IRC log of owl on 2008-01-16

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:58:44 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:58:44 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:58:46 [bijan]
zakim, who's here?
17:58:46 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P11, +1.212.239.aaaa
17:58:47 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, Carsten, IanH, sandro, alanr, pfps, ivan, MartinD, trackbot-ng
17:58:56 [alanr]
zakim, aaaa is me
17:58:56 [Zakim]
+alanr; got it
17:58:57 [bijan]
zakim, ??P11 is me
17:58:58 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
17:59:01 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:59:01 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
17:59:03 [Zakim]
17:59:05 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
17:59:10 [Zakim]
17:59:17 [ivan]
zakim, who is here?
17:59:17 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bijan, Ivan
17:59:19 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
17:59:19 [RRSAgent]
17:59:23 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:59:27 [Zakim]
On IRC I see msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, Carsten, IanH, sandro, alanr, pfps, ivan, MartinD, trackbot-ng
17:59:31 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:59:39 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
17:59:40 [bcuencag]
bcuencag has joined #owl
17:59:41 [Zakim]
17:59:43 [Zakim]
17:59:48 [pfps]
zakim, ??p13 is me
17:59:53 [Zakim]
+pfps; got it
17:59:59 [Zakim]
18:00:05 [Zakim]
+ +8652aabb
18:00:06 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
18:00:21 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
18:00:22 [IanH]
zakim, aabb is me
18:00:36 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.408.aacc
18:00:41 [Zakim]
18:00:42 [Zakim]
+IanH; got it
18:00:46 [Zakim]
+ +9082aadd
18:00:58 [Zakim]
18:01:05 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
18:01:05 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bijan (muted), Ivan, alanr, pfps (muted), Sandro, IanH, msmith, ??P21, +9082aadd, ??P8
18:01:06 [MartinD]
zakim, aadd is me
18:01:06 [bcuencag]
zakim ??P18 is me
18:01:08 [Zakim]
+MartinD; got it
18:01:10 [Zakim]
On IRC I see bcuencag, bmotik, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, Carsten, IanH, sandro, alanr, pfps, ivan, MartinD, trackbot-ng
18:01:10 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??P21 is me
18:01:10 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
18:01:19 [bcuencag]
zakim, ??P18 is me
18:01:19 [Zakim]
I already had ??P18 as Sandro, bcuencag
18:01:37 [MartinD]
zakim, mute me
18:01:37 [Zakim]
MartinD should now be muted
18:02:03 [bcuencag]
Zakim, +9082aadd is me
18:02:03 [Zakim]
sorry, bcuencag, I do not recognize a party named '+9082aadd'
18:02:13 [Zakim]
18:02:17 [Zakim]
+ +49.351.4.aaee
18:02:34 [sandro]
q- bmotik
18:02:35 [Carsten]
zakim, aaee is me
18:02:35 [Zakim]
+Carsten; got it
18:02:35 [bijan]
18:02:35 [MartinD]
zakim, +9082aadd is me
18:02:36 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:02:37 [Zakim]
sorry, MartinD, I do not recognize a party named '+9082aadd'
18:02:38 [Zakim]
18:02:39 [DougL]
DougL has joined #owl
18:02:41 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:02:42 [Carsten]
zakim, mute me
18:02:42 [Zakim]
Carsten should now be muted
18:02:42 [bijan]
q- bmotik
18:02:48 [Zakim]
+ +018652aaff
18:03:07 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
18:03:37 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
18:03:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bijan (muted), Ivan, alanr, pfps (muted), Sandro, IanH, msmith, bmotik (muted), MartinD (muted), Carsten (muted), DougL, +018652aaff
18:03:41 [pfps]
I put issue-93 into play
18:03:46 [MartinD]
+01865 is a UK number, bernardo, so might be yours?
18:03:48 [Zakim]
18:03:53 [bcuencag]
18:04:01 [bcuencag]
but zakim didn't see me
18:04:06 [sandro]
Zakim, aaff is bcuencag
18:04:06 [Zakim]
+bcuencag; got it
18:04:09 [Achille]
Zakim, IBM is Achille
18:04:09 [Zakim]
+Achille; got it
18:04:23 [Zakim]
18:04:32 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
18:04:35 [ivan]
zakim, ??P24 is jeremy
18:04:35 [Zakim]
+jeremy; got it
18:04:36 [sandro]
zakim, ??P24 is Jeremy
18:04:36 [Zakim]
I already had ??P24 as jeremy, sandro
18:05:09 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
18:05:09 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bijan (muted), Ivan, alanr, pfps (muted), Sandro, IanH, msmith, bmotik (muted), MartinD (muted), Carsten (muted), DougL, bcuencag, Achille, jeremy (muted)
18:05:35 [MartinD]
so, shoould i be typing?
18:06:12 [bcuencag]
zakim, mute me
18:06:12 [Zakim]
bcuencag should now be muted
18:06:12 [MartinD]
ian, I can do it (martin) = and I am not around next week
18:06:19 [sandro]
Present: Bijan, Ivan, alanr, pfps, Sandro, IanH, msmith, bmotik, MartinD, Carsten, DougL, bcuencag, Achille, jeremy
18:06:43 [sandro]
scribenick: MartinD
18:06:50 [MartinD]
I guess I am fairly to the top
18:07:02 [MartinD]
scribenick: MartinD
18:07:04 [Zakim]
+ +1.603.897.aagg
18:07:17 [MartinD]
Topic: agenda amendments
18:07:21 [jjc]
jjc has joined #owl
18:07:29 [bijan]
If there's primer or restructuring comments I'd love to hear them
18:07:31 [pfps]
18:07:32 [MartinD]
Ian: set this scribing business up on mailing list
18:07:33 [bijan]
as an agenda amendments
18:07:35 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
18:07:38 [Zakim]
pfps should no longer be muted
18:07:43 [pfps]
-1, and I read them
18:07:45 [Achille]
18:07:57 [MartinD]
PROPOSED: accept last week's minutes
18:08:11 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #owl
18:08:16 [bijan]
Aren't Wikis fun
18:08:16 [bijan]
Bullwinkle: Watch me pull a rabbit out of this hat!
18:08:16 [bijan]
Rocky: Bullwinkle, that trick never works!
18:08:16 [bijan]
Bullwinkle: I gotta get me a new hat!
18:08:18 [jjc]
18:08:22 [jjc]
q- jeremy
18:08:31 [MartinD]
Ian: do the minutes need more cleaning up?
18:08:33 [pfps]
18:08:37 [bijan]
18:08:41 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
18:08:41 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
18:08:41 [MartinD]
+1 (accept)
18:08:52 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
18:08:52 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bijan (muted), Ivan, alanr, pfps (muted), Sandro, IanH, msmith, bmotik (muted), MartinD (muted), Carsten (muted), DougL, bcuencag (muted), Achille, jeremy
18:08:55 [Zakim]
... (muted), +1.603.897.aagg
18:09:01 [MartinD]
Ian: let's put it off until next week, ask Jim to clean it up
18:09:19 [Zakim]
18:09:27 [pfps]
still missing pointers to talks in F2F minutes
18:09:30 [Zhe]
zakim, ??P27 is me
18:09:30 [Zakim]
+Zhe; got it
18:09:33 [MartinD]
Ian, are the minutes accepted = resolved??
18:10:18 [MartinD]
PROPOSED: Manchester minutes are also postponed for later
18:10:22 [alanr]
action: Alan to add links to presentations to F2F minutes
18:10:22 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-66 - Add links to presentations to F2F minutes [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-01-23].
18:10:24 [pfps]
18:10:26 [ivan]
18:10:28 [JeffP]
zakim, who is here?
18:10:28 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bijan (muted), Ivan, alanr, pfps (muted), Sandro, IanH, msmith, bmotik (muted), MartinD (muted), Carsten (muted), DougL, bcuencag (muted), Achille, jeremy
18:10:28 [bijan]
Perhaps some other volunteer to help with thte F2f minutes?
18:10:31 [Zakim]
... (muted), +1.603.897.aagg, Zhe
18:10:32 [bijan]
Alan alraedy has to do a lot
18:10:32 [Zakim]
On IRC I see JeffP, jeremy, Zhe, Achille, DougL, bcuencag, bmotik, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, Carsten, IanH, sandro, alanr, pfps, ivan, MartinD, trackbot-ng
18:10:42 [pfps]
18:10:47 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Accept F2F1 minutes with presentation links being added later
18:10:47 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
18:10:47 [Zakim]
pfps should no longer be muted
18:11:00 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
18:11:00 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
18:11:04 [sandro]
+1 accept minutes
18:11:06 [bijan]
18:11:08 [ivan]
18:11:09 [jeremy]
18:11:11 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:11:11 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:11:16 [JeffP]
Zhe, is +1603897.. your number?
18:11:26 [Zhe]
jeffp: yes
18:11:26 [mschnei]
mschnei has joined #owl
18:11:29 [ivan]
ack bijan
18:11:44 [JeffP]
zakim, aagg is Zhe
18:11:44 [Zakim]
+Zhe; got it
18:12:14 [sandro]
Present: Bijan, Ivan, alanr, pfps, Sandro, IanH, msmith, bmotik, MartinD, Carsten, DougL, bcuencag, Achille, jeremy, Zhe
18:12:16 [MartinD]
Alan: links and presentations were communicate via mailing list
18:12:21 [JeffP]
zakim, ??P27 is me
18:12:22 [Zakim]
I already had ??P27 as Zhe, JeffP
18:12:47 [jeremy]
Zakim, Zhe is really JeffP
18:12:49 [Zakim]
+JeffP; got it
18:12:49 [alanr]
18:12:58 [JeffP]
jeremy, thanks!
18:13:00 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:13:01 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:13:08 [Zakim]
18:13:40 [MartinD]
RESOLVED: Accept Manchester mintues subject to clean-up and finalization
18:13:41 [Zakim]
18:13:50 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Accept F2F1 minutes with presentation links being added later
18:14:15 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Accept F2F1 minutes with presentation links being added later
18:14:16 [alanr]
18:14:20 [pfps]
18:14:21 [bijan]
18:14:25 [jeremy]
My presentation is linked from some minutes (may be last weeks) I will find the link and post again
18:14:35 [MartinD]
Topic: Pending review actions
18:14:45 [MartinD]
Ian: most are in a good shape
18:14:47 [pfps]
all pending review actions look OK
18:14:48 [bijan]
18:14:55 [MartinD]
Ian: Bijan has completed his action
18:14:58 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:14:58 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:15:32 [MartinD]
Bijan: three actions concluded, scenario is under control...
18:15:42 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:15:42 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:15:45 [MartinD]
Ian: action for Jeremy, also completed?
18:15:49 [jeremy]
Zakim, unmute me
18:15:49 [Zakim]
jeremy should no longer be muted
18:15:55 [jeremy]
Zakim, mute me
18:15:55 [Zakim]
jeremy should now be muted
18:16:19 [jeremy]
Zakim, unmute me
18:16:19 [Zakim]
jeremy should no longer be muted
18:16:24 [MartinD]
Ian: actions were completed adequetaly, so are there any problems with them?
18:16:52 [MartinD]
?: what we need to the with these actions pending review?
18:18:13 [MartinD]
Topic: overdue actions
18:18:40 [jeremy]
My slides
18:18:41 [MartinD]
Sandro: working on action 43, in progress... no specific date yet
18:18:57 [MartinD]
Sandro: will try to fix it by Feb 5th (?)
18:19:14 [bijan]
It's done
18:19:18 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:19:18 [Zakim]
bijan was already muted, bijan
18:19:22 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:19:22 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:19:28 [sandro]
s/Feb 5th/Jan 25/
18:19:38 [MartinD]
Ian: action 56 overdue is probably done -> Bijan says: has been rolled into n-ary proposal...
18:19:57 [MartinD]
Bijan: action should be closed, more info to be circulated this week
18:20:10 [Zakim]
18:21:01 [alanr]
18:21:08 [MartinD]
Topic: Proposals to resove issues
18:21:15 [mschnei]
hi there, am I finally in?
18:21:24 [MartinD]
PROPOSED: Issue 29 (datatype vs. data range)
18:21:41 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
18:21:41 [Zakim]
pfps should no longer be muted
18:21:46 [MartinD]
Ian: peter refreshes what proposal is about
18:22:09 [mschnei]
god thanks ;-)
18:22:21 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:22:21 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:22:32 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
18:22:32 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
18:22:37 [jeremy]
18:22:41 [msmith]
q+ to ask about point 4
18:22:46 [jeremy]
Zakim, unmute me
18:22:46 [Zakim]
jeremy should no longer be muted
18:22:56 [ivan]
ack jeremy
18:22:57 [bmotik]
I didn't understand: has this been already implemented in the documents?
18:22:58 [MartinD]
PFPS: proposal is to move to rdf data type, we checked rdf semantics, datarange is deprecated
18:23:06 [alanr]
18:23:43 [pfps]
PROPOSED; ISSUE-29 move from owl:Datarange to rdfs:Datatype
18:23:50 [MartinD]
Jeremy: we use data range before, we may want to think about the past use
18:23:57 [pfps]
Hmm, I think that Jeremy's point needs thought
18:23:58 [MartinD]
Jeremy: only noticed now
18:24:07 [jeremy]
18:24:12 [msmith]
18:24:17 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
18:24:17 [Zakim]
pfps was already muted, pfps
18:24:18 [JeffP]
18:24:32 [jeremy]
Zakim, mute me
18:24:32 [Zakim]
jeremy should now be muted
18:24:43 [MartinD]
Issue 73: owl:thing being infinte
18:24:50 [pfps]
+1 to reject 73
18:24:51 [alanr]
I raised issue and concur on rejection
18:24:53 [alanr]
18:24:56 [bijan]
+1 to reject 73
18:24:58 [MartinD]
Ian: this seems to be unanimous, people agree to reject
18:25:02 [IanH]
PROPOSED: close (as REJECTED) Issue 73 (Should owl:Thing be necessarily infinite?) as per
18:25:04 [jeremy]
18:25:11 [msmith]
+1 to close as rejected ISSUE-73
18:25:15 [jeremy]
Zakim, unmute me
18:25:15 [Zakim]
jeremy should no longer be muted
18:25:17 [Achille]
+1 to close
18:25:20 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #owl
18:25:24 [Achille]
as rejected
18:25:31 [bcuencag]
+1 to close as rejected
18:25:43 [Carsten]
18:25:48 [bijan]
18:26:02 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:26:02 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:26:03 [Zakim]
18:26:05 [DougL]
18:26:08 [Zhe]
18:26:16 [MartinD]
Jeremy: if nobody can support Jeremy's position, Jeremy notes his opposition, but sees no point in contiunuing debate
18:26:18 [IanH]
18:26:19 [bmotik]
+1 to close issue as rejected
18:26:32 [MartinD]
Bijan: is this an objection from HP? or the status...
18:26:38 [sandro]
Jeremy: this is NOT a formal objection.
18:26:41 [MartinD]
Jeremy: it's not a formal objection
18:27:22 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:27:22 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:27:28 [sandro]
Jeremy: there may be enough small problems like this, that it may total to a formal objection......
18:28:05 [MartinD]
Ian: close the issue, record Jeremy/HP voting against...
18:28:19 [sandro]
ian: ongoing discussion of this is not likely to get us to consensus. Jeremy seems to agree with this assessment -- he just wants a "no" vote recorded.
18:28:24 [IanH]
18:28:29 [MartinD]
Jeremy: maybe HP should review the vote against, but perhaps at the next publication stage
18:28:33 [JeffP]
18:28:33 [MartinD]
18:28:42 [ivan]
18:28:45 [sandro]
18:28:55 [MartinD]
Ian: make sure we record everybody's voice, incl. abstaining
18:29:21 [IanH]
RESOLVED: close (as REJECTED) Issue 73 (Should owl:Thing be necessarily infinite?) as per
18:29:54 [MartinD]
Moving to issue 74, xsd facets
18:29:57 [IanH]
PROPOSED: close (as RESOLVED) Issue 74 (Use the xsd namespace for the facet names) as per
18:30:06 [MartinD]
Ian: discussed last time, everybody seems happy along the above lines
18:30:06 [bmotik]
18:30:10 [bijan]
18:30:10 [MartinD]
Ian: quick vote
18:30:11 [pfps]
+1 to resolve 74
18:30:12 [alanr]
18:30:14 [jeremy]
18:30:14 [Achille]
18:30:15 [DougL]
18:30:15 [msmith]
+q to ask about scope
18:30:17 [Zhe]
18:30:19 [IanH]
18:30:23 [MartinD]
18:30:27 [bijan]
18:30:29 [Elisa]
18:30:36 [IanH]
ack bijan
18:30:41 [ivan]
ack msmith
18:30:41 [Zakim]
msmith, you wanted to ask about scope
18:31:25 [JeffP]
18:31:29 [MartinD]
MSmith: asking about the scope... there might be some contentious item..
18:31:39 [jeremy]
Clarified all A-D
18:31:40 [MartinD]
Ian: discussed last time,
18:31:50 [msmith]
18:32:01 [IanH]
RESOLVED: close (as RESOLVED) Issue 74 (Use the xsd namespace for the facet names) as per
18:32:46 [MartinD]
Topic: Discussion, Blank nodes and Skolems (issue 3)
18:32:56 [MartinD]
Ian: some discussion on the mailing list...
18:32:57 [jeremy]
(bijan first?)
18:33:04 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:33:04 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
18:33:29 [MartinD]
Bijan: responded to Jeremy's msg.,
18:33:58 [MartinD]
Bijan: ffrom the beginnning, in owl 1.0 we could represent tree-like patterns of anonymous
18:34:05 [MartinD]
Bijan: serialized as blank nodes
18:34:43 [MartinD]
Bijan: RDF extensionally qualifies all b-nodes, which in OWL would mean undecidability
18:35:13 [MartinD]
Bijan: possibly have them as syntactic sugar, to handle RDF graphs as users expect
18:35:34 [MartinD]
Bijan: Karsten proposed a spec. role to represent true extensionals
18:35:43 [jeremy]
(I'm behind on the universal prop and existentials)
18:35:44 [MartinD]
Bijan: objections, question?
18:35:54 [jeremy]
Zakim, unmute me
18:35:57 [Zakim]
jeremy should no longer be muted
18:36:19 [MartinD]
Jeremy: discussed issue and it's clear that many implementations use skolems...
18:36:28 [bijan]
q+ to ask about "implementation techniques"
18:36:37 [IanH]
18:37:17 [bmotik]
18:37:20 [MartinD]
Jeremy: there were implementations in previous wg, that's why we defined certain checks
18:37:24 [pfps]
q+ to talk about what the OWL 1.0 specs imply
18:37:41 [MartinD]
Ian: is this the case that we define conformance w.r.t consistency check, not being able to tell diff
18:38:00 [IanH]
18:38:10 [MartinD]
Jeremy: basically yes, diff parts of rdf graph correspond to dl constructs
18:38:19 [bmotik]
Jeremy, I didn't udnerstand that
18:38:33 [MartinD]
Jeremy: b-nodes treated diff in owl-full = its semantics becomes more difficult
18:38:50 [ivan]
ack bijan
18:38:50 [Zakim]
bijan, you wanted to ask about "implementation techniques"
18:38:57 [IanH]
ack bijan
18:39:34 [MartinD]
Bijan: not understanding what is meant by impl. techniques, skolemization is a common one, but we're proposing something stronger, so taht some entailments hold,
18:40:00 [MartinD]
Bijan: if we reason about abox, we recognize the items as individuals, as people expect should happen
18:40:16 [MartinD]
Bijan: owl-full seems a bit hypothetical problem?
18:41:03 [IanH]
18:41:11 [MartinD]
Bijan: need to reconcile arguments that in some cases keep the old approach vs. cases that change semantics (of owl full), which could break reasoners
18:41:33 [MartinD]
Bijan: we're trying to bridge the gap between dl and full, at the cost of some abstract parts of the theory
18:41:38 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:41:38 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:41:43 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:41:43 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:41:45 [IanH]
ack boris
18:41:45 [ivan]
ack bmotik
18:41:54 [pfps]
18:42:28 [MartinD]
Boris: reiterating Jeremy, if we treat skolems as individuals or exist. variables, doesn't matter... as long as we maintain consistency criteria? correct?
18:42:59 [MartinD]
Boris: we may actually strengthen this, in rdf we can have b-nodes on syntax level
18:43:20 [alanr]
can't tell the difference in owl1.0 afaik - needed negated property assertions ?
18:43:25 [MartinD]
Boris: b--nodes in entailed ontologies?
18:43:37 [IanH]
18:43:39 [MartinD]
Boris: treat b-nodes as existentials?
18:43:58 [IanH]
18:44:13 [MartinD]
Boris: if it's on the right hand side... if it's in the graph part it's something else
18:44:40 [bijan]
q+ to disagree
18:45:10 [Carsten]
What is the opposite of "b-bode in the data"?
18:45:11 [MartinD]
Ian: interesting thing = worried about the case when everything is skolemized, incl b-nodes?
18:45:19 [bijan]
Good point by Ian....though they are alrady skolemized!
18:45:31 [bijan]
Carsten, tbox axioms use bnodes for syntax
18:45:45 [bmotik]
q+ for Jeremy
18:45:51 [bijan]
e.g., C subClassOf [a restriction; onProperty P; someValuesFrom C]
18:45:52 [MartinD]
Jeremy: coming from owl-full impl...
18:45:52 [bmotik]
q- for
18:45:53 [pfps]
hmm, skolemizing syntax on the RHS would have grave consequences
18:45:56 [jeremy]
18:45:58 [Carsten]
bijan: in which case does this happen?
18:46:04 [bijan]
the brackets are bnodes
18:46:20 [alanr]
18:46:22 [bijan]
Carsten, pervasively...any class expression really
18:46:30 [MartinD]
Ian: when skolemizing individuals would cause problems... it's a thing what other people talk about?
18:46:31 [IanH]
18:46:34 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:46:34 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:46:45 [alanr]
Jeremy: Do I understand that you are worried that Full would make non-entailments if this was adoped?
18:47:21 [alanr]
or rather without doing more work in Jena
18:47:31 [alanr]
18:47:33 [alanr]
18:47:35 [MartinD]
Bijan: thought that in owl-dl there is a way of skolemizing syntax... we already use, everybody using rdf is already using those things
18:47:41 [jeremy]
q+ to respond to boris's question?
18:47:44 [IanH]
18:47:56 [MartinD]
Bijan: in SPARQL, b-nodes can in answers and can be treated as skolems...
18:48:14 [pfps]
if you skolemize syntax, then john in >=1 C won't entail john in >=1 C in OWL Full
18:48:26 [MartinD]
Bijan: supporting sparql syntax over ontologies, it matters a lot how we treat it
18:48:39 [IanH]
18:48:42 [MartinD]
Bijan: might not be variables, just funny renaming conditions
18:48:45 [alanr]
ack bijan
18:48:45 [Zakim]
bijan, you wanted to disagree
18:48:51 [bmotik]
q+ to ask a question
18:48:55 [MartinD]
Bijan: example of rdf syntax which is highly visible and has impact
18:49:24 [mschnei]
FZI is pro "bNodes as skolems" in /DL/
18:49:24 [IanH]
18:49:31 [IanH]
ack alanr
18:50:01 [MartinD]
Alan: wants to clarify = concern is because of role impl. that generates entailments in owl-full... would be incorrect if skolemization is used?
18:50:02 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:50:02 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:50:10 [IanH]
18:50:34 [IanH]
18:50:38 [MartinD]
Ian: less complicate if considering skolemizatin as syntax?
18:50:55 [MartinD]
Jeremy: answer boris... howjena treats b-nodes on the RHS
18:51:21 [IanH]
18:51:25 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:51:25 [Zakim]
bmotik was not muted, bmotik
18:51:26 [MartinD]
Jeremy: implemented to satisfy test cases = skolemized on the LHS, on RHS it's variables .......
18:51:26 [ivan]
ack jeremy
18:51:27 [bijan]
18:51:27 [Zakim]
jeremy, you wanted to respond to boris's question?
18:52:00 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:52:00 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:52:03 [MartinD]
Boris: why conversion of RHS in spqrql? is the diff betwen bihan's and jeremy's view in schema part?
18:52:53 [MartinD]
Bijan: data counts... users may work on expectation that we take RHS and LHS, maintain mapping, entail, get them back
18:53:01 [MartinD]
Bijan: no issue with schema part...
18:53:11 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:53:11 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:53:28 [IanH]
18:53:34 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:53:34 [Zakim]
bmotik, you wanted to ask a question
18:53:35 [MartinD]
Jeremy: main concern is to change underlying semantics
18:53:47 [bmotik]
18:53:59 [IanH]
18:54:32 [alanr]
18:54:37 [MartinD]
Jeremy:not sure how changing semantics changes classificationa apps... why change semantics?
18:54:42 [bijan]
18:54:59 [bijan]
It matters for counting
18:54:59 [MartinD]
Ian: classification may not make entailment visible... only uses satsifability
18:55:10 [IanH]
18:55:26 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:55:58 [MartinD]
Boris: assume we're defining b-nodes in data as skolems... how to implement? not a matter of changing semantics doc, maybe a change for parsing doc?
18:56:23 [MartinD]
Boris: every b-=node should be mapped onto an element of graph -> individual, etc.
18:56:25 [bijan]
I am happy with Boris's proposal to move it to parsing
18:56:51 [IanH]
18:56:56 [jeremy]
q+ to respond to parsing suggestion ....
18:57:11 [MartinD]
Boris: this may provide solution = on semantic level, b-nodes are existential vars, but there can be a switch to say that when parsing rdf, they should be treated as skolems> could be?
18:57:11 [IanH]
18:57:13 [mschnei]
boris, you have at least the testcases (normative document): you can have testcases for non-entailments for skolems, which would be entailments for existentials
18:57:17 [IanH]
ack alanr
18:58:00 [MartinD]
Alan: how this is visible... practical reasons, removes requirement and b-node as a tree, allows more flexibility,... intended meaning in most cases is skolemization...
18:58:06 [JeffP]
q+ on how to explain the difference to users
18:58:24 [bmotik]
Alan, you have inequality
18:58:35 [MartinD]
Alan: we don't see diff between skolems and existentials in owl 1.0... we need a negated property on individuals to see it??
18:58:37 [JeffP]
q+ to ask how to explain the difference to users
18:58:52 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:58:52 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:58:58 [IanH]
18:59:01 [ivan]
ack bijan
18:59:02 [MartinD]
Ian: doesn't seem to be so diff... skolemizing on RHS should be visible even in owl 1.0
18:59:14 [IanH]
ack bijan
18:59:30 [MartinD]
Bijan: agrees with alan that they are user-visible
19:00:36 [IanH]
19:00:56 [MartinD]
Bijan: Q to Jeremy = what means "compelling argument" for/against something? e.g. many users wanting to use rdf graphs in owl reasoners, this is a powerful case, why not compelling
19:01:22 [MartinD]
Bijan: similarly, sparql relationships, etc. = these are fairly important cases
19:01:26 [jeremy]
ack jeremy
19:01:26 [Zakim]
jeremy, you wanted to respond to parsing suggestion ....
19:01:50 [IanH]
19:02:27 [bmotik]
19:02:43 [MartinD]
Jeremy: to bijan first... what I havven't seen is how reworking semantics affects skolemization, is it necesary? (???)
19:03:05 [bmotik]
19:03:09 [MartinD]
Bijan: how to propose arbitrary b-nodes from rdf, what should they give/
19:03:14 [IanH]
19:03:18 [MartinD]
Jeremy: no answer at this point...
19:03:39 [MartinD]
Jeremy: to Boris.... finding that position of a value, at this moment...
19:03:51 [MartinD]
Jeremy: there is some rationale behind it
19:03:51 [bijan]
19:05:17 [MartinD]
Jeff: maybe somebody can explain what this means for the users/end users... so that more people can join the debate?
19:05:18 [alanr]
q+ to say fwiw, it's always harder to explain existential semantics in my experience
19:05:34 [DougL]
(And do that between now and next week, offline, and revisit it next week?)
19:05:36 [MartinD]
Ian: lot of explanation of this, maybe a bit technical...
19:05:49 [bijan]
Basically, jeremy, any way that tells me how to handle in an rdf sensible way arbitrary patterns of bnodes meets my interest in this
19:05:53 [MartinD]
Jeff: if people write owl 1.1 axioms, what are the key diffs for THEM
19:05:57 [bijan]
I have no need to change the semantics per se
19:06:18 [bijan]
I.e., my interst isn't in changing the semantics, but service this interest
19:06:22 [bmotik]
I already did something like this
19:06:26 [MartinD]
Ian: could Jeremy prepare some examples? or Boris? or ???
19:06:40 [alanr]
We will need such an explanation if we make the change for the documentation - so effort not wasted
19:06:41 [jeremy]
19:06:44 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
19:06:51 [alanr]
ack alanr
19:06:51 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to say fwiw, it's always harder to explain existential semantics in my experience
19:06:52 [IanH]
19:06:56 [Zakim]
19:07:00 [ivan]
ack JeffP
19:07:00 [Zakim]
JeffP, you wanted to ask how to explain the difference to users
19:07:27 [MartinD]
it's hard to explain existential issue with b-nodes...
19:07:36 [bijan]
In the sparql working group, people like, Oracles Fred Zemke, clearly believed that bnodes were singluar terms.
19:07:41 [MartinD]
Ian: some examples would be useful to explain people what is this about
19:07:45 [Zakim]
19:08:04 [MartinD]
ACTION: Jeff to lead effort on formulating some examples on b-nodes issues and their impact on users
19:08:04 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-67 - Lead effort on formulating some examples on b-nodes issues and their impact on users [on Jeff Pan - due 2008-01-23].
19:08:07 [JeffP]
zakim, ??P1 is me
19:08:07 [Zakim]
+JeffP; got it
19:08:34 [bmotik]
JeffP, I already wrote an example e-mail:
19:08:38 [MartinD]
Ian: good there was lot of effort on this.. and also some new ideas, suggestions
19:08:47 [jeremy]
action: jeremy to respond to boris's parsing idea by e-mail
19:08:47 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-68 - Respond to boris's parsing idea by e-mail [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2008-01-23].
19:08:53 [JeffP]
bmotik, thanks for the pointer!
19:08:59 [MartinD]
Topic: Issues
19:09:12 [MartinD]
Ian: no raised issues on agenda, no editorial either
19:09:19 [MartinD]
Ian: some to move onward
19:09:43 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
19:09:43 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
19:09:53 [MartinD]
Ian: ...syntax for allDisjoint... seemed simple, but complicated that if we have mapping for this, we should also have them for...
19:09:56 [pfps]
19:10:02 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
19:10:02 [Zakim]
pfps should no longer be muted
19:10:11 [IanH]
19:10:19 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
19:10:19 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
19:10:45 [MartinD]
pfps: no need to go further in this discussion, syntax adapted to those few things that can be used a lot, not proposing extra syntax that do not require this
19:10:56 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
19:10:56 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
19:11:03 [MartinD]
pfps: seems to be a reasonable resolution, unless people disagree
19:11:06 [jeremy]
q+ to ask what we have?
19:11:10 [bijan]
As long as we have allDisjoint, I'm happy
19:11:11 [IanH]
19:11:13 [pfps]
19:11:16 [MartinD]
Ian: maybe we should resolve it?
19:11:17 [bmotik]
I didn't understand what Peter just said.
19:11:19 [IanH]
ack pfps
19:11:28 [MartinD]
Jeremy: which special constructs do we mean?
19:11:29 [bijan]
AllDijsoint, AllDifferent?
19:11:35 [pfps]
from owl 1.0, allDifferent, from owl 1.1 allDisjoint
19:11:41 [MartinD]
Ian: difIndividual, sameIndividual, etc.
19:11:42 [pfps]
... that's all
19:12:06 [bmotik]
Peter, did you mean really making the syntax round-trippable, or do you think that we should just close issue as-is without mapping the syntax round-trippable?
19:12:11 [MartinD]
Ian: for allDisjoint there is aconstruct in semantics, there is nothing in mapping doc?
19:12:12 [mschnei]
Question: do we already have "allDisjointProperties"? Is this useful?
19:12:14 [pfps]
yes, i think
19:12:22 [bmotik]
19:12:24 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
19:12:24 [Zakim]
pfps was not muted, pfps
19:12:45 [alanr]
19:13:03 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
19:13:03 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
19:13:05 [MartinD]
pfps: all disjoints always had structural.abstract syntax...
19:13:16 [Zakim]
19:13:22 [MartinD]
pfps: all we want is special for allDifferent
19:13:25 [IanH]
19:13:37 [alanr]
19:13:38 [bijan]
19:14:01 [IanH]
19:14:05 [ivan]
ack jeremy
19:14:05 [Zakim]
jeremy, you wanted to ask what we have?
19:14:18 [mschnei]
not only roundtripping, but also triple bloat
19:14:19 [MartinD]
Ian: difficulty with proposed solution is that if there is only structural syntax, no corresponding serialization, we may get to round-trippable problem
19:14:31 [MartinD]
Ian: what we have now is what we had in owl 1.0
19:14:43 [MartinD]
Jeremy: disjoint Obj Props is new here...
19:14:44 [mschnei]
triple bloat at least for different or disjoint
19:14:45 [bijan]
disjointClasses:= 'DisjointClasses' '(' { annotation } description description { description } ')
19:14:58 [bijan]
DisjointClasses(c1 ... cn)
19:14:58 [bijan]
T(ci) owl:disjointWith T(cj) 1 i, j n, i j
19:15:02 [IanH]
19:15:36 [MartinD]
pfps: started with a fact that something that needs to be expressed... where it got complicated is when we brough round-tripping... should we be accountable f
19:15:53 [alanr]
19:15:57 [jeremy]
DifferentIndividuals(iID1 ... iIDn) T(iIDi) owl:differentFrom T(iIDj) 1 ? i, j ? n, i ? j
19:16:01 [IanH]
19:16:06 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
19:16:06 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
19:16:08 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
19:16:08 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
19:16:28 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
19:16:28 [Zakim]
pfps should no longer be muted
19:16:38 [MartinD]
Boris: what is peter's proposal? drop round-tripping, extend vocabulary? what is against extended vocabulary?
19:16:45 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
19:16:45 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
19:16:46 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
19:16:46 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
19:16:56 [alanr]
19:17:03 [bmotik]
19:17:06 [alanr]
19:17:27 [jeremy]
(I am supporting AllDisjoint and AllDifferent)
19:17:34 [bmotik]
+1 for n^2, but I believe that we need others as well
19:17:42 [alanr]
alldifferent already existed
19:17:55 [MartinD]
pfps: should we give up on round-tripping... to some extent eyes
19:17:58 [alanr]
or take up roundtripping as a separate issue?
19:18:18 [bijan]
bijan: I just want to make sure that n-ary Disjointclasses in functional syntax gets mapped to an analogous structure in rdf (an not n^2 disjointWiths)
19:18:21 [bmotik]
On man...
19:18:23 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
19:18:23 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
19:18:24 [MartinD]
ian: what's the problem of adding exactly that construct in mapping syntax? what is against it?
19:18:24 [bmotik]
Oh man....
19:18:35 [alanr]
19:18:41 [mschnei]
another problem not mentioned: complete serialization needed until you know that you have all triples collected
19:19:03 [jeremy]
ian: what's wrong with mapping all n-ary constructs; pfps: bloat; jeremy: +1
19:19:03 [mschnei]
this would not be a problem, if all the classes would be in a single list
19:19:05 [MartinD]
Ian: people have diff opinions, there was a lot discussion on this
19:19:06 [bijan]
I suggest an web based survey of the wg?
19:19:16 [MartinD]
Alan: isolate changes necessary to round-tripping...
19:19:17 [bmotik]
19:19:29 [bijan]
19:19:32 [IanH]
19:19:39 [MartinD]
Alan: treat that separately and we can pay more attention to it
19:19:41 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
19:19:41 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
19:19:42 [ivan]
ack bmotik
19:19:57 [MartinD]
Boris: is round-tripping important? pls. vote....
19:20:07 [bmotik]
19:20:09 [bijan]
+1 but weakly
19:20:10 [mschnei]
19:20:11 [bcuencag]
19:20:12 [jeremy]
19:20:15 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
19:20:15 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
19:20:15 [DougL]
19:20:15 [pfps]
round tripping is important, but not to the point of ...
19:20:16 [ivan]
19:20:17 [JeffP]
19:20:18 [MartinD]
19:20:19 [alanr]
+0 think it is worthwhile, but should be considered against cost
19:20:21 [sandro]
19:20:21 [msmith]
+1 round-tripping in general, but ok with just in OWL/XML
19:20:22 [zwu2]
zwu2 has joined #Owl
19:20:25 [pfps]
19:20:27 [IanH]
19:20:32 [Achille]
19:20:41 [DougL]
(that was clear from the way you phrased the question)
19:20:42 [pfps]
of course, we could round-trip into XML
19:20:48 [MartinD]
Ian: seems to be worthwhile investigating round-tripping = action?
19:20:59 [bmotik]
I can do this
19:21:11 [MartinD]
Ian: initial input to who is affected, what impact it has, ....
19:21:28 [bmotik]
I'll open a new issue, OK?
19:21:32 [alanr]
19:21:40 [alanr]
or an action
19:21:50 [MartinD]
ACTION: Boris to look at the round-tripping problem and collate initial material for/against it
19:21:50 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-69 - Look at the round-tripping problem and collate initial material for/against it [on Boris Motik - due 2008-01-23].
19:21:59 [DougL]
good idea
19:22:00 [pfps]
19:22:03 [bmotik]
19:22:05 [bijan]
19:22:07 [MartinD]
Ian: should we resolve issue 2 and go for a new issue?
19:22:21 [pfps]
19:22:23 [MartinD]
Topic: discussion on issue 51 (quick)
19:22:27 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
19:22:27 [Zakim]
pfps should no longer be muted
19:22:31 [alanr]
19:22:33 [MartinD]
Ian: language name... some de-facto decisions
19:22:37 [pfps]
q+ OWL 1.1
19:22:45 [MartinD]
Ian: called it owl 1.1.... any thoughts?
19:22:48 [jeremy]
q- OWL
19:22:52 [jeremy]
q- 1.1
19:22:55 [ivan]
ack pfps
19:23:09 [MartinD]
pfps: wanted to argue for 1.1.....
19:23:17 [bijan]
q+ to argue for OWL
19:23:20 [alanr]
q+ to agree with OWL1.1
19:23:26 [sandro]
q+ to say Peter is Very Pedantic
19:23:27 [pfps]
19:23:35 [sandro]
19:23:37 [IanH]
19:23:45 [IanH]
ack alanr
19:23:45 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to agree with OWL1.1
19:24:01 [MartinD]
alan: we chose 1.1 to continue as a product line
19:24:22 [MartinD]
Alan: is this still an issue? esp. only Jim seemed to have objected...
19:24:27 [pfps]
19:24:29 [jeremy]
q+ to ask for W3C position?
19:24:39 [pfps]
19:24:43 [IanH]
19:24:51 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
19:24:51 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
19:24:52 [MartinD]
Ian: straw poll on what people think now?
19:25:11 [pfps]
+1 OWL 1.1
19:25:13 [MartinD]
Alan: people asked whether this is still an issue.... people 'vote'
19:25:21 [JeffP]
+1 OWL1.1
19:25:22 [DougL]
19:25:23 [bijan]
19:25:24 [Achille]
+1 OWL 1.1
19:25:25 [alanr]
19:25:27 [bmotik]
+1 to OWL 1.1
19:25:28 [zwu2]
+1 OWL 1.1
19:25:30 [bijan]
-1 weakly
19:25:33 [mschnei]
+1 OWL 1.1
19:25:39 [alanr]
+1 weakly :)
19:25:39 [bcuencag]
+1 OWL 1.1
19:25:42 [MartinD]
19:25:44 [jeremy]
strong 0
19:25:46 [msmith]
19:25:56 [IanH]
19:25:58 [alanr]
owl, weakly
19:26:05 [Elisa]
-1 due to significant syntax changes - which is one of Jim's points
19:26:27 [alanr]
elisa: Is there an alternative proposal?
19:26:31 [IanH]
19:26:47 [bijan]
19:26:50 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
19:26:50 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
19:26:53 [Elisa]
Not from me, but perhaps from Jim
19:26:54 [IanH]
ack bijan
19:26:56 [MartinD]
Bijan: can live with 1.1... maybe just call it OWL... maybe hard to define how much needs to go into ".1"
19:26:59 [IanH]
ack jeremuy
19:27:01 [IanH]
19:27:08 [IanH]
ack jeremy
19:27:08 [Zakim]
jeremy, you wanted to ask for W3C position?
19:27:12 [IanH]
19:27:19 [Elisa]
2.0 would be better than 1.1 given syntax changes
19:27:33 [Elisa]
and I agree with Jeremy's analysis
19:27:36 [alanr]
19:27:49 [MartinD]
Jeremy: this is perhaps a policy question... should we use "owl" as atechnology, or is this a "separate" technology? see w3c position
19:28:05 [bijan]
Elisa, you realize that Pellet, using an OWL 1.1 parser, can pass all the OWL 1.0 test cases that it passed before?
19:28:11 [bijan]
(and semantics)?
19:28:23 [Elisa]
yes, but that position is not true from an OMG perspective
19:28:24 [MartinD]
Ian: any other business
19:28:30 [MartinD]
Topic: AOB
19:28:36 [pfps]
which issues for next week?
19:28:40 [bijan]
19:28:40 [MartinD]
Ian: agenda for next week available online
19:29:01 [MartinD]
Ian: has quite some info in, so there is time to look at it and think about issues, discussion
19:29:08 [pfps]
19:29:11 [Elisa]
If you think about it from a graphical notation (i.e. UML profile) view, there are significant changes
19:29:30 [MartinD]
Ian: next week talking about puninng, so pls. look at that
19:29:35 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
19:29:35 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
19:29:54 [MartinD]
Alan: suggests a check on issue times...
19:30:12 [Zakim]
19:30:13 [MartinD]
Ian: concluded.....
19:30:13 [JeffP]
19:30:14 [Zakim]
19:30:15 [Zakim]
19:30:16 [pfps]
bijan: read the primer and expanded syntax documents
19:30:16 [Zakim]
19:30:17 [Zakim]
19:30:19 [Zakim]
19:30:20 [Zakim]
19:30:21 [Zakim]
19:30:23 [Zakim]
19:30:23 [Zakim]
19:30:25 [Zakim]
19:30:27 [Zakim]
19:30:29 [Zakim]
19:30:31 [Zakim]
19:30:31 [msmith]
msmith has left #owl
19:30:35 [Zakim]
19:30:42 [Zakim]
19:31:02 [MartinD]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
19:31:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate MartinD
19:31:14 [sandro]
MartinD, is ready for you to clean up.
19:35:40 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, alanr, in SW_OWL()12:00PM
19:35:42 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()12:00PM has ended
19:35:43 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.212.239.aaaa, alanr, bijan, Ivan, pfps, Sandro, +8652aabb, +1.202.408.aacc, IanH, +9082aadd, msmith, MartinD, bmotik, +49.351.4.aaee, Carsten, DougL, +018652aaff,
19:35:45 [Zakim]
... bcuencag, Achille, jeremy, +1.603.897.aagg, JeffP, Zhe, [IPcaller], Elisa_Kendall
19:47:22 [MartinD]
MartinD has left #OWL
21:41:51 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl