17:56:57 RRSAgent has joined #owl 17:56:57 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/02/20-owl-irc 17:56:57 MichaelSmith has joined #owl 17:57:05 IanH has joined #owl 17:57:48 -??P0 17:57:57 zakim, who is on the phone? 17:57:57 On the phone I see pfps 17:58:41 +[IPcaller] 17:58:44 ivan has joined #owl 17:58:59 zakim, pfps is pfps_work 17:58:59 +pfps_work; got it 17:59:07 zakim, pfps_ is pfps 17:59:07 +pfps; got it 17:59:15 zakim, dial ivan-voip 17:59:15 ok, ivan; the call is being made 17:59:16 +Ivan 17:59:18 + +1.202.408.aaaa 17:59:22 zakim, mute me 17:59:22 sorry, pfps_, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 17:59:34 zakim, aaaa is me 17:59:34 +MichaelSmith; got it 17:59:41 zakim, who is on the phone? 17:59:41 On the phone I see pfps, [IPcaller] (muted), MichaelSmith, Ivan 17:59:45 + +31.20.525.aabb 17:59:52 zakim, pfps is me 17:59:52 +pfps_; got it 17:59:53 Zakim, aabb is me 17:59:54 +Rinke; got it 17:59:59 + +0186527aacc 18:00:12 bmotik has joined #owl 18:00:26 zakim, aacc is IanH 18:00:26 +IanH; got it 18:00:30 rrsagent, draft minutes 18:00:30 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/02/20-owl-minutes.html ivan 18:00:32 +??P5 18:00:43 zakim, who is on the call 18:00:43 I don't understand 'who is on the call', IanH 18:00:50 uli has joined #owl 18:00:51 zakim, who is here? 18:00:51 On the phone I see pfps_, [IPcaller] (muted), MichaelSmith, Ivan, Rinke, IanH, MarkusK 18:00:54 there was no id shown in IRC after I called in - what to do? 18:00:54 On IRC I see uli, bmotik, ivan, IanH, MichaelSmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, MarkusK, bcuencagrau, m_schnei, Rinke, pfps_, Carsten, sandro, pfps, trackbot-ng 18:00:56 + +1.603.897.aadd 18:01:02 +??P7 18:01:08 zhe has joined #OWL 18:01:08 Zakim, ??P7 is me 18:01:08 +bmotik; got it 18:01:14 Zakim, mute me 18:01:14 bmotik should now be muted 18:01:18 rrsagent, set log public 18:01:43 zakim, who is on the phone? 18:01:43 On the phone I see pfps_, [IPcaller] (muted), MichaelSmith, Ivan, Rinke, IanH, MarkusK, +1.603.897.aadd, bmotik (muted) 18:01:57 zakim, aadd is me 18:01:57 +m_schnei; got it 18:02:01 +??P8 18:02:07 ScribeNick: zhe 18:02:11 zakim, ??P8 is me 18:02:11 +uli; got it 18:02:26 Achille has joined #owl 18:02:36 zakim, who is here? 18:02:36 On the phone I see pfps_, [IPcaller] (muted), MichaelSmith, Ivan, Rinke, IanH, MarkusK, m_schnei, bmotik (muted), uli 18:02:38 zakim, mute me 18:02:38 On IRC I see Achille, zhe, uli, bmotik, ivan, IanH, MichaelSmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, MarkusK, bcuencagrau, m_schnei, Rinke, pfps_, Carsten, sandro, pfps, trackbot-ng 18:02:40 uli should now be muted 18:02:41 +??P9 18:02:56 jjc has joined #owl 18:03:08 +[IBM] 18:03:14 Zakim, ??P9 is me 18:03:14 +jjc; got it 18:03:16 +??P11 18:03:21 q- ??P9 18:03:22 Topic: accept previous minutes 18:03:22 look good 18:03:24 Zakim, IBM is Achille 18:03:24 +Achille; got it 18:03:25 minutes are OK 18:03:32 PROPOSED: accept previous previous minutes 18:03:37 Proposed: accept minutes http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.02.13/Minutes 18:03:40 zakim, who is here? 18:03:40 On the phone I see pfps_ (muted), [IPcaller] (muted), MichaelSmith, Ivan, Rinke, IanH, MarkusK, m_schnei, bmotik (muted), uli (muted), jjc, Achille, ??P11 18:03:43 On IRC I see jjc, Achille, zhe, uli, bmotik, ivan, IanH, MichaelSmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, MarkusK, bcuencagrau, m_schnei, Rinke, pfps_, Carsten, sandro, pfps, trackbot-ng 18:03:43 +1 18:03:48 +1 18:03:51 Zakim, ??P11 is me 18:03:51 +bcuencagrau; got it 18:04:00 + +49.351.463.3.aaee 18:04:03 RESOLVED: accept minutes of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.02.13/Minutes 18:04:05 +Sandro 18:04:11 Zakim, mute me 18:04:11 bcuencagrau should now be muted 18:04:13 zakim, aaee is me 18:04:13 +Carsten; got it 18:04:27 Zakim, who is speaking? 18:04:44 jjc, listening for 16 seconds I heard sound from the following: IanH (15%) 18:04:47 zakim, drop sandro 18:04:47 Sandro is being disconnected 18:04:49 strange phone call ... 18:04:49 -Sandro 18:05:07 Will the whole telecon fit on that answering machine? 18:05:09 I'm trying to have Zakim call me, since I don't seem to be able to enter DTMF on this system. :-( 18:05:25 But it didn't ring through here, either. :-( 18:05:37 Topic: pending actions review 18:06:15 action 87 completed. 18:06:26 +Sandro 18:06:47 Zakim, who is speaking? 18:06:52 action 88 completed (punning and owl lite) 18:07:06 jjc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: IanH (90%) 18:07:23 action 89 completed--Investigate QA group advised recently to have "as few parts as possible" 18:07:33 Topic: Due and overdue actions 18:07:51 action 43 unlikely to happen soon 18:07:56 zakim, unmute me 18:07:56 Sandro should no longer be muted 18:08:17 IanH: update due date? 18:08:36 IanH: action 43 Develop scripts to extract test cases from wiki 18:08:40 zakim, mute me 18:08:40 Sandro should now be muted 18:08:55 no action on sandro to update 18:09:01 Zakim, unmute me 18:09:01 jjc should no longer be muted 18:09:02 action 43 - move due date to three weeks from now 18:09:03 +Alan_Ruttenberg 18:09:08 action 86 Send proposal for issue-91 ontology property 18:09:26 we are talking about 91 today anyway 18:09:30 IanH: jjc to update due date 18:09:41 IanH: general dicussions 18:09:54 Topic: Fragments and Conformance (Continued) 18:10:04 IanH: can we get a working agreement 18:10:31 IanH: Jim is not here. 18:10:57 alanr has joined #owl 18:10:58 IanH: everyone see the email from Alan? 18:11:03 yes 18:11:04 +1 18:11:04 yes 18:11:05 yes 18:11:07 yes 18:11:09 yes 18:11:09 yes 18:11:18 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Feb/0120.html 18:11:26 ivan will post emails 18:11:53 -> http://www.w3.org/mid/CEFF86FB-D70A-4DC4-9D14-627841E3644B@gmail.com Alan's last email on the topic 18:11:55 IanH: common understanding of fragmetns 18:12:12 IanH: too many fragments is not a good idea 18:12:39 IanH: Alan's original email: OWLPrime, EL++, DL Lite 18:12:41 q? 18:12:46 ... for rec track 18:12:46 I like the suggestion 18:12:48 q? 18:12:53 zakim, unmute me 18:12:53 pfps_ should no longer be muted 18:12:55 q+ 18:12:55 q+ 18:13:04 q? 18:13:34 Achille: just sent an email. IBM's position is have limited # of fragments. 18:13:44 ... not proposing a new one. 18:13:58 -> http://www.w3.org/mid/OF8A909D25.D5959144-ON852573F5.0062248F-852573F5.00623812@us.ibm.com Achille's answer email 18:14:01 ... need something that suits customer's needs 18:14:14 ... EL like seems to be nice 18:14:14 q+ to ask about IBM and rec-track status 18:14:20 ... like OWLPrime rule based approach 18:14:27 ack Achille 18:14:30 ... not sure if it will scale though 18:14:37 Zakim, unmute me 18:14:37 jjc was not muted, jjc 18:15:18 Achille: like OWLPrime because it is simple, 18:15:34 also care about Alan's 3 point for real scalability 18:15:50 ... DL Lite + transitivity 18:16:07 ... translate to pure sql queries 18:16:12 ... close to Alan's position 18:16:14 q+ 18:16:19 q? 18:16:31 bijan has joined #owl 18:16:37 ack jjc 18:16:45 jjc: consider tradeoffs 18:16:57 jjc: A Box scaliblity is a good measure 18:17:31 +??P15 18:17:37 zakim, ??P15 is me 18:17:37 +bijan; got it 18:17:46 zakim, mute me 18:17:46 bijan should now be muted 18:17:49 q- 18:17:54 q? 18:18:15 jjc: rationale is limit # of fragments. should have clear commercial interests 18:18:21 ack me 18:18:21 pfps_, you wanted to ask about IBM and rec-track status 18:18:24 q? 18:18:28 Zakim, mute me 18:18:28 jjc should now be muted 18:18:32 Substitute "community" interest for "commercial"....commerical viability is one measure of community interest 18:18:46 pfps: to HP, whether REC-ness is vital part for way forward? 18:18:48 Zakim, unmute me 18:18:48 jjc should no longer be muted 18:18:56 ... and to IBM 18:18:59 yes I think it does 18:19:02 matter 18:19:09 IanH: does it really matter for a fragment to be in rec or note 18:19:11 I think it does 18:19:14 jjc: not sure. 18:19:41 q+ to answer a bit better 18:19:48 Achille: does matter. encourage tool and people to adopt 18:19:50 q? 18:20:04 Uli has joined #owl 18:20:15 users often ask for Rec things; govt agencies sometimes are required to use rec things (as opposed to non-rec things); ISO/ANSI is even stronger 18:20:22 q+ 18:20:42 OWL Lite's being rec track *did* help it...people who wouldn't otherwise have used OWL Lite used it because it was a rec. 18:21:10 jjc: a rec should focus on interoperability 18:21:13 q+ 18:21:21 q? 18:21:44 ack jjc 18:21:44 jjc, you wanted to answer a bit better 18:21:56 I wonder if jjc really meand "Commercial" rather than "production quality" implementation 18:21:58 +1 to go forward, but adjust if necessary 18:22:18 IanH: commerical support on DL fragments is tricky 18:22:23 q? 18:22:41 IanH: do we count implementation of DL as implementation for fragments? 18:22:42 My threshold is available, correct implementation with correct complexity. Ideal is open source. 18:22:54 ack zhe 18:22:57 q? 18:23:24 owlprime scales, but is incomplete 18:23:44 Zakim, unmute me 18:23:44 bmotik should no longer be muted 18:23:48 q? 18:24:04 owlprime scales really well. we have tested 1 billion triples 18:24:04 q+ 18:24:16 depends on how you define the semantics, I guess 18:24:22 q? 18:24:25 alanr: owlprime complements DL lite 18:24:33 Zhe, could you please also send a pointer to paper or a document about your scalability results 18:24:50 q? 18:24:50 alanr: important to have one ties closely to completeness 18:25:03 ==> Achille, sure. 18:25:08 thanks! 18:25:14 ack bmotik 18:25:21 q+ 18:25:23 q? 18:25:25 bmotik: requirement on at least 2 interoperable implementations 18:25:43 bmotik: not sure if owlprime has 2 (or if they interoperate) 18:25:52 q? 18:26:11 zakim, unmute me 18:26:11 uli should no longer be muted 18:26:12 Zakim, mute me 18:26:13 bmotik should now be muted 18:26:14 bmotik: even entire OWL FULL does not have such implementations 18:26:19 q+ 18:26:24 q? 18:26:28 ack Uli 18:26:43 uli: can we postpone rec track decision. 18:26:55 q? 18:26:58 +1 for Uli's proposal 18:27:01 ... rather, make clear what exactly is scalability 18:27:15 We seem to have agreement at the moment; should we really defer and wait until agreement vanishes? :-) 18:27:18 ... and how incomplete 18:27:20 +1 to explain "scalable+incomplete" better 18:27:28 ... be happy to study owlprime for example 18:27:40 IanH: is the decision to postpone all fragments? 18:27:55 IanH: or just the one (or ones) that is not totally clear 18:28:03 q+ to respond to Uli 18:28:13 q? 18:28:16 There is possibly another prior discussion, namely which fragments will at least be included in a note 18:28:24 zakim, mute me 18:28:24 uli should now be muted 18:28:24 doubtlessly, each rec-track fragment will require a lot of work from us! 18:28:34 those are likely candidates to go rec-track 18:28:50 Elisa has joined #owl 18:28:57 q? 18:28:58 q+ 18:29:02 +1 to jeremy 18:29:04 q+ 18:29:13 ack jjc 18:29:55 need scribe help on jjc's comments 18:30:06 q+ 18:30:27 ack Achille 18:30:41 Achille: second Uli's suggestion 18:31:11 q? 18:31:40 q? 18:31:42 Achille: no rush here. Different levels of conformance, completeness, not totally clear 18:31:56 q? 18:32:13 ack alanr 18:32:13 alanr, you wanted to respond to Uli 18:32:18 alanr: comment on Uli's suggestion. concern about timeline 18:32:59 ... owlprime fits into two spots: 1) rule based owl. need to specifiy clearly; 2) scalable 18:33:06 q? 18:33:12 ... hard to imagine to have a second fragment like this. 18:33:27 alanr, I see the motivation and highlevel description, I simply want to see some more precise descriptions 18:33:39 q? 18:33:43 ack Carsten 18:33:46 ... timeline is a factor to be considered. 18:33:53 q? 18:34:19 Carsten: if we rec track something, we should do a good job 18:34:34 ... try to have maximal DL fragment and FULL fragment 18:34:40 q? 18:34:45 uli: me too. Worried that time spent deciding takes time from figuring out things. 18:34:51 ... for DL Lite, authors don't know current shape of OWL 1.1 18:35:02 +1 18:35:03 +1 18:35:07 +Elisa_Kendall 18:35:21 ... should invest in DL Lite if we want to put it on rec track 18:35:23 +1 to Carsten: DL Lite before Rec needs to be checked for extensibility with OWL1.1 features 18:35:28 q+ to suggest Carsten adds new issue to issue list 18:35:37 ... OWLPrime, the benefit seems to be scalability 18:35:44 +1 with Carsten's aiming at "optimal compromises" re. performance & expressiveness 18:35:45 ... hard to maximize it 18:35:52 q? 18:35:55 Zakim, unmute me 18:35:55 bmotik should no longer be muted 18:36:09 IanH: I don't think that WG can do a lot of research 18:36:28 q+ 18:36:29 ... fragments have to be based on what we know, instead of more research 18:36:33 ack bmotik 18:36:37 but more power to you, Carsten, if you want to try 18:36:56 bmotik: 1) a strong case for rule bases OWL reasoning. 18:37:06 Note that we decided to *remove* dlp from the fragments document eariler. 18:37:07 q? 18:37:15 seems to be DLP anyway 18:37:47 q? 18:37:57 ... Achille's requirement should be accormodated by DLP 18:38:14 q? 18:38:25 ... believe we should go to maximal subset 18:38:38 ... if vendors think it is hard to implement, we should not woory much. 18:38:40 Zakim, mute me 18:38:40 bmotik should now be muted 18:38:42 alanr, IIRC, *we* didn't decide to remove dlp - the removal was unilateral and reverted. 18:38:42 q? 18:38:45 zakim, unmute me 18:38:45 bijan should no longer be muted 18:38:45 ivan: we should worry 18:38:46 +1 to ivan. At least for part of the spec 18:38:50 ack bijan 18:39:13 +1 to bijan 18:39:26 I agree with Bijan 18:39:31 yup 18:39:32 +1 to bijan 18:39:34 +1 for Bijan 18:39:35 grist for owl 1.2 18:39:35 But we should make *some* attempt 18:39:39 this is what we are doing now isnt it? 18:39:57 with OWL 1.1 I mean 18:40:09 bijan: production quality implementation. 18:40:14 q? 18:40:15 +1 to bijan 18:40:20 ... more importantly, interoperable implementations. 18:40:22 q- 18:40:23 resource bound attempt 18:40:28 ack jjc 18:40:28 jjc, you wanted to suggest Carsten adds new issue to issue list 18:40:30 q? 18:40:31 zakim, mute me 18:40:31 bijan should now be muted 18:40:38 jjc: agree with bijan totally 18:40:40 q? 18:40:55 DLP?? 18:41:04 That's trivial jeremy. 18:41:07 I think he mispoke. Dl-lite 18:41:12 jjc: maybe not research, but some quick check 18:41:19 jjc: on DL Lite fragment 18:41:24 I don't understand it 18:41:28 Sorry jeremy -- I thought you meant DLP. 18:41:38 IanH: I did not mean not to do any investigation 18:41:46 we basically all seem to agree 18:41:47 IanH: do not want lengthy research 18:42:00 jjc: sanity chek DL Lite in the context of OWL 1.1 18:42:01 q+ 18:42:07 ack Uli 18:42:07 IanH: anybody? 18:42:09 What does sanity check mean? 18:42:27 is afraid that this might be true 18:42:29 Uli: don't think a simple sanity on DL Lite is sufficient 18:42:29 +1 to Uli 18:42:52 IanH: it could be that we cannot add anything. 18:42:52 +1 to Uli, DLP is much easier to extend 18:42:53 And we can always ask the DL Lite community to do a sanity check 18:42:53 q? 18:43:20 zakim, mute me 18:43:20 uli should now be muted 18:43:38 jjc is happy if this idea of sanity check is withdrawn 18:43:45 In fact, DLP already contains the maximal set of OWL 1.1 features that obeys the "no existentials and no disjunctions" principle 18:44:11 IanH: do we think it makes sense now to make decisions on fragments? 18:44:24 +1 18:44:24 +1 18:44:25 +1 18:44:26 +1 18:44:28 +1 18:44:28 +1 18:44:28 +1 18:44:29 +1 18:44:29 +1 18:44:30 +1 18:44:31 +1 18:44:31 +1 18:44:31 + 18:44:34 +1 18:44:34 IanH: make some provisional decision on which fragments 18:44:35 Ian: Do we think it makes sense, now, to decide about fragments now? Before asking which fragments.... Is it sensible to make some decision about rec track fragments now? 18:44:36 +1 18:45:16 Ian: Okay, so which fragments, in Alan's order, should be provisionally rec-track? 18:45:22 yes 18:45:27 Ian: (btw we need a name other than "OWL Prime", I think!) 18:45:30 RDFS3.0 18:45:38 -1 18:45:39 we should do a second run to give fragments marketable names 18:45:41 -1 18:45:42