17:54:41 RRSAgent has joined #owl 17:54:41 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/01/23-owl-irc 17:55:08 scribenick: DougL 17:55:53 Ratnesh has joined #owl 17:57:42 msmith has joined #owl 17:58:00 MarkusK has joined #owl 17:58:07 +??P12 17:58:33 +??P13 17:58:40 alanr_ has joined #owl 17:58:44 + +1.312.052.aaaa 17:58:53 Zakim, aaaa is me 17:58:53 +Rinke; got it 17:59:00 jjc has joined #owl 17:59:14 +Alan 17:59:27 ??P12, is me 17:59:27 uli has joined #owl 17:59:30 +msmith 17:59:35 rrsagent, make log public 17:59:38 IanH has joined #owl 17:59:41 rrsagent, bookmark 17:59:41 See http://www.w3.org/2008/01/23-owl-irc#T17-59-41 17:59:50 Zakim, mute me 17:59:50 jjc should now be muted 18:00:01 ivan has joined #owl 18:00:09 Zakim, ??P12 is Ratnesh 18:00:11 +Ratnesh; got it 18:00:22 zakim, dial ivan-voip 18:00:25 ok, ivan; the call is being made 18:00:27 +Ivan 18:00:27 bmotik has joined #owl 18:00:33 +??P2 18:00:49 bernardo, can you scribe 18:00:51 +??P6 18:00:52 +??P17 18:00:54 +??P18 18:00:56 Zakim, ??P2 is me 18:00:56 +bcuencag; got it 18:01:02 me waves to all around 18:01:06 zakim, ??P2 is me 18:01:06 I already had ??P2 as bcuencag, uli 18:01:07 Zakim, ??P6 is me 18:01:07 +bmotik; got it 18:01:09 I already asked Doug Lenat to scribe 18:01:13 Hi Alan, unfortunately I am leaving early with Ian today 18:01:17 +??P19 18:01:17 Zhe has joined #owl 18:01:24 Jonathan Rees is joining us on the same line as me 18:01:24 And he agreed 18:01:28 I could scribe until then 18:01:31 or next week 18:01:31 zakim, who is here" 18:01:31 I don't understand 'who is here"', alanr_ 18:01:34 Zakim, ??p18 is bmotik 18:01:34 +bmotik; got it 18:01:35 zakim, who is here? 18:01:35 On the phone I see DougL, Sandro, Ratnesh, jjc (muted), Rinke, Alan, msmith, Ivan, bcuencag, bmotik, ??P17, bmotik.a, ??P19 18:01:39 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 zakim, mute me 18:01:51 bcuencag should now be muted 18:01:52 ewallace has joined #owl 18:01:55 +Zhe 18:01:57 -bmotik.a 18:02:02 zakim, ??P17 is me 18:02:02 Boris, P2 is me, not you 18:02:03 +IanH; got it 18:02:13 First-time scriber, so feel free to type in your comment-summary if I garble it or fail to scribe it. 18:02:17 zakim, ??P2 is me 18:02:17 I already had ??P2 as bcuencag, uli 18:02:26 +??P18 18:02:40 Zakim, ??p18 is me 18:02:40 +bmotik; got it 18:02:57 +Evan_Wallace 18:03:07 Zakim, mute me 18:03:07 bmotik should now be muted 18:03:51 Zakim, bmotik.a is me 18:03:51 +bmotik; got it 18:03:58 zakim, ??P2 is me 18:03:58 I already had ??P2 as bcuencag, uli 18:04:02 Zakim, mute me 18:04:02 bmotik should now be muted 18:04:03 zakim, who is here? 18:04:04 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 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 +??P21 18:04:25 zakim, ??p21 is me 18:04:25 +pfps; got it 18:04:29 zakim, mute me 18:04:29 pfps should now be muted 18:04:29 Zakim, alanr_ has JonathanRees 18:04:30 sorry, sandro, I do not recognize a party named 'alanr_' 18:04:30 JeffP has joined #owl 18:04:48 zakim, bmotik is Unknown1 18:04:48 +Unknown1; got it 18:04:55 + +1.518.276.aabb 18:05:05 Zakim, who's speaking? 18:05:17 jjc, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Sandro (30%), Ratnesh (8%), bmotik.aa (9%) 18:05:47 alan, who is scribing? 18:05:47 +JeffP 18:05:47 ...the system still thinks that Bernardo is me...but this is wrong! 18:05:50 Alan: accept minutes from Jan 9 18:05:55 PROPOSED: accept minutes of Jan 9 18:05:55 0 18:06:00 dlm has joined #owl 18:06:11 +1 and a BIG thanks to Ian for fixing the minutes! 18:06:12 ok 18:06:19 -Unknown1 18:06:23 +1 18:06:25 +1 to accept 18:06:37 +1 18:06:41 +1 18:06:43 +1 18:06:45 +??P0 18:06:45 +1 18:06:47 0 - abstain - missed meeting 18:06:56 zakim, ??P0 is me 18:06:56 +uli; got it 18:06:59 zakim, ??P0 is Uli 18:06:59 +1 18:07:00 I already had ??P0 as uli, alanr_ 18:07:04 +0, noting the minutes still contain queue management and zakim clutter 18:07:04 +1 18:07:22 RESOLVED: accept minutes of Jan 9 18:07:31 +1 18:07:32 +1 18:07:34 +1 18:07:34 +1 18:07:36 +1, they are acceptable 18:07:36 +1 18:07:38 +1 18:07:38 +1 18:07:39 PROPOSED: accept minutes of last week 18:07:40 +1 18:07:42 +1 18:07:46 RESOLVED: accept minutes of last week 18:07:47 +1 18:07:50 +1 18:08:24 Discussion (quick) of pending issues 18:08:49 Zakim, unmute me 18:08:49 jjc should no longer be muted 18:09:06 Jeremy: action 63 has been closed, he believes 18:09:57 Alan: action 52: added test guidelines: link added with draft instructions. respond to this please 18:10:18 action 61 is also done, I thin 18:10:24 s/thin/think 18:11:08 I also believe that 61 is done 18:11:48 you said there is the option to document? 18:11:51 Issue 8: as proposed (not clear how to do this, hence postpone) 18:11:54 are we not definitely documenting? 18:12:23 As per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0122.html 18:12:31 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 +q 18:12:44 ack dlm 18:13:42 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 +1 18:13:53 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 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 +1 18:14:43 are we doing anything to encourage naming ontologies? 18:15:03 +q 18:15:10 ack dlm 18:15:23 q+ to ask about divergence ... 18:15:30 DeborahM: We'd be better off with named ontologies, and should indicate it's a "best practice". 18:15:32 q+ 18:15:38 ...easier to track where they came from. 18:15:40 ack jjc 18:15:40 jjc, you wanted to ask about divergence ... 18:15:49 zakim, unmute me 18:15:49 pfps should no longer be muted 18:16:48 Jeremy: concern about further diversion from owl full and its family members. 18:16:55 ack pfps 18:17:12 q+ 18:17:16 Peter: don't have to right now, allow unnamed ones, so what the hell? 18:17:21 zakim, mute me 18:17:21 pfps should now be muted 18:17:32 ack 18:17:32 ack alanr_ 18:18:02 Alan: we want imports, want synergies, so why not encourage it? 18:18:19 Alan: if the imports task force shows unexepctred divergence then we would have new information to revisit this issue 18:18:21 unmute me 18:18:25 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 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 zakim, unmute me 18:18:44 pfps should no longer be muted 18:19:02 +1 18:19:17 Peter: summarizing the issue: proposal to make owl datarange unnec. wrt backwards compatibility 18:19:33 zakim, mute me 18:19:33 pfps should now be muted 18:19:34 peter, you should type in your summary of that if you want to here. 18:19:37 +1 18:19:42 +1 18:19:43 +1 18:19:43 +1 18:19:44 +1 18:19:47 +1 18:19:47 +1 18:19:48 +1 18:19:48 +1 18:19:49 +1 18:19:49 +1 18:19:51 +1 18:19:54 +1 18:19:55 +1 18:20:01 +1 18:20:18 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 zakim, mute me 18:20:32 pfps was already muted, pfps 18:20:44 Punning discussion beginning now. Not a resolution, a discussion. 18:20:47 zakim, who is here? 18:20:51 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 ... +1.518.276.aabb, JeffP, uli (muted) 18:21:00 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 q? 18:21:34 See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0231.html 18:21:46 for a list of the questions 18:22:17 \me dlm is 518 276 aabb 18:22:39 owl 1.1 allows at least six-way punning 18:23:48 0 :-) 18:23:50 0 for splitting 18:23:51 -0 18:23:54 +0 don't know enough about how the discussion will go, to have an opinion 18:23:57 +0 18:24:01 0 18:24:04 0 18:24:05 No clear opinions on whether to distinguish those 2 kinds of punning. 18:24:08 0 18:24:21 Turning to question 2. 18:24:44 where to find these questions? 18:24:56 See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0231.html 18:24:56 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0231.html 18:25:24 q+ 18:25:29 ack bmotik 18:25:32 ack boris 18:25:39 DougL, thanks! 18:25:48 Uli, too. :-) 18:26:31 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 q+ 18:27:07 is there an expectations that monkey species statements flow to monkeys? 18:27:10 ack uli 18:27:14 ...Monkeys eat bananas meaning that EACH instance does this, and Monkeys is itself an instance of Species(Type) 18:27:16 Zakim, bmotik.aa is bmotik 18:27:16 +bmotik; got it 18:27:21 Zakim, mute me 18:27:21 bmotik should now be muted 18:27:42 q+ 18:27:42 q+ 18:27:47 q+ to mention property/instance punning 18:27:49 Zakim unmute me 18:27:51 ack bmotik 18:27:58 zakim, mute me 18:27:58 uli should now be muted 18:28:08 q- alanr 18:28:10 ...case for treating classes as instances and properties as instances 18:28:32 q+ 18:28:50 q: what about using annotations? 18:28:57 ...but this will be taken care of with annotation spaces/other extended annotation mechanisms 18:29:02 q? 18:29:09 ack MarkusK 18:29:13 q+ to ask for clarification of boris's annotation use case 18:29:15 Zakim, mute me 18:29:15 bmotik should now be muted 18:29:30 Markus: theuse case Boris mentioned is similar to my experience. 18:29:32 q+ on punning between data & object 18:29:47 ...City instances have the property population, e.g. 18:29:54 ...but this is "class as individual" punning 18:29:56 q+ 18:30:15 ack jjc 18:30:15 jjc, you wanted to ask for clarification of boris's annotation use case 18:30:19 ...don't know types of things you have in advance always. 18:30:23 I reinforce the container use case for data/object 18:30:33 q+ to ask about annotation properties versus data/object punning 18:30:44 ack ivan 18:30:49 q? 18:30:52 Zakim, unmute me 18:30:52 bmotik should no longer be muted 18:30:53 ack bmotik 18:30:55 Ivan: Dublin Core had to worry about this with e.g. different ways to identify a person 18:31:17 q+ to mention logical consequences 18:31:25 +1 to Boris: punnig "metamodelling" does not require complex logical consequences 18:31:34 Boris: in these examples, people are just stating things, and using idiosyncratic code to reason with those assertions. 18:31:35 ack alanr 18:31:35 alanr_, you wanted to ask about annotation properties versus data/object punning and to mention logical consequences 18:31:37 ack alanr_ 18:32:08 Alan: people want to restrict domains and ranges on class properties 18:32:33 ...punning lets us use real properties and subproperties this way. 18:33:00 q+ 18:33:05 Zakim, unmute me 18:33:05 bmotik was not muted, bmotik 18:33:05 ...Can someone compare data and object property punning to the use of annotation properties (pro or con)? 18:33:07 ack bmotik 18:33:25 Boris: when it comes to annotation-spaces, they require this type of punning. 18:34:09 ...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 I still don't understand Alan's question... 18:34:51 Alan: what about the annotation properties in Owl 1.0 -- still okay? still there? 18:35:19 q+ to ask about recording use cases 18:35:32 q+ 18:35:34 not really, because in OWL1.0 we cannot pose any restrictions on this! 18:35:38 ...in what sense is that not enough, why do we need to use punning for that now, suddenly? 18:35:46 q+ 18:36:09 +1 to uli: annotation properties cannot be used with enough OWL features 18:36:23 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 exactly. 18:36:55 +1 18:36:56 +1 18:36:58 +1 18:36:58 +1 18:36:59 +!1 18:37:16 s/+!1/+1 18:37:31 See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0231.html 18:37:34 we already have http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/PropertyPunning 18:37:44 Ivan's page is a good one. 18:38:17 ACTION: MarkusK to put his use case for punning onto a wiki page 18:38:17 Sorry, couldn't find user - MarkusK 18:38:21 ACTION: Markus to put his use case for punning onto a wiki page 18:38:22 Created ACTION-70 - Put his use case for punning onto a wiki page [on Markus Krötzsch - due 2008-01-30]. 18:38:24 We will modify that -- the ones who gave use cases -- Boris, Markus etc. 18:38:26 ACTION: Boris to put his use case for punning onto a wiki page 18:38:26 Created ACTION-71 - Put his use case for punning onto a wiki page [on Boris Motik - due 2008-01-30]. 18:38:59 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 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 q? 18:39:08 q- 18:39:09 ack jjc 18:39:16 ack bmotik 18:39:40 Boris: annotation properties (in OWL DL) not real properties 18:39:43 very late +1 on uli's earlier remark on annotation properties and restrictions 18:39:54 ...they can have both indiv and data values 18:40:08 ack ewallace 18:40:10 q+ on annotations in OWL 1.1 18:40:12 pfps has joined #owl 18:40:20 q+ to comment on annotations in OWL 1.1 18:40:23 q+ alanr to ask for use cases for restrictions on punned object/data properties 18:40:34 Evan: UML has association class, a natural way to talk about properties of relations. 18:40:58 ...not its defintion, properties of the relation. Commonly used in UML. 18:41:08 q- 18:41:16 ack alanr 18:41:16 alanr, you wanted to ask for use cases for restrictions on punned object/data properties 18:41:34 ACTION: Evan action to describe UML association class on the wiki, w.r.t. punning discussions 18:41:35 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 q+ to comment on restrictions 18:41:54 Alan: use cases where people want to do logical inference not just recording the assertions, please. 18:42:14 ack msmith 18:42:14 msmith, you wanted to comment on restrictions 18:42:23 yes, I think 18:42:39 Mike: describing another case, may be the same as Markus' essentially. 18:43:22 Next question: would dropping some/all punning help? impact on owl-full, on number of new vocab terms used,... etc. 18:43:36 zakim, unmute me 18:43:36 pfps should no longer be muted 18:43:39 a moment ... 18:43:55 Peter: no 18:44:04 ok 18:44:14 Peter: period. 18:45:34 Jeremy: issue 65, 69, and 68 are relevant: for each issue, the intro. of punning introduces new difficulties. 18:46:00 ...so now we have to come up with three fixes for these three new problems. 18:46:07 ...in order to allow punning. 18:46:18 q+ 18:46:19 q+ 18:47:04 ...the owl DL and owl FULL gap is widened more than it would otherwise be, by allowing punning. 18:47:30 (Jeremy, send me an elaboration of this point and I will insert it into the minutes) 18:47:59 q+ to try to separate increase in vocabulary motivations in to the two parts 18:49:14 Peter: disagree: if you're not limiting yourself to OWL DL, why should you care? 18:49:42 Zakim, unmute me 18:49:42 bmotik should no longer be muted 18:50:18 ... Complicated mapping rules are worth it, if it makes the conversion of triples into ontology easier. 18:50:46 Boris: why not allow a few more properties here and there, what is bad about that? 18:50:47 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 Zakim, mute me 18:50:52 bmotik should now be muted 18:50:53 q+ to reply to boris on quantity 18:50:56 ack alanr 18:50:56 alanr_, you wanted to try to separate increase in vocabulary motivations in to the two parts 18:50:56 jar has joined #owl 18:51:02 q- 18:51:07 q- 18:51:07 ack bmotik 18:51:40 Alan: tried to separate 2 issues. Incr. vocab makes the parsing of triples easier and deterministic. 18:51:54 ...the addl vocab removes ambiguities and localizes information. 18:52:03 q+ 18:52:13 ...This is a nice-to-have but not a need-to-have feature. 18:52:52 ...allowing obj/data polymorphism makes it more of a requirement than an option. 18:53:08 zakim, unmute me 18:53:08 pfps should no longer be muted 18:53:42 Peter: you may need some fancy footwork, to avoid ambiguity... 18:54:31 ...desirable or understandable? 18:55:01 +1 to continue 18:55:29 q? 18:55:37 ack jjc 18:55:37 jjc, you wanted to reply to boris on quantity 18:56:08 q+ 18:56:26 ack bmotik 18:56:30 Jeremy: to answer Boris: larger vocabularies means more work and may actually drive off other potential OWL users. 18:57:05 Jeremy, but these users will use tools to write ontologies, so perhaps they won't need to bother 18:57:26 +1 18:57:30 Boris: punning doesn't necessitate more vocab actually. 18:57:47 Regrets, I need to leave early today, bye 18:57:48 ...using typing to specify the type of partic properties. 18:58:11 +1 18:58:12 ...if there is no obj/data punning. 18:58:14 -bcuencag 18:58:17 q? 18:58:19 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 Zakim, mute me 18:58:23