IRC log of owl on 2008-01-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:56:59 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:56:59 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:57:04 [Zakim]
17:57:11 [Rinke]
RRSAgent, make records public
17:57:11 [bijan]
zakim, ??p2 is me
17:57:19 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:57:19 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:57:30 [Zakim]
17:57:33 [IanH]
Having trouble getting through -- will be with you ASAP
17:57:35 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??P12 is me
17:57:35 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
17:57:39 [Zakim]
17:57:41 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:57:41 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:58:10 [m_schnei]
zakim ??P7 is me
17:58:12 [Zakim]
17:58:21 [m_schnei]
zakim, ??P7 is me
17:58:21 [Zakim]
+m_schnei; got it
17:58:26 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:58:26 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
17:58:27 [Zakim]
17:58:49 [Zakim]
17:58:51 [ivan]
zakim, drop ivan
17:58:51 [Zakim]
Ivan is being disconnected
17:58:52 [Zakim]
17:58:54 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
17:59:00 [uli]
zakim, ??P14 is me
17:59:00 [Zakim]
+uli; got it
17:59:03 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:59:03 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
17:59:04 [Zakim]
17:59:16 [Zakim]
+ +44.186.527.aaaa
17:59:27 [IanH]
zakim, aaaa is IanH
17:59:27 [Zakim]
+IanH; got it
17:59:30 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:59:30 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:59:34 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
17:59:41 [bcuencag]
bcuencag has joined #owl
17:59:45 [Zakim]
17:59:52 [Carsten]
zakim, mute me
17:59:52 [Zakim]
Carsten should now be muted
17:59:59 [DougL]
DougL has joined #owl
18:00:03 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
18:00:10 [IanH]
zakim, who is here
18:00:10 [Zakim]
IanH, you need to end that query with '?'
18:00:18 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
18:00:18 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [IBM], bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), m_schnei (muted), Rinke, Ivan, uli, IanH, Carsten (muted)
18:00:20 [Zakim]
On IRC I see alanr, DougL, bcuencag, msmith, pfps, RRSAgent, ivan, IanH, Zakim, Achille, bmotik, m_schnei, Rinke, Carsten, MartinD, uli, bijan, sandro, ewallace, trackbot-ng
18:00:24 [Zakim]
18:00:26 [Ratnesh]
Ratnesh has joined #owl
18:00:29 [pfps]
zakim, ??P8 is me
18:00:29 [Zakim]
+pfps; got it
18:00:32 [Zakim]
18:00:36 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
18:00:42 [Zakim]
18:00:43 [Achille]
Zakim, IBM is me
18:00:44 [Zakim]
+Achille; got it
18:00:52 [Zakim]
18:01:01 [Zakim]
18:01:16 [Zakim]
18:01:36 [bcuencag]
I am scribing
18:01:50 [bcuencag]
how do I invite the agent?
18:01:53 [Rinke]
ScribeNick bcuencag
18:01:54 [ivan]
scribenick: bcuencag
18:01:54 [Zakim]
18:01:56 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.276.aabb
18:02:01 [bcuencag]
Zakim, ??P25 is me
18:02:01 [Zakim]
+bcuencag; got it
18:02:15 [bcuencag]
So, I just type
18:02:21 [hendler]
hendler has joined #owl
18:02:26 [Zakim]
18:02:31 [Rinke]
who is maintaining the scribe list?
18:02:35 [Zakim]
18:02:55 [bcuencag]
IanH: Agenda amendments?
18:02:59 [hendler]
zakim, I am jhendler
18:02:59 [Zakim]
sorry, hendler, I do not see a party named 'jhendler'
18:03:11 [bcuencag]
IanH: No amendments, accept previous minutes?
18:03:15 [Ratnesh]
Zakim, +??P11 is me
18:03:15 [Zakim]
sorry, Ratnesh, I do not recognize a party named '+??P11'
18:03:16 [Rinke]
+1 to accept, they look fine to me
18:03:26 [bcuencag]
IanH: minutes approved
18:03:30 [MartinD]
+1 very comprehensive
18:03:35 [DougL]
18:03:38 [Ratnesh]
Zakim, ??P11 is me
18:03:38 [Zakim]
+Ratnesh; got it
18:03:46 [IanH]
RESOLVED: approve previous minutes
18:03:50 [DougL]
18:04:08 [bcuencag]
IanH; pending actions
18:04:13 [bcuencag]
inaH: action 54
18:04:15 [ivan]
zakim, mute me
18:04:15 [Zakim]
Ivan should now be muted
18:04:26 [bcuencag]
IanH: action 54 complete
18:04:30 [MartinD]
zakim, mute me
18:04:30 [Zakim]
MartinD should now be muted
18:04:32 [bcuencag]
ianH: action 57
18:04:44 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #owl
18:04:54 [Carsten]
18:05:01 [Carsten]
zakim, unmute me
18:05:01 [Zakim]
Carsten should no longer be muted
18:05:03 [bcuencag]
IanH: people should speak up if they think an action is not completed
18:05:04 [ivan]
ack Carsten
18:05:25 [bcuencag]
Carsten: the action requested the definition of OWLPrime
18:05:42 [bcuencag]
Carsten: not clear what OWL Prime we should discuss
18:05:48 [bcuencag]
Zakim, mute me
18:05:48 [Zakim]
bcuencag should now be muted
18:05:55 [Zakim]
18:06:21 [Zakim]
+ +1.604.675.aacc
18:06:35 [bcuencag]
The document is the starting point for discussing OWL Prime
18:06:45 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
18:06:52 [alanr]
rrsagent, bookmark
18:06:52 [RRSAgent]
18:07:07 [bcuencag]
Carsten: for defining OWL Prime we still need some work
18:07:14 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
18:07:14 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Achille, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), m_schnei (muted), Rinke, Ivan (muted), uli (muted), IanH, Carsten, pfps (muted), Sandro, msmith, DougL, Evan_Wallace,
18:07:17 [Zakim]
... bcuencag (muted), +1.518.276.aabb, Zhe, Ratnesh, MartinD (muted), JeffP, +1.604.675.aacc
18:07:19 [Zakim]
On IRC I see alanr, JeffP, hendler, Zhe, Ratnesh, DougL, bcuencag, msmith, pfps, RRSAgent, ivan, IanH, Zakim, Achille, bmotik, m_schnei, Rinke, Carsten, MartinD, uli, bijan,
18:07:21 [Zakim]
... sandro, ewallace, trackbot-ng
18:07:29 [alanr]
zakim, aacc is me
18:07:29 [Zakim]
+alanr; got it
18:07:32 [Carsten]
zakim, mute me
18:07:32 [Zakim]
Carsten should now be muted
18:07:38 [Zakim]
18:07:40 [bcuencag]
InaH: Action 67
18:07:54 [Rinke]
18:08:05 [bcuencag]
IanH: Action 71, Boris completed
18:08:10 [dlm]
dlm has joined #owl
18:08:16 [Zakim]
18:08:20 [Zakim]
18:08:28 [bcuencag]
IanH: Action 74, dealt with by Jeremy
18:08:41 [sandro]
Zakim, Sandro.a is Sandro
18:08:41 [Zakim]
+Sandro; got it
18:08:42 [bcuencag]
IanH: Action 90: no agreement for acceptance
18:08:53 [bcuencag]
IanH: Action 90 is ongoing
18:08:59 [bijan]
Still outstanding
18:09:00 [bijan]
18:09:08 [bcuencag]
IanH: rich annotations action, any progress?
18:09:10 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:09:10 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:09:16 [bcuencag]
Bijan: yes
18:09:38 [bcuencag]
IanH: Action 62
18:09:40 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:09:40 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:10:17 [bcuencag]
Alan: action not yet completed
18:10:37 [bcuencag]
IanH: use case for punning; postponed for next week
18:10:55 [bcuencag]
IanH: Action 72, to be continued
18:11:00 [jjc]
jjc has joined #owl
18:11:08 [bcuencag]
IanH: UML association; completed
18:11:42 [ivan]
zakim, unmute me
18:11:42 [Zakim]
Ivan should no longer be muted
18:12:08 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
18:12:08 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Achille, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), m_schnei (muted), Rinke, Ivan, uli (muted), IanH, Carsten (muted), pfps (muted), msmith, DougL, Evan_Wallace, bcuencag
18:12:10 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
18:12:11 [Zakim]
... (muted), +1.518.276.aabb, Zhe, Ratnesh, MartinD (muted), JeffP, alanr, dlm, Sandro
18:12:14 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Achille, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), m_schnei (muted), Rinke, Ivan, uli (muted), IanH, Carsten (muted), pfps (muted), msmith, DougL, Evan_Wallace, bcuencag
18:12:18 [Zakim]
... (muted), +1.518.276.aabb, Zhe, Ratnesh, MartinD (muted), JeffP, alanr, dlm, Sandro
18:12:20 [Zakim]
On IRC I see jjc, dlm, alanr, JeffP, hendler, Zhe, Ratnesh, DougL, bcuencag, msmith, pfps, RRSAgent, ivan, IanH, Zakim, Achille, bmotik, m_schnei, Rinke, Carsten, MartinD, uli,
18:12:21 [alanr]
zakim, aabb is deb
18:12:23 [Zakim]
... bijan, sandro, ewallace, trackbot-ng
18:12:24 [Zakim]
+deb; got it
18:12:38 [hendler]
zakim, aabb is me
18:12:38 [Zakim]
sorry, hendler, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb'
18:12:50 [sandro]
Zakim, deb is Jim
18:12:50 [Zakim]
+Jim; got it
18:13:03 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
18:13:03 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Achille, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), m_schnei (muted), Rinke, Ivan, uli (muted), IanH, Carsten (muted), pfps (muted), msmith, DougL, Evan_Wallace, bcuencag
18:13:07 [Zakim]
... (muted), Jim, Zhe, Ratnesh, MartinD (muted), JeffP, alanr, dlm, Sandro
18:13:09 [bcuencag]
IanH: No proposals to resolve issues; more time for discussion
18:13:35 [bcuencag]
IanH: fragments and conformance issues
18:13:42 [uli]
yes - but couldn't find anything about "conformance"
18:13:49 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #owl
18:13:52 [sandro]
Present: Achille, bijan, bmotik, m_schnei, Rinke, Ivan, uli, IanH, Carsten, pfps, msmith, DougL, Evan_Wallace, bcuencag, Jim, Zhe, Ratnesh, MartinD, JeffP, alanr, dlm, Sandro
18:14:02 [alanr]
18:14:37 [bcuencag]
Alan: at the workshop we achieved a consensus
18:14:46 [IanH]
18:14:53 [Zakim]
18:14:54 [alanr]
ack alanr
18:14:55 [ivan]
ack alanr
18:14:55 [IanH]
ack alan
18:15:00 [bcuencag]
Alan: we call fragments to syntax fragments and semantic fragments we called them conformance levels
18:15:01 [IanH]
18:15:29 [bcuencag]
IanH: we agree that the email I sent is a reasonable starting point
18:15:49 [Carsten]
zakim, unmute me
18:15:49 [Zakim]
Carsten should no longer be muted
18:15:54 [Carsten]
18:15:55 [IanH]
18:16:02 [bcuencag]
IanH: Do people understand the difference between fragments and conformance levels?
18:16:02 [ivan]
ack Carsten
18:16:03 [Zakim]
18:16:11 [jjc]
Zakim, ??P28 is me
18:16:11 [Zakim]
+jjc; got it
18:16:15 [jjc]
Zakim, mute me
18:16:15 [Zakim]
jjc should now be muted
18:16:19 [bcuencag]
Carsten: happy with the distinction, but not clear what a conformance level is
18:16:25 [IanH]
18:16:38 [IanH]
18:17:09 [hendler]
18:17:21 [IanH]
18:17:24 [bcuencag]
alanr: we could have a reasoner that does incomplete reasoning, but complete up to a certain set of entailments
18:17:32 [ivan]
ack hendler
18:17:45 [bijan]
I suspect it's like what's talked about in:
18:17:54 [bcuencag]
hendler: we have a very tight definition of language fragments
18:17:55 [Carsten]
So they are orthogonal? We can have syntactic fragment X and conformance level Y at the same time?
18:18:06 [bijan]
"""However, implementations are also allowed to support other operational semantics, which may have non-determinism, so long as they are sound with respect to the declarative semantics, and so long as they meet a minimum level of completeness (they must be at least as complete as the strict commutative semantics, in the sense that every program which terminates for all possible orderings must also terminate in any implementation-defined operational semantics)."""
18:18:27 [bcuencag]
hendler: a fragment could be rather seen as a set of figures that could be supported
18:18:33 [IanH]
18:18:39 [hendler]
ack me
18:18:55 [uli]
18:19:05 [ivan]
ack uli
18:19:23 [bcuencag]
Uli: having conformance levels might be a good idea
18:19:38 [bcuencag]
Uli: it gives an idea of what it means to cover a certain construct
18:19:44 [Zhe]
18:19:51 [IanH]
18:19:55 [bcuencag]
Uli: not too difficult to come up with a definition of conformance level
18:20:07 [Carsten]
I am not sure I got that
18:20:10 [ivan]
ack Zhe
18:20:15 [bcuencag]
Uli: what it means to be correct or complete for a certain class of queries
18:20:44 [jjc]
+1 for test cases
18:20:50 [bcuencag]
Zhe: are we going to provide a set of test cases and ensure that implementations should cover them?
18:20:56 [sandro]
18:20:59 [bcuencag]
Zhe: does this relate to conformance?
18:21:20 [IanH]
18:21:26 [bijan]
Note: the w3c generally doesn't do confromance certification
18:21:29 [bcuencag]
IanH: My assumption was that we would not define conformance in terms of test cases, but rather something more precise
18:21:54 [msmith]
q+ to clarify understanding conformance via test
18:21:59 [bijan]
+1 to steering clear of WG doing certification
18:22:03 [IanH]
ack sandro
18:22:13 [bcuencag]
Sandro: OWL does have test cases
18:22:13 [hendler]
+1 to bijan's +1
18:22:13 [Carsten]
18:22:15 [jjc]
FYGI see
18:22:28 [IanH]
18:22:34 [alanr]
q+ to say validation is like certification and W3C does validation
18:22:40 [hendler]
q+ to ask about a specific example
18:22:52 [bcuencag]
sandro: most standards in industry talk about what a language does
18:23:10 [bcuencag]
sandro: OWL does not specify what a classifier should do
18:23:24 [IanH]
18:23:26 [hendler]
+1 to line up with defining software
18:23:31 [bcuencag]
sandro: we should come up with a way of defining what a software does
18:23:49 [jjc]
q+ to mention history
18:23:53 [bcuencag]
sandro: I push for conformance levels
18:23:58 [IanH]
ack msmith
18:23:58 [Zakim]
msmith, you wanted to clarify understanding conformance via test
18:24:38 [bcuencag]
who was speaking?
18:24:38 [IanH]
ack Carsten
18:25:03 [bcuencag]
Carsten: conformance level can be related to PD* semantics
18:25:16 [Carsten]
I was kicked out, have to redial
18:25:37 [alanr]
ack alanr
18:25:37 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to say validation is like certification and W3C does validation
18:25:39 [bcuencag]
msmith: I wouldn't be confortable specifying fragments without taking into account the proper semantics
18:25:44 [IanH]
ack alanr
18:25:51 [uli]
1) it answers "Y is consistent" if and only if it is indeed consistent
18:25:51 [uli]
2) if it finds that "C1 is a subclass of C2", then it is indeed one (but not necessarily the other way round, and
18:25:51 [uli]
3) if we ask the reasoner the return all instances of a class C, then only such nstances are returned (but some might be missed)
18:26:07 [bijan]
-1 to what alan said
18:26:20 [bijan]
q+ to reply to alan
18:26:21 [IanH]
18:26:24 [bcuencag]
alan: W3C does validation, and that could be done using tests
18:26:28 [IanH]
ack hendler
18:26:28 [Zakim]
hendler, you wanted to ask about a specific example
18:26:32 [IanH]
18:26:33 [Zakim]
18:26:48 [bcuencag]
hendler: take sameAs
18:26:55 [Zakim]
18:27:00 [MartinD]
MartinD has joined #OWL
18:27:04 [bcuencag]
hendler: has a precise semantics and an RDF match
18:27:18 [bmotik]
To slightly refine Uli's idea, we probably need to look at both the syntactic level, and at the semantic level.
18:27:28 [bmotik]
You can have conformance first at the syntactic level.
18:27:44 [bcuencag]
hendler: we should tell the implementors what features they should implement
18:27:52 [IanH]
18:27:56 [bmotik]
Once you say what kind of syntax you accept, the semantic conformance level (a la Uli) would tell you what you are supposed to derive.
18:28:11 [bcuencag]
hendler: I'd like a fragment to be defined as a set of language features
18:28:39 [alanr]
18:28:40 [bcuencag]
hendler: one could implement OWL DL features but not following the DL semantics
18:28:43 [msmith]
concerned uli's example is incomplete in IRC log, will retype first line
18:28:51 [IanH]
18:28:55 [msmith]
here it is: E.g., we could say that a reasoner that is X-conformant behaves as follows when it handles an OWLPrime ontology Y:
18:29:00 [jjc]
ack jjc
18:29:01 [Zakim]
jjc, you wanted to mention history
18:29:16 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:29:16 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:29:37 [IanH]
18:29:56 [jjc]
sorry skip me
18:30:00 [bcuencag]
bijan: I do not know what validation is
18:30:01 [alanr]
18:30:22 [alanr]
18:30:31 [ewallace]
18:30:45 [ewallace]
18:30:46 [bcuencag]
bijan: defining a set of test cases would not be a suitable kind of validation
18:30:54 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:30:54 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:30:54 [ivan]
ack bijan
18:30:55 [Zakim]
bijan, you wanted to reply to alan
18:31:19 [alanr]
jjc: Yes redial
18:31:27 [Zakim]
18:31:43 [IanH]
18:32:01 [bcuencag]
Zhe: I have discussed about EL++ and Dl-Lite and DLP
18:32:21 [IanH]
18:32:27 [bcuencag]
Zhe: DLP fits better with rules than EL++ or DL Lite
18:32:38 [bcuencag]
Zhe: I like DLP better
18:33:07 [IanH]
18:33:09 [bcuencag]
Zhe: Either PD* semantics or DLP would work in principle
18:33:10 [Carsten]
could you say what "work" means?
18:33:25 [hendler]
18:33:31 [Carsten]
18:33:40 [hendler]
18:33:42 [IanH]
18:33:46 [bmotik]
q+ to answer Ian's question
18:33:59 [hendler]
18:34:03 [IanH]
ack Carsten
18:34:53 [bcuencag]
Carsten: I can see two conditions relevant for a fragment: they should provide useful expressivity, and they should be based in some principle that guides the design, such as tractability of subsumption or horness
18:34:57 [IanH]
18:35:08 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:35:08 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:35:10 [bcuencag]
Carsten: What would be the guiding design principle of OWL Prime
18:35:19 [alanr]
reducibility to implementation in rule bases with large numbers of instances?
18:35:21 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:35:21 [Zakim]
bmotik, you wanted to answer Ian's question
18:35:24 [hendler]
-1 to the way Carsten sees defining things, as they don't apply well to the startup/uindustrial world
18:35:45 [bcuencag]
bmotik: DLP allows to reason about the domain that consists only of the resources that one has in the KB
18:36:01 [bcuencag]
bmotik: no need to generate anonymous individuals
18:36:11 [Carsten]
ok, fine with me. Would be nice to learn whether Zhe agrees?!
18:36:24 [bcuencag]
bmotik: OWL Prime is pretty close to DLP
18:36:40 [Zhe]
18:36:50 [Carsten]
What is the complexity of DLP?
18:36:55 [bcuencag]
bmotik: the guiding principle behind DLP is similar to OWL Prime's goals of using rules for reasoning
18:37:10 [bcuencag]
bmotik: wouldn't be difficult to align DLP and OWL Prime
18:37:14 [Zakim]
18:37:22 [jjc]
Zakim, ??P37 is me
18:37:25 [Zakim]
+jjc; got it
18:37:26 [alanr]
q+ to say "what the things in the database" may be a source of discussion. and ask: Things in the databases can be classes too?
18:37:29 [jjc]
Zakim, mute me
18:37:29 [Zakim]
jjc should now be muted
18:37:38 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:37:38 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:37:44 [bcuencag]
bmotik: OWL prime could be seen as an RDF-oriented version of DLP
18:37:55 [ivan]
ack Zhe
18:38:02 [bcuencag]
Zhe: I agree with Boris
18:38:18 [bcuencag]
Zhe: should be feasible to map OWL Prime to DLP
18:38:34 [bcuencag]
Zhe: the criteria in Oracle's mind is to meet the requirements of the users
18:39:00 [bcuencag]
Zhe: it has to allow an efficient implementation in the context of enterprise applications
18:39:13 [IanH]
18:39:19 [bcuencag]
Zhe: we like rule sin Oracle because they can be implemented efficiently using DBs
18:39:42 [IanH]
18:39:57 [bcuencag]
18:40:03 [pfps]
18:40:13 [alanr]
18:40:19 [bijan] this meant to bind us by NDA?
18:40:39 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
18:40:41 [Zakim]
pfps should no longer be muted
18:40:42 [bijan]
But...if I were to blog it?
18:40:46 [DougL]
I'd rather you don't tell us anything proprietary, but other than that, okay.
18:41:18 [bcuencag]
pfps: it puts me in an uncomfortable situation
18:41:19 [DougL]
Why not just describe the type (e.g., a large medical center....)
18:41:37 [alanr]
18:41:41 [DougL]
Just don't mention the names.
18:41:43 [alanr]
q- alanr
18:42:09 [bijan]
I don't need the names as long as there's concrete details
18:42:27 [bcuencag]
alan: the names should be mentioned but the members of the WG should not mention them publicly
18:42:48 [DougL]
18:43:02 [DougL]
(Meaning I agree with Peter)
18:43:03 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
18:43:03 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
18:43:08 [ewallace]
I understand Peter's concern!
18:43:12 [bcuencag]
ok, should I mention the names or not?
18:43:15 [bcuencag]
18:43:46 [bcuencag]
hendler: tarlick, radar networks and meta Web have given me details about their specifiic needs
18:44:02 [ivan]
18:44:10 [bcuencag]
hendler: they think that OWL Prime meets their use cases
18:44:27 [IanH]
18:44:36 [IanH]
ack handler
18:44:43 [IanH]
ack hendler
18:44:45 [alanr]
18:44:49 [alanr]
q+ alanr
18:44:55 [bcuencag]
hendler: these companiens would rather not comment in public
18:45:21 [bcuencag]
hendler: we should take into account the needs of those companies
18:45:22 [IanH]
18:45:30 [IanH]
ack alanr
18:45:44 [bcuencag]
alan: could you say something more about OWL prime meeting their needs?
18:45:55 [bcuencag]
alan: is it about syntax?
18:46:05 [bcuencag]
alan: do they care about completeness?
18:46:14 [bcuencag]
hendler: I cannot answer
18:46:53 [bcuencag]
alan: the problem is that I do not know what they mean.
18:47:11 [alanr]
18:47:11 [bcuencag]
IanH: no need to go any further
18:47:32 [bcuencag]
hendler: they prefer scaling rather than completeness
18:47:36 [uli]
18:47:41 [alanr]
thanks Jim, that helps
18:47:49 [uli]
18:48:04 [IanH]
18:48:11 [bcuencag]
IanH: we need to agree what to do next with OWL Prime
18:48:22 [Zhe]
18:48:25 [bcuencag]
IanH: what are the next steps?
18:48:29 [ivan]
ack Zhe
18:48:49 [bcuencag]
Zhe: we should come up with a set of DLP rules that characterize OWL Prime
18:49:10 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:49:10 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:49:10 [bcuencag]
Zhe: these rules would define the semantics
18:49:13 [Carsten]
Is OWL Prime a fragment then or a conformance level?
18:49:28 [bcuencag]
bmotik: I agree we should come up with a rule set
18:49:32 [Carsten]
Or both?
18:49:41 [bcuencag]
bmotik: assume an EL ontology which is DLP
18:49:52 [bcuencag]
bmotik: you turn it into RDF
18:50:00 [alanr]
18:50:03 [hendler]
18:50:09 [bcuencag]
bmotik: and then run the rules
18:50:11 [alanr]
q+ to mention that this seems to legislate non-entailments
18:50:13 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:50:13 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:50:16 [ivan]
ack hendler
18:50:27 [bcuencag]
bmotik: and obtain the same answers
18:50:27 [JeffP]
Does Zhe agree that OWL Prime is simply DLP?
18:51:02 [alanr]
q+ to ask Zhe if classes can be antecedents/consequents in OWL Prime
18:51:03 [IanH]
18:51:07 [uli]
Jeff, I think OWLPrime is more Full-ish than DLP?!
18:51:26 [hendler]
+1 to Uli
18:51:32 [bcuencag]
me neither
18:51:43 [alanr]
my question goes to this
18:51:48 [bcuencag]
hendler: we may have both fragments and conformance levels
18:52:15 [bmotik]
18:52:22 [IanH]
18:52:37 [bcuencag]
hendler: there's technical issues that differentiate a full subset from a DLP subset
18:53:56 [ivan]
ack jjc
18:53:58 [Zakim]
jjc, you wanted to note, silently, I could take an action to do an HP review of the current page .... about two weeks (but it really depends on when Zhe would like such a review)
18:54:01 [bcuencag]
hendler: define a fragment as a subset of a vocabulary and the semantics is the OWL Full semantics
18:54:10 [jjc]
Please read out the abvove
18:54:37 [jjc]
yes it's feaisble
18:54:40 [hendler]
but I think there could also be a DL version <scribe assist>
18:54:52 [jjc]
I would ask HP colleagues, and it's costly
18:54:55 [jjc]
to get a review
18:54:58 [bcuencag]
hendler: but I think there could also be a DL version
18:54:58 [msmith]
review what's there now or what is to be specified?
18:55:03 [jjc]
OWL Prime
18:55:15 [jjc]
Let's do it
18:55:21 [IanH]
18:55:24 [jjc]
I'll write an action
18:55:24 [pfps_]
pfps_ has joined #owl
18:55:27 [ivan]
ack alanr
18:55:27 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to mention that this seems to legislate non-entailments and to ask Zhe if classes can be antecedents/consequents in OWL Prime
18:55:31 [IanH]
ack alanr
18:55:43 [jjc]
ACTION: jeremy to arrange HP review of OWL Prime page
18:55:43 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-76 - Arrange HP review of OWL Prime page [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2008-02-06].
18:56:21 [bcuencag]
alan: I want to meke clear what is the treatment of non-answers
18:56:39 [IanH]
18:57:03 [bcuencag]
Alan:I understand that rule systems do not put constraints in the use of classes in the place of instances and vice-versa
18:57:13 [msmith]
q+ to clarify ACTION-76
18:57:13 [bcuencag]
alanr: this does not seem to be in DLP
18:57:14 [hendler]
q+ to reply to Alan
18:57:28 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:57:28 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:57:28 [uli]
Boris, but this would be a DLP different from the current one
18:57:36 [ivan]
ack bmotik
18:58:02 [bcuencag]
bmotik: I think that DLP and OWL prime could really be made equivalent
18:59:00 [IanH]
18:59:04 [ivan]
ack msmith
18:59:04 [Zakim]
msmith, you wanted to clarify ACTION-76
18:59:05 [bmotik]
zakim, mute me
18:59:07 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:59:07 [bcuencag]
bmotik: OWL Prime is OWL Full like, and we should generate some restrictions
18:59:20 [uli]
Boris, I understand you as volunteering to come up with a unified "rule-based OWL"?
18:59:24 [Zhe]
18:59:54 [jjc]
I am happy to wait
18:59:56 [hendler]
-0 to having to agree to a closed world for OWL Prime - I cannot live with this
19:00:21 [IanH]
19:00:23 [msmith]
ok, that's fine
19:00:24 [jjc]
19:00:24 [bcuencag]
msmith: HP should better spend resources later on, when the spec is more advanced
19:00:25 [ivan]
ack hendler
19:00:25 [Zakim]
hendler, you wanted to reply to Alan
19:00:51 [bijan]
I'll notes that there isn't a closed world in boris's proposal (it's not non-monotonic)
19:00:58 [bcuencag]
hendler: I don't want to move to closed-world semantics
19:01:02 [IanH]
19:01:03 [bmotik]
q+ to comment on closed-world semantics
19:01:33 [uli]
Jim, this is "known domain assumption" rather than "closed domain"
19:02:03 [bcuencag]
ianH: the fragment as specified is decidable
19:02:29 [bcuencag]
hendler: I don't mind if there is a DL version of the fragment, but there should be an OWl prime full
19:02:42 [IanH]
19:02:42 [ivan]
ack Zhe
19:02:43 [bcuencag]
hendler: I am fine with OWL Prime DL being DLP
19:03:04 [hendler]
as long as there is also a Full version
19:03:05 [uli]
...but only primitive classes!
19:03:15 [IanH]
19:03:17 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
19:03:17 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
19:03:22 [uli]
...I understand that you can't even have them in the premis
19:03:26 [ivan]
ack bmotik
19:03:26 [Zakim]
bmotik, you wanted to comment on closed-world semantics
19:03:26 [bcuencag]
hendler: as long as there is also a Full version
19:03:31 [IanH]
19:03:50 [bcuencag]
bmotik: ther eis no CWA in DLP, nor there is a domain closure assumption
19:03:52 [IanH]
19:04:04 [bijan]
+1 to boris
19:04:05 [uli]
alanr, this is what I am reading the OWLPrime description
19:04:09 [bcuencag]
bmotik: what happens is that the use of existentials in the language is limited
19:04:12 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
19:04:12 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
19:04:38 [hendler]
I misunderstood what Boris previously said, I am fine with the above - i.e. that the language doesn't allow certain things to happen (expressivity wise)
19:05:04 [bcuencag]
IanH: as I understand conformance level is that it gives you the entailments that should be inferred
19:05:15 [IanH]
19:05:21 [bcuencag]
ianH: it specifies a minimum but not an upper bound
19:05:26 [alanr]
q+ alanr
19:05:30 [ivan]
ack alanr
19:05:36 [uli]
I just sent out my conformance level examples per email, and it is like Ian just said
19:05:44 [IanH]
19:05:55 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
19:05:55 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
19:06:19 [hendler]
q+ to ask rule-based systems typically have "axiomatic" (as opposed to model theoretic) semantics - is that where we are going
19:06:28 [bcuencag]
bmotik: for certain kinds of queries the answers between DLp and OWLPrime (the rdf version of DLP), the answers should be the same
19:06:53 [bcuencag]
bmotik: I am talking about entailments and non-entailments
19:07:05 [uli]
say again, alanr
19:07:37 [bmotik]
q+ to elaborate on types of queries
19:07:46 [IanH]
19:07:56 [ivan]
ack hendler
19:07:56 [Zakim]
hendler, you wanted to ask rule-based systems typically have "axiomatic" (as opposed to model theoretic) semantics - is that where we are going
19:08:30 [bcuencag]
hendler: most languages I have encountered are defined in terms of rules
19:08:43 [bcuencag]
hendler: but this is not the case in this WG
19:08:54 [sandro]
isnt' a Proof-Theoretic Semantics?
19:08:58 [IanH]
19:09:01 [bijan]
sandro, no
19:09:02 [uli]
Jim, one of the troubles is that these axioms might interact...
19:09:12 [alanr]
uli: Saying fullish dlp answers at least set of queries dl dlp. This actually sets a pretty high bar for conformance (or at least I worry that it might)
19:09:18 [uli]
and then it is difficult to see when we can or should stop
19:09:37 [IanH]
19:10:02 [uli]
alanr, I don't think that anybody is suggesting any conformance level for OWLPrime here
19:10:11 [alanr]
not advocating for it, just making sure that we are all on the same page - worried that zhe or hendler might not see consequences immediately and then balk later
19:10:15 [bcuencag]
hendler: we should have an axiomatic semantics
19:10:21 [IanH]
19:10:23 [Carsten]
I didn't get that.
19:10:23 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
19:10:23 [Zakim]
bmotik was not muted, bmotik
19:10:26 [ivan]
ack bmotik
19:10:26 [Zakim]
bmotik, you wanted to elaborate on types of queries
19:11:31 [bcuencag]
bmotik: DLs are closer to FOL in that nothing is reified
19:11:40 [bcuencag]
bmotik: so the theory is the ontology
19:11:42 [hendler]
+1 I think
19:11:53 [IanH]
19:12:06 [bcuencag]
bmotik: in the case of OWL Full and OWL Prime, you ahve a set of axioms that reify your theory
19:12:29 [uli]
Boris, I haven't seen an axiomatic semantics for OWL DL...did you?
19:13:15 [bcuencag]
bmotik: the equivalence between DLP and OWL Prime could be established
19:13:15 [IanH]
19:13:24 [bcuencag]
bmotik: for a certain kind of entailments
19:13:56 [DougL]
The speakers can edit the minutes.
19:13:57 [bcuencag]
bmotik: those that make sense in DLs
19:13:59 [bmotik]
Uli, the axiomatic semantics of OWL DL can't be given in terms of a set of axioms that is *fixed* for all ontolgoies.
19:14:09 [bmotik]
These axioms in OWL DL would be second-order.
19:14:21 [bmotik]
In OWL DL, the theory is actually the ontology.
19:14:22 [alanr]
+1 to Uli - Boris, possible to do that
19:14:32 [uli]
Boris, I understand, but I heard you saying that there was such a semantics
19:15:04 [bcuencag]
19:15:36 [Carsten]
Other fragments for example :-)
19:15:49 [bcuencag]
IanH: next item in the agenda
19:15:58 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
19:15:58 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
19:16:25 [Carsten]
zakim, mute me
19:16:25 [Zakim]
Carsten.a should now be muted
19:16:47 [IanH]
19:17:00 [DougL]
19:17:02 [bmotik]
19:17:04 [ivan]
19:17:05 [alanr]
19:17:07 [JeffP]
well done!
19:17:08 [Zakim]
19:17:09 [Zhe]
19:17:11 [Achille]
19:17:13 [bijan]
19:17:13 [uli]
IanH, we have been spending a looong time on one fragment - not on any of the others...
19:17:16 [bcuencag]
hendler: Boris won an award, congrats
19:17:19 [uli]
hurray boris!
19:17:27 [Ratnesh]
19:17:28 [Carsten]
great, boris!
19:17:46 [bcuencag]
IanH: issue 92
19:18:28 [bmotik]
ACTION: bmotik to Send an e-mail to the list with ideas on how to bridge DLP and OWL Prime
19:18:28 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - bmotik
19:18:31 [bcuencag]
IanH: resolved
19:18:34 [pfps]
19:18:39 [IanH]
19:18:43 [bmotik]
ACTION: bmotik2 to Send an e-mail to the list with ideas on how to bridge DLP and OWL Prime
19:18:43 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-77 - Send an e-mail to the list with ideas on how to bridge DLP and OWL Prime [on Boris Motik - due 2008-02-06].
19:18:47 [Rinke]
19:18:58 [bcuencag]
IanH: issue 16
19:19:13 [IanH]
19:19:18 [bcuencag]
IanH: entity annotations? should we have annotations in entity declarations?
19:19:22 [pfps]
19:19:25 [dlm]
yes - i liked peters 2a proposal
19:19:28 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
19:19:28 [Zakim]
pfps should no longer be muted
19:19:35 [Zakim]
19:19:36 [IanH]
19:19:37 [ivan]
ack pfps
19:19:42 [MartinD]
MartinD has left #OWL
19:19:45 [jjc]
annotations are not interesting! but they are a duty ....
19:20:23 [bcuencag]
pfps: I proposed to decrease the kinds of annotations allowed
19:20:28 [bmotik]
19:20:37 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
19:20:37 [Zakim]
bmotik was already muted, bmotik
19:20:39 [IanH]
19:20:55 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
19:20:55 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
19:20:58 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
19:20:58 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
19:21:01 [IanH]
ack bmotik
19:21:04 [IanH]
19:21:11 [bcuencag]
bmotik: there is another asymmetry
19:21:24 [bcuencag]
bmotik: annotations of axioms are not axioms themselves
19:21:39 [bcuencag]
bmotik: this causes an asymmetry
19:21:50 [pfps]
this is roughly my 2a proposal
19:21:55 [bcuencag]
bmotik: Matthew suggested to make all annotations axioms
19:22:15 [bijan]
It could be a bit tricky, but it could be simple...would have to work out the details to know which
19:22:16 [Rinke]
looks like it to me as well
19:22:17 [uli]
19:22:49 [bcuencag]
alan: do annotations become domain elements?
19:22:50 [bijan]
That's orthoganal I think
19:22:59 [bcuencag]
bmotik: all this is purely syntactic
19:23:18 [pfps]
... and annotations
19:23:20 [bijan]
19:23:21 [IanH]
19:23:22 [bcuencag]
bmotik: we could put annotations on ontologies, entities and axioms
19:23:24 [bijan]
19:23:24 [dlm]
and i think you can put annotations on annotations right?
19:23:33 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
19:23:33 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
19:23:43 [uli]
yes, dlm
19:23:51 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
19:23:51 [Zakim]
pfps was already muted, pfps
19:23:58 [pfps]
ok by me
19:24:00 [DougL]
Deb, i think that recursively, by definition, the answer must be yes.
19:24:03 [IanH]
19:24:27 [ivan]
ack bijan
19:24:28 [dlm]
yes - just making sure for the log. i would use this a lot.
19:24:56 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
19:24:56 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
19:25:25 [bcuencag]
IanH: peter requested to ask for sponsorship for OWLEd
19:25:27 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
19:25:27 [Zakim]
pfps should no longer be muted
19:25:33 [bcuencag]
IanH and alan: we endorse the request
19:25:34 [pfps]
19:25:43 [IanH]
19:26:43 [bcuencag]
pfps: we would like to get enough money so that we do not need registration fees
19:27:19 [jjc]
(HP is always willing to host on that basis)
19:27:29 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
19:27:29 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
19:27:38 [jjc]
19:28:24 [bcuencag]
IanH: there is an issue concerning observers in the next F2F
19:28:39 [bcuencag]
ianH: we had some issues with observers in manchester
19:28:43 [ivan]
19:28:48 [pfps]
19:28:50 [bijan]
I'm always happy to have observers of any kind
19:28:50 [IanH]
19:28:54 [jjc]
I feel there should be a cap on number of observers from any one organisation
19:28:54 [ivan]
ack ivan
19:29:05 [msmith]
19:29:10 [IanH]
19:29:13 [bijan]
I'm happy to have observers vote in various circumstantces (e.g., certain sorts of straw poll)
19:29:22 [bcuencag]
ivan: we mean observers from member organizations, right?
19:29:32 [bijan]
19:29:40 [msmith]
19:29:42 [jjc]
Also meeting room arrangement
19:29:47 [IanH]
19:29:50 [bijan]
19:29:55 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
19:29:55 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
19:30:00 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
19:30:00 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
19:30:00 [IanH]
19:30:24 [bcuencag]
alan: the imports task force meeting is next monday
19:30:30 [bijan]
I don't see any problem with non-member participation at a normal f2f...everything is publically minuted!
19:31:03 [uli]
IanH, he took himself off the queue
19:31:13 [IanH]
19:31:21 [bijan]
+1 to sandro
19:31:25 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
19:31:25 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
19:31:26 [alanr]
do we have any actual requests for non members yet?
19:31:34 [jjc]
it raises the bar to making member confidential commetns
19:31:38 [bcuencag]
IanH: it would be possible to have observers from non members, but
19:31:47 [bcuencag]
IanH: they may be asked to leave the room
19:32:05 [bcuencag]
bijan: I do not believe there are issues with non-members
19:32:28 [msmith]
I will clarify if I know of any such requests
19:32:31 [bijan]
jjc, the bar should be high
19:32:34 [Zakim]
19:32:36 [Zakim]
19:32:36 [Rinke]
19:32:38 [bcuencag]
19:32:38 [JeffP]
19:32:38 [uli]
bye bye
19:32:40 [Zakim]
19:32:41 [Zakim]
19:32:42 [Zakim]
19:32:43 [Zakim]
19:32:43 [Ratnesh]
19:32:43 [Zhe]
19:32:44 [Zakim]
19:32:45 [bijan]
jjc, since it's a pita to rip things out of the irc log
19:32:45 [Zakim]
19:32:47 [alanr]
someone got the minutes?
19:32:49 [Zakim]
19:32:50 [Zakim]
19:32:51 [Zakim]
19:32:52 [Zakim]
19:32:54 [Zakim]
19:32:56 [Zakim]
19:32:58 [Zakim]
19:32:59 [bcuencag]
so, concerning the minutes, what do I do?
19:33:00 [Zakim]
19:33:02 [Zakim]
19:33:09 [alanr]
rrsagent, draft minutes
19:33:09 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate alanr
19:33:13 [bcuencag]
19:33:18 [alanr]
rrsagent, make minutes world-readable
19:33:18 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes world-readable', alanr. Try /msg RRSAgent help
19:33:26 [sandro]
bcuencag, is ready.
19:34:00 [alanr]
19:34:04 [Zakim]
19:34:15 [Zakim]
19:34:18 [Zakim]
19:35:30 [Zakim]
19:39:43 [msmith]
msmith has left #owl
19:40:31 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, bcuencag, in SW_OWL()12:00PM
19:40:35 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()12:00PM has ended
19:40:36 [Zakim]
Attendees were bijan, bmotik, Rinke, m_schnei, Ivan, uli, +44.186.527.aaaa, IanH, Carsten, pfps, Sandro, msmith, Achille, DougL, Evan_Wallace, Zhe, +1.518.276.aabb, bcuencag,
19:40:39 [Zakim]
... MartinD, Ratnesh, JeffP, +1.604.675.aacc, alanr, dlm, Jim, Elisa_Kendall, jjc
21:36:40 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl