17:55:58 RRSAgent has joined #owl 17:55:58 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/02/06-owl-irc 17:56:07 zakim, this is owl 17:56:07 ok, bijan; that matches SW_OWL()12:00PM 17:56:07 bmotik has joined #owl 17:56:08 rrsagent, bookmark? 17:56:08 See http://www.w3.org/2008/02/06-owl-irc#T17-56-08 17:56:13 zakim, who is here? 17:56:13 On the phone I see ??P6, +1.301.527.aaaa 17:56:14 On IRC I see bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, hendler, ewallace, MarkusK, Rinke, Carsten, uli, msmith, bijan, MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng 17:56:17 rrsagent, make log world-readable 17:56:21 m_schnei has joined #owl 17:56:23 zakim, ??P6 is me 17:56:23 +bijan; got it 17:56:27 zakim, mute me 17:56:27 bijan should now be muted 17:56:37 zakim, aaaa is me 17:56:37 +alanr; got it 17:56:39 +??P5 17:56:46 Zakim, ??P5 is me 17:56:46 +bmotik; got it 17:56:56 Zakim, mute me 17:56:56 bmotik should now be muted 17:56:57 pfps has joined #owl 17:56:57 +??P8 17:57:13 zakim, ??P8 is me 17:57:13 +uli; got it 17:57:17 + +31.20.525.aabb 17:57:20 zakim, mute me 17:57:22 uli should now be muted 17:57:23 Zakim, aabb is me 17:57:30 +Rinke; got it 17:57:43 +??P0 17:58:07 +msmith 17:58:15 Ratnesh has joined #owl 17:58:31 Achille has joined #owl 17:58:45 +Jim 17:58:52 +??P4 17:58:56 zakim, I am jhendler 17:58:56 sorry, hendler, I do not see a party named 'jhendler' 17:58:58 zakim, mute me 17:58:58 sorry, m_schnei, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 17:59:05 zakim, I am Jim 17:59:05 ok, hendler, I now associate you with Jim 17:59:10 zakim, +??P4 is me 17:59:10 sorry, m_schnei, I do not recognize a party named '+??P4' 17:59:16 zakim, who is here? 17:59:16 On the phone I see bijan (muted), alanr, bmotik (muted), uli (muted), Rinke, MarkusK (muted), msmith, Jim, ??P4 17:59:19 On IRC I see Achille, Ratnesh, pfps, m_schnei, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, hendler, ewallace, MarkusK, Rinke, Carsten, uli, msmith, bijan, MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng 17:59:19 zakim, ??P4 is me 17:59:19 +m_schnei; got it 17:59:20 +[IBM] 17:59:25 zakim, mute me 17:59:25 m_schnei should now be muted 17:59:32 Zakim, IBM is Achille 17:59:32 +Achille; got it 17:59:36 Zakim, Jim is jhendler 17:59:36 +jhendler; got it 18:00:16 +??P13 18:01:00 + +49.351.463.3.aacc 18:01:03 zakim, +??P13 is me 18:01:03 sorry, Ratnesh, I do not recognize a party named '+??P13' 18:01:14 zakim, aacc is me 18:01:14 +Carsten; got it 18:01:20 zakim, mute me 18:01:20 Carsten should now be muted 18:01:22 zakim, ??P13 is Ratnesh 18:01:22 +Ratnesh; got it 18:01:23 + +7.955.aadd 18:01:34 +pfps 18:01:40 zakim, mute me 18:01:40 pfps should now be muted 18:02:22 jeremy has joined #owl 18:02:27 zakim, who is here? 18:02:27 On the phone I see bijan (muted), alanr, bmotik (muted), uli (muted), Rinke, MarkusK (muted), msmith, jhendler, m_schnei (muted), Achille, Ratnesh, Carsten (muted), +7.955.aadd, 18:02:30 ... pfps (muted) 18:02:31 On IRC I see jeremy, Achille, Ratnesh, pfps, m_schnei, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, hendler, ewallace, MarkusK, Rinke, Carsten, uli, msmith, bijan, MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng 18:02:58 ivan has joined #owl 18:03:02 Zakim, aadd is me 18:03:02 +jeremy; got it 18:03:06 q- 18:03:11 q- aadd 18:03:16 zakim, dial ivan-voip 18:03:16 ok, ivan; the call is being made 18:03:17 +Ivan 18:03:18 ack 18:03:29 zakim, my name is lyrics. 18:03:29 I don't understand 'my name is lyrics', hendler 18:03:39 bcuencag has joined #owl 18:03:41 ack 18:03:45 q? 18:03:46 +Sandro 18:03:48 ack +7.955.aadd 18:03:52 Zhe has joined #OWL 18:03:58 zakim, aadd is jeremy 18:03:58 sorry, alanr, I do not recognize a party named 'aadd' 18:04:04 Zakim, mute me 18:04:04 jeremy should now be muted 18:04:07 zakim, who is here? 18:04:07 On the phone I see bijan (muted), alanr, bmotik (muted), uli (muted), Rinke, MarkusK (muted), msmith, jhendler, m_schnei (muted), Achille, Ratnesh, Carsten (muted), jeremy (muted), 18:04:10 zakim seems to be less clever than eliza ;-) 18:04:11 ... pfps (muted), Ivan, Sandro 18:04:12 On IRC I see Zhe, bcuencag, ivan, jeremy, Achille, Ratnesh, pfps, m_schnei, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, hendler, ewallace, MarkusK, Rinke, Carsten, uli, msmith, bijan, MartinD, 18:04:16 ... sandro, trackbot-ng 18:04:36 +Zhe 18:04:47 +??P29 18:05:10 Elisa has joined #owl 18:05:20 Zakim, ??P29 is me 18:05:20 +bcuencag; got it 18:05:45 zakim, who is here? 18:05:46 On the phone I see bijan (muted), alanr, bmotik (muted), uli (muted), Rinke, MarkusK (muted), msmith, jhendler, m_schnei (muted), Achille, Ratnesh, Carsten (muted), jeremy (muted), 18:05:50 ... pfps (muted), Ivan, Sandro, Zhe, bcuencag 18:05:51 On IRC I see Elisa, Zhe, bcuencag, ivan, jeremy, Achille, Ratnesh, pfps, m_schnei, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, hendler, ewallace, MarkusK, Rinke, Carsten, uli, msmith, bijan, 18:05:53 ... MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng 18:06:04 +Elisa_Kendall 18:06:06 JeffP has joined #owl 18:06:39 scribe? 18:07:49 Carsten, can you scribe? 18:07:49 I guess so 18:07:53 (never did it) 18:07:55 I'll note that the charter doesn't quite require it...so rechartering probably isn't required but could be good for extra clarity 18:08:00 scribenick: Carsten 18:08:03 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Scribe_Conventions 18:08:08 Where it==owl full 18:08:10 free time?! 18:08:36 But go read that page, for now. 18:08:38 (I am with Carsten on phone) 18:08:43 really? 18:08:47 zakim, unmute me 18:08:47 pfps should no longer be muted 18:09:02 Topic: OWL-Full 18:09:18 pfps: We did OWL Full because it was mandated. 18:09:20 t 18:09:30 thanks, peter, I waited for this answer ;-) 18:09:30 q? 18:09:32 pfps: I don't know if you want to hear that. I wont say who mandated it. 18:09:43 zakim, mute me 18:09:43 pfps should now be muted 18:09:50 There's two questions: 1) Why *an* owl full and 2) why *this* owl full 18:10:01 q? 18:10:04 q+ Bijan 18:10:11 hendler: OWL Full was the result of a compromise 18:10:12 q- 18:10:14 q+ Bijan to comment on two questions 18:10:24 Jim: OWL Full was the result of a major consensus-reaching compromise. One group wanted OWL DL, another group didn't. Inverse datatype properties were a key issue -- one group would object to including it, one group would object to not including it. 18:10:26 hendler: one main issue were inverse datatypes 18:10:40 hendler: some people thought OWL should be DL'ish, others not 18:11:14 q+ to give my 2c 18:11:18 OIL had something called 'heavy OIL' 18:11:55 Jim: The key thing WebOnt decided, which is perhaps open to discussion, vocabulary terms like owl:X would be in both languages, although perhaps with restrictions on each. Each side had exactly the same vocabulary terms covered. 18:12:00 hendler: a key feature in the design of OWL Full was that the same vocabulary terms as in OWL DL were covered 18:12:01 Zakim, mute me 18:12:01 bcuencag should now be muted 18:12:10 ack jeremy 18:12:10 jeremy, you wanted to give my 2c 18:12:41 +Evan_Wallace 18:12:57 jeremy: owl full was due to two groups with very different background coming together 18:13:19 Peter comes from an industrial background...see classic 18:13:33 jeremy: there is mutual advantage from this 18:13:42 zakim, unmute me 18:13:42 bijan should no longer be muted 18:13:44 Jeremy: I felt what happened with OWL DL and Full, had to do with two different groups coming together. Peter represents the DL academic community, which had a strong idea where it was coming from. Meanwhile, there was an RDF community. Both communities can gain real insights from each other, but there are arguments and difference. Like any marriage, both sides have some good points and some bad points. 18:13:53 Zakim, mute me 18:13:53 jeremy should now be muted 18:13:58 yes, let people say what their backgrounds are themselves 18:14:41 bijan: classes as instances / properties as instances were a big deal, very different use cases 18:14:51 q+ to mention "temporal" aspect of decision 18:14:57 Bijan: It's a conceptual error to regard OWL Full as a unitary phenomenon. There are a lot of different parts to it, and they each have their own story. EG classes as instances. Very different uses cases. EG annotations. ("my property was made by me, and modified on some date" -- different from modeling.) 18:14:58 ack Bijan 18:14:58 Bijan, you wanted to comment on two questions 18:15:45 ack Jim 18:15:46 zakim, mute me 18:15:47 bijan should now be muted 18:15:47 Bijan: I think there is an OWL Full is because there was too be a gap between what some people wanted and what some implementors (doing complete implemtnations) could do. 18:15:59 No, Carsten -- I'm just scribe-assisting on things I find particularly important. 18:16:11 q+ 18:16:19 ack jhendler 18:16:19 jhendler, you wanted to mention "temporal" aspect of decision 18:16:34 Jim: The path to the split was important. A lot of the design on the DL and Full sides were influenced by what happened when. We have the option to rationalize it now. 18:16:38 zakim, unmute me 18:16:38 pfps should no longer be muted 18:16:39 I'll note that the RDF semantics were also being designed (in a sort of death march) and "fitting" with that was seens as a requirement 18:16:42 this q 18:16:44 hendler: a lot depended on the temporal ordering of events. We now have the option to rationalize it 18:17:21 pfps is right - RDF-based was in our charter. 18:17:27 peter: compatibility with RDF was an important issue, but semantics hasn't been designed back then 18:18:01 peter: after rdf semanic was decided, there was a split between the FO view of the world and the triple view of the world 18:18:01 zakim, unmute me 18:18:01 pfps was not muted, pfps 18:18:06 pfps: Compatibility with RDF was requirement, and yet RDF Semantics weren't designed yet. If the ordering had happened differently, then the semantics of RDF might have been different. The FOL view of the world and the Triple view of the world were split. Once RDF settled on the Tripple view, we had to live with it. 18:18:06 zakim, mute me 18:18:07 pfps should now be muted 18:18:09 zakim, unmute me 18:18:09 m_schnei should no longer be muted 18:18:19 +Vipul_Kashyap 18:18:54 q+ to answer Michael re: use 18:18:55 "applications" using owl full really requires teasing apart the parts of owl full 18:18:59 q+ 18:19:00 ack hendler 18:19:04 zakim, unmute me 18:19:04 m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei 18:19:11 zakim, mute me 18:19:11 m_schnei should now be muted 18:19:13 +MartinD 18:19:16 ack jhender 18:19:20 ack hendler 18:19:25 ack jhendler 18:19:25 jhendler, you wanted to answer Michael re: use 18:19:28 vipul has joined #owl 18:19:42 hendler: 60+ percent of all the semantic web data is not compliant with the OWL DL semantics 18:20:02 q+ to talk briefly about foaf 18:20:14 Jim: (60% of RDF data is FOAF, which is is not in DL) 18:20:18 q- 18:20:26 But here's a good example...primarily the lack of DLnessin foaf is use of inverseFunctionalDatatype properties which is perfectly first order. 18:20:27 hendler: under the definition "using OWL vocabulary, but not being inside OWL DL" 18:20:36 q+ 18:20:41 ack jeremy 18:20:51 q+ to ask if we want OWL-FULL to mean not OWL-DL 18:21:19 q+ to ask is there an OWL Full, or are there just OWL Full features 18:22:11 ack alanr 18:22:11 alanr, you wanted to talk briefly about foaf and to ask if we want OWL-FULL to mean not OWL-DL and to ask is there an OWL Full, or are there just OWL Full features 18:22:21 Jeremy: People inside HP and out find great use for "reasonable" use of OWL-Full, eg subclass list vocabulary, but NOT "messing with the furniture". Having a rule engine as an underlying engine is important. [??] 18:22:50 jeremy: many applications do not use heavy-duty features of OWL Full, a lightweight rule engine suffices to address this [??] 18:23:03 Alan: FOAF deviates from OWL DL in a few places. Inverse-functional-property on strings (eg mailbox hashes), and annotations on properties. 18:23:31 alan: heard different descriptions of OWL full: Everything not in OWL DL. Or in terms of features. 18:23:33 q? 18:23:35 zakim, unmute me 18:23:35 bijan should no longer be muted 18:24:30 alan: people don't often talk about OWL Full as a language with this and that features. Mostly they say they are in OWL full because they are not in OWL DL 18:25:00 ack bijan 18:25:02 ack bijaan 18:25:05 ack bijan 18:25:07 alan: many people just want to use one or two features, does OWL full have to be a "whole" language? 18:25:42 bijan: think of OWL full as having for categories of addition: 1. notational variants of FO-constructs not in OWL DL 18:26:16 uli thinks also of non-simple roles in cardinality restrictions (good one for the record) 18:26:28 bijan: 2.: rules; 3.: metamodelling; 4: arbitrary graphs of b-nodes 5. non-simple riles in cardinality restrictions 18:27:04 bijan: 6. hilog semantics; 7. reflections on vocabulary 18:27:50 Bijan: four types of things in OWL Full: things-in-spirit-of-OWL-DL (IFP on datatypes), metamodeling (syntactic freedom class/instance etc) -- hilog semantics, arbitrary-graphs-of-bnodes, reflection on builtin vocabulary [shadow builtins -- RDF List vs what you say about builtins should change meaning of ontologyes eg domain/range on rdf:type] 18:27:55 bijan: 8. what you change about your vocabularity changes the builtin logic (which is impossible) 18:28:10 +q 18:28:34 q+ to talk about architectural role 18:28:51 bijan: main use: push the bounds of OWL DL a bit to make their applications / tools fit 18:29:23 bijan: semantics flexibility is nice, helps interoperability, but don't formalize this [?] 18:29:41 zakim, unmute me 18:29:41 m_schnei should no longer be muted 18:29:43 q+ 18:29:44 zakim, mute me 18:29:44 bijan should now be muted 18:29:49 ack m_schnei 18:30:12 zakim, unmute me 18:30:12 jeremy was not muted, jeremy 18:30:19 note reasoner(bijan) =def sound, complete, decidable ? 18:30:28 m_schnei: great point of OWL full: accepts every RDF graph; people can have standard RDF data as used by SPARQL and incrementally add semantics to certain but not all properties 18:30:31 +q 18:31:09 zakim, unmute me 18:31:09 m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei 18:31:11 m_schnei: gives you more flexibility than you have in OWL DL 18:31:15 zakim, miute me 18:31:15 I don't understand 'miute me', m_schnei 18:31:20 zakim, mute me 18:31:20 m_schnei should now be muted 18:31:27 q? 18:31:29 ack jeremy 18:31:29 jeremy, you wanted to talk about architectural role 18:32:26 jeremy: one of the reasons d'etre of OWL Full isn't architectural, but there is a view from the RDF community that the various ways of putting semantics on top of triples needs support, and this is what OWL Full gives them 18:32:58 jeremy: I don't like OWL Full being described at not OWL DL 18:33:04 ack jhendler 18:33:16 I didn't understand the last bit...what's the power play? 18:34:13 hendler: my users don't care about the semantics; they work operationally; they don't want to use OWL per se; they find OWL useful for some things they are doing; this applies to many people from the web 3.0 community 18:34:17 Shall we not provide a semantics for OWL Full then 18:34:19 q? 18:34:47 my recent comments on public owl dev suggest that use of 'not' to define primary categories can be a statement of power 18:34:47 handler: using OWL DL forces them to use things they don't care about 18:34:59 alanr asks, loop constructs with enumerated data types ok in java? 18:35:16 q? 18:35:18 ack bcuencag 18:35:23 hendler: owl full is a misnomer; OWL Full is a vocabulary; OWL DL uses it 18:35:24 e.g craft = art that is not fine art, is a statement about the economic interests in fine art 18:35:54 I like Jim's "loop" metaphore, but I have seen people happily *not* using certain language features to ensure good performance/no stack overflow... 18:36:01 bernardo: we should distinguish syntax and semantics; 18:36:01 RDF is more than syntax, it provides a data model too 18:36:12 bernardo: jim's users want syntax 18:36:34 q+ 18:36:43 bernardo: do we only want an RDF syntax in OWL 1.1, or do we want also a semantics for the triples? 18:36:58 bernardo: if people only want syntax, they don't care about the semantics of the triples 18:37:01 q+ to clarify re: "semantics" 18:37:36 note my last comment was misscribed - i will correct in minutes 18:37:54 ack bijan 18:38:46 bijan: if users don't care in the semantics, do you see harm in assigning a semantics that is .... = 18:38:48 ? 18:38:49 q? 18:38:51 ack jhendler 18:38:51 jhendler, you wanted to clarify re: "semantics" 18:38:53 ack jhendler 18:39:07 not criticism of scribe intended :) 18:40:05 q+ 18:40:14 hendler: it's not that users don't care about the semantics; they care about the semantics of, say, same-as. But they don't care about provably getting their reasoners right. An axiomatic semantics may serve that community better than a model-theoretic semantics 18:40:33 bijan: this is a presentational issue; I was asking for the actual semantics 18:40:38 IanH has joined #owl 18:41:10 Thanks -- sorry to be so late 18:42:00 hendler: it is important to get the semantics right, but people do it at their own risk; a good example is linking to another ontology without declaring the type. 18:42:13 q? 18:42:30 ack Zhe 18:42:43 zakim, unmute me 18:42:43 bijan was not muted, bijan 18:43:01 zakim, mute me 18:43:01 bijan should now be muted 18:43:11 zhe: some users are using OWL full features such as same as; they care about the semantics, have an intuitive understanding; 18:43:20 +??P3 18:43:24 So the users care the semantics of some constructs but not others 18:43:33 zakim, ??P3 is ianh 18:43:33 +ianh; got it 18:44:19 I don't think we have time on the telecon, but I'll add that I'd like to have correct and complete implementations of the language. If people write custom subset reasoners, we need to spec some level of interop between the ad hoc ones and the ones aiming to be complete. People move between the two types of systems quite a bit. 18:44:25 alan: we need to define a vocabulary, and a minimal operational semantics; a DL + feature semantics was proposed, without saying how all work together 18:45:03 I don't understand the question 18:45:11 alan: is an OWL Full semantics along the lines of 1.0 something we want in this working group? 18:45:33 zakim, unmute me 18:45:33 bijan should no longer be muted 18:45:34 q+ 18:45:43 zakim, mute me 18:45:43 pfps was already muted, pfps 18:45:57 howabout: we will develop owl full 1.1 semantics as a delta on owl 1.0 full? 18:46:07 +1 ivan 18:46:21 q? 18:46:27 ack bijan 18:46:31 bijan: we should separate semantics presentation from semantics 18:46:55 q+ to ask my variation 18:47:48 zakim, mute me 18:47:48 bijan should now be muted 18:47:48 ack jeremy 18:47:49 jeremy, you wanted to ask my variation 18:47:52 bijan: I want to change the semantics of OWL full, and would like to stick with model theory for presentation 18:48:03 a plus delta or a minus delta? 18:48:03 please say again 18:48:11 jeremy, missed it, pls scribe it?! 18:48:12 or a plus-minus delta 18:48:33 jeremy: Do we want an Owl Full semantics as a delta of the OWL 1.0 full semantics? 18:48:56 Plus delta only? or minus delta? 18:49:07 I like the delta approach of Jeremy, but don't immediately understand in what ways a Full 1.1 semantics would differ from Full 1.0... 18:49:08 +1 18:49:12 0? totally depends on other options. 18:49:16 0 18:49:22 zakim, unmute me 18:49:22 bijan should no longer be muted 18:49:23 -1 (propose we explore other options then a feature by feature model semantics) 18:49:23 I agree: depends on other options 18:49:28 +1 18:49:34 I don't understand the delta approach either 18:49:38 STRAWPOLL: Do we want an Owl Full semantics as a delta of the OWL 1.0 full semantics? 18:49:39 0 18:49:39 +0 depends on the delta (remove everything, then add some stuff?) 18:49:39 i don't understand 18:49:40 0 18:49:48 0 18:49:48 bye conflict ... 18:49:49 i guess I will tend to a minus 18:49:50 0 need more info on the nature of the delta 18:49:51 -jeremy 18:49:51 +0 18:49:54 0 18:50:06 --0 18:50:09 -1 again (so it is in right place - but to explore other options) 18:50:13 -0 as far as I can tell without knowing the alternatives 18:50:13 0 18:50:16 -0 18:50:22 -0 18:50:40 +q 18:50:46 zakim, miute me 18:50:46 I don't understand 'miute me', m_schnei 18:50:48 zakim, unmute me 18:50:48 m_schnei should no longer be muted 18:50:50 ack m_schnei 18:51:12 q+ to suggest we go a couple more minutes to get some actions defined, but then move this to email 18:51:16 that sounds good to me 18:51:18 we need to see the set of alternatives on the table 18:51:24 action: Michael to explain what delta to 1.0 semantics means 18:51:25 Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Michael 18:51:25 Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. msmith9, mschneid, msintek) 18:51:25 zakim, mute me 18:51:25 m_schnei should now be muted 18:51:33 +1 to evan 18:51:36 q? 18:51:40 ack hendler 18:51:46 m_schnei: people didn't understand what delta means here; we should explain before we can vote 18:51:47 ack jhendler 18:51:49 jhendler, you wanted to suggest we go a couple more minutes to get some actions defined, but then move this to email 18:51:51 +1 to evan - what are alternatives? 18:52:01 ACTION: mschneid to explain what delta to 1.0 semantics means 18:52:01 Created ACTION-78 - Explain what delta to 1.0 semantics means [on Michael Schneider - due 2008-02-13]. 18:52:11 q+ 18:52:22 ack ivan 18:52:46 Does anyone have any idea as to an alternative? 18:53:15 ivan: I think we need to have a clear vote of what the alternatives are before voting. We need a feeling what it costs in terms of time/energy. What would an operational semantics mean? We need this before making decisions. 18:53:37 s/vote/view 18:53:57 s/vote/view/ 18:54:22 I believe that if long term (maybe not out of this WG we see a path that takes us to "one OWL" it would be a big win 18:54:30 me neither 18:54:47 action: Alan to describe what he means by a "feature at a time" semantics 18:54:48 Created ACTION-79 - Describe what he means by a \"feature at a time\" semantics [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-02-13]. 18:55:13 ACTION: hendler will describe an approach to a "operationall semantics" approach to OWL Full 18:55:13