IRC log of owl on 2008-02-20

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:56:57 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:56:57 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:56:57 [MichaelSmith]
MichaelSmith has joined #owl
17:57:05 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
17:57:48 [Zakim]
17:57:57 [pfps_]
zakim, who is on the phone?
17:57:57 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pfps
17:58:41 [Zakim]
17:58:44 [ivan]
ivan has joined #owl
17:58:59 [pfps_]
zakim, pfps is pfps_work
17:58:59 [Zakim]
+pfps_work; got it
17:59:07 [pfps_]
zakim, pfps_ is pfps
17:59:07 [Zakim]
+pfps; got it
17:59:15 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:59:15 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
17:59:16 [Zakim]
17:59:18 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.408.aaaa
17:59:22 [pfps_]
zakim, mute me
17:59:22 [Zakim]
sorry, pfps_, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:59:34 [MichaelSmith]
zakim, aaaa is me
17:59:34 [Zakim]
+MichaelSmith; got it
17:59:41 [pfps_]
zakim, who is on the phone?
17:59:41 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pfps, [IPcaller] (muted), MichaelSmith, Ivan
17:59:45 [Zakim]
+ +31.20.525.aabb
17:59:52 [pfps_]
zakim, pfps is me
17:59:52 [Zakim]
+pfps_; got it
17:59:53 [Rinke]
Zakim, aabb is me
17:59:54 [Zakim]
+Rinke; got it
17:59:59 [Zakim]
+ +0186527aacc
18:00:12 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
18:00:26 [IanH]
zakim, aacc is IanH
18:00:26 [Zakim]
+IanH; got it
18:00:30 [ivan]
rrsagent, draft minutes
18:00:30 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ivan
18:00:32 [Zakim]
18:00:43 [IanH]
zakim, who is on the call
18:00:43 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the call', IanH
18:00:50 [uli]
uli has joined #owl
18:00:51 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
18:00:51 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pfps_, [IPcaller] (muted), MichaelSmith, Ivan, Rinke, IanH, MarkusK
18:00:54 [m_schnei]
there was no id shown in IRC after I called in - what to do?
18:00:54 [Zakim]
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 [Zakim]
+ +1.603.897.aadd
18:01:02 [Zakim]
18:01:08 [zhe]
zhe has joined #OWL
18:01:08 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??P7 is me
18:01:08 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
18:01:14 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:01:14 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:01:18 [ivan]
rrsagent, set log public
18:01:43 [pfps_]
zakim, who is on the phone?
18:01:43 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pfps_, [IPcaller] (muted), MichaelSmith, Ivan, Rinke, IanH, MarkusK, +1.603.897.aadd, bmotik (muted)
18:01:57 [m_schnei]
zakim, aadd is me
18:01:57 [Zakim]
+m_schnei; got it
18:02:01 [Zakim]
18:02:07 [MichaelSmith]
ScribeNick: zhe
18:02:11 [uli]
zakim, ??P8 is me
18:02:11 [Zakim]
+uli; got it
18:02:26 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
18:02:36 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
18:02:36 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pfps_, [IPcaller] (muted), MichaelSmith, Ivan, Rinke, IanH, MarkusK, m_schnei, bmotik (muted), uli
18:02:38 [uli]
zakim, mute me
18:02:38 [Zakim]
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 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
18:02:41 [Zakim]
18:02:56 [jjc]
jjc has joined #owl
18:03:08 [Zakim]
18:03:14 [jjc]
Zakim, ??P9 is me
18:03:14 [Zakim]
+jjc; got it
18:03:16 [Zakim]
18:03:21 [jjc]
q- ??P9
18:03:22 [zhe]
Topic: accept previous minutes
18:03:22 [Rinke]
look good
18:03:24 [Achille]
Zakim, IBM is Achille
18:03:24 [Zakim]
+Achille; got it
18:03:25 [pfps_]
minutes are OK
18:03:32 [zhe]
PROPOSED: accept previous previous minutes
18:03:37 [IanH]
Proposed: accept minutes
18:03:40 [ivan]
zakim, who is here?
18:03:40 [Zakim]
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 [Zakim]
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 [pfps_]
18:03:48 [Rinke]
18:03:51 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, ??P11 is me
18:03:51 [Zakim]
+bcuencagrau; got it
18:04:00 [Zakim]
+ +49.351.463.3.aaee
18:04:03 [zhe]
RESOLVED: accept minutes of
18:04:05 [Zakim]
18:04:11 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, mute me
18:04:11 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted
18:04:13 [Carsten]
zakim, aaee is me
18:04:13 [Zakim]
+Carsten; got it
18:04:27 [jjc]
Zakim, who is speaking?
18:04:44 [Zakim]
jjc, listening for 16 seconds I heard sound from the following: IanH (15%)
18:04:47 [sandro]
zakim, drop sandro
18:04:47 [Zakim]
Sandro is being disconnected
18:04:49 [zhe]
strange phone call ...
18:04:49 [Zakim]
18:05:07 [Carsten]
Will the whole telecon fit on that answering machine?
18:05:09 [sandro]
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 [sandro]
But it didn't ring through here, either. :-(
18:05:37 [zhe]
Topic: pending actions review
18:06:15 [zhe]
action 87 completed.
18:06:26 [Zakim]
18:06:47 [jjc]
Zakim, who is speaking?
18:06:52 [zhe]
action 88 completed (punning and owl lite)
18:07:06 [Zakim]
jjc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: IanH (90%)
18:07:23 [zhe]
action 89 completed--Investigate QA group advised recently to have "as few parts as possible"
18:07:33 [zhe]
Topic: Due and overdue actions
18:07:51 [zhe]
action 43 unlikely to happen soon
18:07:56 [sandro]
zakim, unmute me
18:07:56 [Zakim]
Sandro should no longer be muted
18:08:17 [zhe]
IanH: update due date?
18:08:36 [zhe]
IanH: action 43 Develop scripts to extract test cases from wiki
18:08:40 [sandro]
zakim, mute me
18:08:40 [Zakim]
Sandro should now be muted
18:08:55 [zhe]
no action on sandro to update
18:09:01 [jjc]
Zakim, unmute me
18:09:01 [Zakim]
jjc should no longer be muted
18:09:02 [pfps_]
action 43 - move due date to three weeks from now
18:09:03 [Zakim]
18:09:08 [zhe]
action 86 Send proposal for issue-91 ontology property
18:09:26 [m_schnei]
we are talking about 91 today anyway
18:09:30 [zhe]
IanH: jjc to update due date
18:09:41 [zhe]
IanH: general dicussions
18:09:54 [zhe]
Topic: Fragments and Conformance (Continued)
18:10:04 [zhe]
IanH: can we get a working agreement
18:10:31 [zhe]
IanH: Jim is not here.
18:10:57 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
18:10:58 [zhe]
IanH: everyone see the email from Alan?
18:11:03 [uli]
18:11:04 [pfps_]
18:11:04 [Carsten]
18:11:05 [MichaelSmith]
18:11:07 [bcuencagrau]
18:11:09 [m_schnei]
18:11:09 [zhe]
18:11:18 [pfps_]
18:11:26 [zhe]
ivan will post emails
18:11:53 [ivan]
-> Alan's last email on the topic
18:11:55 [zhe]
IanH: common understanding of fragmetns
18:12:12 [zhe]
IanH: too many fragments is not a good idea
18:12:39 [zhe]
IanH: Alan's original email: OWLPrime, EL++, DL Lite
18:12:41 [IanH]
18:12:46 [zhe]
... for rec track
18:12:46 [Carsten]
I like the suggestion
18:12:48 [IanH]
18:12:53 [pfps_]
zakim, unmute me
18:12:53 [Zakim]
pfps_ should no longer be muted
18:12:55 [Achille]
18:12:55 [jjc]
18:13:04 [IanH]
18:13:34 [zhe]
Achille: just sent an email. IBM's position is have limited # of fragments.
18:13:44 [zhe]
... not proposing a new one.
18:13:58 [ivan]
-> Achille's answer email
18:14:01 [zhe]
... need something that suits customer's needs
18:14:14 [zhe]
... EL like seems to be nice
18:14:14 [pfps_]
q+ to ask about IBM and rec-track status
18:14:20 [zhe]
... like OWLPrime rule based approach
18:14:27 [ivan]
ack Achille
18:14:30 [zhe]
... not sure if it will scale though
18:14:37 [jjc]
Zakim, unmute me
18:14:37 [Zakim]
jjc was not muted, jjc
18:15:18 [zhe]
Achille: like OWLPrime because it is simple,
18:15:34 [zhe]
also care about Alan's 3 point for real scalability
18:15:50 [zhe]
... DL Lite + transitivity
18:16:07 [zhe]
... translate to pure sql queries
18:16:12 [zhe]
... close to Alan's position
18:16:14 [bmotik]
18:16:19 [IanH]
18:16:31 [bijan]
bijan has joined #owl
18:16:37 [ivan]
ack jjc
18:16:45 [zhe]
jjc: consider tradeoffs
18:16:57 [zhe]
jjc: A Box scaliblity is a good measure
18:17:31 [Zakim]
18:17:37 [bijan]
zakim, ??P15 is me
18:17:37 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
18:17:46 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:17:46 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:17:49 [bmotik]
18:17:54 [IanH]
18:18:15 [zhe]
jjc: rationale is limit # of fragments. should have clear commercial interests
18:18:21 [pfps_]
ack me
18:18:21 [Zakim]
pfps_, you wanted to ask about IBM and rec-track status
18:18:24 [IanH]
18:18:28 [jjc]
Zakim, mute me
18:18:28 [Zakim]
jjc should now be muted
18:18:32 [bijan]
Substitute "community" interest for "commercial"....commerical viability is one measure of community interest
18:18:46 [zhe]
pfps: to HP, whether REC-ness is vital part for way forward?
18:18:48 [jjc]
Zakim, unmute me
18:18:48 [Zakim]
jjc should no longer be muted
18:18:56 [pfps_]
... and to IBM
18:18:59 [Achille]
yes I think it does
18:19:02 [Achille]
18:19:09 [zhe]
IanH: does it really matter for a fragment to be in rec or note
18:19:11 [MichaelSmith]
I think it does
18:19:14 [zhe]
jjc: not sure.
18:19:41 [jjc]
q+ to answer a bit better
18:19:48 [zhe]
Achille: does matter. encourage tool and people to adopt
18:19:50 [IanH]
18:20:04 [Uli]
Uli has joined #owl
18:20:15 [bijan]
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 [zhe]
18:20:42 [bijan]
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 [zhe]
jjc: a rec should focus on interoperability
18:21:13 [bmotik]
18:21:21 [IanH]
18:21:44 [ivan]
ack jjc
18:21:44 [Zakim]
jjc, you wanted to answer a bit better
18:21:56 [bijan]
I wonder if jjc really meand "Commercial" rather than "production quality" implementation
18:21:58 [alanr]
+1 to go forward, but adjust if necessary
18:22:18 [zhe]
IanH: commerical support on DL fragments is tricky
18:22:23 [IanH]
18:22:41 [zhe]
IanH: do we count implementation of DL as implementation for fragments?
18:22:42 [alanr]
My threshold is available, correct implementation with correct complexity. Ideal is open source.
18:22:54 [ivan]
ack zhe
18:22:57 [IanH]
18:23:24 [alanr]
owlprime scales, but is incomplete
18:23:44 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:23:44 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:23:48 [IanH]
18:24:04 [zhe]
owlprime scales really well. we have tested 1 billion triples
18:24:04 [Uli]
18:24:16 [Carsten]
depends on how you define the semantics, I guess
18:24:22 [IanH]
18:24:25 [zhe]
alanr: owlprime complements DL lite
18:24:33 [Achille]
Zhe, could you please also send a pointer to paper or a document about your scalability results
18:24:50 [IanH]
18:24:50 [zhe]
alanr: important to have one ties closely to completeness
18:25:03 [zhe]
==> Achille, sure.
18:25:08 [Achille]
18:25:14 [ivan]
ack bmotik
18:25:21 [jjc]
18:25:23 [IanH]
18:25:25 [zhe]
bmotik: requirement on at least 2 interoperable implementations
18:25:43 [zhe]
bmotik: not sure if owlprime has 2 (or if they interoperate)
18:25:52 [IanH]
18:26:11 [Uli]
zakim, unmute me
18:26:11 [Zakim]
uli should no longer be muted
18:26:12 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:26:13 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:26:14 [zhe]
bmotik: even entire OWL FULL does not have such implementations
18:26:19 [Achille]
18:26:24 [IanH]
18:26:28 [IanH]
ack Uli
18:26:43 [zhe]
uli: can we postpone rec track decision.
18:26:55 [IanH]
18:26:58 [Achille]
+1 for Uli's proposal
18:27:01 [zhe]
... rather, make clear what exactly is scalability
18:27:15 [Carsten]
We seem to have agreement at the moment; should we really defer and wait until agreement vanishes? :-)
18:27:18 [zhe]
... and how incomplete
18:27:20 [MarkusK]
+1 to explain "scalable+incomplete" better
18:27:28 [zhe]
... be happy to study owlprime for example
18:27:40 [zhe]
IanH: is the decision to postpone all fragments?
18:27:55 [zhe]
IanH: or just the one (or ones) that is not totally clear
18:28:03 [alanr]
q+ to respond to Uli
18:28:13 [IanH]
18:28:16 [bcuencagrau]
There is possibly another prior discussion, namely which fragments will at least be included in a note
18:28:24 [Uli]
zakim, mute me
18:28:24 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
18:28:24 [Carsten]
doubtlessly, each rec-track fragment will require a lot of work from us!
18:28:34 [bcuencagrau]
those are likely candidates to go rec-track
18:28:50 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #owl
18:28:57 [IanH]
18:28:58 [Carsten]
18:29:02 [ivan]
+1 to jeremy
18:29:04 [bmotik]
18:29:13 [ivan]
ack jjc
18:29:55 [zhe]
need scribe help on jjc's comments
18:30:06 [bijan]
18:30:27 [ivan]
ack Achille
18:30:41 [zhe]
Achille: second Uli's suggestion
18:31:11 [IanH]
18:31:40 [IanH]
18:31:42 [zhe]
Achille: no rush here. Different levels of conformance, completeness, not totally clear
18:31:56 [IanH]
18:32:13 [ivan]
ack alanr
18:32:13 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to respond to Uli
18:32:18 [zhe]
alanr: comment on Uli's suggestion. concern about timeline
18:32:59 [zhe]
... owlprime fits into two spots: 1) rule based owl. need to specifiy clearly; 2) scalable
18:33:06 [IanH]
18:33:12 [zhe]
... hard to imagine to have a second fragment like this.
18:33:27 [Uli]
alanr, I see the motivation and highlevel description, I simply want to see some more precise descriptions
18:33:39 [IanH]
18:33:43 [ivan]
ack Carsten
18:33:46 [zhe]
... timeline is a factor to be considered.
18:33:53 [IanH]
18:34:19 [zhe]
Carsten: if we rec track something, we should do a good job
18:34:34 [zhe]
... try to have maximal DL fragment and FULL fragment
18:34:40 [IanH]
18:34:45 [alanr]
uli: me too. Worried that time spent deciding takes time from figuring out things.
18:34:51 [zhe]
... for DL Lite, authors don't know current shape of OWL 1.1
18:35:02 [jjc]
18:35:03 [alanr]
18:35:07 [Zakim]
18:35:21 [zhe]
... should invest in DL Lite if we want to put it on rec track
18:35:23 [MarkusK]
+1 to Carsten: DL Lite before Rec needs to be checked for extensibility with OWL1.1 features
18:35:28 [jjc]
q+ to suggest Carsten adds new issue to issue list
18:35:37 [zhe]
... OWLPrime, the benefit seems to be scalability
18:35:44 [Uli]
+1 with Carsten's aiming at "optimal compromises" re. performance & expressiveness
18:35:45 [zhe]
... hard to maximize it
18:35:52 [IanH]
18:35:55 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:35:55 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:36:09 [zhe]
IanH: I don't think that WG can do a lot of research
18:36:28 [m_schnei]
18:36:29 [zhe]
... fragments have to be based on what we know, instead of more research
18:36:33 [ivan]
ack bmotik
18:36:37 [alanr]
but more power to you, Carsten, if you want to try
18:36:56 [zhe]
bmotik: 1) a strong case for rule bases OWL reasoning.
18:37:06 [alanr]
Note that we decided to *remove* dlp from the fragments document eariler.
18:37:07 [IanH]
18:37:15 [zhe]
seems to be DLP anyway
18:37:47 [IanH]
18:37:57 [zhe]
... Achille's requirement should be accormodated by DLP
18:38:14 [IanH]
18:38:25 [zhe]
... believe we should go to maximal subset
18:38:38 [zhe]
... if vendors think it is hard to implement, we should not woory much.
18:38:40 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:38:40 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:38:42 [MichaelSmith]
alanr, IIRC, *we* didn't decide to remove dlp - the removal was unilateral and reverted.
18:38:42 [IanH]
18:38:45 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:38:45 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:38:45 [zhe]
ivan: we should worry
18:38:46 [alanr]
+1 to ivan. At least for part of the spec
18:38:50 [ivan]
ack bijan
18:39:13 [jjc]
+1 to bijan
18:39:26 [Carsten]
I agree with Bijan
18:39:31 [alanr]
18:39:32 [ivan]
+1 to bijan
18:39:34 [Achille]
+1 for Bijan
18:39:35 [alanr]
grist for owl 1.2
18:39:35 [Carsten]
But we should make *some* attempt
18:39:39 [IanH]
this is what we are doing now isnt it?
18:39:57 [IanH]
with OWL 1.1 I mean
18:40:09 [zhe]
bijan: production quality implementation.
18:40:14 [IanH]
18:40:15 [jjc]
+1 to bijan
18:40:20 [zhe]
... more importantly, interoperable implementations.
18:40:22 [m_schnei]
18:40:23 [alanr]
resource bound attempt
18:40:28 [ivan]
ack jjc
18:40:28 [Zakim]
jjc, you wanted to suggest Carsten adds new issue to issue list
18:40:30 [IanH]
18:40:31 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:40:31 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:40:38 [zhe]
jjc: agree with bijan totally
18:40:40 [IanH]
18:40:55 [Carsten]
18:41:04 [bmotik]
That's trivial jeremy.
18:41:07 [alanr]
I think he mispoke. Dl-lite
18:41:12 [zhe]
jjc: maybe not research, but some quick check
18:41:19 [zhe]
jjc: on DL Lite fragment
18:41:24 [bijan]
I don't understand it
18:41:28 [bmotik]
Sorry jeremy -- I thought you meant DLP.
18:41:38 [zhe]
IanH: I did not mean not to do any investigation
18:41:46 [Carsten]
we basically all seem to agree
18:41:47 [zhe]
IanH: do not want lengthy research
18:42:00 [zhe]
jjc: sanity chek DL Lite in the context of OWL 1.1
18:42:01 [Uli]
18:42:07 [ivan]
ack Uli
18:42:07 [zhe]
IanH: anybody?
18:42:09 [bmotik]
What does sanity check mean?
18:42:27 [Carsten]
is afraid that this might be true
18:42:29 [zhe]
Uli: don't think a simple sanity on DL Lite is sufficient
18:42:29 [bmotik]
+1 to Uli
18:42:52 [zhe]
IanH: it could be that we cannot add anything.
18:42:52 [MarkusK]
+1 to Uli, DLP is much easier to extend
18:42:53 [bijan]
And we can always ask the DL Lite community to do a sanity check
18:42:53 [IanH]
18:43:20 [Uli]
zakim, mute me
18:43:20 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
18:43:38 [jjc]
jjc is happy if this idea of sanity check is withdrawn
18:43:45 [bmotik]
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 [zhe]
IanH: do we think it makes sense now to make decisions on fragments?
18:44:24 [bmotik]
18:44:24 [jjc]
18:44:25 [ivan]
18:44:26 [Carsten]
18:44:28 [Achille]
18:44:28 [bijan]
18:44:28 [bcuencagrau]
18:44:29 [MarkusK]
18:44:29 [Uli]
18:44:30 [pfps_]
18:44:31 [MichaelSmith]
18:44:31 [m_schnei]
18:44:31 [Rinke]
18:44:34 [Elisa]
18:44:34 [zhe]
IanH: make some provisional decision on which fragments
18:44:35 [sandro]
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 [alanr]
18:45:16 [sandro]
Ian: Okay, so which fragments, in Alan's order, should be provisionally rec-track?
18:45:22 [Uli]
18:45:27 [sandro]
Ian: (btw we need a name other than "OWL Prime", I think!)
18:45:30 [m_schnei]
18:45:38 [pfps_]
18:45:39 [alanr]
we should do a second run to give fragments marketable names
18:45:41 [ivan]
18:45:42 [bijan]
18:45:42 [zhe]
IanH: first one OWLPrime. maybe we want to rename?
18:45:44 [alanr]
forget about names right now
18:45:48 [m_schnei]
RDFS Deluxe ;-)
18:45:51 [sandro]
Ian: (Since OWL Prime is the name of Oracle's product)
18:45:52 [pfps_]
18:45:53 [bijan]
18:45:55 [jjc]
18:45:58 [alanr]
18:45:59 [sandro]
18:46:05 [zhe]
IanH: don't worry about names for now
18:46:07 [Achille]
18:46:10 [Carsten]
18:46:11 [sandro]
18:46:11 [ivan]
18:46:12 [MarkusK]
18:46:13 [m_schnei]
18:46:13 [alanr]
18:46:15 [Uli]
18:46:15 [bcuencagrau]
18:46:16 [Rinke]
18:46:16 [pfps_]
18:46:17 [zhe]
IanH: do we think it is a good candiate for rec track
18:46:17 [bmotik]
18:46:18 [MichaelSmith]
18:46:19 [zhe]
18:46:21 [bijan]
18:46:26 [sandro]
Ian: Is "OWL Prime" a sensible candidate for a rec track fragment.
18:46:27 [jjc]
18:46:38 [Elisa]
18:46:41 [bijan]
18:46:44 [pfps_]
0 - needs definition
18:46:45 [IanH]
18:46:50 [ivan]
ack bijan
18:46:50 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:46:52 [alanr]
sensible there is more work to do for OWL Prime
18:46:53 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
18:46:56 [zhe]
IanH: OWLPrime folks need to do more convince work
18:46:58 [sandro]
(Um - NO. A 0 doesn't need convincing.)
18:47:07 [zhe]
bijan: need a proposal before make a decision
18:47:30 [jjc]
(There were a lot of 0s, that does suggest there is a need for convincing)
18:47:39 [sandro]
ian: Me too -- I want to see a worked-out proposal in the owl-prime space.
18:47:41 [alanr]
this is straw poll - non binding. So say "ok, as long as ....." is perfect
18:47:43 [zhe]
IanH: want to see a proposal for rule based fragment like OWLPrime before go forward
18:47:47 [zhe]
IanH: EL++
18:47:49 [Achille]
18:47:50 [bmotik]
18:47:51 [MarkusK]
18:47:51 [MichaelSmith]
+1 on EL++
18:47:52 [Uli]
18:47:52 [pfps_]
18:47:53 [bijan]
18:47:53 [bcuencagrau]
18:47:53 [Carsten]
+1 (surprise)
18:47:55 [alanr]
18:47:57 [m_schnei]
18:47:57 [Rinke]
18:47:58 [ivan]
18:48:00 [jjc]
18:48:07 [zhe]
18:48:08 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:48:08 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:48:14 [Elisa]
18:48:28 [Achille]
18:48:34 [zhe]
IanH: DL Lite kind of fragment? Scalable Abox space?
