17:56:59 RRSAgent has joined #owl 17:56:59 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/01/30-owl-irc 17:57:04 +??P2 17:57:11 RRSAgent, make records public 17:57:11 zakim, ??p2 is me 17:57:11 +bijan; got it 17:57:19 zakim, mute me 17:57:19 bijan should now be muted 17:57:30 +??P12 17:57:33 Having trouble getting through -- will be with you ASAP 17:57:35 Zakim, ??P12 is me 17:57:35 +bmotik; got it 17:57:39 +??P7 17:57:41 Zakim, mute me 17:57:41 bmotik should now be muted 17:58:10 zakim ??P7 is me 17:58:12 +Rinke 17:58:21 zakim, ??P7 is me 17:58:21 +m_schnei; got it 17:58:26 zakim, dial ivan-voip 17:58:26 ok, ivan; the call is being made 17:58:27 +Ivan 17:58:49 +??P14 17:58:51 zakim, drop ivan 17:58:51 Ivan is being disconnected 17:58:52 -Ivan 17:58:54 pfps has joined #owl 17:59:00 zakim, ??P14 is me 17:59:00 +uli; got it 17:59:03 zakim, dial ivan-voip 17:59:03 ok, ivan; the call is being made 17:59:04 +Ivan 17:59:16 + +44.186.527.aaaa 17:59:27 zakim, aaaa is IanH 17:59:27 +IanH; got it 17:59:30 zakim, mute me 17:59:30 m_schnei should now be muted 17:59:34 msmith has joined #owl 17:59:41 bcuencag has joined #owl 17:59:45 +Carsten 17:59:52 zakim, mute me 17:59:52 Carsten should now be muted 17:59:59 DougL has joined #owl 18:00:03 alanr has joined #owl 18:00:10 zakim, who is here 18:00:10 IanH, you need to end that query with '?' 18:00:18 zakim, who is here? 18:00:18 On the phone I see [IBM], bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), m_schnei (muted), Rinke, Ivan, uli, IanH, Carsten (muted) 18:00:20 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 +??P8 18:00:26 Ratnesh has joined #owl 18:00:29 zakim, ??P8 is me 18:00:29 +pfps; got it 18:00:32 +Sandro 18:00:36 Zhe has joined #owl 18:00:42 +msmith 18:00:43 Zakim, IBM is me 18:00:44 +Achille; got it 18:00:52 +DougL 18:01:01 +Evan_Wallace 18:01:16 +??P25 18:01:36 I am scribing 18:01:50 how do I invite the agent? 18:01:53 ScribeNick bcuencag 18:01:54 scribenick: bcuencag 18:01:54 +Zhe 18:01:56 + +1.518.276.aabb 18:02:01 Zakim, ??P25 is me 18:02:01 +bcuencag; got it 18:02:15 So, I just type 18:02:21 hendler has joined #owl 18:02:26 +??P11 18:02:31 who is maintaining the scribe list? 18:02:35 +MartinD 18:02:55 IanH: Agenda amendments? 18:02:59 zakim, I am jhendler 18:02:59 sorry, hendler, I do not see a party named 'jhendler' 18:03:11 IanH: No amendments, accept previous minutes? 18:03:15 Zakim, +??P11 is me 18:03:15 sorry, Ratnesh, I do not recognize a party named '+??P11' 18:03:16 +1 to accept, they look fine to me 18:03:26 IanH: minutes approved 18:03:30 +1 very comprehensive 18:03:35 thanks 18:03:38 Zakim, ??P11 is me 18:03:38 +Ratnesh; got it 18:03:46 RESOLVED: approve previous minutes http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.01.23/Minutes 18:03:50 +1 18:04:08 IanH; pending actions 18:04:13 inaH: action 54 18:04:15 zakim, mute me 18:04:15 Ivan should now be muted 18:04:26 IanH: action 54 complete 18:04:30 zakim, mute me 18:04:30 MartinD should now be muted 18:04:32 ianH: action 57 18:04:44 JeffP has joined #owl 18:04:54 q+ 18:05:01 zakim, unmute me 18:05:01 Carsten should no longer be muted 18:05:03 IanH: people should speak up if they think an action is not completed 18:05:04 ack Carsten 18:05:25 Carsten: the action requested the definition of OWLPrime 18:05:42 Carsten: not clear what OWL Prime we should discuss 18:05:48 Zakim, mute me 18:05:48 bcuencag should now be muted 18:05:55 +JeffP 18:06:21 + +1.604.675.aacc 18:06:35 The document is the starting point for discussing OWL Prime 18:06:45 alanr has joined #owl 18:06:52 rrsagent, bookmark 18:06:52 See http://www.w3.org/2008/01/30-owl-irc#T18-06-52 18:07:07 Carsten: for defining OWL Prime we still need some work 18:07:14 zakim, who is here? 18:07:14 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 ... bcuencag (muted), +1.518.276.aabb, Zhe, Ratnesh, MartinD (muted), JeffP, +1.604.675.aacc 18:07:19 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 ... sandro, ewallace, trackbot-ng 18:07:29 zakim, aacc is me 18:07:29 +alanr; got it 18:07:32 zakim, mute me 18:07:32 Carsten should now be muted 18:07:38 +dlm 18:07:40 InaH: Action 67 18:07:54 s/InaH/IanH 18:08:05 IanH: Action 71, Boris completed 18:08:10 dlm has joined #owl 18:08:16 +Sandro.a 18:08:20 -Sandro 18:08:28 IanH: Action 74, dealt with by Jeremy 18:08:41 Zakim, Sandro.a is Sandro 18:08:41 +Sandro; got it 18:08:42 IanH: Action 90: no agreement for acceptance 18:08:53 IanH: Action 90 is ongoing 18:08:59 Still outstanding 18:09:00 Yes 18:09:08 IanH: rich annotations action, any progress? 18:09:10 zakim, unmute me 18:09:10 bijan should no longer be muted 18:09:16 Bijan: yes 18:09:38 IanH: Action 62 18:09:40 zakim, mute me 18:09:40 bijan should now be muted 18:10:17 Alan: action not yet completed 18:10:37 IanH: use case for punning; postponed for next week 18:10:55 IanH: Action 72, to be continued 18:11:00 jjc has joined #owl 18:11:08 IanH: UML association; completed 18:11:42 zakim, unmute me 18:11:42 Ivan should no longer be muted 18:12:08 zakim, who is on the call? 18:12:08 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 zakim, who is here? 18:12:11 ... (muted), +1.518.276.aabb, Zhe, Ratnesh, MartinD (muted), JeffP, alanr, dlm, Sandro 18:12:14 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 ... (muted), +1.518.276.aabb, Zhe, Ratnesh, MartinD (muted), JeffP, alanr, dlm, Sandro 18:12:20 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 zakim, aabb is deb 18:12:23 ... bijan, sandro, ewallace, trackbot-ng 18:12:24 +deb; got it 18:12:38 zakim, aabb is me 18:12:38 sorry, hendler, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb' 18:12:50 Zakim, deb is Jim 18:12:50 +Jim; got it 18:13:03 zakim, who is on the call? 18:13:03 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 ... (muted), Jim, Zhe, Ratnesh, MartinD (muted), JeffP, alanr, dlm, Sandro 18:13:09 IanH: No proposals to resolve issues; more time for discussion 18:13:35 IanH: fragments and conformance issues 18:13:42 yes - but couldn't find anything about "conformance" 18:13:49 Elisa has joined #owl 18:13:52 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 q+ 18:14:37 Alan: at the workshop we achieved a consensus 18:14:46 q? 18:14:53 +Elisa_Kendall 18:14:54 ack alanr 18:14:55 ack alanr 18:14:55 ack alan 18:15:00 Alan: we call fragments to syntax fragments and semantic fragments we called them conformance levels 18:15:01 q? 18:15:29 IanH: we agree that the email I sent is a reasonable starting point 18:15:49 zakim, unmute me 18:15:49 Carsten should no longer be muted 18:15:54 q+ 18:15:55 q? 18:16:02 IanH: Do people understand the difference between fragments and conformance levels? 18:16:02 ack Carsten 18:16:03 +??P28 18:16:11 Zakim, ??P28 is me 18:16:11 +jjc; got it 18:16:15 Zakim, mute me 18:16:15 jjc should now be muted 18:16:19 Carsten: happy with the distinction, but not clear what a conformance level is 18:16:25 q? 18:16:38 q? 18:17:09 q+ 18:17:21 q? 18:17:24 alanr: we could have a reasoner that does incomplete reasoning, but complete up to a certain set of entailments 18:17:32 ack hendler 18:17:45 I suspect it's like what's talked about in: http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/research/mercury/information/doc-release/mercury_ref/Semantics.html#Semantics 18:17:54 hendler: we have a very tight definition of language fragments 18:17:55 So they are orthogonal? We can have syntactic fragment X and conformance level Y at the same time? 18:18:06 """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 hendler: a fragment could be rather seen as a set of figures that could be supported 18:18:33 q? 18:18:39 ack me 18:18:55 q+ 18:19:05 ack uli 18:19:23 Uli: having conformance levels might be a good idea 18:19:38 Uli: it gives an idea of what it means to cover a certain construct 18:19:44 q+ 18:19:51 q? 18:19:55 Uli: not too difficult to come up with a definition of conformance level 18:20:07 I am not sure I got that 18:20:10 ack Zhe 18:20:15 Uli: what it means to be correct or complete for a certain class of queries 18:20:44 +1 for test cases 18:20:50 Zhe: are we going to provide a set of test cases and ensure that implementations should cover them? 18:20:56 q+ 18:20:59 Zhe: does this relate to conformance? 18:21:20 q? 18:21:26 Note: the w3c generally doesn't do confromance certification 18:21:29 IanH: My assumption was that we would not define conformance in terms of test cases, but rather something more precise 18:21:54 q+ to clarify understanding conformance via test 18:21:59 +1 to steering clear of WG doing certification 18:22:03 ack sandro 18:22:13 Sandro: OWL does have test cases 18:22:13 +1 to bijan's +1 18:22:13 q+ 18:22:15 FYGI see http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#runningConsistencyChecker 18:22:28 q? 18:22:34 q+ to say validation is like certification and W3C does validation 18:22:40 q+ to ask about a specific example 18:22:52 sandro: most standards in industry talk about what a language does 18:23:10 sandro: OWL does not specify what a classifier should do 18:23:24 q? 18:23:26 +1 to line up with defining software 18:23:31 sandro: we should come up with a way of defining what a software does 18:23:49 q+ to mention history 18:23:53 sandro: I push for conformance levels 18:23:58 ack msmith 18:23:58 msmith, you wanted to clarify understanding conformance via test 18:24:38 who was speaking? 18:24:38 ack Carsten 18:25:03 Carsten: conformance level can be related to PD* semantics 18:25:16 I was kicked out, have to redial 18:25:37 ack alanr 18:25:37 alanr, you wanted to say validation is like certification and W3C does validation 18:25:39 msmith: I wouldn't be confortable specifying fragments without taking into account the proper semantics 18:25:44 ack alanr 18:25:51 1) it answers "Y is consistent" if and only if it is indeed consistent 18:25:51 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 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 -1 to what alan said 18:26:20 q+ to reply to alan 18:26:21 q? 18:26:24 alan: W3C does validation, and that could be done using tests 18:26:28 ack hendler 18:26:28 hendler, you wanted to ask about a specific example 18:26:32 q? 18:26:33 +Carsten.a 18:26:48 hendler: take sameAs 18:26:55 -Carsten 18:27:00 MartinD has joined #OWL 18:27:04 hendler: has a precise semantics and an RDF match 18:27:18 To slightly refine Uli's idea, we probably need to look at both the syntactic level, and at the semantic level. 18:27:28 You can have conformance first at the syntactic level. 18:27:44 hendler: we should tell the implementors what features they should implement 18:27:52 q? 18:27:56 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 hendler: I'd like a fragment to be defined as a set of language features 18:28:39 q? 18:28:40 hendler: one could implement OWL DL features but not following the DL semantics 18:28:43 concerned uli's example is incomplete in IRC log, will retype first line 18:28:51 q? 18:28:55 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 ack jjc 18:29:01 jjc, you wanted to mention history 18:29:16 zakim, unmute me 18:29:16 bijan should no longer be muted 18:29:37 q? 18:29:56 sorry skip me 18:30:00 bijan: I do not know what validation is 18:30:01 http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/ 18:30:22 http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/check?uri=referer 18:30:31 +q 18:30:45 q- 18:30:46 bijan: defining a set of test cases would not be a suitable kind of validation 18:30:54 zakim, mute me 18:30:54 bijan should now be muted 18:30:54 ack bijan 18:30:55 bijan, you wanted to reply to alan 18:31:19 jjc: Yes redial 18:31:27 -jjc 18:31:43 q? 18:32:01 Zhe: I have discussed about EL++ and Dl-Lite and DLP 18:32:21 q? 18:32:27 Zhe: DLP fits better with rules than EL++ or DL Lite 18:32:38 Zhe: I like DLP better 18:33:07 q? 18:33:09 Zhe: Either PD* semantics or DLP would work in principle 18:33:10 could you say what "work" means? 18:33:25 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/OracleOwlPrime 18:33:31 q+ 18:33:40 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/OracleOwlPrime#Definition_of_OWLPrime_.28RDFS_3.0.29 18:33:42 q? 18:33:46 q+ to answer Ian's question 18:33:59 q+ 18:34:03 ack Carsten 18:34:53 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 q? 18:35:08 Zakim, unmute me 18:35:08 bmotik should no longer be muted 18:35:10 Carsten: What would be the guiding design principle of OWL Prime 18:35:19 reducibility to implementation in rule bases with large numbers of instances? 18:35:21 ack bmotik 18:35:21 bmotik, you wanted to answer Ian's question 18:35:24 -1 to the way Carsten sees defining things, as they don't apply well to the startup/uindustrial world 18:35:45 bmotik: DLP allows to reason about the domain that consists only of the resources that one has in the KB 18:36:01 bmotik: no need to generate anonymous individuals 18:36:11 ok, fine with me. Would be nice to learn whether Zhe agrees?! 18:36:24 bmotik: OWL Prime is pretty close to DLP 18:36:40 q+ 18:36:50 What is the complexity of DLP? 18:36:55 bmotik: the guiding principle behind DLP is similar to OWL Prime's goals of using rules for reasoning 18:37:10 bmotik: wouldn't be difficult to align DLP and OWL Prime 18:37:14 +??P37 18:37:22 Zakim, ??P37 is me 18:37:25 +jjc; got it 18:37:26 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 Zakim, mute me 18:37:29 jjc should now be muted 18:37:38 Zakim, mute me 18:37:38 bmotik should now be muted 18:37:44 bmotik: OWL prime could be seen as an RDF-oriented version of DLP 18:37:55 ack Zhe 18:38:02 Zhe: I agree with Boris 18:38:18 Zhe: should be feasible to map OWL Prime to DLP 18:38:34 Zhe: the criteria in Oracle's mind is to meet the requirements of the users 18:39:00 Zhe: it has to allow an efficient implementation in the context of enterprise applications 18:39:13 q? 18:39:19 Zhe: we like rule sin Oracle because they can be implemented efficiently using DBs 18:39:42 q? 18:39:57 agreed 18:40:03 no 18:40:13 +1 18:40:19 Uhm....is this meant to bind us by NDA? 18:40:39 zakim, unmute me 18:40:41 pfps should no longer be muted 18:40:42 But...if I were to blog it? 18:40:46 I'd rather you don't tell us anything proprietary, but other than that, okay. 18:41:18 pfps: it puts me in an uncomfortable situation 18:41:19 Why not just describe the type (e.g., a large medical center....) 18:41:37 q+ 18:41:41 Just don't mention the names. 18:41:43 q- alanr 18:42:09 I don't need the names as long as there's concrete details 18:42:27 alan: the names should be mentioned but the members of the WG should not mention them publicly 18:42:48 Exactly. 18:43:02 (Meaning I agree with Peter) 18:43:03 zakim, mute me 18:43:03 pfps should now be muted 18:43:08 I understand Peter's concern! 18:43:12 ok, should I mention the names or not? 18:43:15 ok 18:43:46 hendler: tarlick, radar networks and meta Web have given me details about their specifiic needs 18:44:02 s/tarlick/garlik/ 18:44:10 hendler: they think that OWL Prime meets their use cases 18:44:27 q? 18:44:36 ack handler 18:44:43 ack hendler 18:44:45 q? 18:44:49 q+ alanr 18:44:55 hendler: these companiens would rather not comment in public 18:45:21 hendler: we should take into account the needs of those companies 18:45:22 q? 18:45:30 ack alanr 18:45:44 alan: could you say something more about OWL prime meeting their needs? 18:45:55 alan: is it about syntax? 18:46:05 alan: do they care about completeness? 18:46:14 hendler: I cannot answer 18:46:53 alan: the problem is that I do not know what they mean. 18:47:11 q? 18:47:11 IanH: no need to go any further 18:47:32 hendler: they prefer scaling rather than completeness 18:47:36 q+ 18:47:41 thanks Jim, that helps 18:47:49 q- 18:48:04 q? 18:48:11 IanH: we need to agree what to do next with OWL Prime 18:48:22 q+ 18:48:25 IanH: what are the next steps? 18:48:29 ack Zhe 18:48:49 Zhe: we should come up with a set of DLP rules that characterize OWL Prime 18:49:10 Zakim, unmute me 18:49:10 bmotik should no longer be muted 18:49:10 Zhe: these rules would define the semantics 18:49:13 Is OWL Prime a fragment then or a conformance level? 18:49:28 bmotik: I agree we should come up with a rule set 18:49:32