IRC log of owl on 2008-01-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:54:41 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:54:41 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/01/23-owl-irc
17:55:08 [sandro]
scribenick: DougL
17:55:53 [Ratnesh]
Ratnesh has joined #owl
17:57:42 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
17:58:00 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has joined #owl
17:58:07 [Zakim]
+??P12
17:58:33 [Zakim]
+??P13
17:58:40 [alanr_]
alanr_ has joined #owl
17:58:44 [Zakim]
+ +1.312.052.aaaa
17:58:53 [Rinke]
Zakim, aaaa is me
17:58:53 [Zakim]
+Rinke; got it
17:59:00 [jjc]
jjc has joined #owl
17:59:14 [Zakim]
+Alan
17:59:27 [Ratnesh]
??P12, is me
17:59:27 [uli]
uli has joined #owl
17:59:30 [Zakim]
+msmith
17:59:35 [alanr_]
rrsagent, make log public
17:59:38 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
17:59:41 [alanr_]
rrsagent, bookmark
17:59:41 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2008/01/23-owl-irc#T17-59-41
17:59:50 [jjc]
Zakim, mute me
17:59:50 [Zakim]
jjc should now be muted
18:00:01 [ivan]
ivan has joined #owl
18:00:09 [Rinke]
Zakim, ??P12 is Ratnesh
18:00:11 [Zakim]
+Ratnesh; got it
18:00:22 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
18:00:25 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
18:00:27 [Zakim]
+Ivan
18:00:27 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
18:00:33 [Zakim]
+??P2
18:00:49 [alanr_]
bernardo, can you scribe
18:00:51 [Zakim]
+??P6
18:00:52 [Zakim]
+??P17
18:00:54 [Zakim]
+??P18
18:00:56 [bcuencag]
Zakim, ??P2 is me
18:00:56 [Zakim]
+bcuencag; got it
18:01:02 [ivan]
me waves to all around
18:01:06 [uli]
zakim, ??P2 is me
18:01:06 [Zakim]
I already had ??P2 as bcuencag, uli
18:01:07 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??P6 is me
18:01:07 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
18:01:09 [IanH]
I already asked Doug Lenat to scribe
18:01:13 [bcuencag]
Hi Alan, unfortunately I am leaving early with Ian today
18:01:17 [Zakim]
+??P19
18:01:17 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
18:01:24 [alanr_]
Jonathan Rees is joining us on the same line as me
18:01:24 [IanH]
And he agreed
18:01:28 [bcuencag]
I could scribe until then
18:01:31 [bcuencag]
or next week
18:01:31 [alanr_]
zakim, who is here"
18:01:31 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is here"', alanr_
18:01:34 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??p18 is bmotik
18:01:34 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
18:01:35 [alanr_]
zakim, who is here?
18:01:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see DougL, Sandro, Ratnesh, jjc (muted), Rinke, Alan, msmith, Ivan, bcuencag, bmotik, ??P17, bmotik.a, ??P19
18:01:39 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Zhe, bmotik, ivan, IanH, uli, jjc, alanr_, MarkusK, msmith, Ratnesh, RRSAgent, Zakim, bcuencag, DougL, Rinke, sandro, pfps, trackbot-ng
18:01:50 [bcuencag]
zakim, mute me
18:01:51 [Zakim]
bcuencag should now be muted
18:01:52 [ewallace]
ewallace has joined #owl
18:01:55 [Zakim]
+Zhe
18:01:57 [Zakim]
-bmotik.a
18:02:02 [IanH]
zakim, ??P17 is me
18:02:02 [uli]
Boris, P2 is me, not you
18:02:03 [Zakim]
+IanH; got it
18:02:13 [DougL]
First-time scriber, so feel free to type in your comment-summary if I garble it or fail to scribe it.
18:02:17 [uli]
zakim, ??P2 is me
18:02:17 [Zakim]
I already had ??P2 as bcuencag, uli
18:02:26 [Zakim]
+??P18
18:02:40 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??p18 is me
18:02:40 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
18:02:57 [Zakim]
+Evan_Wallace
18:03:07 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:03:07 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:03:51 [bmotik]
Zakim, bmotik.a is me
18:03:51 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
18:03:58 [uli]
zakim, ??P2 is me
18:03:58 [Zakim]
I already had ??P2 as bcuencag, uli
18:04:02 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:04:02 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:04:03 [alanr_]
zakim, who is here?
18:04:04 [Zakim]
On the phone I see DougL, Sandro, Ratnesh, jjc (muted), Rinke, Alan, msmith, Ivan, bcuencag (muted), bmotik (muted), IanH (muted), MarkusK (muted), Zhe, bmotik.aa, Evan_Wallace
18:04:08 [Zakim]
On IRC I see ewallace, Zhe, bmotik, ivan, IanH, uli, jjc, alanr_, MarkusK, msmith, Ratnesh, RRSAgent, Zakim, bcuencag, DougL, Rinke, sandro, pfps, trackbot-ng
18:04:18 [Zakim]
+??P21
18:04:25 [pfps]
zakim, ??p21 is me
18:04:25 [Zakim]
+pfps; got it
18:04:29 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
18:04:29 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
18:04:29 [sandro]
Zakim, alanr_ has JonathanRees
18:04:30 [Zakim]
sorry, sandro, I do not recognize a party named 'alanr_'
18:04:30 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #owl
18:04:48 [sandro]
zakim, bmotik is Unknown1
18:04:48 [Zakim]
+Unknown1; got it
18:04:55 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.276.aabb
18:05:05 [jjc]
Zakim, who's speaking?
18:05:17 [Zakim]
jjc, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Sandro (30%), Ratnesh (8%), bmotik.aa (9%)
18:05:47 [bcuencag]
alan, who is scribing?
18:05:47 [Zakim]
+JeffP
18:05:47 [uli]
...the system still thinks that Bernardo is me...but this is wrong!
18:05:50 [DougL]
Alan: accept minutes from Jan 9
18:05:55 [sandro]
PROPOSED: accept minutes of Jan 9
18:05:55 [ivan]
0
18:06:00 [dlm]
dlm has joined #owl
18:06:11 [pfps]
+1 and a BIG thanks to Ian for fixing the minutes!
18:06:12 [uli]
ok
18:06:19 [Zakim]
-Unknown1
18:06:23 [DougL]
+1
18:06:25 [Rinke]
+1 to accept
18:06:37 [IanH]
+1
18:06:41 [alanr_]
+1
18:06:43 [JeffP]
+1
18:06:45 [Zakim]
+??P0
18:06:45 [bcuencag]
+1
18:06:47 [dlm]
0 - abstain - missed meeting
18:06:56 [uli]
zakim, ??P0 is me
18:06:56 [Zakim]
+uli; got it
18:06:59 [alanr_]
zakim, ??P0 is Uli
18:06:59 [uli]
+1
18:07:00 [Zakim]
I already had ??P0 as uli, alanr_
18:07:04 [msmith]
+0, noting the minutes still contain queue management and zakim clutter
18:07:04 [Ratnesh]
+1
18:07:22 [sandro]
RESOLVED: accept minutes of Jan 9
18:07:31 [ivan]
+1
18:07:32 [IanH]
+1
18:07:34 [alanr_]
+1
18:07:34 [DougL]
+1
18:07:36 [pfps]
+1, they are acceptable
18:07:36 [jjc]
+1
18:07:38 [bcuencag]
+1
18:07:38 [MarkusK]
+1
18:07:39 [sandro]
PROPOSED: accept minutes of last week
18:07:40 [Rinke]
+1
18:07:42 [msmith]
+1
18:07:46 [sandro]
RESOLVED: accept minutes of last week
18:07:47 [Zhe]
+1
18:07:50 [JeffP]
+1
18:08:24 [DougL]
Discussion (quick) of pending issues
18:08:49 [jjc]
Zakim, unmute me
18:08:49 [Zakim]
jjc should no longer be muted
18:09:06 [DougL]
Jeremy: action 63 has been closed, he believes
18:09:57 [DougL]
Alan: action 52: added test guidelines: link added with draft instructions. respond to this please
18:10:18 [uli]
action 61 is also done, I thin
18:10:24 [uli]
s/thin/think
18:11:08 [IanH]
I also believe that 61 is done
18:11:48 [dlm]
you said there is the option to document?
18:11:51 [DougL]
Issue 8: as proposed (not clear how to do this, hence postpone)
18:11:54 [dlm]
are we not definitely documenting?
18:12:23 [DougL]
As per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0122.html
18:12:31 [sandro]
PROPOSED: close (as POSTPONED) Issue 8 (dataproperty chains) as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0122.html
18:12:32 [dlm]
+q
18:12:44 [ivan]
ack dlm
18:13:42 [sandro]
RESOLVED: close (as POSTPONED) Issue 8 (dataproperty chains) as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0122.html
18:13:46 [pfps]
+1
18:13:53 [sandro]
PROPOSED: close (as RESOLVED) Issue 15 (Ontologies should not be required to include a URI) as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0019.html
18:13:56 [DougL]
Turning to Issue 15 (Ontologies should not be required to include a URI) as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0019.html
18:13:59 [pfps]
+1
18:14:43 [dlm]
are we doing anything to encourage naming ontologies?
18:15:03 [dlm]
+q
18:15:10 [ivan]
ack dlm
18:15:23 [jjc]
q+ to ask about divergence ...
18:15:30 [DougL]
DeborahM: We'd be better off with named ontologies, and should indicate it's a "best practice".
18:15:32 [pfps]
q+
18:15:38 [DougL]
...easier to track where they came from.
18:15:40 [ivan]
ack jjc
18:15:40 [Zakim]
jjc, you wanted to ask about divergence ...
18:15:49 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
18:15:49 [Zakim]
pfps should no longer be muted
18:16:48 [DougL]
Jeremy: concern about further diversion from owl full and its family members.
18:16:55 [ivan]
ack pfps
18:17:12 [alanr_]
q+
18:17:16 [DougL]
Peter: don't have to right now, allow unnamed ones, so what the hell?
18:17:21 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
18:17:21 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
18:17:32 [alanr_]
ack
18:17:32 [ivan]
ack alanr_
18:18:02 [DougL]
Alan: we want imports, want synergies, so why not encourage it?
18:18:19 [jjc]
Alan: if the imports task force shows unexepctred divergence then we would have new information to revisit this issue
18:18:21 [IanH]
unmute me
18:18:25 [sandro]
RESOLVED: close (as RESOLVED) Issue 15 (Ontologies should not be required to include a URI) as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0019.html
18:18:34 [sandro]
PROPOSED: close (as RESOLVED) Issue 29 (ser-defined Datatypes: owl:DataRange vs rdfs:Datatype) as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0017.html (see also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0147.html and thread)
18:18:44 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
18:18:44 [Zakim]
pfps should no longer be muted
18:19:02 [jjc]
+1
18:19:17 [DougL]
Peter: summarizing the issue: proposal to make owl datarange unnec. wrt backwards compatibility
18:19:33 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
18:19:33 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
18:19:34 [DougL]
peter, you should type in your summary of that if you want to here.
18:19:37 [pfps]
+1
18:19:42 [ivan]
+1
18:19:43 [alanr_]
+1
18:19:43 [DougL]
+1
18:19:44 [MarkusK]
+1
18:19:47 [uli]
+1
18:19:47 [Rinke]
+1
18:19:48 [msmith]
+1
18:19:48 [IanH]
+1
18:19:49 [Zhe]
+1
18:19:49 [JeffP]
+1
18:19:51 [bcuencag]
+1
18:19:54 [dlm]
+1
18:19:55 [bmotik]
+1
18:20:01 [Ratnesh]
+1
18:20:18 [sandro]
RESOLVED: close (as RESOLVED) Issue 29 (ser-defined Datatypes: owl:DataRange vs rdfs:Datatype) as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0017.html (see also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0147.html and thread)
18:20:31 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
18:20:32 [Zakim]
pfps was already muted, pfps
18:20:44 [DougL]
Punning discussion beginning now. Not a resolution, a discussion.
18:20:47 [ivan]
zakim, who is here?
18:20:51 [Zakim]
On the phone I see DougL, Sandro, Ratnesh, jjc, Rinke, Alan, msmith, Ivan, bcuencag (muted), IanH (muted), MarkusK (muted), Zhe, bmotik.aa (muted), Evan_Wallace, pfps (muted),
18:20:56 [Zakim]
... +1.518.276.aabb, JeffP, uli (muted)
18:21:00 [Zakim]
On IRC I see dlm, JeffP, ewallace, Zhe, bmotik, ivan, IanH, uli, jjc, alanr_, MarkusK, msmith, Ratnesh, RRSAgent, Zakim, bcuencag, DougL, Rinke, sandro, pfps, trackbot-ng
18:21:27 [alanr_]
q?
18:21:34 [DougL]
See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0231.html
18:21:46 [DougL]
for a list of the questions
18:22:17 [dlm]
\me dlm is 518 276 aabb
18:22:39 [pfps]
owl 1.1 allows at least six-way punning
18:23:48 [ivan]
0 :-)
18:23:50 [jjc]
0 for splitting
18:23:51 [bmotik]
-0
18:23:54 [sandro]
+0 don't know enough about how the discussion will go, to have an opinion
18:23:57 [MarkusK]
+0
18:24:01 [Rinke]
0
18:24:04 [dlm]
0
18:24:05 [DougL]
No clear opinions on whether to distinguish those 2 kinds of punning.
18:24:08 [Zhe]
0
18:24:21 [DougL]
Turning to question 2.
18:24:44 [JeffP]
where to find these questions?
18:24:56 [DougL]
See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0231.html
18:24:56 [uli]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0231.html
18:25:24 [bmotik]
q+
18:25:29 [ivan]
ack bmotik
18:25:32 [alanr_]
ack boris
18:25:39 [JeffP]
DougL, thanks!
18:25:48 [JeffP]
Uli, too. :-)
18:26:31 [DougL]
Boris: "services" are instances, take instances of people,... the value of the property is not a particular person but the class Person.
18:27:06 [uli]
q+
18:27:07 [alanr_]
is there an expectations that monkey species statements flow to monkeys?
18:27:10 [ivan]
ack uli
18:27:14 [DougL]
...Monkeys eat bananas meaning that EACH instance does this, and Monkeys is itself an instance of Species(Type)
18:27:16 [bmotik]
Zakim, bmotik.aa is bmotik
18:27:16 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
18:27:21 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:27:21 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:27:42 [bmotik]
q+
18:27:42 [MarkusK]
q+
18:27:47 [alanr_]
q+ to mention property/instance punning
18:27:49 [bmotik]
Zakim unmute me
18:27:51 [ivan]
ack bmotik
18:27:58 [uli]
zakim, mute me
18:27:58 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
18:28:08 [alanr_]
q- alanr
18:28:10 [DougL]
...case for treating classes as instances and properties as instances
18:28:32 [ivan]
q+
18:28:50 [alanr_]
q: what about using annotations?
18:28:57 [uli]
...but this will be taken care of with annotation spaces/other extended annotation mechanisms
18:29:02 [alanr_]
q?
18:29:09 [ivan]
ack MarkusK
18:29:13 [jjc]
q+ to ask for clarification of boris's annotation use case
18:29:15 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:29:15 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:29:30 [DougL]
Markus: theuse case Boris mentioned is similar to my experience.
18:29:32 [msmith]
q+ on punning between data & object
18:29:47 [DougL]
...City instances have the property population, e.g.
18:29:54 [uli]
...but this is "class as individual" punning
18:29:56 [bmotik]
q+
18:30:15 [ivan]
ack jjc
18:30:15 [Zakim]
jjc, you wanted to ask for clarification of boris's annotation use case
18:30:19 [DougL]
...don't know types of things you have in advance always.
18:30:23 [msmith]
I reinforce the container use case for data/object
18:30:33 [alanr_]
q+ to ask about annotation properties versus data/object punning
18:30:44 [alanr_]
ack ivan
18:30:49 [alanr_]
q?
18:30:52 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:30:52 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:30:53 [ivan]
ack bmotik
18:30:55 [DougL]
Ivan: Dublin Core had to worry about this with e.g. different ways to identify a person
18:31:17 [alanr_]
q+ to mention logical consequences
18:31:25 [MarkusK]
+1 to Boris: punnig "metamodelling" does not require complex logical consequences
18:31:34 [DougL]
Boris: in these examples, people are just stating things, and using idiosyncratic code to reason with those assertions.
18:31:35 [alanr_]
ack alanr
18:31:35 [Zakim]
alanr_, you wanted to ask about annotation properties versus data/object punning and to mention logical consequences
18:31:37 [ivan]
ack alanr_
18:32:08 [DougL]
Alan: people want to restrict domains and ranges on class properties
18:32:33 [DougL]
...punning lets us use real properties and subproperties this way.
18:33:00 [bmotik]
q+
18:33:05 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:33:05 [Zakim]
bmotik was not muted, bmotik
18:33:05 [DougL]
...Can someone compare data and object property punning to the use of annotation properties (pro or con)?
18:33:07 [alanr_]
ack bmotik
18:33:25 [DougL]
Boris: when it comes to annotation-spaces, they require this type of punning.
18:34:09 [DougL]
...given an annotation in the original ontology, you need punning because in the new ontology it might be one of two or more types.
18:34:48 [uli]
I still don't understand Alan's question...
18:34:51 [DougL]
Alan: what about the annotation properties in Owl 1.0 -- still okay? still there?
18:35:19 [jjc]
q+ to ask about recording use cases
18:35:32 [bmotik]
q+
18:35:34 [uli]
not really, because in OWL1.0 we cannot pose any restrictions on this!
18:35:38 [DougL]
...in what sense is that not enough, why do we need to use punning for that now, suddenly?
18:35:46 [ewallace]
q+
18:36:09 [MarkusK]
+1 to uli: annotation properties cannot be used with enough OWL features
18:36:23 [DougL]
Jeremy: let's record these various use cases (DougL: on the wiki, not having the scribe record them all in real time!)
18:36:32 [DougL]
exactly.
18:36:55 [ewallace]
+1
18:36:56 [bmotik]
+1
18:36:58 [DougL]
+1
18:36:58 [MarkusK]
+1
18:36:59 [Rinke]
+!1
18:37:16 [Rinke]
s/+!1/+1
18:37:31 [DougL]
See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0231.html
18:37:34 [ivan]
we already have http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/PropertyPunning
18:37:44 [DougL]
Ivan's page is a good one.
18:38:17 [sandro]
ACTION: MarkusK to put his use case for punning onto a wiki page
18:38:17 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - MarkusK
18:38:21 [sandro]
ACTION: Markus to put his use case for punning onto a wiki page
18:38:22 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-70 - Put his use case for punning onto a wiki page [on Markus Krötzsch - due 2008-01-30].
18:38:24 [DougL]
We will modify that -- the ones who gave use cases -- Boris, Markus etc.
18:38:26 [sandro]
ACTION: Boris to put his use case for punning onto a wiki page
18:38:26 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-71 - Put his use case for punning onto a wiki page [on Boris Motik - due 2008-01-30].
18:38:59 [sandro]
ACTION: Alan to put his use case for punning onto a wiki page (for reasoning associated with punned properties, and the question about object data property punning vs annotation properties)
18:38:59 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-72 - Put his use case for punning onto a wiki page (for reasoning associated with punned properties, and the question about object data property punning vs annotation properties) [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-01-30].
18:39:04 [alanr_]
q?
18:39:08 [jjc]
q-
18:39:09 [sandro]
ack jjc
18:39:16 [sandro]
ack bmotik
18:39:40 [DougL]
Boris: annotation properties (in OWL DL) not real properties
18:39:43 [Rinke]
very late +1 on uli's earlier remark on annotation properties and restrictions
18:39:54 [DougL]
...they can have both indiv and data values
18:40:08 [ivan]
ack ewallace
18:40:10 [jjc]
q+ on annotations in OWL 1.1
18:40:12 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
18:40:20 [jjc]
q+ to comment on annotations in OWL 1.1
18:40:23 [alanr_]
q+ alanr to ask for use cases for restrictions on punned object/data properties
18:40:34 [DougL]
Evan: UML has association class, a natural way to talk about properties of relations.
18:40:58 [DougL]
...not its defintion, properties of the relation. Commonly used in UML.
18:41:08 [jjc]
q-
18:41:16 [alanr_]
ack alanr
18:41:16 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to ask for use cases for restrictions on punned object/data properties
18:41:34 [sandro]
ACTION: Evan action to describe UML association class on the wiki, w.r.t. punning discussions
18:41:35 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-73 - Action to describe UML association class on the wiki, w.r.t. punning discussions [on Evan Wallace - due 2008-01-30].
18:41:37 [msmith]
q+ to comment on restrictions
18:41:54 [DougL]
Alan: use cases where people want to do logical inference not just recording the assertions, please.
18:42:14 [ivan]
ack msmith
18:42:14 [Zakim]
msmith, you wanted to comment on restrictions
18:42:23 [MarkusK]
yes, I think
18:42:39 [DougL]
Mike: describing another case, may be the same as Markus' essentially.
18:43:22 [DougL]
Next question: would dropping some/all punning help? impact on owl-full, on number of new vocab terms used,... etc.
18:43:36 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
18:43:36 [Zakim]
pfps should no longer be muted
18:43:39 [jjc]
a moment ...
18:43:55 [DougL]
Peter: no
18:44:04 [jjc]
ok
18:44:14 [DougL]
Peter: period.
18:45:34 [DougL]
Jeremy: issue 65, 69, and 68 are relevant: for each issue, the intro. of punning introduces new difficulties.
18:46:00 [DougL]
...so now we have to come up with three fixes for these three new problems.
18:46:07 [DougL]
...in order to allow punning.
18:46:18 [pfps]
q+
18:46:19 [bmotik]
q+
18:47:04 [DougL]
...the owl DL and owl FULL gap is widened more than it would otherwise be, by allowing punning.
18:47:30 [DougL]
(Jeremy, send me an elaboration of this point and I will insert it into the minutes)
18:47:59 [alanr_]
q+ to try to separate increase in vocabulary motivations in to the two parts
18:49:14 [DougL]
Peter: disagree: if you're not limiting yourself to OWL DL, why should you care?
18:49:42 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:49:42 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:50:18 [DougL]
... Complicated mapping rules are worth it, if it makes the conversion of triples into ontology easier.
18:50:46 [DougL]
Boris: why not allow a few more properties here and there, what is bad about that?
18:50:47 [pfps]
the mapping rules have been changed to make OWL DL parsing much easier, at a small expense - the driving factor is thus not punning, but parsing (as has been said before)
18:50:52 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:50:52 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:50:53 [jjc]
q+ to reply to boris on quantity
18:50:56 [alanr_]
ack alanr
18:50:56 [Zakim]
alanr_, you wanted to try to separate increase in vocabulary motivations in to the two parts
18:50:56 [jar]
jar has joined #owl
18:51:02 [pfps]
q-
18:51:07 [bmotik]
q-
18:51:07 [ivan]
ack bmotik
18:51:40 [DougL]
Alan: tried to separate 2 issues. Incr. vocab makes the parsing of triples easier and deterministic.
18:51:54 [DougL]
...the addl vocab removes ambiguities and localizes information.
18:52:03 [bmotik]
q+
18:52:13 [DougL]
...This is a nice-to-have but not a need-to-have feature.
18:52:52 [DougL]
...allowing obj/data polymorphism makes it more of a requirement than an option.
18:53:08 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
18:53:08 [Zakim]
pfps should no longer be muted
18:53:42 [DougL]
Peter: you may need some fancy footwork, to avoid ambiguity...
18:54:31 [uli]
...desirable or understandable?
18:55:01 [bmotik]
+1 to continue
18:55:29 [ivan]
q?
18:55:37 [ivan]
ack jjc
18:55:37 [Zakim]
jjc, you wanted to reply to boris on quantity
18:56:08 [pfps]
q+
18:56:26 [ivan]
ack bmotik
18:56:30 [DougL]
Jeremy: to answer Boris: larger vocabularies means more work and may actually drive off other potential OWL users.
18:57:05 [uli]
Jeremy, but these users will use tools to write ontologies, so perhaps they won't need to bother
18:57:26 [jar]
+1
18:57:30 [DougL]
Boris: punning doesn't necessitate more vocab actually.
18:57:47 [bcuencag]
Regrets, I need to leave early today, bye
18:57:48 [DougL]
...using typing to specify the type of partic properties.
18:58:11 [alanr_]
+1
18:58:12 [DougL]
...if there is no obj/data punning.
18:58:14 [Zakim]
-bcuencag
18:58:17 [alanr_]
q?
18:58:19 [jar]
here's what i heard (of course i'm a newcomer) that I liked: Why not allow punning between class/property/individual, but not between dataproperty/objectproperty ?
18:58:23 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:58:23 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:58:25 [ivan]
ack pfps
18:59:01 [DougL]
Peter: using rdf + a litle bit of owl means what, exactly? you're probably not in owl-dl any longer.
18:59:03 [Rinke]
just a thought, but if this dl-specific vocab is confusing to rdf/full users, couldn't we introduce a different namespace for dl vocab? ... ah, but that introduces yet other syntactic bloat
18:59:29 [IanH]
Suggestion: document describing OWL for RDFers
18:59:33 [DougL]
Moving on to question 4 of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0231.html
18:59:34 [ivan]
and what about a fragment like dlp?
18:59:53 [pfps]
a user of RDFS++ should have a document written for them (but maybe not by the WG)
18:59:58 [uli]
I repeat my guess that these users will use tools to write ontologies, so perhaps they won't need to bother
19:00:03 [alanr_]
q?
19:01:15 [uli]
q+
19:01:27 [pfps]
q+
19:01:27 [DougL]
Ivan: agree with Jeremy; I'm afraid of bloating the number of things a user needs to learn.
19:01:58 [DougL]
...most users use some editing tool; for them, learning more is a major issue.
19:01:58 [pfps]
q+ say that OWL DL already needed to know, and OWL Full users don't
19:01:59 [alanr_]
ack uli
19:02:22 [DougL]
Uli: looking to the future, fewer and fewer people will be using standard editors to
19:02:25 [ivan]
q+
19:02:30 [DougL]
..manually write OWL ontologies.
19:02:43 [DougL]
...future tools will take care of more the bookkeeping details.
19:02:49 [DougL]
Peter: agree.
19:03:00 [uli]
...or have seen?
19:03:01 [IanH]
+1
19:03:18 [dlm]
+q
19:03:19 [IanH]
Me too
19:03:23 [pfps]
q-
19:03:43 [alanr_]
q?
19:04:04 [DougL]
Ivan: there will be users who create complex ontologies and will need future sophis. tools.
19:04:08 [alanr_]
We are at time. Deb is last to speak on the issue
19:04:10 [pfps]
only people who need to know are those writing OWL DL in RDF/XML
19:04:27 [DougL]
...but folksonomies staying at the DLP level is another more common situation.
19:04:32 [pfps]
... directly in RDF/XML
19:04:44 [DougL]
...and those users will be around for many years, using EMACS eg and that's it.
19:04:49 [alanr_]
emacs (emotes love)
19:05:03 [jjc]
q+ to talk about (x)html editing
19:05:04 [bmotik]
If they can learn to use vi, they can use the distinction between object and data properties :-)
19:05:07 [DougL]
,,,they won't be using Protege and similar tools that go way behond what they need.
19:05:09 [jjc]
q-
19:05:11 [ivan]
ack ivan
19:05:38 [DougL]
Deborah: stepping back a bit, to the general issue of adding more and more new constructs...
19:05:52 [DougL]
...maybe there is such a thing as too many.
19:06:07 [alanr_]
q?
19:06:14 [alanr_]
ack dlm
19:06:16 [msmith]
To the final question, it is necessarily the case that additional features complicate user documentation. Certainly this is the case with OWA and lack of UNA. Like those cases, the complication is a trade-off between documentation complexity and meeting use cases
19:06:17 [Rinke]
Note that we are again talking about vocab... but this is a different issue than punning itself?
19:06:18 [DougL]
...TO handle that, maybe select fragments ahead of time to help them focus on a useful subset or two.
19:06:24 [IanH]
Look at SQL -- who knows all of the language, but many users seem to manage.
19:06:53 [DougL]
good point, ian.
19:07:07 [uli]
And even for documentation, you could hide/fold in some of these, I guess.
19:07:18 [DougL]
Decide whether to discuss these next N issues, or skip them.
19:07:47 [DougL]
See Raised Issues in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.01.23/Agenda
19:07:47 [jjc]
+1 to accept
19:07:57 [bmotik]
+1 to accept
19:07:58 [ivan]
+1
19:07:59 [msmith]
+1 to accept ISSUE-95
19:07:59 [pfps]
+1 to accept, and resolve quickly- its easy
19:07:59 [jjc]
(good catch)
19:08:04 [DougL]
no one minds discussing issue 95.
19:08:04 [Rinke]
+1 to accept
19:08:05 [alanr_]
+1
19:08:06 [ewallace]
+1
19:08:07 [uli]
+1
19:08:32 [DougL]
Issue 94 Problem with roundtripping when going from functional-style syntax into RDF and back
19:08:47 [jjc]
q+
19:08:47 [bmotik]
+1 to accept
19:08:48 [alanr_]
+1
19:08:49 [MarkusK]
+1
19:08:49 [pfps]
-1
19:08:50 [ewallace]
+1
19:08:51 [Rinke]
+1
19:08:51 [DougL]
-1
19:08:54 [IanH]
+1
19:08:57 [jjc]
0
19:08:59 [dlm]
+1
19:09:00 [uli]
+1
19:09:38 [jjc]
q+
19:09:48 [ivan]
ack jjc
19:09:59 [IanH]
q+
19:10:08 [alanr_]
q+ alanr
19:10:27 [Rinke]
this is a replacement of ISSUE-2, as far as I understood the minutes of last week
19:10:29 [alanr_]
ack ian
19:10:30 [ivan]
ack IanH
19:10:35 [pfps]
given the number of +1, it seems that we need to accept the issue
19:10:38 [DougL]
If enough people want to discuss it, then tautologically it is WORTH discussing.
19:10:49 [alanr_]
ack alanr
19:11:29 [ivan]
+1 to alanr
19:11:30 [pfps]
could we get the issue fixed up? or at least a def of OWL/RDF
19:11:31 [DougL]
Alan: think also about whether and to what extent round-tripping is a requirement.
19:11:42 [msmith]
ISSUE-2 is CLOSED already
19:12:01 [alanr_]
+1 to ian
19:12:03 [jjc]
ok
19:12:06 [bmotik]
AlLDisjointClasses
19:12:21 [jjc]
thank you
19:12:39 [alanr_]
Note that it was resolved for reasons other than roundtripping - n^2 -> n size for encoding
19:12:49 [alanr_]
q?
19:13:05 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
19:13:05 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
19:13:54 [DougL]
Issue 93 RFC 3066 - Tags for the Identification of Languages
19:14:19 [alanr_]
q?
19:14:20 [IanH]
I'm afraid that I need to leave early this week, so TTFN.
19:14:21 [pfps]
there is the concern of duplicate "resolution" notes
19:14:22 [ewallace]
+1
19:14:25 [DougL]
+1
19:14:25 [Rinke]
+1
19:14:26 [jjc]
q+
19:14:26 [ivan]
+1
19:14:31 [Zakim]
-IanH
19:14:32 [Zhe]
+1
19:14:33 [ivan]
ack jjc
19:14:35 [alanr_]
ack jjc
19:15:22 [DougL]
Backward compatibility nits: see Issue 90, Issue 91 and Issue 92
19:16:08 [alanr_]
q?
19:16:35 [DougL]
Rinke: (please summarize what you are talking about, I am not following you.)
19:17:09 [alanr_]
q?
19:17:15 [pfps]
the issue is built-in annotation properties (and related stuff) like deprecation
19:17:32 [DougL]
Options related to deprecating classes, properties and datatypes
19:17:37 [alanr_]
q+ alanr
19:17:51 [alanr_]
ack alanr
19:17:57 [DougL]
Peter: let's not preserve deprecation, though versioning is still required.
19:18:19 [uli]
...where do I find the semantics of deprecated classes?
19:18:39 [DougL]
Alan: should we ignore them, treat them as annotations,...?
19:18:41 [pfps]
as for everything else, OWL S&AS
19:19:02 [bmotik]
Even in OWL 1.0 deprecation was ignored, so we can ignore it in OWL 1.1 as well.
19:19:15 [pfps]
q+
19:19:18 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
19:19:18 [Zakim]
pfps was not muted, pfps
19:19:29 [ivan]
ack pfps
19:20:01 [DougL]
Peter: depr. is special, wierd,... just ignore it and see if something bad happens.
19:20:39 [uli]
...do we read this "who's screaming" with least or greatest fixpoint semantics?
19:20:49 [bmotik]
Just ignore them.
19:20:57 [jjc]
q+
19:21:03 [ivan]
ack jjc
19:21:41 [DougL]
Jeremy: if we do deprecate deprecation, then we better ask other groups whether there is some unintended bad synergy with what they are doing.
19:21:56 [pfps]
I can put together a proposal
19:22:00 [jjc]
q+ to go back to issue 93 (briefly)
19:22:32 [pfps]
no problem
19:22:47 [alanr_]
Action: Peter to write proposal to resolve 90 to drop deprecation and document in changes
19:22:47 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Peter
19:22:47 [trackbot-ng]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ppatelsc, phaase)
19:22:57 [jjc]
action: jeremy to edit references in syntax to address addison's bcp47 comment
19:22:57 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-74 - Edit references in syntax to address addison's bcp47 comment [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2008-01-30].
19:23:20 [pfps]
Action: pfps to write proposal to resolve 90 to drop deprecation and document in changes
19:23:20 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - pfps
19:23:34 [DougL]
Turning to http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/91
19:23:43 [pfps]
Action: Patel-Schneider to write proposal to resolve 90 to drop deprecation and document in changes
19:23:43 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-75 - Write proposal to resolve 90 to drop deprecation and document in changes [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2008-01-30].
19:23:49 [DougL]
Rinke: summarizing what it says on that link.
19:23:54 [alanr_]
I think we should keep ontology properties
19:24:37 [alanr_]
q+ alanr
19:24:38 [DougL]
Ontology properties are: owl:imports, owl:priorVersion, owl:backwardCompatibleWith, and owl:incompatibleWith.
19:24:43 [ivan]
ack jjc
19:24:43 [Zakim]
jjc, you wanted to go back to issue 93 (briefly)
19:24:45 [alanr_]
ack jjc
19:24:47 [ivan]
ack alanr_
19:25:33 [pfps]
directive
19:25:44 [DougL]
Peter: the state of owl:imports is: directive
19:25:52 [pfps]
i.e., something different than an annotation
19:26:10 [DougL]
Alan: leave it as it is, not an ontol. property; make it subservient to versioning.
19:26:24 [uli]
sounds like a good idea to me
19:26:24 [Rinke]
+1
19:26:27 [DougL]
+1
19:26:28 [ewallace]
+1
19:26:39 [DougL]
Turning to The RDF to FS mapping does not provide a mapping for the owl:Ontology element to the Functional Style syntax
19:26:45 [DougL]
(issue 92)
19:27:09 [pfps]
just a bug
19:27:16 [Rinke]
bug
19:27:16 [DougL]
Proposal: just fix it.
19:27:26 [bmotik]
It is the inverse mapping; the mapping to RDF exists.
19:27:30 [bmotik]
I can fix that.
19:27:32 [pfps]
I thought I did at some point, but I can produce a proposal
19:27:44 [bmotik]
I'd consider this just editorial..
19:27:57 [DougL]
Treat it as an editorial issue (not something to discuss)
19:28:31 [jjc]
regrets for next week
19:28:32 [JeffP]
bye
19:28:33 [Rinke]
bye
19:28:34 [alanr_]
adjourned
19:28:35 [MarkusK]
bye
19:28:35 [bmotik]
bye
19:28:36 [Zakim]
-Ivan
19:28:37 [Zakim]
-msmith
19:28:38 [Zhe]
bye
19:28:39 [Zakim]
-Evan_Wallace
19:28:40 [Zakim]
-JeffP
19:28:41 [Ratnesh]
bye
19:28:42 [Zakim]
-MarkusK
19:28:43 [Zakim]
-jjc
19:28:43 [DougL]
meeting ends.
19:28:44 [Zakim]
-Rinke
19:28:45 [Zakim]
-bmotik
19:28:46 [Zakim]
-Zhe
19:28:47 [Zakim]
-Alan
19:28:48 [Zakim]
-pfps
19:28:50 [Zakim]
-Ratnesh
19:28:52 [Zakim]
-uli
19:28:59 [uli]
uli has left #owl
19:30:52 [Zakim]
-Sandro
19:30:54 [Zakim]
-DougL
19:31:08 [sandro]
RRSAgent, list attendees
19:31:08 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'list attendees', sandro. Try /msg RRSAgent help
19:31:12 [Zakim]
-dlm
19:31:13 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()12:00PM has ended
19:31:14 [sandro]
zakim, list attendees
19:31:15 [Zakim]
Attendees were DougL, Sandro, +1.312.052.aaaa, Rinke, Alan, jjc, msmith, Ratnesh, Ivan, bcuencag, MarkusK, Zhe, IanH, Evan_Wallace, pfps, Unknown1, JeffP, uli, dlm, bmotik
19:31:17 [Zakim]
sorry, sandro, I don't know what conference this is
19:32:01 [sandro]
Present: DougL, Sandro, Rinke, Alan, jjc, msmith, Ratnesh, Ivan, bcuencag, MarkusK, Zhe, IanH, Evan_Wallace, pfps, JeffP, uli, dlm, bmotik