hi vipul

<vipul> hi

edit this document: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Structural_Reference_Experiment

Anything is open - could rearrange order if necessary, add sections, etc.

old reference doesn't have a running example

also not sure it is desirable. Perhaps 2 or 3 different examples reused.

Problem is, using one example with every feature makes for a complicated example.

I'd like to see examples with inferences and possibly anti-examples showing common mistakes

for example rdfs:range in current reference doesn't show how use of a property causes a type to be inferred.

<dlm> +q

<IanH> We don't have a scribe. Do we need one?

<ewallace> I agree with Alan that it is not necessary to have a single example running through the whole spec.

<IanH> :-)

<dlm> +q

(define-ontology inconsistent-finite-infinite ()

(class !human :partial)

(class !woman :partial)

(class !man :partial)

(sub-class-of !man !human)

(sub-class-of !woman !human)

(disjoint-classes !woman !man)

(object-property !child)

(object-property !father (inverse-of !child))

(sub-class-of !human (restriction !father (all-values-from !man)))

(sub-class-of !human (restriction !father (cardinality 1)))

(sub-class-of !human (restriction !child (max-cardinality 1)))

(object-property !ssn :inverse-functional (range (one-of !one !two)))

(sub-class-of !human (restriction !ssn (cardinality 1)))

(individual !mary (type !woman))

(individual !one)

(individual !two)

)

I'm interested

<pfps> primer, overview, & reference?

<ewallace> Elisa talked about a quick start.

would like to understand what would be in the overview

disjointWith: Classes may be stated to be disjoint from each other. For example, Man and Woman can be stated to be disjoint classes. From this disjointWith statement, a reasoner can deduce an inconsistency when an individual is stated to be an instance of both and similarly a reasoner can deduce that if A is an instance of Man, then A is not an instance of Woman.

this was discussed at f2f.

<dlm> +1

<dlm> +q

for one thing, it's hard for a user to know where to go for definitive answers

suggestion wasn't to drop overview. Rather to define it so as to not have overlap. Overview should have distinct and clear point of view

http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/

<IanH> Do we want to convert the IRC into minutes?

<IanH> And if so what are the magic words?

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133  of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: alanr
Inferring Scribes: alanr

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.


WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Alan Carsten Evan_Wallace IanH Peter_Patel-Schneider Vipul_Kashyap alanr disjointWith dlm ewallace joined owl pfps sandro trackbot-ng vipul
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy


WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting


WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 11 Feb 2008
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/02/11-owl-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report