18:48:35 [sandro]
Ian: DL-Lite (Scalable A-box)
18:48:36 [Achille]
18:48:37 [MichaelSmith]
+1 on DL-Lite or very similar
18:48:38 [alanr]
scalable *complete*
18:48:38 [ivan]
18:48:40 [alanr]
18:48:41 [jjc]
18:48:42 [Carsten]
18:48:42 [m_schnei]
18:48:42 [MarkusK]
18:48:43 [zhe]
18:48:45 [bcuencagrau]
18:48:46 [bmotik]
0 to DL-lite as such
18:48:49 [Uli]
18:48:49 [Elisa]
18:48:52 [Rinke]
18:48:57 [bijan]
18:48:58 [pfps_]
+1/2 - the target is not quite defined
18:49:02 [alanr]
bit better than owlprim
18:49:26 [Uli]
or even HornShiq?
18:49:30 [bmotik]
Should we call it OWL Peime/DLP?
18:49:34 [alanr]
I think the characterization is *rule based* however it turns out
18:49:36 [bmotik]
18:49:37 [ivan]
18:49:37 [zhe]
IanH: what about DLP?
18:49:39 [jjc]
18:49:45 [IanH]
18:49:49 [bcuencagrau]
DLP, Horn-SHIQ and OWL Prime should ''merge''
18:49:53 [ivan]
ack ivan
18:50:11 [bmotik]
Not much.
18:50:12 [alanr]
0 unless it turns out equivalent to OWL Prime
18:50:13 [MarkusK]
+1 to bcuencagrau if this should work out ...
18:50:16 [zhe]
ivan: how much additional to merge DLP and OWLPrime
18:50:24 [Carsten]
And how comprehensible will our documents be?
18:50:31 [bmotik]
q+ to answer to Ivan
18:50:47 [Achille]
0 because I am not sure that DLP or HornSHIQ could be defined in a simple way (i.e. non dl-expert can easily understand the restrictions).
18:50:48 [m_schnei]
I would rather spend time for the relationship between OWL-Prime and pD*
18:51:00 [Rinke]
wondering about the relation between LP and DLP, and eg RIF... or is that silly?
18:51:08 [zhe]
IanH: yes it involves quite some work.
18:51:25 [zhe]
IanH: it was an important link to make
18:51:41 [Carsten]
It can have a corresponding fragment, but do *we* have to make that explicit on rec?
18:52:05 [bijan]
It would be *nice*
18:52:09 [IanH]
18:52:10 [zhe]
IanH: who think it is important to have a correspondance between rule based fragment
18:52:11 [Uli]
+1 to bijan
18:52:14 [alanr]
imo, not important. nice to have.
18:52:15 [zhe]
and DL fragment
18:52:18 [jjc]
18:52:20 [pfps_]
+x, where x is more than 0 but less than 1
18:52:21 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:52:21 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:52:23 [ivan]
ack bmotik
18:52:23 [Zakim]
bmotik, you wanted to answer to Ivan
18:52:27 [IanH]
18:52:29 [sandro]
ian: Is it important to have a DL fragment which corresponds roughly to whatever we have on the rules side (NOT rec-track) ?
18:52:47 [bijan]
18:52:54 [IanH]
18:53:07 [zhe]
bmotik: to answer ivan, with minor work, we ccan come up with a clear definition when these two fragments coincide
18:53:15 [zhe]
... this is something we really should look into
18:53:23 [zhe]
... don't believe it is a lot of work.
18:53:26 [IanH]
18:53:30 [ivan]
ack bijan
18:53:30 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:53:31 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:53:33 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:53:34 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
18:53:35 [zhe]
... pD* is not that far away from DLP anyway
18:53:37 [IanH]
18:53:44 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:53:47 [IanH]
18:53:50 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:53:50 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:53:52 [zhe]
bijan: is the correspondence a requirement?
18:53:56 [MichaelSmith]
+1 to bijan, this is a goal, not a rqmt
18:54:07 [alanr]
for fragments: objective
18:54:07 [bijan]
18:54:10 [zhe]
IanH: it is an objective
18:54:12 [jjc]
18:54:14 [Rinke]
18:54:14 [bcuencagrau]
18:54:15 [MarkusK]
18:54:15 [MichaelSmith]
18:54:15 [alanr]
18:54:17 [m_schnei]
18:54:19 [Achille]
18:54:19 [zhe]
18:54:19 [Elisa]
18:54:21 [Uli]
18:54:21 [bmotik]
+1 to establishing a link between OWL Prime and DLP
18:54:26 [Carsten]
-0 (depends very much on where it goes and in which form)
18:54:26 [ivan]
+1 (if put it that way)
18:54:34 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:54:34 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:54:40 [zhe]
+1 (sorry, typo)
18:55:09 [bijan]
Why should we restrict the future?
18:55:11 [sandro]
Ian: Are these mentioned fragments ALL the ones we should consider?
18:55:11 [IanH]
18:55:16 [zhe]
IanH: do we cover all fragments (for rec track candidates)?
18:55:17 [jjc]
18:55:21 [sandro]
Was OWL Full considered?
18:55:24 [alanr]
that's it for now. Barring new information.
18:55:28 [alanr]
OWL Full isn't a fragment
18:55:31 [m_schnei]
not a DL fragment
18:55:35 [Rinke]
and DL?
18:55:48 [sandro]
Ian: No, OWL Full wasn't considered but it's not a fragment, so the question doesn't apply.
18:55:58 [pfps_]
-0, there could be some reason to add something, but I don't see it now
18:55:58 [jjc]
18:55:58 [IanH]
18:55:59 [alanr]
Dl not considered a fragment either
18:55:59 [m_schnei]
1.0-DL is a fragment, yes! :)
18:55:59 [Uli]
do we need to *rule* others out now?
18:56:00 [zhe]
18:56:00 [Achille]
+1 with maybe some minor modifications
18:56:02 [ivan]
18:56:02 [sandro]
18:56:04 [MichaelSmith]
+1 to *focusing our energy* on these fragments
18:56:07 [alanr]
18:56:11 [m_schnei]
18:56:12 [bcuencagrau]
18:56:14 [Uli]
+1 to Mike!
18:56:14 [pfps_]
+1 to michael
18:56:18 [bijan]
I think what we have is a starting point, but feel no need to rule stuff out
18:56:20 [MarkusK]
+1 to michael
18:56:21 [Rinke]
+1 to michael
18:56:22 [Carsten]
+1 michael
18:56:23 [bijan]
+1 to mike
18:56:24 [Elisa]
+1 to Michael
18:56:27 [bmotik]
+1 to michael
18:56:33 [ivan]
+1 to michael
18:56:37 [zhe]
IanH: time is up. follow up with emails
18:56:39 [alanr]
18:56:59 [alanr]
to ask - target date for vote?
18:57:01 [zhe]
... in particular, we need specification for rule based fragment
18:57:07 [sandro]
Names for ALL the fragments, please. :-)
18:57:11 [zhe]
... suggestion for a new name :)
18:57:17 [pfps_]
zakim, unmute me
18:57:17 [Zakim]
pfps_ should no longer be muted
18:57:17 [alanr]
18:57:28 [alanr]
there is loud music here :(
18:57:32 [zhe]
IanH: hand over chair to pfps
18:57:34 [Uli]
not here
18:57:50 [Zakim]
18:57:54 [IanH]
18:57:57 [Uli]
18:58:19 [zhe]
pfps: go over issues list
18:58:28 [alanr]
alanr has changed the topic to:
18:58:32 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:58:32 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:58:32 [zhe]
issue 3: two proposals. most current one from bmotik
18:58:52 [zhe]
bmotik: allow bnode in funtional spec
18:59:03 [zhe]
... could use freely just like in rdf
18:59:14 [ivan]
->$1cd19870$d012a8c0@wolf Boris' proposal
18:59:38 [bijan]
"distinct" not "unique"
18:59:39 [zhe]
... regarding semantics. could interpret them as unique, or through existential
19:00:14 [zhe]
need help with scribe ...
19:00:29 [alanr]
19:00:49 [ivan]
ack alanr
19:00:50 [zhe]
alanr: isn't this what we had before?
19:01:07 [zhe]
... what is the difference
19:01:59 [jjc]
q+ to articulate some difficulties
19:02:24 [alanr]
but not wrt anonymous individuals?
19:02:48 [ivan]
ack jjc
19:02:48 [Zakim]
jjc, you wanted to articulate some difficulties
19:02:51 [Uli]
I understand Boris as saying that the "skolem" proposal is far better than people might have thought...
19:03:00 [pfps_]
boris: divergence between DL and Full
19:03:43 [bijan]
19:03:49 [pfps_]
19:04:05 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
19:04:05 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
19:04:06 [zhe]
jjc, can you please put a summary in IRC?
19:04:23 [pfps_]
jjc: syntax bnodes are existentials, object bnodes are skolems?
19:04:49 [zhe]
ACTION: jjc send out email clarify
19:04:49 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - jjc
19:04:50 [MarkusK]
+1 to Boris, Skolmes just are a weakened semantic way for DL-tools to work on it
19:05:02 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
19:05:02 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
19:05:19 [jjc]
action: jeremy to summarise problem with bnodes in ISSUE-3 vs bnodes in OWL list
19:05:19 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-90 - Summarise problem with bnodes in ISSUE-3 vs bnodes in OWL list [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2008-02-27].
19:05:20 [zhe]
issue 91
19:05:32 [zhe]
want to defer because of the action item?
19:05:39 [bmotik]
Could Jeremy actually summarize whast the problem is/
19:05:42 [alanr]
Can michael take either of these?
19:05:46 [alanr]
19:05:53 [zhe]
issue 95
19:06:04 [m_schnei]
i will think about this... later :)
19:06:14 [zhe]
issue 95 No compatibility restrictions between the datatype being restricted and the facets in the DatatypeRestriction construct
19:06:21 [MichaelSmith]
+1 to boris's suggestion restricting datarange to just datatypeURIs
19:06:23 [bijan]
19:06:27 [zhe]
bmotik: DatatypeRestriction takes data types
19:06:52 [zhe]
bmotik: change synatx a little bit
19:06:54 [Uli]
19:07:16 [zhe]
pfps: looks like this can be resolved next week.
19:07:28 [bmotik]
ACTION: bmotik2 to Update the spec to resolve ISSUE-95
19:07:28 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-91 - Update the spec to resolve ISSUE-95 [on Boris Motik - due 2008-02-27].
19:07:31 [zhe]
bmotik: can I update it now and send out an email for the resolution
19:07:44 [zhe]
issue 68
19:07:55 [zhe]
issue 68: mapping rules are non-monotonic
19:08:10 [alanr]
19:08:15 [alanr]
:) good
19:08:15 [zhe]
pfps: I don't quite understand.
19:08:25 [alanr]
I also thought it was not being understood
19:08:31 [bijan]
19:08:33 [Carsten]
have to leave, sorry. bye
19:08:37 [m_schnei]
and for me
19:08:38 [Uli]
19:08:40 [Zakim]
19:08:41 [m_schnei]
and for owl-full
19:08:45 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
19:08:45 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
19:08:50 [alanr]
problem for monotonicity principle
19:08:54 [zhe]
jjc: is a problem for Jena
19:09:05 [Uli]
Jeremy, what is the problem due to?
19:09:07 [pfps_]
ack bijan
19:09:09 [zhe]
bijan: a proposal may solve the problem
19:09:39 [zhe]
pfps: this is not about QCR,
19:09:48 [m_schnei]
q+ to clarify what the problem is in owl-full
19:09:54 [alanr]
+1 property punning is the issue
19:10:22 [bmotik]
Could Jeremy explain why this is a problem for Jena?
19:10:33 [alanr]
a solution that works is extremely acceptable :)
19:10:41 [alanr]
write it up?
19:11:10 [pfps_]
19:11:39 [alanr]
motivation was backwards compatibility, as I understand it
19:11:42 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
19:11:42 [Zakim]
m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
19:12:01 [zhe]
lost m_schnei?
19:12:05 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
19:12:05 [Zakim]
m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
19:12:05 [sandro]
m_schnei, try pressing 41#
19:12:25 [jjc]
Zakim, unmute [IPCaller]
19:12:25 [Zakim]
[IPcaller] should no longer be muted
19:12:26 [sandro]
okay try pressing 61#
19:12:26 [bijan]
Is the relevant jeremey email linked from the tracker page?
19:12:34 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
19:12:34 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
19:12:41 [alanr]
zakim, who is on the call?
19:12:41 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pfps_, [IPcaller], MichaelSmith, Ivan, Rinke, MarkusK, m_schnei, bmotik, uli (muted), jjc, Achille, bcuencagrau (muted), Sandro (muted), Alan_Ruttenberg, bijan
19:12:42 [sandro]
Zakim, IPCaller is m_schnei
19:12:44 [Zakim]
... (muted), Elisa_Kendall
19:12:45 [Zakim]
+m_schnei; got it
19:12:54 [bijan]
This one?
19:13:27 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
19:13:27 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pfps_, m_schnei.a, MichaelSmith, Ivan, Rinke, MarkusK, m_schnei, bmotik, uli (muted), jjc, Achille, bcuencagrau (muted), Sandro (muted), Alan_Ruttenberg, bijan
19:13:28 [zhe]
pfps: to m_schnei, this is a different issue
19:13:33 [Zakim]
... (muted), Elisa_Kendall
19:13:43 [alanr]
effectively dropping triples
19:13:44 [jjc]
q+ to try and explain why this is a problem for Jena
19:13:45 [pfps_]
19:13:45 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
19:13:46 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
19:13:50 [zhe]
pfps: QCR is a separate issue
19:13:54 [pfps_]
ack m_schnei
19:13:55 [Zakim]
m_schnei, you wanted to clarify what the problem is in owl-full
19:14:01 [pfps_]
ack [IPcaller]
19:14:02 [zhe]
jjc: why it is a problem for Jena
19:14:03 [sandro]
Present: pfps_, m_schnei.a, MichaelSmith, Ivan, Rinke, MarkusK, m_schnei, bmotik, uli, jjc, Achille, bcuencagrau, Sandro, Alan_Ruttenberg, bijan, IanH
19:14:07 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
19:14:07 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
19:14:08 [pfps_]
ack jjc
19:14:09 [Zakim]
jjc, you wanted to try and explain why this is a problem for Jena
19:14:11 [zhe]
jjc: knowledge is stored in triples
19:14:13 [pfps_]
19:14:22 [bmotik]
19:14:27 [MichaelSmith]
19:14:31 [bijan]
It must! Or editors can't be based on Jena!
19:14:39 [zhe]
jjc: as you add more knowledge to Jena model, you don't retract triples
19:14:43 [sandro]
JJC: the problem here is that as you add triples, some of the old triples are supposed to be changed -- and that's not how Jena wants things to work.
19:14:50 [zhe]
... it is a fundamental design
19:14:51 [pfps_]
ack bmotik
19:14:53 [alanr]
reasoning != editing
19:15:09 [zhe]
bmotik: if Jena is a triple based, do we really need to retract triples?
19:15:26 [zhe]
... I don't see why these mapping rules will require you to retract triples?
19:15:29 [MichaelSmith]
19:15:29 [zhe]
jjc: not clear
19:15:30 [bijan]
alanr... I don't understand the relevance of that comment
19:15:40 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
19:15:40 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
19:15:43 [pfps_]
zakim, who is talking?
19:15:44 [zhe]
pfps: bijan proposed to do something?
19:15:48 [MichaelSmith]
I was going to agree with Bijan, which is what I understand boris to have done as well
19:15:52 [alanr]
can answer bijan, if necessary
19:16:05 [Zakim]
pfps_, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: pfps_ (9%), jjc (4%), Alan_Ruttenberg (4%), bijan (100%)
19:16:09 [zhe]
bijan: has no clue about the problem. not sure which email is relevant.
19:16:15 [alanr]
19:16:16 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
19:16:16 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
19:16:22 [zhe]
pfps: take an action to write up an email summarizing
19:16:28 [bijan]
I also don't understand the assertion that Jena can't delete
19:16:40 [zhe]
... my understanding of this problem
19:16:48 [zhe]
topic: action 16
19:16:52 [bmotik]
ACTION: pfps to Write up his understanding of ISSUE-68 (nonmonotonic mapping rules)
19:16:52 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - pfps
19:17:07 [sandro]
trackbot-ng, list users?
19:17:10 [bmotik]
ACTION: patelschneider to Write up his understanding of ISSUE-68 (nonmonotonic mapping rules)
19:17:10 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - patelschneider
19:17:14 [sandro]
trackbot-ng, list users
19:17:15 [alanr]
in the sense that pellet (used to?) be unable to retract without doing a lot of work
19:17:15 [bijan]
TopQuadrent is based on Jena and handles OWL 1.1 (by extending Jena)...isn't this an existence counterproof?
19:17:25 [bmotik]
ACTION: peter to Write up his understanding of ISSUE-68 (nonmonotonic mapping rules)
19:17:25 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - peter
19:17:25 [trackbot-ng]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ppatelsc, phaase)
19:17:31 [alanr]
pre: incremental reasoning
19:17:32 [bmotik]
ACTION: patel-schneider to Write up his understanding of ISSUE-68 (nonmonotonic mapping rules)
19:17:32 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-92 - Write up his understanding of ISSUE-68 (nonmonotonic mapping rules) [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2008-02-27].
19:17:36 [zhe]
pfps: defer it
19:17:40 [zhe]
Topic: issue 69
19:17:48 [zhe]
issue 69 punning is incompatible with OWL Full
19:17:53 [alanr]
how so?
19:18:02 [bmotik]
19:18:08 [bijan]
19:18:25 [bijan]
I meant:
19:18:40 [bmotik]
I do
19:18:42 [bijan]
How is it that Jena can't delete triples?
19:18:44 [alanr]
19:18:46 [alanr]
19:19:03 [ivan]
ack bmotik
19:19:07 [jjc]
Jena can delete triples, but not as part of the process of adding other triples
19:19:18 [zhe]
bmotik: it is incompatible with owl full semantics.
19:19:33 [zhe]
... in owl 1.0, DL and FULL are not completely aligned.
19:19:46 [alanr]
property punning is the only issue that I see
19:19:48 [pfps_]
note for scribe - the IRC messages should be moved into the previous topic
19:19:51 [alanr]
19:19:59 [bijan]
I really don't understand why that does...
19:20:03 [bijan]
19:20:15 [sandro]
Chair: IanH, pfps
19:20:19 [pfps_]
19:20:29 [bijan]
19:20:42 [ivan]
ack alanr
19:20:45 [zhe]
bmotik: don't see it as a showstopper
19:21:08 [bmotik]
Alan, this issue is much more than about cardinality.
19:21:17 [Uli]
also, since punning makes more ontologies falls into OWL 1.1/DL, we might also lose some more theorems?
19:21:21 [sandro]
Present: pfps_, unknown, MichaelSmith, Ivan, Rinke, MarkusK, m_schnei, bmotik, uli, jjc, Achille, bcuencagrau, Sandro, Alan_Ruttenberg, bijan, IanH
19:21:34 [bmotik]
19:21:47 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
19:21:47 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
19:21:50 [ivan]
ack bijan
19:22:00 [Uli]
Alan, can you write this comment into IRC?
19:22:11 [zhe]
bijan: have all sorts of punning in pellet
19:22:14 [pfps_]
alanr: property punning causes more problems than other punning
19:22:20 [zhe]
... encountered no problems so far
19:22:39 [jjc]
that's a nice point
19:22:41 [Uli]
ok, but what was the point about cardinality?
19:22:46 [alanr]
I've used pellet a lot. I would be surprised about cardinality issues. ymmv.
19:23:00 [Zakim]
+ +0789107aaff
19:23:01 [pfps_]
19:23:12 [zhe]
bijan: able to handle more graphs is really important
19:23:14 [jjc]
zakim, mute aaff
19:23:14 [Zakim]
+0789107aaff should now be muted
19:23:20 [Zakim]
19:23:27 [zhe]
... don't think punning is a really issue
19:23:28 [jjc]
zakim aaff -s me
19:23:31 [jjc]
zakim aaff is me
19:23:35 [jjc]
zakim, aaff is me
19:23:35 [Zakim]
+jjc; got it
19:23:40 [m_schnei]
as boris said: there is only one "compatibility" aspect in 1.0, and this will be maintained in 1.1 with punning: 1.1-Full will have every 1.1-DL entailment (for legal 1.1-DL onts)
19:24:09 [zhe]
alanr: change the way owl dl works.
19:24:11 [m_schnei]
see sec 5.4 in AS&S
19:24:31 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
19:24:31 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
19:24:38 [m_schnei]
+1 to close/rejected
19:24:45 [bijan]
19:24:48 [pfps_]
19:24:48 [bmotik]
19:24:51 [MarkusK]
19:24:53 [zhe]
pfps: close to our time
19:24:54 [sandro]
pfps: I don't know the way forward on this. I leave it to the chairs to make a decision.
19:25:09 [pfps_]
ack bmotik
19:25:11 [bmotik]
I wanted to say something as well about punning.
19:25:12 [ivan]
ack jjc
19:25:20 [pfps_]
ack jjc
19:25:47 [pfps_]
jjc: bijan's comments about different compatability useful, sill consult
19:25:54 [ivan]
19:25:55 [zhe]
thanks peter
19:25:55 [Uli]
19:26:16 [bijan]
I'll have to miss that
19:26:24 [bijan]
because I'm teaching all day long
19:26:27 [alanr]
19:26:30 [bijan]
After that I'm free
19:26:45 [zhe]
pfps: defer that UFD meeting.
19:27:13 [Uli]
19:27:17 [bmotik]
19:27:18 [Zakim]
19:27:20 [Rinke]
ok, thanks
19:27:20 [ivan]
bye everyone
19:27:21 [Rinke]
19:27:21 [Uli]
19:27:26 [Achille]
19:27:28 [Elisa]
19:27:29 [MarkusK]
19:27:29 [sandro]
zhe, hold on just a moment and I'll have the wiki minutes ready
19:27:30 [Zakim]
19:27:30 [ivan]
rrsagent, draft minutes
19:27:30 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ivan
19:27:32 [sandro]
19:27:34 [Zakim]
19:27:35 [Zakim]
19:27:35 [Zakim]
19:27:37 [Zakim]
19:27:39 [Zakim]
19:27:46 [MichaelSmith]
bye all
19:27:47 [sandro]
YES, just a second.
19:27:49 [Zakim]
19:27:55 [Zakim]
19:27:57 [sandro]
I'll tell you on IRC in 45 seconds.
19:28:50 [sandro]
zhe, is ready for you now.
19:29:01 [zhe]
19:29:01 [alanr]
19:29:07 [sandro]
ciao, all!
19:29:08 [zhe]
19:29:09 [Zakim]
19:29:11 [Zakim]
19:29:13 [Zakim]
19:29:15 [Zakim]
19:29:16 [Zakim]
19:29:34 [Zakim]
19:32:37 [MichaelSmith]
MichaelSmith has left #owl
19:35:01 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, bcuencagrau, in SW_OWL()12:00PM
19:35:04 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()12:00PM has ended
19:35:06 [Zakim]
Attendees were pfps_work, Ivan, +1.202.408.aaaa, MichaelSmith, +31.20.525.aabb, pfps_, Rinke, +0186527aacc, IanH, MarkusK, +1.603.897.aadd, bmotik, m_schnei, uli, jjc, Achille,
19:35:09 [Zakim]
... bcuencagrau, +49.351.463.3.aaee, Sandro, Carsten, Alan_Ruttenberg, bijan, Elisa_Kendall, +0789107aaff
21:29:00 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl
22:02:19 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl