IRC log of owl on 2008-02-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:59:03 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:59:03 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:59:05 [trackbot-ng]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:59:05 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #owl
17:59:07 [trackbot-ng]
Zakim, this will be OWLWG
17:59:07 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot-ng; I see SW_OWL()12:00PM scheduled to start 59 minutes ago
17:59:08 [trackbot-ng]
Meeting: OWL Working Group Teleconference
17:59:08 [trackbot-ng]
Date: 13 February 2008
18:00:00 [alanr]
I'm in
18:00:04 [alanr]
crackling noises
18:00:09 [ivan]
ivan has joined #owl
18:00:15 [alanr]
don't know.
18:00:21 [hendler]
hendler has joined #owl
18:00:30 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:00:30 [Zakim]
sorry, m_schnei, I don't know what conference this is
18:00:31 [alanr]
fireworks - chinese new years celebrations
18:00:34 [jeremy]
jeremy has joined #owl
18:00:50 [IanH]
This sounds bad!
18:00:53 [sandro]
zakim, this is owl
18:00:53 [Zakim]
ok, sandro; that matches SW_OWL()12:00PM
18:01:02 [alanr]
zakim, mute me
18:01:02 [Zakim]
sorry, alanr, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
18:01:05 [sandro]
zakim, who is talking?
18:01:11 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
18:01:11 [Zakim]
On the phone I see jar, msmith, Sandro (muted), ??P9, ??P15, IanH, jhendler
18:01:12 [bcuencag]
bcuencag has joined #owl
18:01:13 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
18:01:14 [Zakim]
On IRC I see jeremy, hendler, ivan, Zakim, RRSAgent, bmotik, m_schnei, Rinke, alanr, msmith, IanH, Carsten, bijan, uli, MartinD, sandro, ewallace, trackbot-ng
18:01:16 [Zakim]
sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: jar (44%), ??P15 (72%), jhendler (21%)
18:01:18 [hendler]
zakim, who is here
18:01:18 [Zakim]
hendler, you need to end that query with '?'
18:01:20 [hendler]
zakim, who is here?
18:01:20 [Zakim]
On the phone I see jar, msmith, Sandro (muted), ??P9, ??P15, IanH, jhendler
18:01:23 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
18:01:24 [m_schnei]
I did not get a code by zakim
18:01:25 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Zhe, bcuencag, jeremy, hendler, ivan, Zakim, RRSAgent, bmotik, m_schnei, Rinke, alanr, msmith, IanH, Carsten, bijan, uli, MartinD, sandro, ewallace, trackbot-ng
18:01:30 [Zakim]
On the phone I see jar, msmith, Sandro (muted), ??P9, ??P15, IanH, jhendler
18:01:30 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
18:01:32 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Zhe, bcuencag, jeremy, hendler, ivan, Zakim, RRSAgent, bmotik, m_schnei, Rinke, alanr, msmith, IanH, Carsten, bijan, uli, MartinD, sandro, ewallace, trackbot-ng
18:01:39 [Zakim]
18:01:41 [Zakim]
+ +7.955.aaaa
18:01:43 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
18:01:45 [Zakim]
18:01:49 [jeremy]
Zakim, aaaa is me
18:01:51 [sandro]
zakim, drop ??P15
18:01:52 [hendler]
(I have muted so it isn't me)
18:01:55 [Zakim]
18:01:57 [Zakim]
+jeremy; got it
18:01:59 [Zakim]
??P15 is being disconnected
18:02:00 [alanr]
18:02:01 [Zakim]
18:02:07 [bijan]
zakim, ??P8 is me
18:02:07 [m_schnei]
zakim, ??P15 is me
18:02:07 [IanH]
much better -- thanks!
18:02:08 [alanr]
18:02:09 [jeremy]
18:02:13 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
18:02:15 [Zakim]
sorry, m_schnei, I do not recognize a party named '??P15'
18:02:17 [jeremy]
q- jeremy
18:02:21 [alanr]
zakim, jar is alanr
18:02:22 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:02:23 [sandro]
So, whoever got dropped there -- you were the noise source.
18:02:24 [IanH]
18:02:25 [Zakim]
18:02:27 [Zakim]
+alanr; got it
18:02:31 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:02:32 [sandro]
q- ??P15
18:02:35 [sandro]
q- jar
18:02:41 [Zakim]
18:02:52 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
18:02:54 [IanH]
18:02:56 [Zakim]
18:02:59 [m_schnei]
zakim, ??P15 is me
18:03:00 [Zakim]
sorry, m_schnei, I do not recognize a party named '??P15'
18:03:01 [bcuencag]
Zakim, ??P11 is me
18:03:01 [Zakim]
+bcuencag; got it
18:03:12 [MartinD]
zakim, mute me
18:03:12 [Zakim]
MartinD should now be muted
18:03:13 [IanH]
yes, followed by #
18:03:23 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
18:03:25 [Zakim]
+ +1.781.271.aabb
18:03:36 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
18:03:36 [Zakim]
On the phone I see alanr, msmith, Sandro, ??P9, IanH, jhendler, Rinke, jeremy (muted), Ivan, bijan (muted), Zhe, bcuencag, MartinD (muted), +1.781.271.aabb
18:03:40 [Zakim]
On IRC I see pfps, Achille, Zhe, bcuencag, jeremy, hendler, ivan, Zakim, RRSAgent, bmotik, m_schnei, Rinke, alanr, msmith, IanH, Carsten, bijan, uli, MartinD, sandro, ewallace,
18:03:43 [Zakim]
... trackbot-ng
18:03:44 [Zakim]
18:03:45 [Zakim]
18:03:46 [pfps_]
pfps_ has joined #owl
18:03:47 [m_schnei]
zakim, ??P9 is me
18:03:47 [Zakim]
+m_schnei; got it
18:03:52 [Achille]
Zakim, IBM is Achille
18:03:52 [Zakim]
+Achille; got it
18:03:59 [Zakim]
18:03:59 [alanr]
do we have a scribe?
18:04:03 [alanr]
18:04:07 [Carsten]
zakim, mute me
18:04:07 [Zakim]
Carsten should now be muted
18:04:15 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:04:15 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
18:04:16 [Zakim]
18:04:23 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??p24 is me
18:04:23 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
18:04:35 [sandro]
keep trying, Uli! :-)
18:05:07 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:05:07 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:05:14 [Zakim]
18:05:29 [uli]
zakim, ??P28 is me
18:05:29 [Zakim]
+uli; got it
18:05:45 [uli]
zakim, mute me
18:05:45 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
18:07:01 [pfps]
zakim, pfps_ is pfps
18:07:01 [Zakim]
sorry, pfps, I do not recognize a party named 'pfps_'
18:07:06 [sandro]
scribenick: uli
18:07:15 [uli]
me is ready
18:07:18 [hendler]
joanne - you need to use port 6665 got MIT - so you need to do /join #owl:6665
18:07:19 [bcuencag]
Zakim, mute me
18:07:19 [Zakim]
bcuencag should now be muted
18:07:26 [bijan]
chair: Ian Horrocks
18:07:45 [uli]
no agenda amendments
18:07:55 [pfps]
not really, but I'm not going to object
18:08:07 [Rinke]
don't think anything has changed in the minutes
18:08:19 [uli]
Ian: can we accept previous minutes?
18:08:21 [jeremy]
zakim, unmute me
18:08:21 [Zakim]
jeremy should no longer be muted
18:08:28 [IanH]
Proposal: accept previous previous minutes
18:08:41 [pfps]
actually, the minutes are just fixed
18:08:55 [sandro]
18:09:09 [hendler]
18:09:10 [uli]
18:09:18 [Rinke]
18:09:19 [msmith]
+1 to accept, they improved much in the interim week
18:09:20 [bcuencag]
18:09:20 [Zhe]
18:09:24 [Rinke]
18:09:30 [IanH]
Resolved: accept minutes of
18:09:40 [msmith]
for previous minutes (Feb 6), new actions were not linked to tracker
18:09:48 [jeremy]
18:09:52 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
18:09:52 [RRSAgent]
18:10:04 [Zakim]
18:10:21 [pfps]
huh? my action was set up OK
18:10:30 [Rinke]
some links to issues are missing
18:10:37 [IanH]
Propose: accept minutes of
18:10:48 [Rinke]
not a big deal, but we rejected minutes in the past on this ground
18:10:48 [pfps]
30 Jan minutes were fixed up in the last hour or so
18:10:59 [ivan]
18:11:04 [uli]
18:11:06 [Rinke]
(this is about feb 6 right?)
18:11:08 [bmotik]
18:11:10 [alanr]
+1 to close with carsten adding links
18:11:12 [bcuencag]
18:11:14 [Zhe]
18:11:20 [hendler]
+1 (permanent plus one to accepting all minutes at any time)
18:11:21 [msmith]
+1 to trusting Carsten
18:11:22 [Carsten]
18:11:25 [jeremy]
18:11:50 [IanH]
Resolved: accept minutes of
18:11:55 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
18:11:55 [RRSAgent]
18:12:03 [jluciano]
jluciano has joined #owl
18:12:11 [pfps]
F2F page is at
18:12:21 [uli]
Agenda: Washington F2F
18:12:41 [alanr]
Agenda amendment: Next monday meeting (1.5 weeks) should it be UFDTF or Imports?
18:12:46 [uli]
pfps: F2F2 is right after OWLEd, registration is open
18:12:48 [pfps]
OWLED registration at
18:13:08 [uli]
pfps: OWLEd papers are due this friday
18:13:38 [ewallace]
18:13:38 [alanr]
+1 observers to be allowed
18:13:44 [sandro]
Rinke, did you see my e-mail about the wiki last night?
18:13:51 [uli]
Ian: so far, nobody has objected to observers, provided they stick to conditions in email
18:13:52 [IanH]
18:14:05 [bijan]
++1 to letting observers
18:14:12 [sandro]
Rinke, what is your wiki login?
18:14:14 [uli]
ewallace: are there restrictions on the number of observers?
18:14:54 [ewallace]
ewallace is Evan
18:15:04 [IanH]
18:15:10 [IanH]
ack ewallace
18:15:19 [uli]
pfps: reports that Clark&Parsia will sponsor dinner, NIST will possibly sponsor the room, but we still need fees
18:15:31 [bijan]
18:15:36 [hendler]
+1 to chairs having to give permission to observers (so something is in the log)
18:16:13 [sandro]
Rinke, this is an odd question, but are you sure you're logged in? Sometimes the wiki logs people out.
18:16:17 [alanr]
18:16:21 [uli]
jluciano: wonders whether her organisation can sponsor (?)
18:16:38 [alanr]
18:17:04 [uli]
Evan: has never been to a W3C F2F with fees
18:17:25 [uli]
Sandro: agrees that fees are very rare
18:17:52 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:17:52 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:18:10 [uli]
pfps: suggests to drop lunches which will then reduce fees to 150dollars
18:18:12 [hendler]
I will have to see if my organization will let us pay a fee for this.
18:18:21 [alanr]
breaks,even without food....
18:18:30 [alanr]
18:18:35 [ewallace]
Evan didn't say anything about fees
18:18:38 [IanH]
18:18:59 [uli]
Bijan: F2F registration page is closed
18:19:02 [IanH]
ack bijan
18:19:05 [IanH]
18:19:07 [jeremy]
i believe the comment ascribed to evan was made by jim
18:19:22 [IanH]
18:19:22 [uli]
Evan, I have difficulties hearing who is who...
18:19:42 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:19:42 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:19:52 [uli]
alanr: suggests to bring own foot/take food payment out of general bill
18:19:58 [hendler]
the Wiki page does not seem to have a link to registration - am I missing something?
18:20:23 [uli]
sandro: easy food is more valuable due to time saving
18:20:38 [uli]
pfps: please sign up
18:20:46 [pfps]
sign up at
18:20:59 [uli]
Agenda: Action items status
18:21:11 [uli]
Action 78:
18:21:33 [uli]
Ian: action 78 seems to be done
18:21:44 [uli]
Ian: action 80 seems to be done
18:21:52 [uli]
Ian: action 81 seems to be done
18:22:15 [uli]
Ian: action 82 seems to be done
18:22:32 [uli]
Ian: action 83 seems to be done
18:22:51 [alanr]
18:23:02 [MartinD]
MartinD has changed the topic to:
18:23:12 [bijan]
bijan has changed the topic to:
18:23:32 [uli]
Ian: action 84 seems to be done
18:23:46 [bijan]
bijan has changed the topic to:
18:23:47 [uli]
Topic: Due and overdue Actions
18:24:07 [bijan2]
bijan2 has joined #owl
18:24:22 [uli]
alanr: regarding action 43 I will ...?
18:24:56 [alanr]
18:25:14 [alanr]
43 stays open, tracking Sandro. 62 closed.
18:25:17 [IanH]
18:25:20 [bijan]
I can add stuff
18:25:23 [uli]
sandro: in 2-3 weeks, some code will be cleaned up, and people who want to put up test cases now, please talk to me
18:25:26 [alanr]
ack alanr
18:25:28 [IanH]
ack alanr
18:25:41 [uli]
Ian: action 72
18:25:55 [uli]
alanr: will be continued, will change deadline
18:26:09 [uli]
Topic: Proposals to Resolve Issues (15 mins)
18:26:19 [IanH]
18:26:28 [jeremy]
18:26:28 [bmotik]
18:26:33 [uli]
Topic: Issue 3
18:26:36 [bmotik]
18:26:42 [alanr]
18:27:34 [bmotik]
18:27:38 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:27:38 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:27:38 [uli]
Ian: the proposal is to keep the status quo from OWL 1.0
18:27:40 [IanH]
18:27:46 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:27:47 [pfps]
18:28:02 [pfps]
q+ to agree to counterproposal, and thus postpone
18:28:12 [uli]
bmotik: there is a counterproposal and we should postpone the discussion to next week
18:28:20 [IanH]
18:28:45 [uli]
bmotik: use blank nodes in OWL11, so to be more compatible with RDF, use SPARQL-like semantics
18:29:00 [m_schnei]
+1 to boris
18:29:01 [uli]
pfps: agrees with Boris to postpone to next week
18:29:12 [Zakim]
pfps, you wanted to agree to counterproposal, and thus postpone
18:29:18 [alanr]
18:29:18 [uli]
Topic: Issue 69
18:29:31 [Rinke]
18:29:35 [uli]
Ian: Boris has added ontology annotations, send an email, ...
18:29:40 [uli]
18:29:54 [IanH]
18:29:54 [alanr]
18:30:23 [uli]
Ian: proposes to close Issue ??
18:30:29 [bmotik]
18:30:48 [alanr]
q- alanr
18:30:49 [uli]
alanr: sees open questions/possible issues regarding ??
18:30:58 [IanH]
18:31:02 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:31:05 [IanH]
18:31:26 [jeremy]
18:31:34 [uli]
18:31:34 [IanH]
18:31:35 [jeremy]
zakim, unmute me
18:31:36 [Zakim]
jeremy should no longer be muted
18:32:03 [IanH]
18:32:09 [IanH]
ack jeremy
18:32:10 [m_schnei]
q+ to postpone 91 to next week: want to think about alan's mail
18:32:16 [uli]
jeremy: mentions as example owl:imports which is not an annotation
18:32:17 [alanr]
NOTE: The ontology-import construct owl:imports and the ontology-versioning constructs owl:priorVersion, owl:backwardCompatibleWith and owl:incompatibleWith are defined in the OWL vocabulary as instances of the OWL built-in class owl:OntologyProperty. Instances of owl:OntologyProperty must have the class owl:Ontology as their domain and range. It is permitted to define other instances of...
18:32:18 [alanr]
...owl:OntologyProperty. In OWL DL for ontology properties the same constraints hold as those specified for annotation properties in Sec. 7.1.
18:32:24 [alanr]
18:32:24 [m_schnei]
18:32:39 [uli]
Ian: this sounds to complicated to be resolved today, we will postpone
18:32:59 [bijan]
directive ::= 'Annotation(' ontologyPropertyID ontologyID ')'
18:32:59 [bijan]
| 'Annotation(' annotationPropertyID URIreference ')'
18:33:03 [uli]
Action: on jeremy to send an email proposing a resolution of 91
18:33:03 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - on
18:33:12 [msmith]
q+ to suggest table be non-normative
18:33:21 [uli]
Action: jeremy to send an email proposing a resolution of 91
18:33:21 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-85 - Send an email proposing a resolution of 91 [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2008-02-20].
18:33:22 [bmotik]
18:33:29 [jeremy]
action: jeremy to send proposal for issue-91 ontology property
18:33:29 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-86 - Send proposal for issue-91 ontology property [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2008-02-20].
18:33:33 [uli]
Topic: Issue 95
18:33:48 [msmith]
18:33:49 [jeremy]
18:33:50 [uli]
Ian: there is now a table relating facets to datatypes
18:33:50 [IanH]
18:33:58 [IanH]
ack msmith
18:33:58 [Zakim]
msmith, you wanted to suggest table be non-normative
18:34:02 [hendler]
18:34:04 [IanH]
18:34:09 [pfps]
+1 to resolution
18:34:12 [pfps]
18:34:15 [uli]
msmith: would prefer this table being non-normative
18:34:15 [hendler]
18:34:15 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:34:20 [IanH]
18:34:36 [uli]
bmotik: we need to restrict the datarange inside datatype restrictions
18:34:53 [bijan]
+1 to boris
18:34:54 [uli]
bmotik: without such a restriction, this table is meaningless
18:34:55 [m_schnei]
q+ to table
18:35:04 [IanH]
18:35:08 [bijan]
18:35:18 [alanr]
alan doesn't recall that.
18:35:27 [pfps]
18:35:32 [bijan]
18:35:33 [alanr]
I suggest resolving as is
18:35:46 [ewallace]
Boris' suggestion sounds overly restrictive
18:35:52 [IanH]
18:35:55 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:35:55 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:36:03 [bijan]
+1 to resolving it for now...we can revisit it as we consider, e.g., n-ary
18:36:23 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:36:23 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
18:36:24 [uli]
m_schnei: is missing explanation of meaning in this table
18:36:31 [uli]
bmotik: agrees
18:36:50 [bmotik]
-1 to resolve as is
18:36:53 [m_schnei]
18:36:53 [jeremy]
18:36:54 [alanr]
I vote with boris
18:36:56 [ewallace]
18:37:08 [uli]
+1 to postpone with n-ary
18:37:24 [uli]
Ian: is disappointed :(
18:37:30 [jeremy]
zakim, mute me
18:37:30 [Zakim]
jeremy should now be muted
18:37:36 [Carsten]
zakim, unmute me
18:37:36 [Zakim]
Carsten should no longer be muted
18:37:39 [uli]
Topic: eneral Discussions (30 min)
18:37:44 [IanH]
18:37:56 [uli]
Topic: Fragments and Conformance
18:38:06 [IanH]
18:38:12 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:38:12 [Zakim]
m_schnei was already muted, m_schnei
18:38:17 [IanH]
18:38:18 [m_schnei]
18:38:18 [bijan]
18:38:23 [uli]
Ian: do we want to retain OWL Lite
18:38:23 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:38:23 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:38:35 [IanH]
18:38:36 [uli]
bijan: we shouldn't retain OWL lite
18:38:46 [alanr]
18:38:53 [pfps]
+1 to not retaining OWL Lite
18:39:04 [hendler]
18:39:05 [uli]
bijan: OWL lite is difficult for an implementor
18:39:08 [Carsten]
18:39:14 [ivan]
ack bijan
18:39:19 [alanr]
+1 to not retaining OWL Lite (as currently defined) - perhaps retain the name and brand some other fragment
18:39:23 [bmotik]
+1 to bijan
18:39:26 [IanH]
18:39:27 [uli]
bijan: doesn't know of any OWL lite tools
18:39:35 [jeremy]
q+ jluciano
18:39:38 [alanr]
q+ joanne
18:39:43 [alanr]
q- joanne
18:40:24 [uli]
hendler: thought he could suggest to let OWL lite go, but has heard people screaming out about this
18:40:41 [pfps]
18:40:42 [alanr]
18:40:44 [uli]
hendler: sees external critique for dropping
18:40:44 [IanH]
18:40:54 [IanH]
ack hendler
18:41:04 [IanH]
ack jluciano
18:41:10 [bcuencag]
18:41:15 [ivan]
18:41:15 [uli]
jluciano: suggests to asks for input by OWL lite community
18:41:23 [alanr]
q+ to suggest note explaining old OWL Lite's relation to OWL DL, emphasizing similar actual complexity
18:41:25 [bcuencag]
Zakim, unmute me
18:41:25 [Zakim]
bcuencag should no longer be muted
18:41:40 [uli]
Ian: this would be helpful
18:41:40 [IanH]
18:41:53 [bcuencag]
Zakim, mute me
18:41:53 [Zakim]
bcuencag should now be muted
18:41:54 [alanr]
q- pfps
18:41:57 [bijan]
I'll note that you can stay in owl lite
18:41:58 [IanH]
18:42:03 [hendler]
18:42:05 [bijan]
even if we don't sanction it
18:42:06 [uli]
pfps: if users were upset, they should speak out
18:42:08 [alanr]
ack alanr
18:42:08 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to suggest note explaining old OWL Lite's relation to OWL DL, emphasizing similar actual complexity
18:42:16 [IanH]
18:43:08 [bijan]
18:43:09 [IanH]
18:43:12 [bcuencag]
Zakim, unmute me
18:43:12 [Zakim]
bcuencag should no longer be muted
18:43:16 [uli]
alanr: hears that people using OWL lite are worried. Suggests to draft note with an explanation of how OWL lite relates to OWL DL, and suggest to not use it
18:43:30 [IanH]
ack bcuencag
18:43:32 [jeremy]
q+ to suggest non computational advantages
18:43:39 [IanH]
18:43:47 [m_schnei]
18:43:55 [uli]
...but to use OWL DL instead because it is so close and not computationally much cheaper
18:44:05 [m_schnei]
18:44:07 [bcuencag]
Zakim, mute me
18:44:07 [Zakim]
bcuencag should now be muted
18:44:13 [IanH]
18:44:18 [uli]
bcuencag: wonders what OWL lite1.1 would be and who would specify it
18:44:19 [Carsten]
18:44:51 [bijan]
Yeah, it's not like we can forbid staying inside owl lit!
18:44:54 [uli]
ivan: wonders what the question is: do we want to say that OWL lite does no longer exist
18:44:59 [ivan]
ack ivan
18:45:11 [IanH]
18:45:30 [bijan]
18:45:33 [bijan]
18:45:40 [bijan]
q+ to refute this view of jim's
18:45:54 [IanH]
18:45:59 [IanH]
ack hendler
18:46:02 [ivan]
ack hendler
18:46:05 [uli]
hendler: we are not the entire OWL community, but we are being told explicitly that backward compatibilty is important
18:46:19 [alanr]
I think we leave it exactly as is
18:46:29 [uli]
hendler: we need to ask openly for input
18:46:51 [IanH]
18:46:55 [uli]
Ian: Jim, what does it mean to keep OWL lite?
18:46:55 [alanr]
q+ to answer: Keeping it means no change.
18:47:26 [m_schnei]
18:47:27 [IanH]
18:47:30 [alanr]
q+ to elaborate it *will* be compatible, as OWL 1.1 will be back compatible.
18:47:33 [uli]
hendler: OWL lite is subset of OWL1.0, and we could update the this subset description???
18:47:36 [ivan]
ack jeremy
18:47:36 [Zakim]
jeremy, you wanted to suggest non computational advantages
18:48:05 [alanr]
q+ to also remind: Using OWL Light == Using OWL DL
18:48:08 [uli]
jeremy: sees 3 ways: (1) explicit deprecation, (2) silence (don't mention "lite", (3) Jim's suggestion
18:48:27 [IanH]
18:48:43 [hendler]
OWL lite 1.0 != OWL DL 1.1
18:49:01 [alanr]
q+ to say "broken" isn't right word. "not useful to distinguish from OWL DL"
18:49:17 [sandro]
(option 4 = apply the "OWL Lite" brand to some new fragment of OWL 1.1)
18:49:23 [uli]
jeremy: whereas OWL lite *is* close to OWL DL, there might be other advantages, eg, outside the implementors/complexity area
18:49:38 [uli]
jeremy: eg, it is easier to learn since it has fewer constructs
18:49:39 [bcuencag]
Zakim, mute me
18:49:39 [Zakim]
bcuencag was already muted, bcuencag
18:49:46 [msmith]
q+ to ask what about owl lite would *need* updating
18:50:05 [IanH]
18:50:19 [hendler]
I note that the restriction of 1/0 on cardinality is one a number of developers have told me saves them a lot of time/effort because cardinality reasoning in general is difficult (in the open worlld)
18:50:20 [bijan]
I'll note that my objections to owl lite is to what it does to users as well...inmy experience what it encourages is *unfortuneate* froma user pov
18:50:36 [uli]
jeremy: Lite might also discourage the use of potentially opresive constructs
18:50:36 [Zakim]
18:50:39 [bijan]
18:50:47 [ivan]
ack Carsten
18:50:51 [IanH]
18:51:01 [uli]
Ian: another option is to keep the name, but change its definition
18:51:20 [IanH]
18:51:24 [uli]
Carsten: suggests to first discuss fragments in general before discussing them individually
18:51:48 [alanr]
q+ to specify: any current OWL Lite document is a valid OWL 1.1 document
18:52:11 [IanH]
18:52:15 [uli]
Carsten: we should have an idea about our opinion regarding fragments before putting loads of work in
18:52:51 [msmith]
18:52:53 [IanH]
18:52:55 [ivan]
ack alanr
18:52:55 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to answer: Keeping it means no change. and to elaborate it *will* be compatible, as OWL 1.1 will be back compatible. and to also remind: Using OWL Light == Using
18:52:58 [Zakim]
... OWL DL and to say "broken" isn't right word. "not useful to distinguish from OWL DL" and to specify: any current OWL Lite document is a valid OWL 1.1 document
18:52:59 [uli]
Ian: cut OWL lite discussion and move on to next point
18:53:46 [uli]
alanr: suggests to keep OWL lite to not force people/users to change what they are doing
18:54:06 [uli]
alanr: we keep a note saying that every OWL lite ontology is an OWL11 ontology
18:54:26 [uli]
alanr: suggests to not use "broken" for Lite but "not well motivated"
18:54:39 [Carsten]
+1 to alan
18:54:46 [hendler]
-1 to Alam
18:55:01 [alanr]
who's alam?
18:55:04 [msmith]
+1 to alanr
18:55:06 [bcuencag]
18:55:08 [ewallace]
18:55:13 [uli]
alanr: suggest to users to how to do things in the future, *if* they want to do things differently
18:55:14 [bmotik]
18:55:20 [uli]
+1 to alanr
18:55:25 [Rinke]
18:55:29 [IanH]
18:55:34 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:55:34 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:55:37 [ivan]
ack m_schnei
18:56:21 [uli]
m_schnei: OWL lite would be different to OWL lite11 due to punning
18:56:41 [jeremy]
very god point!
18:56:56 [jeremy]
18:57:05 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:57:05 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
18:57:30 [alanr]
I don't see that.
18:57:36 [uli]
hendler: we made some changes to OWL DL which might cause problems with OWL lite
18:57:36 [IanH]
I don't see it either
18:57:41 [msmith]
can we action a description of such constructs?
18:57:54 [alanr]
+1 to review and check that OWL Lite is still subset.
18:58:03 [alanr]
Due diligence. I think we have consensus
18:58:09 [uli]
hendler: we changed the semantics, so we should have change lite's semantics
18:58:25 [IanH]
18:58:27 [Carsten]
I don't understand. Why is OWL 1.0 Light without punning not a fragment of OWL 1.1, which *allows*, but doesn't *enforce* punning?
18:58:29 [Zakim]
- +1.781.271.aabb
18:58:37 [uli]
Ian: says that we have true compatibility with OWL DL, and therefor also with OWL Lite
18:59:01 [uli]
alanr: suggests we do check Ian's compatibility understanding
18:59:02 [jeremy]
+1 to jim
18:59:19 [m_schnei]
OWL-1.0-Lite onts would exactly mean the same in 1.1, *but* having OWL-1.1-Lite without punning would be strange
18:59:22 [uli]
hendler: wants to see how this compatibility looks like before agreeing
18:59:49 [uli]
alanr: suggests to have a proposal to check in the future
19:00:07 [uli]
Ian: we need to record an action on somebody to carry out this check
19:00:11 [Carsten]
I understood Allen that there would be no OWL-1.1-Lite (only OWL-1.0-Lite mentioned in the 1.1 docs)
19:00:15 [jeremy]
zakim, unmute me
19:00:15 [Zakim]
jeremy should no longer be muted
19:00:28 [uli]
Action: alanr to write an email to propose such a check
19:00:28 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - alanr
19:00:42 [uli]
Action: alan to write an email to propose such a check
19:00:42 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-87 - Write an email to propose such a check [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-02-20].
19:01:02 [jeremy]
action: jeremy to respond to punning and owl lite point
19:01:03 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-88 - Respond to punning and owl lite point [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2008-02-20].
19:01:03 [uli]
Ian: over to "number of fragments"
19:01:14 [IanH]
19:01:20 [hendler]
19:01:24 [uli]
19:02:01 [uli]
hendler: the more fragments in a normative spec the worse it is:
19:02:23 [IanH]
19:02:28 [bmotik]
zakim, mute me
19:02:28 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
19:02:31 [ivan]
ack hendler
19:02:38 [uli]
hendler: more fragments causes confusion, so the bulk should happen in an informative and not in a rec track
19:02:47 [jeremy]
q+ to suggest mechanisms ....
19:02:50 [uli]
Ian: is this a suggestion for all fragments
19:03:01 [IanH]
19:03:02 [alanr]
q+ to ask whether others agree that not putting this in REC should be fine.
19:03:18 [uli]
hendler: hm, perhaps Lite is different, and oracle might have a different opinion
19:03:19 [IanH]
19:03:24 [uli]
zakim, unmute me
19:03:24 [Zakim]
uli should no longer be muted
19:03:26 [ivan]
ack uli
19:03:32 [IanH]
19:03:36 [Zhe]
19:03:40 [pfps]
q+ to say that we could handle OWL Lite with a pointer in the REC to a note
19:04:05 [ivan]
ack jeremy
19:04:05 [uli]
zakim, mute me
19:04:05 [IanH]
19:04:06 [Zakim]
jeremy, you wanted to suggest mechanisms ....
19:04:08 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
19:04:33 [uli]
uli: suggests to discuss properties of fragments first, then their number
19:04:49 [uli]
19:05:02 [uli]
jeremy, please again?
19:05:14 [IanH]
19:05:18 [ivan]
ack alanr
19:05:18 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to ask whether others agree that not putting this in REC should be fine.
19:05:50 [jeremy]
jeremy: hp would probably support oracle if oracle wanted owl prime rec tracked; but i would need to check
19:05:55 [msmith]
q+ to respond to alanr
19:05:57 [uli]
alanr: if we can agree that the fragments document is a note rather than REC track
19:06:16 [alanr]
19:06:16 [ewallace]
Jeremy suggested that defining a standard way of specifying fragments could be REC tracked
19:06:16 [msmith]
-1 to non-rec
19:06:18 [pfps]
19:06:20 [ivan]
19:06:22 [ewallace]
19:06:28 [Carsten]
cannot answer this question
19:06:28 [uli]
Ian: who would agree fragments not being rec track?
19:06:35 [hendler]
+1 non rec track (except Lite)
19:06:41 [hendler]
19:06:49 [alanr]
would like to know the positive benefit of making some fragment rec
19:06:58 [uli]
ivan: even if fragments are only a note, some fragments could be rec track
19:06:59 [m_schnei]
I cannot answer before discussing with FZI first
19:07:00 [IanH]
19:07:10 [ivan]
ack Zhe
19:07:16 [msmith]
I think normative conformance statements for fragment is a benefity
19:07:21 [alanr]
zakim, inf is 1+ wherever you are at the moment
19:07:21 [Zakim]
I don't understand you, alanr
19:07:24 [ivan]
19:07:32 [jeremy]
+1 to zhe
19:07:33 [alanr]
zakim, you're not the only one
19:07:33 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'you're not the only one', alanr
19:07:35 [uli]
Zhe: oracle would like to see 1 fragment on the REC track and not just some kind of a note
19:07:40 [pfps]
19:07:57 [pfps]
q+ to ask which fragment?
19:08:06 [uli]
Zhe: this doesn't have to be OWL prime, but something sufficiently expressive and rule implementable
19:08:07 [msmith]
19:08:10 [IanH]
19:08:12 [Carsten]
which is the definition of OWL Prime
19:08:23 [uli]
Zhe: it could be bigger than OWL prime
19:08:33 [uli]
Zhe: but it couldn't be OWL Full
19:08:36 [IanH]
19:08:58 [ivan]
ack hendler
19:09:05 [uli]
hendler: doesn't want to fight over *every* fragment
19:09:17 [alanr]
19:09:25 [uli]
hendler: if we put a lot of them into REC track, then this will cause confusion
19:09:28 [alanr]
19:09:36 [jeremy]
19:09:57 [uli]
Ian: looks at his watch
19:10:01 [sandro]
19:10:16 [Zakim]
+ +0789107aacc
19:10:22 [Zakim]
19:10:26 [IanH]
19:10:28 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
19:10:28 [Zakim]
m_schnei was already muted, m_schnei
19:10:33 [jeremy]
zakim, aacc is me
19:10:33 [Zakim]
+jeremy; got it
19:10:39 [alanr]
ivan: Why aren't they in the WG?
19:10:40 [uli]
ivan: knows of other DB vendors who would like to support REC track fragment of OWL
19:10:40 [jeremy]
zakim, mute me
19:10:40 [Zakim]
jeremy should now be muted
19:10:44 [hendler]
+1 to ivan - I have heard same from web app developers as well as vendors
19:10:46 [IanH]
19:10:49 [pfps]
ack me
19:10:49 [Zakim]
pfps, you wanted to ask which fragment?
19:10:50 [IanH]
ack ivan
19:10:55 [IanH]
19:11:24 [Carsten]
I will jump up and down :-)
19:11:24 [uli]
pfps: if others want their fragment on REC track, then I want mine/other want theirs as well...
19:11:38 [IanH]
19:11:45 [ivan]
ack jeremy
19:11:47 [IanH]
ack jeremy
19:11:49 [IanH]
19:11:53 [jeremy]
zakim, unmute me
19:11:53 [Zakim]
jeremy was not muted, jeremy
19:12:05 [alanr]
q+ to address jumping up and down comments
19:12:11 [IanH]
19:12:11 [sandro]
q+ to propose a market-driven selection mechanism
19:12:25 [uli]
jeremy: supports OWL Prime being REC track in case there are multiple vendors
19:12:32 [Carsten]
We don't know *which* fragment the other vendors want?!
19:12:34 [IanH]
19:13:09 [uli]
Ian: is this limited to *vendors* or can other people have a say?
19:13:24 [IanH]
19:13:30 [alanr]
ack alanr
19:13:30 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to address jumping up and down comments
19:13:35 [uli]
jeremy: in the past, the OWL DL people did such jumping and got their REC track
19:13:37 [ivan]
ack alanr
19:14:05 [Carsten]
I can repeat my argumentation for EL++
19:14:07 [msmith]
q+ to respond to alanr
19:14:13 [Carsten]
(see early emails)
19:14:14 [IanH]
19:14:21 [uli]
alanr: would like to hear an argument for *why* a certain fragment should be in REC track
19:14:36 [alanr]
then let Carsten make it
19:14:40 [msmith]
19:14:42 [msmith]
19:14:42 [alanr]
We need to hear these
19:14:52 [Carsten]
alan: I made that already, but am happy to repeat it
19:14:53 [alanr]
Maybe, if they are convincing
19:15:01 [alanr]
Let's see
19:15:01 [IanH]
19:15:01 [msmith]
to the extent that we all have to convince
19:15:07 [ivan]
ack sandro
19:15:07 [Zakim]
sandro, you wanted to propose a market-driven selection mechanism
19:15:49 [uli]
sandro: would like to see something like "for a fragment to be REC track, it needs at least 2 independent, public, complete implementations"
19:15:49 [bcuencag]
How do we measure the completeness of OWL Prime, for instance?
19:16:33 [uli]
Ian: how do we specify what an implementation for a fragment is?
19:16:46 [uli]
sandro: it should be serious, but doesn't need to be commercial
19:16:50 [alanr]
Implementations should have advertised complexity
19:16:55 [Carsten]
exactly, ian
19:17:02 [bcuencag]
what if there is no advertised complexity?
19:17:03 [IanH]
19:17:03 [uli]
Ian: it could still be that quite a number would satisfy this
19:17:06 [Zhe]
19:17:17 [Zhe]
both are solid and scalable
19:17:27 [alanr]
Jim: Do you agree that 2 implementations is a good justification
19:17:40 [uli]
sandro: plus "2 members of the WG needed per fragment, only 1 vote per member"
19:18:01 [uli]
alanr: the "implementation exists" seems to be a good criteria
19:18:27 [ivan]
pD* and more or less a level of OWL Prime is more or less implemented by Franz Inc and Ontotext, too
19:18:38 [Zhe]
second that
19:18:47 [IanH]
19:18:47 [alanr]
19:19:03 [uli]
hendler: disagrees with "implementation exists" is a good criterium because he would also like to see "vendors" and "companies" (??)
19:19:14 [jeremy]
jeremy has left #owl
19:19:16 [uli]
jim, please check my note above
19:19:24 [alanr]
company or open source would be a good compromise
19:19:31 [alanr]
19:19:40 [alanr]
open source means that a company can take it up
19:19:50 [uli]
Ian: many different criteria, but Jim doesn't seem to like them
19:20:05 [msmith]
jim, I am a corporate vendor. We've got DL-Lite and EL++ specific implementations that are being used by our clients
19:20:05 [uli]
sandro: asks Jim why many fragments are harmful?
19:20:23 [alanr]
msmith: You have dl-lite? I want it !!!!
19:20:37 [IanH]
19:20:48 [uli]
Ian: especially if it were clear that they are all subsets of OWL11 for which there also exists implementation
19:20:50 [Carsten]
I am sure I can also get commercial support for EL+, e.g. from SNOMED
19:20:57 [msmith]
yes, to alanr
19:21:23 [uli]
alanr: tries to clarify the "what is a serious implementation"
19:21:50 [uli]
hendler: wants to see oracle doing something being treated differently from what researchers are doing
19:21:57 [IanH]
19:22:11 [uli]
hendler: REC track for the companies, notes for the researchers
19:22:33 [Carsten]
Sounds like OWL lite
19:22:42 [IanH]
19:22:59 [alanr]
ok. done now.
19:23:12 [uli]
hendler: we need to be more careful with REC track than with notes, and we can't correct, eg, errors
19:23:31 [alanr]
it's a pretty high bar to say two open source, independent implementations...
19:23:44 [uli]
Ian: but our fragments are not "new research project outcomes"
19:23:47 [alanr]
I don't see that for el++, for instance, currently
19:24:09 [uli]
hendler: we should learn from OWL
19:24:36 [Carsten]
Another example: DL-Lite was developed in cooperation with IBM, as far as I know.
19:24:50 [Zhe]
19:24:53 [uli]
hendler: if all 7 fragments have the same status as EL+, then perhaps they can all go to REC track
19:25:24 [IanH]
19:25:31 [uli]
alanr: tries again to clarify the "what is a serious implementation"
19:25:46 [uli]
19:25:46 [IanH]
Jeremy is on the Q?
19:26:02 [uli]
alanr: suggests to move discussion to email
19:26:10 [uli]
jeremy is gone
19:26:19 [uli]
jeremy isn't gone
19:26:26 [Zakim]
19:26:32 [MartinD]
MartinD has left #OWL
19:27:19 [uli]
jeremy: the QA group adviced recently to have "as few parts as possible", and offers to check it out
19:27:37 [uli]
Ian: move over to email
19:27:40 [IanH]
19:27:44 [uli]
Ian: is there AOB?
19:27:45 [IanH]
ack jeremy
19:28:06 [uli]
alanr: next week monday no monday weekend because of holiday in US
19:28:21 [uli]
alanr: asks for suggestions for the week thereafter
19:28:22 [Zakim]
19:28:34 [msmith]
alanr, stick to schedule for week after, ufdtf
19:28:42 [Zakim]
19:28:43 [Zakim]
19:28:44 [Zakim]
19:28:44 [Rinke]
19:28:45 [Zhe]
bye & thanks
19:28:46 [Zakim]
19:28:47 [Zakim]
19:28:52 [Zakim]
19:28:54 [Zakim]
19:28:54 [Zakim]
19:28:56 [Zakim]
19:28:57 [Zakim]
19:28:58 [Zakim]
19:28:58 [uli]
can somebody please do the minutes thing?
19:28:59 [alanr]
Action: Jeremy to investigate QA group advised recently to have "as few parts as possible",
19:29:00 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-89 - Investigate QA group advised recently to have \"as few parts as possible\", [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2008-02-20].
19:29:00 [Zakim]
19:29:06 [sandro]
uli, if you wait a moment I'll get the minutes ready for you.
19:29:07 [Zakim]
19:29:16 [uli]
Sandro, thanks
19:29:21 [alanr]
Jim: want to chat some time?
19:29:56 [sandro]
Zakim, list attendees
19:29:56 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Rinke, msmith, MartinD, Sandro, IanH, jhendler, +7.955.aaaa, Ivan, jeremy, bijan, Zhe, alanr, bcuencag, +1.781.271.aabb, Carsten, m_schnei,
19:30:00 [Zakim]
... Achille, pfps, bmotik, uli, Evan_Wallace, +0789107aacc
19:30:39 [sandro]
Present: Rinke, msmith, MartinD, Sandro, IanH, jhendler, Ivan, jeremy, bijan, Zhe, alanr, bcuencag, Carsten, m_schnei, Achille, pfps, bmotik, uli, Evan_Wallace
19:30:49 [Zakim]
19:31:43 [uli]
sandro, do i have to do something?
19:32:16 [sandro]
Okay, it's ready. Now, your job is to read over and clean them up a bit.
19:32:21 [uli]
...I see, thanks, bye!
19:32:30 [Zakim]
19:37:31 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, bcuencag, in SW_OWL()12:00PM
19:37:35 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()12:00PM has ended
19:37:38 [Zakim]
Attendees were Rinke, msmith, MartinD, Sandro, IanH, jhendler, +7.955.aaaa, Ivan, jeremy, bijan, Zhe, alanr, bcuencag, +1.781.271.aabb, Carsten, m_schnei, Achille, pfps, bmotik,
19:37:40 [Zakim]
... uli, Evan_Wallace, +0789107aacc
19:42:41 [uli]
uli has left #owl
20:11:41 [msmith]
msmith has left #owl
21:53:41 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl