IRC log of owl on 2008-02-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:54:05 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:54:06 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:54:39 [pfps_]
zakim, this is owlwg
17:54:39 [Zakim]
pfps_, I see SW_OWL()12:00PM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be owlwg".
17:54:48 [pfps_]
zakim, this will be owlwg
17:54:48 [Zakim]
ok, pfps_; I see SW_OWL()12:00PM scheduled to start 54 minutes ago
17:55:06 [ewallace]
ewallace has joined #owl
17:55:21 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
17:55:41 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()12:00PM has now started
17:55:48 [Zakim]
17:55:55 [pfps_]
zakim, who is on the phone?
17:55:55 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pfps_
17:55:57 [Zakim]
17:55:58 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #owl
17:56:02 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??p3 is me
17:56:02 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
17:56:20 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:56:20 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:56:27 [bcuencagrau]
bcuencagrau has joined #owl
17:56:34 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:56:34 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
17:56:45 [Zakim]
17:56:51 [Zakim]
17:56:55 [m_schnei]
zakim, ??P4 is me
17:56:55 [Zakim]
+m_schnei; got it
17:57:01 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
17:57:01 [Zakim]
m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
17:57:03 [Zakim]
17:57:09 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:57:09 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:57:23 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:57:23 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:57:32 [pfps_]
zakim, mute me
17:57:32 [Zakim]
pfps_ should now be muted
17:58:03 [Zakim]
17:58:30 [Zakim]
17:58:54 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, ??P8 is me
17:58:54 [Zakim]
+bcuencagrau; got it
17:59:02 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, mute me
17:59:02 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:59:21 [Elisa]
ScribeNick: Elisa
18:00:03 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has joined #owl
18:00:14 [jeremy]
jeremy has joined #owl
18:00:33 [Zakim]
18:00:49 [uli]
uli has joined #owl
18:01:04 [IanH]
peter, how do we make Elisa be the scribe?
18:01:07 [Zakim]
+ +7.955.aaaa
18:01:23 [jeremy]
Zakim, aaaa is me
18:01:23 [Zakim]
+jeremy; got it
18:01:34 [Zakim]
18:01:36 [jeremy]
zakim, mute me
18:01:36 [Zakim]
jeremy should now be muted
18:01:40 [ivan]
ivan has joined #owl
18:01:49 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
18:01:52 [Zakim]
18:01:55 [MartinD]
MartinD has joined #OWL
18:01:58 [IanH]
Ivan, we need help with zakim scribing etc
18:02:01 [uli]
zakim, ??P0 is me
18:02:01 [Zakim]
+uli; got it
18:02:05 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
18:02:05 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
18:02:06 [Zakim]
18:02:10 [Zakim]
+ +0190827aabb
18:02:17 [MartinD]
zakim, aabb is me
18:02:17 [Zakim]
+MartinD; got it
18:02:20 [uli]
zakim, mute me
18:02:20 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
18:02:29 [ivan]
rrsagent, set log public
18:02:31 [Zhe]
zakim, mute me
18:02:31 [Zakim]
sorry, Zhe, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
18:02:32 [MartinD]
zakim, mute me
18:02:32 [Zakim]
MartinD should now be muted
18:02:37 [Zakim]
18:02:52 [Zakim]
18:02:54 [IanH]
Can anyone hear me?
18:03:02 [ewallace]
18:03:02 [DougL]
DougL has joined #owl
18:03:07 [Zakim]
18:03:09 [m_schnei]
why does zakim say things like "+m_schnei.a"?
18:03:13 [jeremy]
18:03:21 [vipul]
vipul has joined #owl
18:03:23 [IanH]
I'll try dialing in again
18:03:23 [Zhe]
zakim, mute me
18:03:23 [Zakim]
sorry, Zhe, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
18:03:31 [Zakim]
18:03:47 [jeremy]
zakim believes that the line associated with some call is your line
18:03:48 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #owl
18:03:50 [Zakim]
+ +1.512.342.aacc
18:04:00 [Zakim]
18:04:01 [Zakim]
18:04:02 [hendler]
hendler has joined #owl
18:04:03 [DougL]
zakim, aacc is me
18:04:03 [Zakim]
+DougL; got it
18:04:10 [Carsten]
zakim, mute me
18:04:10 [Zakim]
Carsten should now be muted
18:04:11 [Zakim]
18:04:21 [m_schnei]
no, it said this looong after!
18:04:22 [jeremy]
zakim, who is on the call?
18:04:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pfps_ (muted), bmotik (muted), m_schnei (muted), Elisa_Kendall, Evan_Wallace, ??P7, MarkusK (muted), jeremy (muted), uli (muted), Ivan, MartinD (muted),
18:04:25 [Zakim]
... Vipul_Kashyap, DougL, Carsten (muted), Sandro
18:04:27 [Zakim]
18:04:31 [Zakim]
18:04:33 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.276.aadd
18:04:38 [Zakim]
18:04:40 [IanH]
zakim, ??P2 is IanH
18:04:40 [Zakim]
+IanH; got it
18:04:41 [hendler]
zakim, aadd is me
18:04:42 [Zakim]
+hendler; got it
18:04:51 [m_schnei]
maybe I have stolen someone else's phone line?
18:05:00 [Zhe]
zakim, mute me
18:05:00 [Zakim]
sorry, Zhe, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
18:05:06 [IanH]
zakim, who is here
18:05:06 [Zakim]
IanH, you need to end that query with '?'
18:05:15 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
18:05:15 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pfps_ (muted), bmotik (muted), m_schnei (muted), Elisa_Kendall, Evan_Wallace, ??P7, MarkusK (muted), jeremy (muted), uli (muted), Ivan, MartinD (muted),
18:05:18 [Zakim]
... Vipul_Kashyap, DougL, Carsten (muted), Sandro, IanH, m_schnei.a, hendler, Jeff_Pan
18:05:19 [Zakim]
On IRC I see hendler, JeffP, vipul, DougL, MartinD, Zhe, ivan, uli, jeremy, MarkusK, bcuencagrau, Elisa, bmotik, ewallace, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, Carsten, m_schnei, sandro, pfps_,
18:05:21 [Zakim]
... pfps, trackbot-ng
18:05:31 [jeremy]
zakim, unmute me
18:05:31 [Zakim]
jeremy should no longer be muted
18:05:32 [Zhe]
Zakim, ??P& is me
18:05:32 [Zakim]
sorry, Zhe, I do not recognize a party named '??P&'
18:05:54 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:05:54 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:05:58 [pfps_]
Zakim, ??P7 is Zhe
18:05:58 [Zakim]
+Zhe; got it
18:05:58 [Zhe]
Zakim, ??P7 is me
18:05:59 [Zakim]
I already had ??P7 as Zhe, Zhe
18:06:12 [m_schnei]
ok, I go out
18:06:21 [Zakim]
18:06:30 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
18:06:30 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pfps_ (muted), bmotik (muted), Elisa_Kendall, Evan_Wallace, Zhe, MarkusK (muted), jeremy, uli (muted), Ivan, MartinD (muted), Vipul_Kashyap, DougL, Carsten
18:06:33 [Zakim]
... (muted), Sandro, IanH, m_schnei.a, hendler, Jeff_Pan
18:06:51 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
18:06:55 [sandro]
zakim, drop m_schnei.a
18:06:55 [Zakim]
m_schnei.a is being disconnected
18:06:57 [Zakim]
18:06:58 [Zakim]
18:07:04 [Zhe]
I was dropped
18:07:06 [m_schnei]
im in again
18:07:14 [m_schnei]
zakim, ??P4 is me
18:07:14 [Zakim]
+m_schnei; got it
18:07:14 [sandro]
zakim, drop Zhe
18:07:15 [Zakim]
Zhe is being disconnected
18:07:16 [Zakim]
18:07:26 [IanH]
zakim, who is on the cs
18:07:26 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the cs', IanH
18:07:26 [jeremy]
zakim, mute me
18:07:27 [Zakim]
jeremy should now be muted
18:07:28 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:07:28 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
18:07:29 [Zakim]
18:07:30 [bcuencagrau]
hey you guys cut me!
18:07:32 [IanH]
zakim, who is on the call?
18:07:32 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pfps_ (muted), bmotik (muted), Elisa_Kendall, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK (muted), jeremy (muted), uli (muted), Ivan, MartinD (muted), Vipul_Kashyap, DougL, Carsten
18:07:36 [Zakim]
... (muted), Sandro, IanH, hendler, Jeff_Pan, m_schnei (muted), [IBM]
18:07:42 [Achille]
Zakim, IBM is Achille
18:07:42 [Zakim]
+Achille; got it
18:07:58 [Elisa]
Topic: Admin
18:08:07 [Elisa]
Agenda amendments - none
18:08:26 [Zakim]
18:08:32 [pfps_]
18:08:35 [Zakim]
18:08:50 [pfps_]
zakim, mute me
18:08:50 [Zakim]
pfps_ was already muted, pfps_
18:08:52 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, ??P18 is me
18:08:52 [Zakim]
+bcuencagrau; got it
18:09:07 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, mute me
18:09:07 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted
18:09:09 [sandro]
Zakim, m_schnei.a is Zhe
18:09:09 [Zakim]
+Zhe; got it
18:09:13 [Zhe]
18:09:23 [IanH]
PROPOSAL: accept previous minutes
18:09:36 [ivan]
+1 for the minutes
18:09:38 [MartinD]
18:09:43 [bmotik]
18:10:05 [m_schnei]
18:10:36 [uli]
i think the linked minutes *are* 20th
18:10:50 [IanH]
PROPOSAL: accept previous minutes
18:11:03 [pfps_]
18:11:05 [Zhe]
18:11:14 [IanH]
RESOLVED: accept previous minutes
18:11:32 [jeremy]
note the 20th minutes indicate that we did approve the 13th minutes
18:11:36 [Elisa]
Upcoming incubator group discussion
18:11:48 [m_schnei]
What is the incubator group?
18:12:11 [Elisa]
Ivan: the incubator group is finally looking at ways of mapping data to RDF
18:12:27 [Elisa]
this is relevant to this group is that they are interested in mapping relational
18:12:39 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
18:12:39 [RRSAgent]
18:12:43 [Elisa]
data to owl structures; if all goes as planned, it will be announced tomorrow
18:13:03 [Elisa]
it will be announced on the home page as well; charter URL is not available yet
18:13:16 [hendler]
q+ to say not obliquely
18:13:26 [Elisa]
Ian: this is something we would just want to keep an eye on, but not much to do now
18:13:37 [IanH]
18:13:47 [m_schnei]
18:13:48 [Elisa]
Pending actions discussion
18:13:54 [m_schnei]
it is *not* me
18:13:55 [sandro]
ack m_schnei.a
18:14:02 [sandro]
ack hendler
18:14:02 [Zakim]
hendler, you wanted to say not obliquely
18:14:20 [pfps_]
18:14:23 [jeremy]
18:14:25 [Elisa]
Jim: just wanted to say that the incubator group is directly related to the discussion on fragments
18:14:26 [pfps_]
zakim, unmute me
18:14:26 [Zakim]
pfps_ should no longer be muted
18:14:38 [Elisa]
related to SQL queries, so we need to pay close attention to this
18:14:40 [pfps_]
18:14:56 [Elisa]
we should make sure that the coordination group makes sure that we don't work at cross purposes
18:15:06 [IanH]
18:15:49 [Elisa]
Ian: so should we consider nominating someone to coordinate with this group?
18:16:01 [Elisa]
Ivan: I propose we should wait a week and look at the charter first
18:16:04 [IanH]
18:16:12 [Elisa]
Note that the chair is from oracle
18:16:19 [Elisa]
Pending review actions
18:16:26 [ewallace]
18:16:43 [Elisa]
Ian: there was agreement that Boris would update the spec to address issue-95
18:16:45 [IanH]
18:16:49 [Elisa]
any objection?
18:17:04 [Elisa]
Evan: I brought up in email that figure 5 does not completely reflect the change
18:17:16 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:17:16 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:17:18 [Elisa]
Ian: is that the only problem, that figure 5 needs fixing?
18:17:21 [IanH]
18:17:28 [IanH]
ack ewallace
18:17:36 [Elisa]
Evan: I didn't particularly like the resolution either, but given the resolution, yes
18:17:45 [Elisa]
Boris: what's wrong with the figure?
18:18:04 [pfps_]
figure 5 is also wrong for me
18:18:05 [Elisa]
Evan: it should point to a datatype rather than DataRange
18:18:11 [IanH]
18:18:12 [JeffP]
18:18:24 [Elisa]
Boris: it's been corrected - you might need to refresh your cache
18:18:24 [m_schnei]
18:18:29 [pfps_]
but refreshing fixes it
18:18:29 [uli]
fig 5 on
18:18:31 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:18:31 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:18:36 [Elisa]
Ian: Peter also says this is aproblem for him
18:18:38 [IanH]
18:19:01 [Elisa]
Michael: what about the other document, the semantics and RDF mapping ... which is a little bit confusing
18:19:16 [Elisa]
Ian: are you asking about interactions with other documents?
18:19:32 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:19:32 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
18:19:33 [Elisa]
Michael: yes, interactions between the syntax document and other documents on this issue
18:19:37 [JeffP]
uli, thanks!
18:19:46 [Elisa]
Boris: I need to check the documents
18:20:21 [Elisa]
Ian: we may not be able to resolve these issues with issue 95, thus it may need revisiting next week
18:20:21 [IanH]
18:20:42 [Elisa]
Boris: I don't think the other documents need to change, but perhaps other people have other opinions
18:20:57 [Elisa]
Ian: perhaps we should come back to this next week for a definitive answer
18:20:57 [pfps_]
semantics has to change, but only very little
18:21:28 [Elisa]
Ian: Let's leave this as pending and revisit it next week
18:21:32 [Elisa]
Boris: ok
18:21:48 [ewallace]
After refreshing I do see the change in Figure 5!
18:21:49 [IanH]
18:22:03 [m_schnei]
18:22:03 [Elisa]
Ian: Action 87, which alan has completed ... are we happy with what alan has written there?
18:22:05 [m_schnei]
18:22:27 [Elisa]
Ian: Action 87: Complete
18:22:31 [pfps_]
zakim, unmute me
18:22:31 [Zakim]
pfps_ was not muted, pfps_
18:22:35 [IanH]
18:22:45 [m_schnei]
+1 to peter's mail
18:22:50 [pfps_]
zakim, mute me
18:22:50 [Zakim]
pfps_ should now be muted
18:22:54 [jeremy]
18:23:01 [Elisa]
Ian: Action 92: Peter to write up his understanding of ISSUE-68
18:23:11 [Elisa]
ACTION 92: complete
18:23:29 [Elisa]
Action 72, Action 79 postponed
18:23:37 [IanH]
18:24:11 [Elisa]
Action 90 - Jeremy, pending, will try to get it done for next week
18:24:31 [Elisa]
Action 42, Bijan - postponed
18:24:38 [jeremy]
18:24:44 [uli]
Bijan said he was working on it
18:24:47 [Elisa]
Action 86, Jeremy - pending for next week
18:25:22 [IanH]
18:25:25 [jeremy]
jeremy; a lot of HP work on at the moment, should ease off at easter
18:25:26 [Elisa]
Ian: Publication schedule, issue from Boris regarding updating public working drafts, which docs we might want to publish
18:25:47 [Elisa]
would we want to update the current working drafts or potentially publish other documents
18:25:57 [pfps_]
+1 to boris's proposal :-)
18:26:03 [sandro]
18:26:05 [jeremy]
18:26:06 [uli]
18:26:12 [Elisa]
Boris proposes that at least the current 3 docs that are working drafts should be updated
18:26:39 [Elisa]
Sandro: the motivation doesn't make sense to me; we can make snapshots for the working group, but the reason to publish
18:26:52 [pfps_]
18:26:54 [Elisa]
new working drafts is to get feedback from outside the working group
18:27:06 [IanH]
18:27:09 [bmotik]
18:27:10 [sandro]
18:27:12 [pfps_]
zakim, unmute me
18:27:12 [Zakim]
pfps_ should no longer be muted
18:27:14 [Elisa]
Ian: this is a good point, have the docs changed sufficiently that we would want outside feedback
18:27:21 [jeremy]
ack jeremy
18:27:57 [IanH]
18:27:58 [sandro]
heatbeat deadline is April 8th
18:28:10 [Elisa]
Jeremy: I think that it is good to show that we're aligned, if we are
18:28:41 [Elisa]
Sandro: the work in making another working draft is to publish a note to the public that there is another working draft, and then to publish it
18:28:54 [Elisa]
If there are changes worth sharing, then sure, let's republish
18:28:59 [pfps_]
18:29:03 [IanH]
18:29:27 [IanH]
18:29:29 [Elisa]
Ian: several people mentioned publishing the XML syntax, two things to discuss - A, are the changes sufficient to publish new versions
18:29:42 [IanH]
18:29:43 [Elisa]
and B should we consider publishing additional documents
18:29:49 [jeremy]
q+ tp bring up grddl
18:30:00 [Elisa]
Boris: I think it would be good to show that we are aligned and something has changed
18:30:01 [jeremy]
q+ tp mention grddl
18:30:12 [jeremy]
q+ to bring up grddl
18:30:20 [IanH]
18:30:30 [Elisa]
I also think we have fixed quite a few bugs, and coming up with a list of the issues we've fixed might also be good
18:30:31 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:30:35 [IanH]
18:30:49 [Elisa]
We should consider the XML syntax and also the RDF mapping
18:31:01 [IanH]
18:31:14 [Elisa]
Boris: the other document we should publish is the XML syntax, if we can achieve resolution on the fragments then
18:31:19 [Elisa]
we should consider that as well
18:31:22 [DougL]
Zakim, you never fail to remind us to be humble in our claims and expectations about how close we are to semantic understanding in our software.
18:31:22 [Zakim]
I don't understand you, DougL
18:31:31 [Elisa]
Ian: I don't think that the fragments are ready yet
18:31:53 [DougL]
18:32:20 [Elisa]
Jeremy: I'm in principle in favor of publishing the XML syntax, we should add having a GRIDDL profile to the issue list
18:32:29 [Elisa]
Ian: yes I think that's appropriate
18:32:34 [IanH]
18:32:36 [Elisa]
Jeremy: ok, I'll do that
18:32:44 [jeremy]
ack jeremy
18:32:44 [Zakim]
jeremy, you wanted to bring up grddl
18:32:54 [jeremy]
zakim, mute me
18:32:54 [Zakim]
jeremy should now be muted
18:33:22 [Elisa]
Ian: nobody else expressed anything about the other working drafts ... don't know whether that speaks for or against republishing
18:33:27 [IanH]
18:33:44 [Elisa]
Perhaps if we publish both the documents and a list of the issues that have been addressed / changed / fixed would be useful
18:33:46 [jeremy]
18:33:56 [sandro]
STRAWPOLL: Should we re-publish new version of three already-published documents
18:34:01 [Elisa]
Straw pole on whether we should publish new ones, perhaps we should do this doc by doc
18:34:08 [sandro]
18:34:09 [bmotik]
18:34:10 [hendler]
18:34:10 [Achille]
18:34:10 [ewallace]
18:34:10 [pfps_]
+1 to re-publish
18:34:11 [ivan]
18:34:12 [m_schnei]
18:34:13 [MarkusK]
18:34:14 [Elisa]
who thinks the structural syntax has changed enough
18:34:14 [uli]
18:34:15 [jeremy]
18:34:15 [DougL]
18:34:16 [Zhe]
18:34:16 [JeffP]
18:34:18 [bcuencagrau]
18:34:20 [Elisa]
18:34:22 [Carsten]
18:34:34 [Elisa]
ok so generally positive on structural syntad
18:34:37 [sandro]
STRAWPOLL: Semantics?
18:34:41 [Elisa]
same question on semantics document
18:35:09 [hendler]
18:35:12 [ivan]
18:35:21 [m_schnei]
18:35:25 [pfps_]
18:35:30 [Achille]
18:35:31 [bmotik]
18:35:32 [jeremy]
18:35:34 [Elisa]
18:35:37 [Zhe]
18:35:40 [ewallace]
18:35:40 [DougL]
18:35:50 [Elisa]
Ian: do we need a formal resolution to publish?
18:35:59 [jeremy]
zakim, unmute me
18:35:59 [Zakim]
jeremy should no longer be muted
18:36:05 [IanH]
18:36:05 [Elisa]
Sandro: yes, with regard to publishing, we should
18:36:06 [pfps_]
zakim, mute me
18:36:06 [Zakim]
pfps_ should now be muted
18:36:08 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:36:08 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:36:30 [Elisa]
Jeremy: I feel that we should have addressed 1 or 2 of the harder issues before republishing
18:36:31 [IanH]
18:36:35 [hendler]
18:36:52 [IanH]
18:36:55 [sandro]
Jeremy: I'd like us to have done one or two of the harder issues before republishing -- especially given Jim's point about lack of interest in the previous draft. I wouldn't oppose publishing, but I'm not convinced it's worth the effort.
18:36:56 [Elisa]
We've done quite a bit of cleaning up, but something new would be more interesting -- I'm not convinced that it's work the effort
18:36:58 [IanH]
ack hendler
18:37:02 [IanH]
18:37:06 [sandro]
Jim: My real fear is exausting people.
18:37:24 [sandro]
Jim: ... ie crying wolf.
18:37:26 [jeremy]
jeremy: i would concur
18:37:34 [Elisa]
Jim: my real fear is of exhausting people - if we republish for minor issues, people won't really look when we rerelease for major issues
18:37:36 [IanH]
18:37:51 [jeremy]
18:37:55 [IanH]
18:38:06 [Elisa]
we run the risk of getting to CR and having people raise more difficult issues
18:38:26 [Elisa]
Sandro: if we publish with a list of the things we've addressed, and then ask for feedback does that make sense
18:38:35 [IanH]
18:39:04 [Elisa]
Jim: my sense is that people don't read the status section, and I would prefer we fix some more substantive issues before publication
18:39:18 [Elisa]
Jeremy: we can meet the heartbeat status by publishing other documents
18:39:20 [Zakim]
18:39:24 [IanH]
18:39:28 [sandro]
q+ to ask if we should republish all when we republish any?
18:39:32 [sandro]
ack jeremy
18:39:45 [sandro]
18:40:03 [sandro]
Ian: Okay, let's try to resolve another issue or two
18:40:10 [Elisa]
Perhaps we should see if we can resolve a few more of these issues before publishing,
18:40:13 [sandro]
STRAWPOLL: Semantics -- republish?
18:40:20 [bmotik]
18:40:20 [ewallace]
18:40:21 [ivan]
18:40:23 [Achille]
18:40:24 [Zhe]
18:40:24 [JeffP]
18:40:26 [hendler]
18:40:27 [MarkusK]
18:40:28 [m_schnei]
18:40:31 [bcuencagrau]
18:40:31 [uli]
18:40:32 [jeremy]
18:40:55 [Elisa]
Ian: so not very strong support for that, how about the RDF mapping document
18:40:58 [sandro]
STRAWPOLL: republish RDF Mapping?
18:41:00 [bmotik]
18:41:03 [hendler]
18:41:03 [ewallace]
18:41:06 [Zhe]
18:41:06 [Achille]
18:41:07 [MarkusK]
18:41:09 [m_schnei]
18:41:11 [JeffP]
18:41:12 [ivan]
18:41:15 [bcuencagrau]
18:41:42 [ewallace]
and the Primer
18:41:45 [m_schnei]
18:41:52 [Elisa]
Ian: so similarly, not tremendously strong support for that, so the other issue is whether or not to go forward with any of the other documents, modulo resolving the GRDDL issue
18:41:59 [Elisa]
with the XML syntax document,
18:42:05 [IanH]
18:42:07 [bmotik]
18:42:09 [uli]
18:42:11 [bcuencagrau]
18:42:13 [Elisa]
how many feel we should publish that
18:42:15 [hendler]
-0 without GRDDL, +1 with
18:42:18 [Zakim]
18:42:19 [jeremy]
i don't think we need resolve grddl issue before pub
18:42:19 [Zhe]
18:42:19 [MarkusK]
18:42:19 [m_schnei]
-1 until I have done my homework
18:42:21 [ivan]
18:42:21 [ewallace]
18:42:23 [IanH]
18:42:24 [JeffP]
18:42:27 [Achille]
0 : I have not followed the changes made there
18:42:27 [jeremy]
18:42:31 [DougL]
18:42:32 [pfps_]
+1 to publish
18:42:33 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:42:33 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:42:54 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:42:54 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
18:42:57 [Elisa]
Michael: need time to read this document before I say anything about it
18:43:02 [jeremy]
18:43:08 [IanH]
18:43:09 [ivan]
ack m_schnei
18:43:11 [m_schnei]
18:43:11 [Elisa]
Ian: it has been on the wiki since the working group started ...
18:43:22 [bmotik]
zakim, mute me
18:43:22 [Zakim]
bmotik was already muted, bmotik
18:43:30 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:43:30 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
18:43:51 [m_schnei]
there is a strong echo in the line
18:43:52 [pfps_]
zakim, who is talking?
18:43:57 [IanH]
18:44:03 [Zakim]
pfps_, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: IanH (24%), Sandro (40%)
18:44:05 [pfps_]
zakim, mute me
18:44:06 [Zakim]
pfps_ should now be muted
18:44:14 [sandro]
zakim, who is talking?
18:44:25 [Zakim]
sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: jeremy (5%)
18:44:27 [jeremy]
ack jeremy
18:44:40 [Elisa]
Ian: we have homework to do, potential issues with respect to GRDDL, and then we can think about a potential proposal to publish
18:44:55 [Elisa]
Topic: Proposal to Resolve
18:44:57 [m_schnei]
18:45:01 [IanH]
18:45:14 [bmotik]
I've already updated some of the documents
18:45:16 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:45:16 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:45:19 [Elisa]
Ian: this needs to be postponed to next week
18:45:30 [bmotik]
18:45:55 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:45:55 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
18:46:11 [Elisa]
Michael: ISSUE-95 is only about this compatibility table, it may make sense to close this and open another regarding datatype restrictions
18:46:14 [m_schnei]
18:46:15 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:46:15 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:46:19 [IanH]
18:46:30 [IanH]
ack m_schnei
18:46:36 [IanH]
18:46:47 [Elisa]
Boris: I actually think this is difficult to split, the table by itself is meaningless unless you say how you are applying it
18:47:04 [JeffP]
18:47:04 [Elisa]
when I entered this issue, I thought these two things had to be considered together
18:47:33 [Elisa]
I do agree that we probably need something like named datatypes, but this issue is about fixing an error, modulo fixing the other docs
18:47:45 [IanH]
18:47:49 [Elisa]
If there are other features we should discuss them separately, and limit scope
18:48:15 [m_schnei]
agreed, it's probably better to leave 95 open for the moment
18:48:28 [Elisa]
Ian: we should try to keep issues fairly scoped; there are a few details that you didn't get to, but hopefully they will be resolved by next week
18:48:39 [IanH]
18:48:39 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:48:40 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:48:50 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:48:50 [bmotik]
18:48:58 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:48:58 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:49:17 [Elisa]
Ian: Next issue is OWL 1.1 Full
18:49:28 [jeremy]
18:49:40 [Elisa]
Some of the issues related to OWL 1.1 Full are some of these difficult issues to which Jeremy was alluding when we discussed publication
18:50:01 [Elisa]
we need to figure out generally how we're going to go forward on OWL 1.1 FUll, who is going to address the semantics,
18:50:09 [IanH]
18:50:14 [m_schnei]
18:50:21 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:50:21 [Zakim]
m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
18:50:22 [Elisa]
are the semantics going to be completely new, who is going to do the work, anybody interested in doing the work
18:51:05 [Elisa]
Michael: I offer to expand the semantics to cover the new constructs ... I would need alot of people to look over what I do if I do it
18:51:14 [IanH]
18:51:22 [IanH]
ack m_schnei
18:51:26 [Elisa]
I could expand the semantics to include the new constructs as they are, but would need significant review
18:51:30 [IanH]
18:51:43 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:51:43 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
18:51:51 [Elisa]
Jeremy: I would offer to review / play a supportive role of the sort michael is asking for
18:52:02 [IanH]
18:52:08 [Elisa]
Ian: is this the right way forward, or would we prefer to look for completely new semantics
18:52:27 [Elisa]
Jeremy: Bijan had a proposal for completely new semantics that I've lost track of, he's not on the call
18:52:42 [Elisa]
Ian: so what do you think about this Jeremy - about extending the existing semantics
18:53:11 [Elisa]
Jeremy: to me this shouldn't be too difficult to extend the existing semantics ...we've hit an issue with the QCRs that needs to be addressed ...
18:53:12 [IanH]
18:53:24 [Elisa]
the property change looks quite straightforward to me
18:53:47 [Elisa]
the issues are going to be where it interacts with other things, such as reification
18:54:01 [IanH]
18:54:27 [m_schnei]
18:54:32 [Elisa]
Ian: quite alot of the other issues are not saying ... there is a known problem here ... we need to discover whether there really
18:54:41 [Zakim]
18:54:41 [Elisa]
is an issue here, and then figure out how to address it
18:54:44 [IanH]
18:54:51 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:54:51 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:54:55 [ivan]
ack m_schnei
18:54:58 [Elisa]
We seem to have a way forward here
18:55:24 [Elisa]
Michael: I think the best would be to follow what ... has done a few weeks ago, a proposal for semantics with considerations
18:55:37 [IanH]
18:55:37 [Elisa]
then we can look at what the problems are
18:55:45 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:55:45 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
18:56:00 [IanH]
18:56:04 [Elisa]
Jeremy: we could go for a public working draft that is essential a diff -- here are the new bits, that will be
18:56:13 [Elisa]
converged with the older version eventually
18:56:27 [Elisa]
Clearly by working draft 2 or 3 we would actually need to do the merge
18:56:46 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:56:46 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:56:53 [IanH]
18:56:54 [Elisa]
Ian: we should have an action on Michael to do this ... Michael, how long do you need for this ...
18:57:23 [Elisa]
Michael: since I have already done some preliminary work, we could have the start of a wiki for F2F2
18:57:53 [IanH]
18:57:57 [Elisa]
A wiki version, which has language constructs and related semantics and considerations for F2F2, not a full draft, which will take a lot of writing
18:58:36 [Elisa]
ACTION: Michael will initiate work on the OWL 1.1 Full semantics, with a draft posted to the wiki a week prior to the next F2F meeting
18:58:36 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Michael
18:58:36 [trackbot-ng]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. msmith9, mschneid, msintek)
18:58:39 [IanH]
18:59:06 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:59:06 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
18:59:13 [Elisa]
ACTION Mschneid will initiate work on the OWL 1.1 Full semantics, with a draft posted to the wiki a week prior to the next F2F meeting
18:59:19 [IanH]
18:59:31 [sandro]
Elisa, it's "ACTION: name to ..."
18:59:52 [sandro]
(you left out the colon the second time.)
19:00:02 [Carsten]
I very much agree!! Alas, I have to go. bye.
19:00:02 [sandro]
ACTION: Mschneid will initiate work on the OWL 1.1 Full semantics, with a draft posted to the wiki a week prior to the next F2F meeting
19:00:02 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-93 - Will initiate work on the OWL 1.1 Full semantics, with a draft posted to the wiki a week prior to the next F2F meeting [on Michael Schneider - due 2008-03-05].
19:00:03 [Elisa]
ACTION: Mschneid will initiate work on the OWL 1.1 Full semantics, with draft posted to the wiki a week prior to the next F2F meeting
19:00:04 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-94 - Will initiate work on the OWL 1.1 Full semantics, with draft posted to the wiki a week prior to the next F2F meeting [on Michael Schneider - due 2008-03-05].
19:00:16 [sandro]
d'poh. I'll drop action 94
19:00:18 [IanH]
19:00:25 [IanH]
19:00:26 [m_schnei]
19:00:33 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
19:00:33 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
19:00:34 [ivan]
ack m_schnei
19:00:35 [IanH]
19:00:45 [Zakim]
19:01:33 [IanH]
19:01:38 [Elisa]
Michael: it's a layered architecture, might use a rule-based semantics, taking the lead from the semantics for RDFS
19:02:14 [jeremy]
19:02:22 [IanH]
19:02:24 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
19:02:24 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
19:02:26 [Elisa]
could specify this with a rule-based semantics - I think this fragment would be a good place to start
19:02:45 [Elisa]
Jeremy: is the proposal that we should define OWL prime fragment by a set of rules that would
19:03:04 [Elisa]
give aminimum level of entailment
19:03:12 [IanH]
19:03:47 [Elisa]
Ian: this is something that isn't completely clear in the email on this fragments thread
19:03:50 [IanH]
19:03:51 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
19:03:52 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
19:03:56 [IanH]
19:03:59 [IanH]
ack jeremy
19:04:02 [jeremy]
19:04:05 [t]
t has joined #owl
19:04:09 [Elisa]
Michael: completeness stuff I'm planning to address in email
19:04:13 [hendler]
19:04:13 [IanH]
19:04:22 [IanH]
19:04:23 [Elisa]
Jeremy: and also what we mean by completeness
19:04:36 [Elisa]
Michael: there are a few things to consider, I will respond in email
19:04:44 [IanH]
19:04:46 [ivan]
ack hendler
19:04:46 [Elisa]
Ian: this is a complex issue, so we should wait for follow up in email
19:04:46 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
19:04:47 [jeremy]
zakim, mute me
19:04:47 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
19:04:48 [Zakim]
jeremy should now be muted
19:05:16 [Elisa]
Jim: there is a thread that has gone off into PD* completeness that started with a thread on OWL Full completeness ...
19:05:26 [Elisa]
are these two divergent threads
19:05:30 [m_schnei]
19:05:30 [IanH]
19:05:34 [Elisa]
Owl prime completeness not owl full
19:05:35 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
19:05:35 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
19:05:37 [ivan]
ack m_schnei
19:05:52 [Elisa]
Michael: the problem is that owl prime is a moving target
19:06:04 [IanH]
19:06:09 [Elisa]
I think it has the possibility to converge
19:06:12 [t]
t has left #owl
19:06:12 [ivan]
19:06:16 [Zakim]
19:06:16 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
19:06:17 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
19:06:17 [Zakim]
19:06:18 [Elisa]
Jim: ok then I'll wait to see what happens
19:06:29 [Zhe]
19:06:32 [IanH]
19:06:38 [Elisa]
Ian: it will help alot to have the extended owl full semantics, which is significant progress
19:06:56 [IanH]
19:07:03 [jeremy]
zakim, jjc is jeremy
19:07:03 [Zakim]
+jeremy; got it
19:07:34 [IanH]
19:07:35 [m_schnei]
19:07:39 [Elisa]
Ivan: the PD* and owl prime were all rule-based features in OWL 1.0, but when we look at the features to be added in OWL 1.1, there may be things worth investigating
19:07:42 [ivan]
ack ivan
19:07:43 [IanH]
19:07:50 [ivan]
ack Zhe
19:08:06 [Elisa]
Zhe: to Michael's comments, if he can come up with a set of rules for OWL full I will be happy to review them, then
19:08:13 [IanH]
19:08:14 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
19:08:15 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bmotik (muted), Elisa_Kendall, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK (muted), uli (muted), Ivan, MartinD (muted), DougL, Sandro, IanH, hendler, Jeff_Pan, m_schnei (muted),
19:08:18 [Zakim]
... Achille, Zhe, bcuencagrau (muted), pfps_ (muted), jeremy
19:08:18 [ivan]
ack m_schnei
19:08:20 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
19:08:20 [Zakim]
m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
19:08:21 [Elisa]
with respect to OWL 1.1, I think the property chains can be addressed with a few rules
19:08:23 [IanH]
19:08:52 [IanH]
19:08:59 [Elisa]
Michael: I think we have in mind OWL 1.1 features ... the question was where we don't have to do too much ourselves using the PD* paper
19:09:19 [IanH]
19:09:22 [Elisa]
going to OWL 1.1 features, we will have to address this ourselves, esp. wrt completeness
19:09:24 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
19:09:24 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
19:09:30 [IanH]
19:09:35 [IanH]
ack jeremy
19:09:43 [IanH]
19:09:54 [Elisa]
Jeremy: I think the PD* design has some fairly clear principles, which can guide what should be included and what can't be
19:09:58 [IanH]
19:10:12 [sandro]
Present: bmotik, Elisa_Kendall, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli, Ivan, MartinD, DougL, Sandro, IanH, hendler, Jeff_Pan, m_schnei, Achille, Zhe, bcuencagrau, pfps_, jeremy
19:10:19 [IanH]
19:10:20 [Elisa]
we could use these design principles to extend OWL prime as a result
19:10:26 [m_schnei]
of course, OWL-11 features have not been asked for yet for OWL-Prime
19:10:50 [Elisa]
Ian: the main object of this discussion was to make progress on OWL Full semantics, which we have
19:10:59 [Elisa]
Topic: Issue Discussions
19:11:01 [pfps_]
I wonder what most the important perceived pD* features are
19:11:28 [jeremy]
zakim, mute me
19:11:28 [Zakim]
jeremy should now be muted
19:11:32 [IanH]
19:11:33 [bmotik]
19:11:36 [bmotik]
zakim, unmute me
19:11:36 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
19:11:36 [Elisa]
Ian: Issue 3 - anonymous individuals ... there has been some traffic on this over the last few weeks ... are we any closer
19:11:40 [Elisa]
to a resolution on this?
19:12:08 [hendler]
I wonder where the decision to use pd* as the formalism for OWL Prime occured
19:12:17 [Elisa]
Boris: the last time there was a question as to whether it would make sense to have anonymous individuals as skolems
19:12:30 [jeremy]
19:12:32 [uli]
+1 to Boris
19:12:32 [IanH]
19:12:35 [ivan]
ack bmotik
19:12:36 [MarkusK]
19:12:36 [pfps_]
+1 to Boris
19:12:40 [Elisa]
in the end we don't know what the semantics of owl full are, so I don't see that we are losing anything by that
19:12:44 [bcuencagrau]
+1 to Boris
19:12:48 [ivan]
ack jeremy
19:12:51 [jeremy]
zakim, unmute me
19:12:51 [Zakim]
jeremy was not muted, jeremy
19:12:52 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
19:12:52 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
19:12:55 [IanH]
19:13:09 [bmotik]
19:13:12 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
19:13:12 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
19:13:22 [m_schnei]
jim, OWL-Prime and pD* have been discussed several times together in the past. This is why I found about pD* at all
19:13:26 [IanH]
19:13:36 [Elisa]
Jeremy: so, I think it depends what we mean by compatibility, from one point of view it would be backwards compatibility and another the forward view
19:13:37 [IanH]
19:13:45 [uli]
19:13:49 [IanH]
19:13:49 [Elisa]
It would allow us to deal with more graphs
19:14:03 [hendler]
mike: I've seen that, but it's one of several things under discussion as best I can tell
19:14:08 [IanH]
19:14:08 [Elisa]
Ian: pragmatically it wouldn't be any different since people are doing this in practice
19:14:11 [ivan]
ack bmotik
19:14:17 [IanH]
19:14:31 [Elisa]
Boris: pragmatically this would bring the spec in line with implementations in OWL DL
19:14:52 [Elisa]
I see this as an improvement rather than a disadvantage in OWL DL
19:15:23 [jeremy]
jeremy has left #owl
19:15:23 [IanH]
19:15:25 [Elisa]
we don't know whether OWL Full model theory is satisfiable, so we are being forced into thinking about this for the sake of some phantom compatibility issue
19:15:33 [uli]
ack uli
19:15:35 [IanH]
19:15:36 [ivan]
ack uli
19:15:52 [IanH]
19:15:55 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
19:15:55 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
19:16:01 [Elisa]
Uli: I just wanted to make similar points - it would indeed cover more realistically what people have implemented and expect as answers
21:22:14 [jeremy]
jeremy has joined #owl
21:50:36 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl
22:42:31 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl