<alanr> sandro, why does zakim think this starts at 12?

<sandro> alanr, because we had some pre-telecon-telecons, and so I just made the reservation thus, so that pre-telecon-telecons wouldn't need any special work. If we're not doing those any more, we should probably change it back.

<alanr> sandro: got it

<alanr> 603 number unaccounted for

<vipul> Alan: Rearrange agenda to get the fragments discussion earlier

<Rinke> ScribeNick: vipul

<IanH> I'm on

<Achille> +q

<sandro> that was Achille

Achille: Start the discussion on fragments earlier

<hendler> +1 prev min

<sandro> PROPOSED: approve previous minutes

<pfps> +1 minutes

<ivan> +1 prev minutes

<DougL> 0 (wasn't on the call)

<IanH> +1

<msmith> +1 to accept prev min

<Zhe> +1

<Rinke> 0 (wasn't on the call either)

<bijan> +1 mintues

<Ratnesh> 0 (wasn't on the call)

<sandro> RESOLVED: approved minutes http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.02.27/Minutes

Alan: Issue 95 discussion to resolve... Was the action item completed?
... How to resolve Issue 3, Tabled for now
... seek feedback on Action IItems
... Close pending action items
... Status of action 86?
... Jeremy to respond?

<alanr> jeremy, you there?

<bijan> Anticipating my overdue action...I've been posponing until we get closer to discussing hte proposal

<bijan> I'll push it off a bit again

<bijan> I expect to do it in the next few weeks but have been working on primer etc.

Alan: Issue 97, Adding GRDDL to the OWL XML syntax.
... Transform OWL-XML into OWL-RDF
... Do we accept this issue?

Bijan: OK with accepting the issue

<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask Jeremy how to do this

Ivan: Each XML dialect has a namespace

<bijan> It doesn't have to be XSLT

Ivan: Describes how GRDDL transformations are identified and invoked using the GRDDL standard

<hendler> the main thing is that an HTTP-GET of an XML ontology document could automagically serve up an RDF version

<alanr> right

<bijan> "Non-XSLT transforms may indicate the RDF graph in some other, unspecified, fashion."

<Rinke> ok, thanks bijan

Alan: Schedule a discussion on the issue

<m_schnei> +q issue96

<bijan> The quote is from: http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/#txforms

Alan: Issue 96 on next week's agenda

<Rinke> it's a raised issue

Alan: Issue 95 to remove datatype restrictions to say things like complementOf?
... remove nested restrictions on datatype range
... Resolve this issue as is and add a new issue to name and further restrict datatypes

<ewallace> I would be happy with taken up Boris' suggestion as a new issue

<bmotik> +1

<ewallace> +1

<pfps> +1

<DougL> +1

<IanH> +1

<JeffP> +1

<jeremy> +1

<ivan> 0

<msmith> +1

<Rinke> +1

<MartinD> +1

<Elisa> +1

<Zhe> +1

<bijan> +1

<alanr> +1

<hendler> 0

<Achille> 0

<alanr> PROPOSED resolved issue 95 per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Feb/0129.html and open new issue for discussion of Evan and other concerns re naming and further restricting datatypes

<alanr> RESOLVED resolved issue 95 per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Feb/0129.html and open new issue for discussion of Evan and other concerns re naming and further restricting datatypes

<sandro> (calling it ISSUE-95 help the auto-linking.)

Alan: Start with Fragments Discussion
... Pragmatics of organizing work going forward
... 3 fragments
... Overlap between OWL Lite and OWL Prime
... Overlap between DL Lite and OWL Prime
... Task Force devoted to each Fragment

<alanr> ?

Peter: How much work needs to be done, given the work done by Bors and Bernardo?

Jim: Agree with Peter... Work of this document or have another task force?

<Achille> +1

Jim: Far enough ahead, so probably put it in as a document of the workgroup?

<IanH> +1

<pfps> +1

<DougL> sounds good

<JeffP> +1

<bijan> +1

<MartinD> +1

<MarkusK> +1

<jeremy> +1

<msmith> +1

<Rinke> +1

Alan: Discuss document on the mailing list and work through issues that come up on the mailing list

Sandro: Is this a Rec track document?

<m_schnei> I will need quite some time to read this new version, esp. on OWL-R. It's a *big* change!

Alan: Replace the document on the wiki?

<bijan> I support replacement and rec-tracking

Ian: Replace the existing fragments document with the new one on the premise rec track?
... What do you do with the existing one?

<Zakim> jeremy, you wanted to support rec track-ing

Jeremy: In favor rec tracking this document

Ivan: Favor to rec track
... Do not have to do this decision at the moment

<IanH> OK -- fine by me

<Zakim> bijan, you wanted to discuss what to do with others

Ivan: Turning the submission 1 into a note might make sense, but do not need to decide on this right now

Bijan: Agree with Ivan, Nice Template to describe fragments
... Making this docuiment nice to read would be good

<bijan> Link to the submission on the new one

Hendler: Current document should be somewhere accessible...

<m_schnei> The old version will be in the Wiki history ;-)

<msmith> wiki history is easy

<hendler> wiki history not sufficient for this

Alan: Leave the document "tractable fragments" remain where it is and change the draft pointer to the new location

Jim: Need ability to look at both of them carefully

<Rinke> pages are easily moved to other locations

<alanr> Action for alan? Change sidebar fragments link to new proposal?

Ivan: OWL 1.1 input submission links to Fragments document. 2 links away from wiki page... Don't need to do anything

<alanr> ACTION: Alan to change sidebar Fragments link to new page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/05-owl-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-99 - Change sidebar Fragments link to new page [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-03-12].

Jim: Entry recognized W3C format
... built rules for the fragment in that

<Zakim> bijan, you wanted to ask about RIF

Jim: It is an executable format as engines can execute N3 descriptions

Bijan: Separate what format vs how to coordinate/reference other W3C work such as RIF

Jim: N3 representation of the rules is useful and also gives mapping to RDF

Sandro: Wait for the RIF last call

Jim: General discussion - What flavors of presentation of syntaxes etc are we going to use?
... If we use different syntaxes - all syntaxes should be used in other documents

<bijan> I don't understand the syntaxes part either

<bijan> (of jim's comment)

<m_schnei> I think that I have seen the old SKOS primer using Jena Rules syntax, but this might have changed in the meanwhile

<Zhe> is this ok http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2007/Talks/0110-rules-tbl/#(1)

<Zhe> for N3 rules

Jim: ... use of standard rule formats

Sandro: N3 Rules do not have stable documentation

Jim: some of it may be in the N3 document

<alanr> ACTION: Hendler to put n3 version of rules on wiki with pointer to documentation. All to review and discuss via email [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/05-owl-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-100 - Put n3 version of rules on wiki with pointer to documentation. All to review and discuss via email [on James Hendler - due 2008-03-12].

Alan: Publication schedule: 3 documents - 3rd document is fragments document

<hendler> http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/2008/SUBM-n3-20080114/ seems to have what we used in it

<bijan> What are the three documents? I missed that

Mike: For what applications is the XML doc needed?

<pfps> the three documents are Primer, XML, Fragments

<Zakim> msmith, you wanted to provide a use case

<Zakim> bijan, you wanted to point to existing uses

MikeS: Implementation experience with XML format within DIG client/server architecture for passing explaneation in the context of an NCI project

Bijan: Matthew used it in MyGRid experiments

<Zakim> hendler, you wanted to ask about Note v. rec track status

Jim: Useful, but confusion on status of various documents

<m_schnei> anyone aware of this old W3C note: <http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-xmlsyntax/>

<bijan> Any FPWD can end up as a note

Jim: If published as a draft , can decide whether to stop it as a note or go to a rec
... XML exchange syntax not to be published as rec

Ivan: What are the arguments for the above and what has changed since then?

<bijan> For jim: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#tr-end

Scribe not: Lines -1, -2 by Ivan and not Jim

<bijan> "Work on a technical report may cease at any time. When a Working Group completes its work on a technical report, it publishes it either as a Recommendation or a Working Group Note."

<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to reply

<Zakim> alanr, you wanted to ask that xml not be able to do anything rdf/xml can't - poor motivation

Jeremy, Peter: If we got to rec, we would have to look for implementations

Alan: Things in XML you cannot do in RDF/XML - undue burden on RDF/XML clients
... Validate: GRDDL transformation can be written to correct the syntax errors

Boris: DIG simple protocol for DL reasoners, committed to use XML syntax
... DIG is using XML syntax for updates ot KB, DIG is axiom based

<Zakim> bijan, you wanted to talk about "Selling owl" via the XML syntax

<msmith> +1 to boris' dig use case. he is describing it better than I did

Bijan: People in XML groups do not like RDF/XML
... We are thought as XML hostile

<jeremy> +1 to bijan

Bijan: Have a transformation to RDF (not document)
... Opens OWL to people who might be turned off by RDF/XML syntax

<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to talk about RDF/XML problems

<hendler> +1 to Bijan - and I agree w/him that the GRDDL thing is very important

<jeremy> +1 to peter

<JeffP> +1 to Bijan

Peter: Task for XML to RDF is impossible

<bijan> +1 to peter

<MarkusK> +1 to peter

Peter: cannot transform everything

<bijan> hendler, RDF/XML can't represent all rdf graphs

Ian: GRDDL transformation to check if we can go from XML to RDF.

<hendler> yes, I got that - but we're talking about OWL, I thought

<alanr> Sandro, can you chair reminder of this discussion

Ian: Can map from structural syntax to RDF

Alan: sandro, please chair the rest of the session

<Zakim> jeremy, you wanted to note known limitations

Jeremy: Agree with Peter

<Zakim> alanr, you wanted to respond to peter and to answer Ian too

<bijan> hendler, if OWL/XML can express properties ending with a % then you cannot translate to RDF/XML

<bijan> This is true for Turtle

Alan: If I get OWL-XML which my OWL tools can grok, then I will have to retool. XML document should remain in track with them

<sandro> alanr: as a user I want to two formats to be in sync.

Alan: GRDDL transformation to kee in track and promote interoperability

<sandro> Ivan: Gosh, we have a lot of syntaxes!

<pfps> in alan's comment s/can/can't/ I think

<alanr> btw, I *do* think the xml syntax is a win (provided interoperability is maintained)

<hendler> bijan, thanks, but it seems to me we're talking border cases, not major problems - is that right?

<bijan> Yes

Ivan: understand the argument, Many things? N3, RDF/XML, OWL/XML, Functional synta

<sandro> Zhe: n-triple with predicate URI ending with slash -- can't be in RDF/XML. what other limitations?

<bijan> I think if we're as good as Turtle to RDF/XML...no one will effectively notice

<alanr> predicates have to be qnames

Zhe: Conditions of some triples not convertable into RDF

<alanr> so http://example.org/foo#123 is invalid predicate

Peter: WG has list of issues related to transformations into RDF/XML

<bijan> The last character of the URI must be a NCName legal character

<jeremy> i don't think i have any others ...

<m_schnei> I would say we have just *two* syntaxes: RDF and Functional. The rest are all serializations of either RDF or Functional. Just my point of view.

Alan: Predicates => Qnames => Start with digit character.... URL...

<ivan> http://a.b.c/?afe=pqr&lo=pi is also an invalid URI for a predicate...

Alan: Minor restrictions and do not get in the way

<bijan> ivan, really? I don't think so

<jeremy> i will leave too

<IanH> Nothing from me

<sandro> Alan: if the other syntax were more tollerant, then the not-serializable stuff would be a real problem.

<bijan> xmlns:d=http://a.b.c/?afe=pqr&lo= and d:pi

<Zakim> hendler, you wanted to respond to Peter - no WG decisions yet with respect to whether the final OWL 1.1 DL will have anything that cannot map to RDF

Rinke: Could you take over scribing now?

Need to get going

<IanH> Have to leave now - sorry

<Rinke> ScribeNick: Rinke

<vipul> Thanks Rinke!

jeremy: we considered the predicate problem Zhe was alluding to. It's an RDF problem, not an OWL problem...
... we decided not to fix it

<Zakim> alanr, you wanted to remind jeremy about interoperability issue

jeremy: understand alan, but am against it. But that wasn't what RDF core decided

<jeremy> azakim ,

<bcuencagrau> Sorry, I also have to leave with Ian and Boris

<sandro> m_schnei, I am chairing.

alanr: we have to live with the fact that RDF/XML might not be able to live with OWL/XML syntax
... don't want anything in the OWL/XML syntax that would not be compatible with RDF/XML

<hendler> +1 to Alan - if maximally interoperable, then I'm in favor; if not so (and it is a judgment call) then I'm against it

bijan: is it bad to ask for new features?

<sandro> Bijan: but you can use turtle *now*. and thus exclude rdf/xml-only folks.

<alanr> situation on the ground is that rdf/xml is lingua franca

bijan: it is perfectly possible to push out some RDF that cannot be serialised into rdf/xml, but is valid RDF (turtle)

<alanr> so in theory Bijan is correct, but in practice this will screw people

<alanr> if not interoperable

<Zakim> bijan, you wanted to suggest a solution

<alanr> choice shouldn't be on provider.

bijan: it wouldn't be so difficult to provide a schema that would be able to check for compatibility with RDF/XML
... people should be allowed to write these things, and people already do this

<Zakim> hendler, you wanted to agree w/Alan

bijan: don't understand the problem

<alanr> -1

<hendler> +1 to continue

<DougL> 0

<pfps> -1 let's do the other docs

<ewallace> 0

<sandro> STRAWPOLL: 5 more minutes on this

<msmith> -1 to continue on this

sandro: who wants to give it 5 more minutes?

<Zhe> +0

<MartinD> 0

<JeffP> -1 need to leave soon

<Ratnesh> -1

<MarkusK> -0

<bijan> 0

sandro: (as we're out of time)

<alanr> needs to be taken up next week

sandro: chairs will have to think about this for next week

<alanr> noise!

alanr: we're back

issues discussions

alanr: 5 minutes each
... issue-69 as a 'larger' issue

<hendler> what happened to discussion of the other docs?

alanr: if we have more time
... ontology properties, issue-91

<pfps> what happened to the other docs?

alanr: boris added the ontology properties to the docs... but ontology properties have Ontologies as their range
... and domain
... that's where we are right now

<ewallace> We should be on Publication Schedule

jeremy: I am still suffering HP overload. Domain and range can be specified in OWL full, but don't know how this works out in the FS
... it's a finite list, so we could add them to the mapping rules (if necessary)

<Zakim> m_schnei, you wanted to 91 and full

jeremy: if someone could take this up, I'd be happy (busy until easter)

m_schnei: I assume that the ontology properties will be in the syntax, but in OWL DL they will be interpreted as annotations

<ivan> (easter monday = march 24)

m_schnei: but if they are in the RDF/XML syntax they have domain and range as OWL Full
... won't change anything to add the ontology range

pfps: it's not really the case that they have a domain and range in OWL DL
... (1.0) it was not something you could talk about in OWL DL

<Zakim> alanr, you wanted to note link to versioning issues

pfps: in a certain sense, historically this discussion is incorrect... don't think that anything extra needs to be done on these properties that is any different from annotaiton properties

alanr: there have been various discussions on versioning issues. It would be desirable to have versions have more actual impact than be rather advisory

<m_schnei> peter, I don't know whether this was an answer to me: Anyway, I only talked about OWL-1.0-Full, not DL

alanr: have a proposal that I will bring up when we have our versioning discussion.... for the moment what I'm hearing is ok, but would like to at least discuss whether they could in some sense 'signal' something when something is 'bad'

jeremy: answer to pfps, if I recall correctly, at least syntactically the range and domain have to be there, could be an issue with punning

alanr: propose to leave it as is for OWL DL except to the extent that we have to say something about how it relates to Full.... for full we clould to followup on Michaels' issues

<m_schnei> +1 to alan

<hendler> -1 to close and then open different later - let's just leave it open

<pfps> +1 to dispatch the actual issue

alanr: suggest to close the issue with the note that the 'issue' (or similar) will re-arise in the future

<JeffP> need to go too, sorry

<hendler> q

<alanr> 1?

pfps: to respond to jim in advance, the issue

<alanr> +1

pfps: under consideration says the spec lacks ontology properties. It doesn't anymore... that is different from the domain and range of said ontology properties

hendler: I disagree with you peter, but we're up to close to a 100 issues, just closing this to open up another one doesn't seem to help
... we can put the issue off for a long time

alanr: don't see any harm in doing as peter suggest, with the blabla to at least send an email about why and how
... strong objections?

<DougL> in that case +1

alanr: no reason not to keep it open, just send an email so that we know where we are

<alanr> ACTION: Alanr to summarize current state of issue 91 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/05-owl-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - Alanr

<hendler> -1 => 0 with Alan's action

<alanr> ACTION: Alan to summarize current state of issue 91 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/05-owl-minutes.html#action04]

<alanr> we will keep 91 open

alanr: Issue-16
... entity annotations status
... raised by jeremy

<m_schnei> jeremy isn't there anymore

who just left

<pfps> +1 to defer

alanr: defer?

<m_schnei> +1 to peter

alanr: ok, let's defer Issue-16

Issue-90

alanr: Issue-90, spec lacks deprecated marker

pfps: no change, specs have not changed...
... proposed myself to deprecate deprecation

<bijan> Deprecation doesn't eliminate yes?

alanr: heard some objections related to backwards compatibility

pfps: deprecation in the sense 'simply not say anything about it'

<alanr> <deprecatedclas rdf:resource

alanr: wouldn't that lead to syntax errors?
... deprecation would mean 'we keep it here as a courtesy, but expect it to be gone in owl 2.0'

<m_schnei> we have precedence: usage of owl:DataRange is deprecated, but it's not dropped from the vocabulary!

hendler: I sort of like to see a package on the whole issue of 'non-semantic' elements properties classes
... have a confusion on the status of things we don't comment on
... do these still apply or not?

alanr: meta comment... the authoritative wording on any of this are the specifications. To the extent that you are concerned about this... read the specs and bring up the issues one at a time
... stop reading the emails (to this purpose)... only look at the spec

bijan: I think I support the 'deprecation' in the sense that we say that they are deprecated (i.e. they were not sufficiently defined for the purpose of implementation in applications, we leave them in the notes and will probably come up with something that superseeds them)

<m_schnei> +1 to bijan ... to write this note

hendler: object to any such resolution, see them as valuable in many applications.
... leave them as is

bijan: if I want to do deprecation, I cannot resort to the specs, because they don't specify it properly. We won't achieve compatibility across applications

hendler: there's a big difference between saying what this does, and specifying what it does. For humans2humans it works

<pfps> that's not my understanding of DeprecatedClass

bijan: I'm not talking about formalization, only specification. would you expect it to affect the class tree?

hendler: no, don't expect it to, but in a future version

<bijan> Where is this specced?

alanr: you can simply read it as owlClass... the person reading it may take note that the class may be removed

<hendler> I like http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Deprecation

<bijan> I don't want an action that is likely to produce an objection

<pfps> I do

alanr: what would the harm be in leaving them in there, and provide better documentation

<alanr> deprecatedclass sameas class?

<m_schnei> +q

pfps: I would not see a problem if such declarations did not carry semantic weight in RDF. Unfortunately they do, and therefore I strongly believe that they need to specced much better than wishy washy human consumption only stuff

<bijan> Here, a specific identifier is said to be of type owl:DeprecatedClass or owl:DeprecatedProperty, where owl:DeprecatedClass is a subclass of rdfs:Class and owl:DeprecatedProperty is a subclass of rdf:Property.

<Zakim> alanr, you wanted to ask if there is a problem with including it

pfps: If one augmented the owl spec with that, then everything becomes hunky dory

m_schnei: they don't have specific semantics in OWL full apart from being classes

alanr: might be a reasonable and not incompatible repair to add in the owl full semantics that owlDeprecatedClass sameAs Class

hendler: have a separate fix... would want them to be some kind of annotation

<msmith> the problem with annotation is rdf:type predicate right?

alanr: could you work with michael on the owl full semantics to see how this would work out

msmith, I think so too

<pfps> fine by me

alanr: and see how this works out wrt peter's proposal
... last comment
... meeting can be considered closed

scribe needs to leave soon as well

m_schnei: what am I expected to do?

<Ratnesh> bye

<alanr> ACTION: Hendler to work with Michael to clarify semantics of deprecatedclass so that peter becomes happy [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/05-owl-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-102 - Work with Michael to clarify semantics of deprecatedclass so that peter becomes happy [on James Hendler - due 2008-03-12].

<Zhe> bye

<MarkusK> bye

<m_schnei> bye

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

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/next/for next/
Succeeded: s/plan/plane/
Found ScribeNick: vipul
Found ScribeNick: Rinke
Inferring Scribes: vipul, Rinke
Scribes: vipul, Rinke
ScribeNicks: vipul, Rinke

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Achille Alan Boris DougL Elisa Elisa_Kendall Evan_Wallace Hendler IBM IPcaller Ian IanH Ivan JeffP Jeff_Pan Jim MarkusK MartinD Mike MikeS P1 P13 P2 P21 P3 P7 P8 PROPOSED Peter Peter_Patel-Schneider Ratnesh Rinke STRAWPOLL ScribeNick Vipul_Kashyap Zhe aaaa aabb aacc aaff alanr bcuencagrau bijan bmotik ewallace jeremy m_schnei msmith pfps sandro trackbot-ng vipul xmlns
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy


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


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

Got date from IRC log name: 05 Mar 2008
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/03/05-owl-minutes.html
People with action items: alan alanr hendler

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