPIC: FPWDs should be announced wdely
18:27:25 [hendler]
alanr: what relevant lists should we use, who will post
18:27:35 [hendler]
ian: we should do as soon as possible
18:27:50 [hendler]
alanr: what lists, please let us know on irc:
18:27:54 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
18:27:54 [Zakim]
pfps was already muted, pfps
18:27:58 [sandro]
semantics-web@w3.org, I'm willing to do it.
18:27:58 [IanH]
q+
18:28:40 [sandro]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Publicity
18:28:53 [Rinke]
Should there be some standard announcement text?
18:29:12 [jjc]
-1 to standard text
18:29:42 [Rinke]
ok
18:29:44 [hendler]
ian: set up a page in Wiki, if you see a list that isn't included, add the list to the wiki page, and send the announcement - you can use the standard announce from W3C or something more community relevant
18:29:44 [jjc]
+1 to sandro, customized announcement for community
18:30:25 [sandro]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Publicity now created, with one entry
18:30:40 [hendler]
alan: what should we do with UFDTF
18:30:46 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:30:46 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:31:02 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
18:31:02 [Zakim]
pfps should no longer be muted
18:31:47 [Elisa]
I'm also interested in UFDTF, and would like to be included if possible
18:31:48 [ewallace]
i will be available next week
18:31:51 [hendler]
hendler: Deb, Vipul, me and a couple of others were also on the list, weren't we?
18:32:06 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
18:32:06 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
18:32:48 [Elisa]
There should be a list in the wiki - Jeremy had chaired a number of calls
18:33:04 [pfps]
membership is supposed to be AlanRuttenberg BijanParsia DebMcGuinness EvanWallace JeremyCarroll JimHendler VipulKashyap MartinDzbor Peter F. Patel-Schneider Elisa Kendall
18:33:08 [hendler]
alan: I will poll folks, look for a time we can do it
18:33:10 [jjc]
q+
18:33:14 [pfps]
from http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/UFDTF
18:33:22 [IanH]
ack me
18:33:28 [IanH]
q?
18:33:29 [alanr]
ack jjc
18:34:00 [hendler]
jeremy: page has list of people, my recollection is we were going to move earlier - but same day (Mon)
18:34:06 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:34:06 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:34:09 [hendler]
alanr: I'll make sure to get more people in
18:34:12 [jjc]
two hours earlier
18:34:49 [hendler]
TOPIC: issue proposals
18:37:14 [hendler]
alanr: issue83 - propose to close as resolved with text as written
18:37:44 [hendler]
alanr: the issue has to make some words w/respect to the relation between DL and Full
18:37:59 [ewallace]
+1
18:38:03 [jjc]
+1 (noting OWL Full semantics is likely)
18:38:10 [alanr]
PROPOSED: close (as RESOLVED) Issue 83 (Property Chain Axiom: P1 o P2 => P2 o P1 ) as per email
18:38:12 [pfps]
+1 to resolve issue 83 as proposed
18:38:15 [Rinke]
+1
18:38:16 [hendler]
+1
18:38:17 [bmotik]
+1
18:38:18 [uli]
+1
18:38:20 [Carsten]
+1
18:38:20 [Zhe]
+1
18:38:23 [alanr]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0022.html
18:38:23 [bijan]
+1
18:38:25 [alanr]
+1
18:38:25 [sandro]
+0
18:38:38 [jjc]
q+ to comment before closure
18:38:38 [msmith]
+1 to closing ISSUE-83 as proposed
18:38:41 [DougL]
+1
18:38:44 [Elisa]
Elisa +1
18:38:48 [MarkusK]
+1 to close
18:38:53 [JeffP]
+0
18:39:03 [alanr]
ack jjc
18:39:03 [Zakim]
jjc, you wanted to comment before closure
18:39:28 [hendler]
jeremy: there may be some issues with the OWL Full 1.1 semantics which might cause us to reopen later
18:39:40 [hendler]
Alanr: new info can always let us reopen an issue
18:40:18 [hendler]
discussion of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0022.html
18:40:40 [IanH]
q+
18:41:05 [hendler]
jeremy: just nervous that OWL Full semantics could mean we change things later
18:41:25 [jjc]
My assumptions in voting for this, is that an OWL Full semantics will be quite easy to produce for this
18:41:28 [alanr]
ack ian
18:41:39 [jjc]
I doubt there will be any OWL Full issues
18:42:06 [hendler]
ian: the email says the WG might or might not give the OWL 1.1 full semantics, so closing text doesn't require this
18:42:33 [hendler]
alanr: we have general approval with a couple of abstentions
18:42:34 [jjc]
I am expecting to make a good effort at an OWL Full semantics and expect that to be adequate for this
18:42:54 [hendler]
RESOLVED: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0022.html
18:43:13 [IanH]
q?
18:43:53 [hendler]
alanr: discussion of issue 55
18:44:14 [hendler]
alanr: we propose to close this as postponed
18:44:23 [alanr]
PROPOSED: close (as POSTPONED) Issue 55 (owl:class v. rdfs:class) per email
18:44:28 [alanr]
PROPOSED: close (as POSTPONED) Issue 55 (owl:class v. rdfs:class) per email
18:44:34 [bmotik]
+1
18:44:35 [jjc]
+1 to postpone
18:44:36 [hendler]
+1
18:44:37 [alanr]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0023.html
18:44:37 [uli]
+1
18:44:41 [DougL]
+1
18:44:43 [hendler]
oops +0
18:44:43 [Zhe]
+1
18:45:10 [bcuencagrau]
+1
18:45:11 [msmith]
+1
18:45:13 [sandro]
PROPOSED: close (as POSTPONED) Issue 55 (owl:class v. rdfs:class) per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0023.html
18:45:13 [JeffP]
+1
18:45:16 [DougL]
+1
18:45:16 [pfps]
-1 to postpone as I see neither technical nor resource issues to support postponement over resolution
18:45:23 [bijan]
+1 but I'll go on record here that I think "POSTPONED" is substantively meaningless; I don't see that a closed issue is "more" closed than a POSTPONED; but if people feel better with "POSTPONED" I don't care as long as it *is* meaningless
18:45:23 [ewallace]
+1
18:45:24 [hendler]
q+
18:45:34 [MarkusK]
+1
18:45:35 [Rinke]
+1 with bijan's sidenote
18:45:44 [alanr]
ack hendler
18:45:45 [Elisa]
+1
18:46:10 [hendler]
I can't live with what Bijan said, but since it just his opinion and not part of the record...
18:46:14 [alanr]
Following a discussion with Ian, in which we acknowledge Peter's
18:46:16 [alanr]
comment below and subsequent discussion on the mailing list, and
18:46:17 [alanr]
Jim's desire to postpone this issue, Ian and I propose that we close
18:46:19 [alanr]
the issue by postponing it, noting Peter's comment.
18:46:51 [bijan]
It is part of the record
18:46:56 [bijan]
How not?
18:46:59 [bijan]
I just put it into the recrod
18:47:33 [pfps]
I will not be registering a formal objection
18:47:44 [hendler]
pfps: votes against, but does not request further discussion
18:47:57 [hendler]
RESOLVED: close (as POSTPONED) Issue 55 (owl:class v. rdfs:class) per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0023.html
18:48:09 [sandro]
(I am very confused -- I thought -1 was a formal objection. But this doesn't seem like the issue on which to get into that.)
18:48:38 [sandro]
(basically, Peter, I think what you mean to say is "-0")
18:48:54 [hendler]
TOPIC: Should we keep or abandon data/object property punning
18:49:32 [hendler]
alan: several issues have come up linked together with respect to punning - esp around cardinality restrictions
18:49:42 [bmotik]
+q
18:49:43 [alanr]
q?
18:49:45 [hendler]
alan: so some people said maybe we should drop this kind of punning
18:49:51 [bmotik]
zakim, unmute me
18:49:51 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:50:20 [hendler]
boris: note that IMO this issue is not just about datatypes, but is general to our approach to typing (cf emails on Dec 15 2007)
18:50:44 [pfps]
q+
18:50:44 [bmotik]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/0184.html
18:50:50 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
18:50:50 [Zakim]
pfps should no longer be muted
18:50:52 [alanr]
ack bmotik
18:50:54 [bmotik]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/0185.html
18:50:54 [alanr]
ack pfps
18:51:02 [bmotik]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/0186.html
18:51:18 [hendler]
pfps: in some sense I echo Boris' comment, I don't see how abandoning this punning fixes issue 65
18:51:19 [bijan]
I don't see either
18:52:17 [hendler]
alan: as I understand it - there's a relation between vocabulary for easy local typing, as opposed to just the punning
18:52:40 [hendler]
alan: (nots Jon Reese is sitting in on this portion of the call)
18:52:47 [hendler]
s/nots/notes
18:53:09 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:53:09 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:53:12 [hendler]
alan: asks about declarations
18:53:27 [hendler]
pfps: not local - each use of a term has to be typed
18:53:38 [bmotik]
q+
18:53:58 [hendler]
bijan: describes issue w/respect to a restriction - how do I know if this is being used as a data or object type
18:54:17 [jjc]
Zakim, mute me
18:54:17 [Zakim]
jjc should now be muted
18:54:22 [hendler]
bijan: so problem is we cannot "contextualize" use of a URI
18:54:40 [JeffP]
zakim, who is talking?
18:54:50 [Zakim]
JeffP, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: bijan (99%), jar (10%), Sandro (11%), hendler (35%)
18:54:53 [hendler]
bijan: with typed vocabulary = "Data somevaluesfrom" ...
18:55:00 [hendler]
ian: will chair so alan will discuss
18:55:06 [IanH]
yes
18:55:21 [IanH]
q?
18:56:00 [jjc]
Zakim, mute hendler
18:56:00 [Zakim]
hendler should now be muted
18:56:12 [sandro]
IanH, we can't hear you
18:56:14 [IanH]
unmute me
18:56:17 [jjc]
Jim - I muted you because you seemed to be noisy
18:56:21 [sandro]
zakim, unmute IanH
18:56:21 [Zakim]
IanH should no longer be muted
18:56:21 [bijan]
zakim, unmute ian
18:56:22 [Zakim]
IanH was not muted, bijan
18:57:10 [hendler]
alan and ian and peter send time discussing how long to discuss the issue instead of discussing it
18:57:17 [alanr]
q?
18:57:18 [IanH]
q?
18:57:22 [alanr]
a+ alanr
18:57:30 [alanr]
q+ alanr
18:57:44 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:57:44 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:57:48 [hendler]
ian eventually says "Carry on"
18:57:53 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:58:12 [hendler]
boris: I believe it is slightly misleading to say this is just issue 65 - this comes up a lot
18:58:25 [bijan]
q+
18:58:41 [hendler]
ian: boris, can you summarize quickly?
18:59:04 [hendler]
boris: our general approach to typing things in ontologies is complex w/respect to a number of issues (parsing RDF, punning, etc.)
18:59:14 [alanr]
note: The intention was to discuss the punning issue here, with 65 as support. I would drop 65 as rationale in order to keep on topic
18:59:16 [IanH]
q?
18:59:29 [hendler]
... these are relatd, and what we do and don't allow relates to that
18:59:44 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:59:44 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:59:44 [hendler]
... in my emails, I discussed typing triples and the compatibilities
18:59:48 [IanH]
ack alanr
19:00:12 [jjc]
q+ to note alternative design on typing triples/declarations
19:00:13 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
19:00:21 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
19:00:31 [hendler]
alan: I meant primarily to discuss the particular punning issues, so maybe identifying 65 was the issue... I think there are specific problems w/this kind of punning
19:00:55 [hendler]
... seems if we don't use this we need annotation properties back in
19:01:03 [IanH]
ack bijan
19:01:20 [alanr]
we didn't take annotations out. We took out annotation properties
19:01:32 [hendler]
bijan: one reason we introduced punning was to let more OWL RDF graphs be in DL - punning made some of this easy
19:01:33 [alanr]
there is a different mechanisms
19:01:47 [IanH]
no parallel conversations on IRC please!
19:01:49 [hendler]
... this way, more things out in the word would not have to worry about DL vs. Full issues
19:02:22 [bmotik]
Bijan, even without punning, in OWL 1.0 DL we'd have problems releted to parsing RDF and declarations, particularly when you also have imports
19:02:44 [hendler]
... there are ways we can look at this - things are either always one or the other, or things could be typed, or (etc)
19:02:53 [IanH]
q?
19:03:39 [hendler]
... so the problem is we fix the problem (of rejecting graphs) by coming up wth a solution that also rejects graphs (as it were)
19:03:44 [hendler]
... so not sure what to do about it
19:03:47 [jjc]
ack me
19:03:48 [Zakim]
jjc, you wanted to note alternative design on typing triples/declarations
19:03:52 [IanH]
q?
19:04:07 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
19:04:07 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
19:04:28 [hendler]
jeremy: thanks Bijan, that was helpful - my thought is perhaps we could come up with a different way to handle typing triples
19:04:33 [Zakim]
-Vojtech,
19:04:41 [IanH]
q?
19:04:48 [alanr]
q+
19:04:49 [hendler]
q+ to add 2 cents on this
19:05:02 [bijan]
q+
19:05:11 [IanH]
q?
19:05:12 [hendler]
jeremy: thinks that the issue of wider RDF compatibility important
19:05:20 [IanH]
ack alanr
19:05:40 [jjc]
jeremy: it may be possible to have SHOULD force statements to put typing triples early, to make DL parsing of RDF/XML easier
19:05:59 [hendler]
alan: question - to take "second half of this" (not typing issue) - i.e. we would like for the Web architecture for instance names to mean different things in different contexts
19:06:10 [hendler]
... relates this to punning and entailments
19:06:19 [jjc]
jeremy: this could be done perhaps with putting the typing triples in a separate file that is imported first
19:06:23 [IanH]
q?
19:06:49 [hendler]
alan: so what about cardinality of ... (scribe gets totally lost - hopes Alan will help)
19:07:17 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
19:07:17 [Zakim]
pfps was already muted, pfps
19:07:23 [IanH]
q?
19:07:23 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
19:07:24 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
19:07:28 [alanr]
cardinality 3 data, cardinality 4 object. When this "means" the same property is the cardinality of that 3, 4 or 7?
19:07:32 [IanH]
q?
19:07:37 [IanH]
ack hendler
19:07:38 [Zakim]
hendler, you wanted to add 2 cents on this
19:07:45 [IanH]
ack bijan
19:07:50 [IanH]
q?
19:08:04 [IanH]
q+ hendler
19:08:06 [hendler]
bijan: Alan, I think that doesn't happen - untyped quantifiers (somevaluesfrom) and a couple of constructs... (and then bijan loses scribe)...
19:08:19 [hendler]
bijan: but this is like qualified cardinality
19:08:25 [hendler]
bijan: so doable
19:09:05 [hendler]
bijan: problem is when we cannot know what they are - it's lack of information, not too much, that causes the problem
19:09:18 [IanH]
q?
19:09:49 [hendler]
zakim, unmute me
19:09:49 [Zakim]
hendler was not muted, hendler
19:10:00 [bijan]
q+
19:10:11 [IanH]
ack hendler
19:10:12 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
19:10:47 [alanr]
summary: Think of typed quantifiers as qualified cardinality constraints
19:10:58 [IanH]
q?
19:11:05 [IanH]
ack bijan
19:11:36 [hendler]
hendler: thinks if we can find way to make this "optional" as opposed to required it would make a lot of OWL/RDF graphs be in OWL DL -- this vocabulary hurts this
19:12:05 [IanH]
q?
19:12:08 [alanr]
q+ to ask whether we want data/object property punning because we *can*, or whether we think it will be useful and asked for by the community
19:12:10 [hendler]
bijan: so maybe we could add this as a way to do things, and maybe in some "how to handle RDF graphs" (which may be slightly heuristic) we could suggest how to fix these things
19:12:28 [bmotik]
q+
19:12:30 [hendler]
bijan: essentially defaults that would help with the coercion
19:12:39 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
19:12:39 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
19:13:22 [hendler]
ian: global issue - I think we're going to need an email discussion on this, so maybe someone should lead email discussion on this following on from Boris' email?
19:13:30 [jjc]
q= to comment on e-mail discussion
19:13:38 [jjc]
q+ to comment on e-mail discussion
19:13:40 [IanH]
q?
19:14:08 [IanH]
ack alanr
19:14:08 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to ask whether we want data/object property punning because we *can*, or whether we think it will be useful and asked for by the community
19:14:13 [IanH]
q?
19:14:28 [hendler]
alan: I find this discussion helpful, glad we had it, but -- is this a case of us doing something because technology says we can, or is this something somebody has asked for -- do we have use cases?
19:14:45 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
19:14:45 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
19:14:50 [hendler]
alan: if this adds complexity, and isn't called for, maybe we should consider whether it is worth the trouble and potential incompatibilities
19:15:25 [hendler]
boris: I don't know whether people have asked for this explicitly, but it did come up in annotation discussion - punning helps
19:15:34 [IanH]
q?
19:15:39 [IanH]
ack bmotik
19:15:42 [hendler]
... when URI is used two ways --- but the question is "does this add complexity to the spec"?
19:15:59 [hendler]
... I mean we do already have this split.
19:16:06 [jjc]
ack me
19:16:06 [Zakim]
jjc, you wanted to comment on e-mail discussion
19:16:07 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
19:16:08 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
19:16:13 [IanH]
q?
19:16:41 [pfps]
q+
19:16:49 [hendler]
jeremy: moving things to email is not always useful - but chairs focusing some issues to the email does help -
19:16:52 [hendler]
ian: good idea
19:16:53 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
19:16:53 [Zakim]
pfps should no longer be muted
19:16:59 [hendler]
ian: let's focus on this issue for this week
19:17:14 [IanH]
q?
19:17:19 [IanH]
ack pfps
19:17:35 [hendler]
pfps: I agree w/Jeremy, but if we're going to do this sort of thing, we need more lead time -- Ian: I agree
19:17:59 [jjc]
+1 to peter: the chairs should give a call-to-discuss an issue shortly after telecon
19:18:00 [ewallace]
+1 on Peter's proposed schedule for email issue focus
19:18:09 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
19:18:09 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
19:18:15 [jjc]
zakim, mute me
19:18:15 [Zakim]
jjc should now be muted
19:18:23 [hendler]
perhaps the wiki irc agent could have some way we could note - discussions to be moved to email - so that people could more easily see those in the logs
19:18:58 [hendler]
ian: back to alan
19:19:15 [jjc]
suggested action ian to modify WG process to include 'issues to discuss this week'
19:19:16 [hendler]
TOPIC: raised issue
19:19:50 [hendler]
issue92
19:20:00 [bmotik]
+1 to take up the issue
19:20:16 [Rinke]
+1
19:20:22 [pfps]
+1 this issue already has a "resolution-in-waiting"
19:20:25 [hendler]
+1 to take up this issue (and the realated issues Rinke brought up w/other owl ontology declaration vocabularies)
19:20:41 [hendler]
alan: issue92 is opened for discussion
19:20:53 [hendler]
TOPIC: issue 29 and issue 74
19:21:01 [alanr]
bijan are you there?
19:21:04 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
19:21:04 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
19:21:30 [msmith]
q+ to ask why discussed together
19:21:38 [IanH]
mike smith might be the right person
19:21:47 [alanr]
ack msmith
19:21:47 [Zakim]
msmith, you wanted to ask why discussed together
19:21:57 [hendler]
mike: I don't think this issues are the same
19:22:15 [hendler]
mike: they were split into two issues because they weren't really related.
19:22:18 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
19:22:18 [Zakim]
pfps should no longer be muted
19:22:41 [alanr]
q?
19:22:54 [alanr]
q?
19:22:55 [hendler]
mike: on issue 74, I sent some email
19:22:56 [jjc]
I care but have forgotten
19:23:03 [hendler]
mike: not clear if anyone cares
19:23:07 [pfps]
In some sense, I don't care, as this is all RDF-compatability stuff.
19:23:16 [IanH]
q+
19:23:19 [jjc]
it's important to me that we don't step on XS WG's toes
19:23:25 [alanr]
ack ianh
19:23:25 [bijan]
q+
19:23:53 [hendler]
ian: suggest in line w/previous discussion, it might be case that we suggest this as mailing list point
19:24:02 [hendler]
ian: we could revisit next week
19:24:40 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
19:24:40 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
19:24:47 [alanr]
q?
19:24:50 [alanr]
ack bijan
19:24:59 [msmith]
hendler, there is not an email linked from you at the issue
19:25:05 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl
19:25:09 [msmith]
q+ on the XML Schema WG
19:25:13 [pfps]
q+
19:25:18 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
19:25:18 [Zakim]
pfps was not muted, pfps
19:25:19 [msmith]
q+ on XS WG
19:25:25 [hendler]
bijan: I thought this included interaction w/XS WG
19:25:32 [msmith]
q-
19:25:40 [hendler]
pfps: I sent an email, was told it is under "heated" discussion
19:26:44 [uli]
q+
19:26:48 [jjc]
q+
19:26:57 [msmith]
+1 to require someone to advocate for the change
19:26:58 [pfps]
q-
19:26:59 [hendler]
pfps: drop me
19:27:18 [jjc]
ack me
19:27:31 [hendler]
uli: I don't want to drop this, because I agree with Bijan it would be nice if we could just use xsd: - so why should we not wait and see?
19:27:34 [JeffP]
+1 bijan and uli
19:28:03 [hendler]
jjc: procedurally, I suggest we write it into our spec and ask them to review it
19:28:04 [pfps]
+1 it seems to me that the XML Schema specs allow the usage we want
19:28:37 [ewallace]
+1 to "just making the change"
19:28:39 [hendler]
bijan: advocate we close this making the change, and reopen if we discover an issue
19:29:05 [pfps]
the proposal is part of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0017.html
19:29:30 [jjc]
ACTION: jeremy to write a proposal to close issue-74 XSD URIs for facets
19:29:30 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-63 - Write a proposal to close issue-74 XSD URIs for facets [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2008-01-16].
19:29:32 [msmith]
ACTION: bijan to draft proposal to close ISSUE-29
19:29:32 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-64 - Draft proposal to close ISSUE-29 [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-01-16].
19:29:41 [hendler]
thanks mike!
19:30:18 [pfps]
bye
19:30:21 [uli]
bye bye
19:30:21 [bcuencagrau]
bye
19:30:21 [Zakim]
-DougL
19:30:21 [JeffP]
bye
19:30:21 [jjc]
bye
19:30:22 [Rinke]
bye
19:30:22 [Zakim]
-Evan_Wallace
19:30:24 [hendler]
alan: propose to adjourn
19:30:24 [MarkusK]
bye
19:30:24 [bmotik]
bye
19:30:24 [Zakim]
-Zhe
19:30:25 [Zakim]
-msmith
19:30:26 [Zakim]
-jjc
19:30:27 [hendler]
ADJOURNED
19:30:27 [Zakim]
-jar
19:30:28 [Zakim]
-uli
19:30:29 [Zakim]
-Carsten
19:30:30 [Zakim]
-MarkusK
19:30:32 [Zakim]
-JeffP
19:30:33 [Zakim]
-bcuencagrau
19:30:34 [Zakim]
-IanH
19:30:36 [Zakim]
-bijan
19:30:38 [Zakim]
-bmotik
19:30:40 [Zakim]
-pfps
19:30:42 [Zakim]
-Elisa_Kendall
19:30:44 [Zakim]
-Rinke
19:31:08 [Zakim]
-Sandro
19:31:10 [Zakim]
-hendler
19:31:11 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()12:00PM has ended
19:31:12 [Zakim]
Attendees were +8652aaaa, bijan, IanH, Rinke, jar, jjc, bmotik, MarkusK, +018652aabb, Elisa_Kendall, Evan_Wallace, Zhe, Carsten, bcuencagrau, pfps, Sandro, +1.518.698.aadd, uli,
19:31:15 [Zakim]
... hendler, msmith, DougL, Vojtech,, JeffP
19:37:32 [sandro]
Present: bijan, IanH, Rinke, jar, jjc, bmotik, MarkusK, Elisa_Kendall, Evan_Wallace, Zhe, Carsten, bcuencagrau, pfps, Sandro, uli, hendler, msmith, DougL, Vojtech, JeffP
21:28:59 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl