IRC log of owl on 2008-02-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:55:58 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:55:58 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/02/06-owl-irc
17:56:07 [bijan]
zakim, this is owl
17:56:07 [Zakim]
ok, bijan; that matches SW_OWL()12:00PM
17:56:07 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
17:56:08 [alanr]
rrsagent, bookmark?
17:56:08 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2008/02/06-owl-irc#T17-56-08
17:56:13 [bijan]
zakim, who is here?
17:56:13 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P6, +1.301.527.aaaa
17:56:14 [Zakim]
On IRC I see bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, hendler, ewallace, MarkusK, Rinke, Carsten, uli, msmith, bijan, MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng
17:56:17 [alanr]
rrsagent, make log world-readable
17:56:21 [m_schnei]
m_schnei has joined #owl
17:56:23 [bijan]
zakim, ??P6 is me
17:56:23 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
17:56:27 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:56:27 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:56:37 [alanr]
zakim, aaaa is me
17:56:37 [Zakim]
+alanr; got it
17:56:39 [Zakim]
+??P5
17:56:46 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??P5 is me
17:56:46 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
17:56:56 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:56:56 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:56:57 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
17:56:57 [Zakim]
+??P8
17:57:13 [uli]
zakim, ??P8 is me
17:57:13 [Zakim]
+uli; got it
17:57:17 [Zakim]
+ +31.20.525.aabb
17:57:20 [uli]
zakim, mute me
17:57:22 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
17:57:23 [Rinke]
Zakim, aabb is me
17:57:30 [Zakim]
+Rinke; got it
17:57:43 [Zakim]
+??P0
17:58:07 [Zakim]
+msmith
17:58:15 [Ratnesh]
Ratnesh has joined #owl
17:58:31 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
17:58:45 [Zakim]
+Jim
17:58:52 [Zakim]
+??P4
17:58:56 [hendler]
zakim, I am jhendler
17:58:56 [Zakim]
sorry, hendler, I do not see a party named 'jhendler'
17:58:58 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:58:58 [Zakim]
sorry, m_schnei, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:59:05 [hendler]
zakim, I am Jim
17:59:05 [Zakim]
ok, hendler, I now associate you with Jim
17:59:10 [m_schnei]
zakim, +??P4 is me
17:59:10 [Zakim]
sorry, m_schnei, I do not recognize a party named '+??P4'
17:59:16 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
17:59:16 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bijan (muted), alanr, bmotik (muted), uli (muted), Rinke, MarkusK (muted), msmith, Jim, ??P4
17:59:19 [Zakim]
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 [m_schnei]
zakim, ??P4 is me
17:59:19 [Zakim]
+m_schnei; got it
17:59:20 [Zakim]
+[IBM]
17:59:25 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:59:25 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:59:32 [Achille]
Zakim, IBM is Achille
17:59:32 [Zakim]
+Achille; got it
17:59:36 [hendler]
Zakim, Jim is jhendler
17:59:36 [Zakim]
+jhendler; got it
18:00:16 [Zakim]
+??P13
18:01:00 [Zakim]
+ +49.351.463.3.aacc
18:01:03 [Ratnesh]
zakim, +??P13 is me
18:01:03 [Zakim]
sorry, Ratnesh, I do not recognize a party named '+??P13'
18:01:14 [Carsten]
zakim, aacc is me
18:01:14 [Zakim]
+Carsten; got it
18:01:20 [Carsten]
zakim, mute me
18:01:20 [Zakim]
Carsten should now be muted
18:01:22 [alanr]
zakim, ??P13 is Ratnesh
18:01:22 [Zakim]
+Ratnesh; got it
18:01:23 [Zakim]
+ +7.955.aadd
18:01:34 [Zakim]
+pfps
18:01:40 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
18:01:40 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
18:02:22 [jeremy]
jeremy has joined #owl
18:02:27 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
18:02:27 [Zakim]
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 [Zakim]
... pfps (muted)
18:02:31 [Zakim]
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]
ivan has joined #owl
18:03:02 [jeremy]
Zakim, aadd is me
18:03:02 [Zakim]
+jeremy; got it
18:03:06 [jeremy]
q-
18:03:11 [jeremy]
q- aadd
18:03:16 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
18:03:16 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
18:03:17 [Zakim]
+Ivan
18:03:18 [jeremy]
ack
18:03:29 [hendler]
zakim, my name is lyrics.
18:03:29 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'my name is lyrics', hendler
18:03:39 [bcuencag]
bcuencag has joined #owl
18:03:41 [jeremy]
ack
18:03:45 [Rinke]
q?
18:03:46 [Zakim]
+Sandro
18:03:48 [Rinke]
ack +7.955.aadd
18:03:52 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #OWL
18:03:58 [alanr]
zakim, aadd is jeremy
18:03:58 [Zakim]
sorry, alanr, I do not recognize a party named 'aadd'
18:04:04 [jeremy]
Zakim, mute me
18:04:04 [Zakim]
jeremy should now be muted
18:04:07 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
18:04:07 [Zakim]
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 [m_schnei]
zakim seems to be less clever than eliza ;-)
18:04:11 [Zakim]
... pfps (muted), Ivan, Sandro
18:04:12 [Zakim]
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 [Zakim]
... sandro, trackbot-ng
18:04:36 [Zakim]
+Zhe
18:04:47 [Zakim]
+??P29
18:05:10 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #owl
18:05:20 [bcuencag]
Zakim, ??P29 is me
18:05:20 [Zakim]
+bcuencag; got it
18:05:45 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
18:05:46 [Zakim]
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 [Zakim]
... pfps (muted), Ivan, Sandro, Zhe, bcuencag
18:05:51 [Zakim]
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 [Zakim]
... MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng
18:06:04 [Zakim]
+Elisa_Kendall
18:06:06 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #owl
18:06:39 [pfps]
scribe?
18:07:49 [alanr]
Carsten, can you scribe?
18:07:49 [Carsten]
I guess so
18:07:53 [Carsten]
(never did it)
18:07:55 [bijan]
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 [sandro]
scribenick: Carsten
18:08:03 [alanr]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Scribe_Conventions
18:08:08 [bijan]
Where it==owl full
18:08:10 [sandro]
free time?!
18:08:36 [sandro]
But go read that page, for now.
18:08:38 [JeffP]
(I am with Carsten on phone)
18:08:43 [pfps]
really?
18:08:47 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
18:08:47 [Zakim]
pfps should no longer be muted
18:09:02 [msmith]
Topic: OWL-Full
18:09:18 [sandro]
pfps: We did OWL Full because it was mandated.
18:09:20 [m_schnei]
t
18:09:30 [m_schnei]
thanks, peter, I waited for this answer ;-)
18:09:30 [alanr]
q?
18:09:32 [sandro]
pfps: I don't know if you want to hear that. I wont say who mandated it.
18:09:43 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
18:09:43 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
18:09:50 [bijan]
There's two questions: 1) Why *an* owl full and 2) why *this* owl full
18:10:01 [alanr]
q?
18:10:04 [alanr]
q+ Bijan
18:10:11 [Carsten]
hendler: OWL Full was the result of a compromise
18:10:12 [bijan]
q-
18:10:14 [alanr]
q+ Bijan to comment on two questions
18:10:24 [sandro]
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 [Carsten]
hendler: one main issue were inverse datatypes
18:10:40 [Carsten]
hendler: some people thought OWL should be DL'ish, others not
18:11:14 [jeremy]
q+ to give my 2c
18:11:18 [Rinke]
OIL had something called 'heavy OIL'
18:11:55 [sandro]
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 [Carsten]
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 [bcuencag]
Zakim, mute me
18:12:01 [Zakim]
bcuencag should now be muted
18:12:10 [alanr]
ack jeremy
18:12:10 [Zakim]
jeremy, you wanted to give my 2c
18:12:41 [Zakim]
+Evan_Wallace
18:12:57 [Carsten]
jeremy: owl full was due to two groups with very different background coming together
18:13:19 [bijan]
Peter comes from an industrial background...see classic
18:13:33 [Carsten]
jeremy: there is mutual advantage from this
18:13:42 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:13:42 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:13:44 [sandro]
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 [jeremy]
Zakim, mute me
18:13:53 [Zakim]
jeremy should now be muted
18:13:58 [alanr]
yes, let people say what their backgrounds are themselves
18:14:41 [Carsten]
bijan: classes as instances / properties as instances were a big deal, very different use cases
18:14:51 [hendler]
q+ to mention "temporal" aspect of decision
18:14:57 [sandro]
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 [alanr]
ack Bijan
18:14:58 [Zakim]
Bijan, you wanted to comment on two questions
18:15:45 [alanr]
ack Jim
18:15:46 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:15:47 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:15:47 [sandro]
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 [sandro]
No, Carsten -- I'm just scribe-assisting on things I find particularly important.
18:16:11 [pfps]
q+
18:16:19 [alanr]
ack jhendler
18:16:19 [Zakim]
jhendler, you wanted to mention "temporal" aspect of decision
18:16:34 [sandro]
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 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
18:16:38 [Zakim]
pfps should no longer be muted
18:16:39 [bijan]
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 [pfps]
this q
18:16:44 [Carsten]
hendler: a lot depended on the temporal ordering of events. We now have the option to rationalize it
18:17:21 [hendler]
pfps is right - RDF-based was in our charter.
18:17:27 [Carsten]
peter: compatibility with RDF was an important issue, but semantics hasn't been designed back then
18:18:01 [Carsten]
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 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
18:18:01 [Zakim]
pfps was not muted, pfps
18:18:06 [sandro]
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 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
18:18:07 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
18:18:09 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:18:09 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:18:19 [Zakim]
+Vipul_Kashyap
18:18:54 [hendler]
q+ to answer Michael re: use
18:18:55 [bijan]
"applications" using owl full really requires teasing apart the parts of owl full
18:18:59 [jeremy]
q+
18:19:00 [alanr]
ack hendler
18:19:04 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:19:04 [Zakim]
m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
18:19:11 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:19:11 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
18:19:13 [Zakim]
+MartinD
18:19:16 [jeremy]
ack jhender
18:19:20 [alanr]
ack hendler
18:19:25 [alanr]
ack jhendler
18:19:25 [Zakim]
jhendler, you wanted to answer Michael re: use
18:19:28 [vipul]
vipul has joined #owl
18:19:42 [Carsten]
hendler: 60+ percent of all the semantic web data is not compliant with the OWL DL semantics
18:20:02 [alanr]
q+ to talk briefly about foaf
18:20:14 [sandro]
Jim: (60% of RDF data is FOAF, which is is not in DL)
18:20:18 [pfps]
q-
18:20:26 [bijan]
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 [Carsten]
hendler: under the definition "using OWL vocabulary, but not being inside OWL DL"
18:20:36 [bijan]
q+
18:20:41 [ivan]
ack jeremy
18:20:51 [alanr]
q+ to ask if we want OWL-FULL to mean not OWL-DL
18:21:19 [alanr]
q+ to ask is there an OWL Full, or are there just OWL Full features
18:22:11 [alanr]
ack alanr
18:22:11 [Zakim]
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 [sandro]
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 [Carsten]
jeremy: many applications do not use heavy-duty features of OWL Full, a lightweight rule engine suffices to address this [??]
18:23:03 [sandro]
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 [Carsten]
alan: heard different descriptions of OWL full: Everything not in OWL DL. Or in terms of features.
18:23:33 [alanr]
q?
18:23:35 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:23:35 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:24:30 [Carsten]
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 [ivan]
ack bijan
18:25:02 [alanr]
ack bijaan
18:25:05 [alanr]
ack bijan
18:25:07 [Carsten]
alan: many people just want to use one or two features, does OWL full have to be a "whole" language?
18:25:42 [Carsten]
bijan: think of OWL full as having for categories of addition: 1. notational variants of FO-constructs not in OWL DL
18:26:16 [alanr]
ulithinks also of non-simple roles in cardinality restrictions (good one for the record)
18:26:28 [Carsten]
bijan: 2.: rules; 3.: metamodelling; 4: arbitrary graphs of b-nodes 5. non-simple riles in cardinality restrictions
18:27:04 [Carsten]
bijan: 6. hilog semantics; 7. reflections on vocabulary
18:27:50 [sandro]
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 [Carsten]
bijan: 8. what you change about your vocabularity changes the builtin logic (which is impossible)
18:28:10 [m_schnei]
+q
18:28:34 [jeremy]
q+ to talk about architectural role
18:28:51 [Carsten]
bijan: main use: push the bounds of OWL DL a bit to make their applications / tools fit
18:29:23 [Carsten]
bijan: semantics flexibility is nice, helps interoperability, but don't formalize this [?]
18:29:41 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:29:41 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:29:43 [hendler]
q+
18:29:44 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:29:44 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:29:49 [ivan]
ack m_schnei
18:30:12 [jeremy]
zakim, unmute me
18:30:12 [Zakim]
jeremy was not muted, jeremy
18:30:19 [alanr]
note reasoner(bijan) =def sound, complete, decidable ?
18:30:28 [Carsten]
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 [bcuencag]
+q
18:31:09 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:31:09 [Zakim]
m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
18:31:11 [Carsten]
m_schnei: gives you more flexibility than you have in OWL DL
18:31:15 [m_schnei]
zakim, miute me
18:31:15 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'miute me', m_schnei
18:31:20 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:31:20 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
18:31:27 [alanr]
q?
18:31:29 [ivan]
ack jeremy
18:31:29 [Zakim]
jeremy, you wanted to talk about architectural role
18:32:26 [Carsten]
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 [Carsten]
jeremy: I don't like OWL Full being described at not OWL DL
18:33:04 [ivan]
ack jhendler
18:33:16 [bijan]
I didn't understand the last bit...what's the power play?
18:34:13 [Carsten]
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 [JeffP]
Shall we not provide a semantics for OWL Full then
18:34:19 [alanr]
q?
18:34:47 [jeremy]
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 [Carsten]
handler: using OWL DL forces them to use things they don't care about
18:34:59 [alanr]
alanr asks, loop constructs with enumerated data types ok in java?
18:35:16 [alanr]
q?
18:35:18 [ivan]
ack bcuencag
18:35:23 [Carsten]
hendler: owl full is a misnomer; OWL Full is a vocabulary; OWL DL uses it
18:35:24 [jeremy]
e.g craft = art that is not fine art, is a statement about the economic interests in fine art
18:35:54 [uli]
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 [Carsten]
bernardo: we should distinguish syntax and semantics;
18:36:01 [JeffP]
RDF is more than syntax, it provides a data model too
18:36:12 [Carsten]
bernardo: jim's users want syntax
18:36:34 [bijan]
q+
18:36:43 [Carsten]
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 [Carsten]
bernardo: if people only want syntax, they don't care about the semantics of the triples
18:37:01 [hendler]
q+ to clarify re: "semantics"
18:37:36 [jeremy]
note my last comment was misscribed - i will correct in minutes
18:37:54 [ivan]
ack bijan
18:38:46 [Carsten]
bijan: if users don't care in the semantics, do you see harm in assigning a semantics that is .... =
18:38:48 [Carsten]
?
18:38:49 [alanr]
q?
18:38:51 [ivan]
ack jhendler
18:38:51 [Zakim]
jhendler, you wanted to clarify re: "semantics"
18:38:53 [alanr]
ack jhendler
18:39:07 [jeremy]
not criticism of scribe intended :)
18:40:05 [Zhe]
q+
18:40:14 [Carsten]
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 [Carsten]
bijan: this is a presentational issue; I was asking for the actual semantics
18:40:38 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
18:41:10 [IanH]
Thanks -- sorry to be so late
18:42:00 [Carsten]
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 [ivan]
q?
18:42:30 [ivan]
ack Zhe
18:42:43 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:42:43 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
18:43:01 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:43:01 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:43:11 [Carsten]
zhe: some users are using OWL full features such as same as; they care about the semantics, have an intuitive understanding;
18:43:20 [Zakim]
+??P3
18:43:24 [JeffP]
So the users care the semantics of some constructs but not others
18:43:33 [IanH]
zakim, ??P3 is ianh
18:43:33 [Zakim]
+ianh; got it
18:44:19 [bijan]
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 [Carsten]
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 [bijan]
I don't understand the question
18:45:11 [Carsten]
alan: is an OWL Full semantics along the lines of 1.0 something we want in this working group?
18:45:33 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:45:33 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:45:34 [bijan]
q+
18:45:43 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
18:45:43 [Zakim]
pfps was already muted, pfps
18:45:57 [jeremy]
howabout: we will develop owl full 1.1 semantics as a delta on owl 1.0 full?
18:46:07 [JeffP]
+1 ivan
18:46:21 [alanr]
q?
18:46:27 [ivan]
ack bijan
18:46:31 [Carsten]
bijan: we should separate semantics presentation from semantics
18:46:55 [jeremy]
q+ to ask my variation
18:47:48 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:47:48 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:47:48 [ivan]
ack jeremy
18:47:49 [Zakim]
jeremy, you wanted to ask my variation
18:47:52 [Carsten]
bijan: I want to change the semantics of OWL full, and would like to stick with model theory for presentation
18:48:03 [bijan]
a plus delta or a minus delta?
18:48:03 [uli]
please say again
18:48:11 [Carsten]
jeremy, missed it, pls scribe it?!
18:48:12 [bijan]
or a plus-minus delta
18:48:33 [Carsten]
jeremy: Do we want an Owl Full semantics as a delta of the OWL 1.0 full semantics?
18:48:56 [bijan]
Plus delta only? or minus delta?
18:49:07 [Rinke]
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 [m_schnei]
+1
18:49:12 [sandro]
0? totally depends on other options.
18:49:16 [ewallace]
0
18:49:22 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:49:22 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:49:23 [hendler]
-1 (propose we explore other options then a feature by feature model semantics)
18:49:23 [Carsten]
I agree: depends on other options
18:49:28 [jeremy]
+1
18:49:34 [JeffP]
I don't understand the delta approach either
18:49:38 [Carsten]
STRAWPOLL: Do we want an Owl Full semantics as a delta of the OWL 1.0 full semantics?
18:49:39 [Ratnesh]
0
18:49:39 [pfps]
+0 depends on the delta (remove everything, then add some stuff?)
18:49:39 [Zhe]
i don't understand
18:49:40 [ivan]
0
18:49:48 [MarkusK]
0
18:49:48 [jeremy]
bye conflict ...
18:49:49 [uli]
i guess I will tend to a minus
18:49:50 [Achille]
0 need more info on the nature of the delta
18:49:51 [Zakim]
-jeremy
18:49:51 [Rinke]
+0
18:49:54 [msmith]
0
18:50:06 [bmotik]
--0
18:50:09 [hendler]
-1 again (so it is in right place - but to explore other options)
18:50:13 [Carsten]
-0 as far as I can tell without knowing the alternatives
18:50:13 [bcuencag]
0
18:50:16 [bijan]
-0
18:50:22 [Elisa]
-0
18:50:40 [m_schnei]
+q
18:50:46 [m_schnei]
zakim, miute me
18:50:46 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'miute me', m_schnei
18:50:48 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:50:48 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:50:50 [ivan]
ack m_schnei
18:51:12 [hendler]
q+ to suggest we go a couple more minutes to get some actions defined, but then move this to email
18:51:16 [Zhe]
that sounds good to me
18:51:18 [ewallace]
we need to see the set of alternatives on the table
18:51:24 [alanr]
action: Michael to explain what delta to 1.0 semantics means
18:51:25 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Michael
18:51:25 [trackbot-ng]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. msmith9, mschneid, msintek)
18:51:25 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:51:25 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
18:51:33 [Rinke]
+1 to evan
18:51:36 [alanr]
q?
18:51:40 [ivan]
ack hendler
18:51:46 [Carsten]
m_schnei: people didn't understand what delta means here; we should explain before we can vote
18:51:47 [ivan]
ack jhendler
18:51:49 [Zakim]
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 [pfps]
+1 to evan - what are alternatives?
18:52:01 [sandro]
ACTION: mschneid to explain what delta to 1.0 semantics means
18:52:01 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-78 - Explain what delta to 1.0 semantics means [on Michael Schneider - due 2008-02-13].
18:52:11 [ivan]
q+
18:52:22 [alanr]
ack ivan
18:52:46 [IanH]
Does anyone have any idea as to an alternative?
18:53:15 [Carsten]
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 [Carsten]
s/vote/view
18:53:57 [Carsten]
s/vote/view/
18:54:22 [hendler]
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 [Carsten]
me neither
18:54:47 [alanr]
action: Alan to describe what he means by a "feature at a time" semantics
18:54:48 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-79 - Describe what he means by a \"feature at a time\" semantics [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-02-13].
18:55:13 [hendler]
ACTION: hendler will describe an approach to a "operationall semantics" approach to OWL Full
18:55:13 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-80 - Will describe an approach to a \"operationall semantics\" approach to OWL Full [on James Hendler - due 2008-02-13].
18:55:17 [alanr]
PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes
18:55:32 [pfps]
-1 no chair, typos, ...
18:56:35 [Carsten]
sorry, what did you say about 39?
18:56:47 [MarkusK]
ACTION 70 was completed, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0404.html
18:56:58 [pfps]
Pending Action Review - 77 and 39 done
18:57:12 [Carsten]
thanks
18:57:58 [msmith]
agreed, issue 76 was postponed when it was created
18:58:08 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
18:58:08 [Zakim]
pfps was already muted, pfps
18:58:14 [alanr]
q?
18:58:16 [Carsten]
Issues discussion
18:58:34 [pfps]
q+
18:58:45 [pfps]
q+ to mention that that is not issue-3
18:59:03 [alanr]
q?
18:59:12 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
18:59:12 [Zakim]
pfps should no longer be muted
18:59:22 [ewallace]
noise?
18:59:30 [pfps]
zakim, who is talking?
18:59:30 [JeffP]
zakim, who is talking?
18:59:39 [Carsten]
can't understand
18:59:40 [Zakim]
pfps, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: alanr (67%), Sandro (67%)
18:59:52 [Zakim]
JeffP, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: alanr (46%), pfps (30%)
19:00:24 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
19:00:24 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
19:00:56 [Carsten]
alan: peter is suggesting that we restore anonymous individuals as they existed; existential semantics. If we adopt skolemization, then go back and change it again
19:01:21 [m_schnei]
+q
19:01:25 [pfps]
ok
19:01:26 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
19:01:26 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
19:01:28 [alanr]
ack pfps
19:01:29 [Zakim]
pfps, you wanted to mention that that is not issue-3
19:01:31 [ivan]
ack m_schnei
19:01:32 [pfps]
q-
19:01:33 [alanr]
ack michael
19:01:35 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
19:01:38 [Carsten]
m_schnei: has it really been existential semantics?
19:01:39 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
19:01:40 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
19:01:43 [Zakim]
pfps was not muted, pfps
19:01:51 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
19:01:51 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
19:01:54 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
19:01:54 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
19:01:55 [Carsten]
peter: owl 1.0 was existential semantics; whether people implemented or not is separate issue
19:01:55 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
19:01:55 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
19:01:58 [pfps]
ok
19:02:15 [Carsten]
action: peter send out a proposal for anonymous individuals
19:02:15 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - peter
19:02:15 [trackbot-ng]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ppatelsc, phaase)
19:02:29 [pfps]
ACTION: pfps send out proposal for minimal change for issue-3
19:02:29 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - pfps
19:02:48 [pfps]
ACTION: patel-schneider send out proposal for minimal change for issue-3
19:02:48 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-81 - Send out proposal for minimal change for issue-3 [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2008-02-13].
19:02:58 [hendler]
fwiw, since we've put off the Use Cases document it would help us non-logicians (or old fashioned logic types) if proposals for things like this could include some common sense use cases
19:03:14 [pfps]
zakim, who is talking?
19:03:27 [Zakim]
pfps, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: alanr (85%), Sandro (40%)
19:03:29 [uli]
alanr, we can't hear you enough
19:03:46 [Carsten]
alan: explains issue 68
19:04:07 [MarkusK]
alanr, your phone seems to create noise internally
19:04:23 [Zakim]
-alanr
19:04:32 [hendler]
can we adjourn while the chair is away?
19:04:33 [uli]
yes
19:04:34 [pfps]
zakim, who is talking?
19:04:38 [alanr]
:)
19:04:44 [Zakim]
pfps, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: bcuencag (4%)
19:04:47 [Zakim]
+alanr
19:04:49 [bcuencag]
Zakim, mute me
19:04:49 [Zakim]
bcuencag should now be muted
19:04:57 [Zakim]
-Vipul_Kashyap
19:05:08 [uli]
zakim, mute bcuencag
19:05:08 [Zakim]
bcuencag was already muted, uli
19:05:18 [bijan]
p domain c.
19:05:30 [bijan]
s p o.
19:05:40 [bijan]
==> s rdf:type c
19:06:21 [bijan]
If we have p rdf:type DataProperty and p rdf:type ObjectProperty
19:06:29 [bijan]
then instead of going to rdfs:domain
19:06:30 [JeffP]
+1 to postpone
19:06:41 [bijan]
You go to owl:objectDomain (or something similar)
19:06:50 [Carsten]
issue 68 postponed; should be discussed with Jeremy
19:07:14 [bijan]
(can't we solve this by *adding* the more specific domain as well as the rdfs:domain?)
19:07:15 [Carsten]
Rinke introduces Issue 91
19:08:07 [bmotik]
q+
19:08:12 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
19:08:12 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
19:08:39 [Carsten]
boris: when you say there are no ontology, do you mean there is no well-known ontology property, or there is no ontology property as such?
19:08:53 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
19:08:53 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
19:09:04 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
19:09:04 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
19:09:09 [bmotik]
q+
19:09:14 [bijan]
we should add the builtin list of ontology annotations
19:09:29 [alanr]
q+ alanr
19:09:32 [pfps]
to what end?
19:09:32 [alanr]
ack bmotik
19:09:44 [Carsten]
rinke: we should add the builtin list of ontology annotations
19:09:47 [hendler]
+1 to bijan
19:10:25 [Carsten]
alan: this is separate from the roundtripping issue
19:10:35 [Carsten]
alan: we should not couple?
19:10:52 [alanr]
q?
19:10:55 [alanr]
ack alanr
19:10:58 [ivan]
ack alanr
19:11:03 [Carsten]
boris: we can easily mention this list of various anotation properties in the current documents
19:11:12 [Carsten]
boris: we could then close the issue potentially
19:11:48 [Carsten]
alan: any objections?
19:11:49 [pfps]
+1 to editorial
19:11:50 [bijan]
+1 to editorial
19:11:52 [Rinke]
+1
19:11:52 [IanH]
Sounds good to me!
19:11:53 [ivan]
+1
19:11:54 [bmotik]
+1 to editorial
19:12:07 [uli]
+1
19:12:08 [MartinD]
+1
19:12:44 [Carsten]
issue 95
19:12:55 [bmotik]
ACTION: bmotik2 to Edit the secification to mention the well-known ontology properties in the spirit of OWL 1.0 and thus possibly resolve ISSUE-91
19:12:56 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-82 - Edit the secification to mention the well-known ontology properties in the spirit of OWL 1.0 and thus possibly resolve ISSUE-91 [on Boris Motik - due 2008-02-13].
19:13:35 [pfps]
q+
19:13:37 [msmith]
q+ to commment
19:13:39 [m_schnei]
+q
19:13:39 [pfps]
zakim, unmute me
19:13:40 [Zakim]
pfps should no longer be muted
19:13:42 [ivan]
ack pfps
19:13:43 [alanr]
q?
19:13:59 [bmotik]
q+
19:14:09 [Carsten]
peter: simple way forward: state that the only facets allowable are those in XML schema datatypes; tiny change to the syntax
19:14:34 [ivan]
ack msmith
19:14:34 [Zakim]
msmith, you wanted to commment
19:14:35 [uli]
+1 to Peter
19:14:35 [alanr]
q?
19:14:38 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
19:14:38 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
19:14:45 [Carsten]
peter: user-defined datatypes should have in the spec which facets make sense for them
19:14:47 [bijan]
User defined types are constrainted by their base type
19:14:52 [m_schnei]
q-
19:15:01 [alanr]
q?
19:15:06 [alanr]
ack bmotik
19:15:07 [bijan]
New *base* types must spec what facets (new or old) are possible
19:15:08 [Carsten]
msmith: agrees with peter
19:15:42 [bijan]
+1 to boris as I run screaming into the night!
19:15:48 [pfps]
I have a syntax change that fixes that issue
19:15:49 [JeffP]
+1 boris
19:15:50 [msmith]
q+ to respond to boris
19:15:51 [alanr]
q+ to ask boris about datatype restrictions such as pattern matching
19:15:52 [m_schnei]
+q
19:15:53 [alanr]
q?
19:15:59 [ivan]
ack msmith
19:15:59 [Zakim]
msmith, you wanted to respond to boris
19:16:02 [Carsten]
boris: you can currently put a datarange restriction on non-integers; difficult to implement; this should be changed; argument of datatype restriction should be a datatype
19:16:16 [ivan]
ack msmith
19:16:43 [hendler]
q+
19:16:44 [alanr]
ack
19:16:45 [Carsten]
msmith: doesn't seem so important
19:16:49 [alanr]
ack alanr
19:16:49 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to ask boris about datatype restrictions such as pattern matching
19:17:09 [ivan]
q+
19:18:03 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
19:18:03 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
19:18:04 [ivan]
q-
19:18:11 [ivan]
ack m_schnei
19:18:15 [Carsten]
boris: issues with compatibility; is non-integer compatible with min-inclusive? Facets only on datatypes, not datatype expressions
19:18:39 [bijan]
q+
19:18:41 [alanr]
q+ to get clarification from boris - What about Mike's proposal re: Value space. Also, what about saying no facets allowed for expressions
19:18:45 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
19:18:45 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
19:18:46 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
19:18:46 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
19:18:50 [alanr]
q?
19:18:54 [ivan]
ack jhendler
19:18:58 [JeffP]
one solution about the negation issue is to specify the groups of datatypes intended to be used with the ontolgoy
19:19:14 [pfps]
datatypeRestriction ::= ( datatypeRestriction | datatypeURI )
19:19:16 [pfps]
'[' datatypeFacet restrictionValue { , datatypeFacet restrictionValue } ']'
19:19:17 [pfps]
Note: If the datatypeURI involved is an XML Schema datatype then the
19:19:19 [pfps]
datatypeFacets and restrictionValues have to be valid for that datatype.
19:19:26 [bmotik]
q+
19:19:49 [ivan]
ack bijan
19:19:50 [uli]
Jim, this is exactly what we are proposing?
19:19:58 [Carsten]
hendler: we are formalizing things that are maybe better not formalized; lets go for a minimal solution and not fix how to handle the other cases at this point of time
19:20:18 [alanr]
q?
19:20:28 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
19:20:28 [Zakim]
pfps was already muted, pfps
19:20:30 [alanr]
ack alanr
19:20:30 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to get clarification from boris - What about Mike's proposal re: Value space. Also, what about saying no facets allowed for expressions
19:20:34 [Carsten]
bijan: some facets are always applicable; things that restrict the lexical form. Not very interesting to spec, though.
19:20:35 [ivan]
what about Lee's question on the lang tag on strings?
19:20:37 [msmith]
I don't think any of the facets we have now work on lexical forms
19:20:47 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
19:20:47 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
19:21:20 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
19:21:20 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
19:21:28 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
19:21:28 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
19:21:49 [alanr]
q?
19:21:58 [JeffP]
in a datatype group, only the allowed facets are allowed to be used
19:22:11 [bijan]
I think that a simple syntactic restriction is the best way forward
19:22:30 [JeffP]
we might need something a bit more than that
19:22:34 [hendler]
boy I wish we had a use case or two to anchor this description to real world cases...
19:22:41 [IanH]
q+
19:22:47 [alanr]
ack bmotik
19:23:27 [Carsten]
m_schnei: we could allow application to datatype expressions, as long as they are "compatible" with the facet
19:23:58 [IanH]
zakim, unmute me
19:23:58 [Zakim]
ianh should no longer be muted
19:24:07 [pfps]
bye
19:24:13 [JeffP]
bye, peter
19:24:18 [m_schnei]
+q
19:24:20 [Zakim]
-pfps
19:24:56 [alanr]
q?
19:25:03 [alanr]
ack IanH
19:25:03 [ivan]
ack IanH
19:25:05 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
19:25:05 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
19:25:05 [Carsten]
ian: let's do something simple; hard to imagine that in application we need more than basic facets on basic datatypes; solution like in OWL 1.0: this is what we support, people can go beyond that but we don't spec it
19:25:07 [ivan]
ack m_schnei
19:25:13 [uli]
I thought that this is the current suggestion
19:25:29 [JeffP]
+1 to simple solution that works
19:25:30 [hendler]
+1 to Ian re doing something simple in this apace
19:25:57 [Carsten]
m_schnei: I meant: table with fixed set of datatypes and fixed set of facets which described applicability
19:26:21 [alanr]
q+ alanr
19:26:24 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
19:26:24 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
19:26:29 [IanH]
This sounds reasonable (the table I mean)
19:26:47 [IanH]
Although I would prefer to simply defer to XML as far as possible
19:26:49 [uli]
what about the table/descriptions at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/N-ary_Data_predicate_proposal
19:27:42 [msmith]
ACTION on smith to send email describing what may be lost if facets are only applied to datatypeURI
19:28:00 [IanH]
Table uli pointed to looks reasonable
19:28:45 [m_schnei]
my counter example for *not* having facet definitions on complex dataranges: oneOf("2"^^xsd:int, "3.14"^^xsd:float, "hello world"^^xsd:string)
19:29:08 [bmotik]
They are bad!
19:29:16 [msmith]
they are certainly hard
19:29:23 [uli]
They are wonderful!
19:29:28 [hendler]
+1 to making complex dataranges "unspecified" from this version of OWL
19:29:28 [uli]
;)
19:29:50 [bijan]
Whoa!
19:30:02 [bijan]
Can we merge this with n-ary?
19:30:10 [uli]
Yes, please!
19:30:14 [bijan]
Boris, see: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/N-ary_Data_predicate_proposal
19:30:16 [msmith]
ACTION: smith to send email describing what may be lost if facets are only applied to datatypeURI
19:30:16 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-83 - Send email describing what may be lost if facets are only applied to datatypeURI [on Michael Smith - due 2008-02-13].
19:30:19 [IanH]
Boris sounds terribly enthusiastic!
19:30:20 [bmotik]
ACTION: bmotik2 to Change the spec to add a table with facet-datatype compatibility
19:30:20 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-84 - Change the spec to add a table with facet-datatype compatibility [on Boris Motik - due 2008-02-13].
19:30:35 [JeffP]
thanks, bye
19:30:35 [uli]
bye bye
19:30:36 [Zakim]
-Evan_Wallace
19:30:37 [IanH]
Bye
19:30:38 [MarkusK]
bye
19:30:39 [Rinke]
bye
19:30:39 [Zhe]
bye
19:30:40 [Zakim]
-msmith
19:30:41 [Zakim]
-bijan
19:30:42 [Zakim]
-Achille
19:30:43 [m_schnei]
bye
19:30:43 [Zakim]
-Elisa_Kendall
19:30:44 [Zakim]
-Ivan
19:30:45 [Zakim]
-MarkusK
19:30:46 [Zakim]
-Zhe
19:30:47 [Ratnesh]
bye
19:30:48 [Zakim]
-MartinD
19:30:49 [Zakim]
-Rinke
19:30:50 [Zakim]
-uli
19:30:51 [Zakim]
-bmotik
19:30:53 [Zakim]
-Sandro
19:30:55 [Zakim]
-Ratnesh
19:30:56 [alanr]
zakim, draft minutes
19:30:57 [Zakim]
-alanr
19:30:59 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'draft minutes', alanr
19:31:01 [Zakim]
-jhendler
19:31:03 [Zakim]
-m_schnei
19:31:03 [MartinD]
MartinD has left #OWL
19:31:03 [Carsten]
What do I have to do now?
19:31:08 [alanr]
rrsagent, draft minutes
19:31:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/02/06-owl-minutes.html alanr
19:31:18 [Carsten]
zakim, unmute me
19:31:18 [Zakim]
Carsten should no longer be muted
19:31:18 [alanr]
rrsagent, make minutes world-readable
19:31:18 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes world-readable', alanr. Try /msg RRSAgent help
19:31:31 [Zakim]
-Carsten
19:31:37 [Zakim]
-ianh
19:32:20 [Zakim]
-bcuencag
19:32:22 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()12:00PM has ended
19:32:23 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.301.527.aaaa, bijan, alanr, bmotik, uli, +31.20.525.aabb, Rinke, MarkusK, msmith, m_schnei, Achille, jhendler, +49.351.463.3.aacc, Carsten, Ratnesh, +7.955.aadd,
19:32:26 [Zakim]
... pfps, jeremy, Ivan, Sandro, Zhe, bcuencag, Elisa_Kendall, Evan_Wallace, Vipul_Kashyap, MartinD, ianh
19:32:34 [sandro]
RRSAgent, make record publit
19:32:36 [sandro]
RRSAgent, make record public
19:33:02 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has left #owl
19:33:16 [Carsten]
sandro, is there anything I have to do now?
19:33:50 [sandro]
Ummmm.
19:34:20 [sandro]
Not yet, I'll put them up on the wiki in a few minutes, and then you can edit them there.
19:34:55 [Carsten]
ok, thanks. I suppose I can use the link on the meetings page to reach them then?
19:34:59 [vipul]
vipul has left #owl
19:35:09 [sandro]
sure, or I'll post it here, if you want to wait.
19:35:27 [Carsten]
yes, please post it.
19:36:37 [sandro]
Present: bijan, alanr, bmotik, uli, Rinke, MarkusK, msmith, m_schnei, Achille, jhendler, Carsten, Ratnesh, pfps, jeremy, Ivan, Sandro, Zhe, bcuencag, Elisa_Kendall, Evan_Wallace, Vipul_Kashyap, MartinD, ianh
19:37:34 [sandro]
Done. http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.02.06/Minutes
19:38:16 [Carsten]
great, thanks
19:41:53 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
19:58:07 [msmith]
msmith has left #owl
21:32:02 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl
21:49:10 [IanH_]
IanH_ has joined #owl