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