16:59:26 RRSAgent has joined #owl 16:59:26 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/03/12-owl-irc 16:59:37 -??P7 16:59:38 MartinD has joined #OWL 16:59:52 ivan has joined #owl 17:00:07 -??P5 17:00:11 + +1.518.276.aaaa 17:00:20 +Rinke 17:00:23 +Peter_Patel-Schneider 17:00:32 Zakim, IBM is achille 17:00:32 +achille; got it 17:00:46 zakim, this will be OWL 17:00:46 ok, pfps, I see SW_OWL()12:00PM already started 17:00:51 bmotik has joined #owl 17:01:03 alanr has joined #owl 17:01:13 ScribeNick: achille 17:01:23 +Sandro 17:01:26 +??P11 17:01:33 zakim, ??p11 is me 17:01:33 +bijan; got it 17:01:34 +??P12 17:01:38 Zakim, ??p12 is me 17:01:38 +bmotik; got it 17:01:38 zakim, mute me 17:01:39 bijan should now be muted 17:01:44 Zakim, mute me 17:01:44 bmotik should now be muted 17:01:49 +??P14 17:02:00 Zakim, ??P14 is me 17:02:00 +bcuencagrau; got it 17:02:02 +Alan 17:02:56 +MartinD 17:03:04 m_schnei has joined #owl 17:03:06 zakim, mute me 17:03:06 MartinD should now be muted 17:03:18 Carsten has joined #owl 17:03:50 Alan: Agenda amendment? 17:03:52 zakim, dial ivan-voip 17:03:52 ok, ivan; the call is being made 17:03:53 +Ivan 17:04:08 +??P16 17:04:10 + +49.351.463.3.aabb 17:04:17 zakim, aabb is me 17:04:17 +Carsten; got it 17:04:21 zakim, mute me 17:04:21 Carsten should now be muted 17:04:27 zakim, ??P16 is me 17:04:27 +m_schnei; got it 17:04:31 zakim, mute me 17:04:31 m_schnei should now be muted 17:04:48 Zakim, mute me 17:04:48 bcuencagrau should now be muted 17:04:57 zakim, who is here? 17:04:57 On the phone I see achille, DougL, msmith, +1.518.276.aaaa, Rinke, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), Alan, MartinD (muted), Ivan, 17:05:00 ... m_schnei (muted), Carsten (muted) 17:05:01 On IRC I see Carsten, m_schnei, alanr, bmotik, ivan, MartinD, RRSAgent, Zakim, DougL, msmith, bijan, bcuencagrau, achille, Rinke, pfps, sandro, trackbot-ng 17:05:20 Ratnesh has joined #owl 17:05:29 Alan: no agenda amendments 17:05:54 PROPOSED: accept previous minutes 17:05:55 minutes are *minimally* acceptable 17:06:02 +1 17:06:03 +1 to previous minutes 17:06:05 +1 17:06:09 +1 to previous minutes 17:06:19 sandro has joined #owl 17:07:01 RESOLVED: previous minutes accepted 17:07:16 +??P18 17:07:27 Topic: Registration fees and signup f2f 17:07:41 RRSAgent, pointer? 17:07:41 See http://www.w3.org/2008/03/12-owl-irc#T17-07-41 17:07:45 zakim, ??P18 is me 17:07:46 +Ratnesh; got it 17:08:15 pfps: please register as soon as possible for the next f2f 17:08:48 alan: unless it is too many, it is fine to have few observers 17:09:14 s/it is too/ there are too 17:09:32 sign up for F2F is http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F2_People 17:09:44 topic: Action item status 17:09:47 +Deb_McGuinness 17:09:55 F2F local arrangements page is http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F2_Local_Arrangements 17:10:04 alan: Michael has started working on the OWL Full semantics 17:10:06 q+ to full 17:10:12 ... feedback welcome 17:10:48 PROPOSED: Action 97 completed 17:10:55 Zakim, who is on the call? 17:10:55 On the phone I see achille, DougL, msmith, +1.518.276.aaaa, Rinke, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), Alan, MartinD (muted), Ivan, 17:10:56 zakim, unmute me 17:10:57 q? 17:10:58 ... m_schnei (muted), Carsten (muted), Ratnesh, Deb_McGuinness 17:10:59 m_schnei should no longer be muted 17:11:05 ack m_schnei 17:11:05 m_schnei, you wanted to full 17:11:16 dlm has joined #owl 17:11:32 zakim, who is here? 17:11:32 On the phone I see achille, DougL, msmith, +1.518.276.aaaa, Rinke, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), Alan, MartinD (muted), Ivan, 17:11:35 ... m_schnei, Carsten (muted), Ratnesh, Deb_McGuinness 17:11:36 On IRC I see dlm, sandro, Ratnesh, Carsten, m_schnei, alanr, bmotik, ivan, MartinD, RRSAgent, Zakim, DougL, msmith, bijan, bcuencagrau, achille, Rinke, pfps, trackbot-ng 17:11:46 dlm, we have an unidentified RPI person on the call (not you). Any clues? 17:11:55 Just joined - Deborah McGuinness - i tried to find the minutes from the last user facing documents meeting and failed. is that posted? 17:12:06 zakim, mute me 17:12:06 m_schnei should now be muted 17:12:06 michael: I don't want to force anyone to look at the OWL Full Semantics at this point 17:12:11 I am calling from 650 but jie bao is a new member and he is calling in 17:12:50 Topic: Due and overdue actions 17:13:20 Alan: 3 of Jeremy's Actions, who is not here today and 2 are alan's 17:13:32 ... so there will still be pending 17:13:41 topic: raised issues 17:14:02 zakim, unmute me 17:14:02 m_schnei should no longer be muted 17:14:05 q+ to say that there is no inconsistency 17:14:06 q? 17:14:09 alan: issue 96 17:14:21 michael: already some discussions on it 17:14:26 ack pfps 17:14:26 pfps, you wanted to say that there is no inconsistency 17:14:30 ... now only editorial issues only 17:14:31 zakim, mute me 17:14:31 m_schnei should now be muted 17:14:57 zakim, unmute me 17:14:57 m_schnei should no longer be muted 17:14:57 alan: is issue 96 an valid issue? 17:15:08 pfps: it is not an issue 17:15:17 zakim, mute me 17:15:17 m_schnei should now be muted 17:15:20 I don't think there is an issue, but if michael thinks there is, then that's an issue 17:15:30 -1 17:15:33 -0 17:15:34 Should issue 96 be accepted? 17:15:36 +1 17:15:39 0 17:15:39 0 17:15:39 Ratnesh has joined #owl 17:15:42 0 17:15:44 -0 17:15:46 +0.1 on accept, it is a minor issue in RDF, but would change serialization for cosmetic reason (some tools already use the syntax) 17:15:49 0 17:15:55 0 17:16:02 0 17:16:05 +1 17:16:19 (not a lot of strong sentiment on this one) 17:16:36 alan: I'll talk to Ian about it. I tend to accept it tough 17:16:45 Is it subsumable in other issues with RDF mapping? I'd rather all such issues were clustered 17:16:47 alan: Issue 100 17:17:07 alan: it is not about last week discussion on RDF/XML serialization 17:17:24 cgi-irc has joined #owl 17:17:24 ... it came up on discussion related to punning with Boris 17:17:33 Examples? 17:17:47 q+ 17:17:48 ah 17:17:55 zakim, unmute me 17:17:55 m_schnei should no longer be muted 17:17:59 ack m_schnei 17:18:04 ... In OWL 1.1 there seems to be ontologies that cannot be coverted to RDF 17:18:11 cgi-irc has joined #owl 17:18:30 q+ to ask a question 17:19:07 zakim, mute me 17:19:07 m_schnei should now be muted 17:19:09 ack bijan 17:19:10 bijan, you wanted to ask a question 17:19:11 zakim, unmute me 17:19:13 bijan was not muted, bijan 17:19:37 bijan: is it that it cannot be serialized or is just not serializable in OWL DL? 17:20:22 bijan: let's not decide in abstract but rather on a case by case basis 17:20:29 -1 to accept issue 100 b/c drawing abstract lines in the sand doesn't seem necessary at this point 17:20:32 baojie has joined #owl 17:20:36 zakim, mute me 17:20:36 bijan should now be muted 17:20:39 -1 17:20:42 -1 (i.e., I think we should *not* consider this issue; rather, we should reject it) 17:20:56 there *are* owl-1.0-dl ontologies, which are *not* expressible in rdf (I *don't* talk about rdf/xml!) 17:21:38 sorry - i am not sure of the definition of a non-separated vocabulary 17:21:46 me neither 17:21:56 zakim, unmute me 17:21:56 m_schnei should no longer be muted 17:22:02 pfps: I will have to look carefully to find if it is really a pb 17:22:09 I think it should be accepted 17:22:10 separated vocabulary means e.g., no class is an instance 17:22:14 -1 to accepting, as it is too general 17:22:15 PROPOSE: accept this issue 17:22:23 Action: Peter to look more carefully at the problem 17:22:23 Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Peter 17:22:23 Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ppatelsc, phaase) 17:22:24 ah - thx. 17:22:27 non-separated vocbualry means that there is some term that is used in more than one syntactic category 17:22:45 michael: it should be accepted 17:22:58 q+ 17:23:08 achille, I don't think the chair has agreed to this action. 17:23:09 zakim, unmute me 17:23:09 bijan should no longer be muted 17:23:15 ack bijan 17:23:24 zakim, mute me 17:23:24 m_schnei should now be muted 17:23:30 -1 think that case-by-case is probably the best way to deal with this "issue" 17:23:32 ACTION: pfps to look more carefully at issue 100 17:23:32 Sorry, couldn't find user - pfps 17:24:03 +1 to bijan 17:24:13 ACTION: Peter to look more carefully at issue 100 17:24:13 Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Peter 17:24:13 Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ppatelsc, phaase) 17:24:29 alan: I would accept it for discussion 17:24:45 Four people voted against accepting the issue; why should we accept it? Nobody voted for it! 17:24:51 alan: there is no concensus. So we will accept it 17:25:04 Who is in favor of accepting this issue? 17:25:24 zakim, mute me 17:25:24 bijan should now be muted 17:25:31 None of those votes were registered qua votes 17:25:35 OK, I was looking for +1s. 17:25:36 alan: Ivan, michael and alan want to accept it 17:25:47 to bmotik, ivan, m_schneider, alanr were for 17:25:48 alan: issue 101 17:26:10 q+ to say that this is a bug and the fix is trivial 17:26:15 Michael, I was not for accepting the issue; I was for rejecting it. 17:26:18 ack pfps 17:26:18 pfps, you wanted to say that this is a bug and the fix is trivial 17:26:31 covered by statement in semantics doc, b/c such literals are "well formed constants from NV" 17:26:32 These datatypes, as well as the well-formed constants from NV, are interpreted as specified in [XML Schema Datatypes]. 17:26:41 meta - what exactly has to happen in order to reject a raised issue? I would say that it should be *strongly* rejected (many -1) 17:26:42 q+ to respond not a bug 17:26:43 +1 to editorial 17:26:50 +1 to editorial 17:26:50 pfps: it is just a bug. I will fix it 17:26:59 alan: accept the issue as editorial 17:28:12 alan: issue 102 17:28:39 alan: what happen with annotation on annotation property 17:28:47 s/with/to 17:29:03 q+ 17:29:07 q+ to argue that this is also a bug (but Boris may not agree) and the fix is easy 17:29:09 q- 17:29:10 alan: Should it be accepted? 17:29:10 ack msmith 17:29:11 Zakim, unmute me 17:29:12 bmotik should no longer be muted 17:29:13 ack bmotik 17:29:53 i.e., you can't create an annotation property without using it in an annotation 17:29:54 bmotik: the source of the problem is that annotation properties are not entities 17:30:10 bmotik: I don't think we need a seperate issue for this 17:30:25 bmotik: reject this issue, but take in the comment 17:30:28 ack pfps 17:30:28 pfps, you wanted to argue that this is also a bug (but Boris may not agree) and the fix is easy 17:30:47 pfps: disagree with Boris 17:30:52 +1 to peter 17:31:25 alan: to be decided on email 17:31:27 +1 to any reasonable solution that allows annotations on annotations - it sounds like peters current solution does this 17:31:38 alan: peter solution seems reasonable to me 17:31:49 s/peter/peter's/ 17:31:53 Zakim, mute me 17:31:53 bmotik should now be muted 17:32:14 topic: General discussions 17:32:36 alan: formail vote to publish documents is needed 17:32:46 s/formail/formal 17:32:51 do we have the minutes for the meeting with the primer discussion? 17:33:27 +1 for some more reviewing time for fragments document 17:33:36 alan: on the fragments, it is not clear that it should be published by the next f2f 17:33:53 alan: reviewers needed for the documents 17:34:03 alan: let's start with the fragment documents 17:34:25 alan: distinction between must-have as opposed to it would be nice to have 17:34:27 q? 17:34:30 q+ 17:34:35 ack bijan 17:34:36 ack bijan 17:35:06 bijan: should be published as it 17:35:11 +1 to bijan 17:35:15 zakim, mute me 17:35:15 m_schnei was already muted, m_schnei 17:35:18 ... i don't see any showstopper 17:35:47 q+ 17:35:50 +1 as well (not surprisingly) 17:35:51 alan: the naming of the fragments is still open issue 17:36:18 ivan: there is nothing wrong to ask explicit questions in the documents 17:36:23 I have no problem with including such questions, I jsut don't think they are showstoppers 17:36:40 I think they are a good idea 17:36:46 ivan: it's ok to openly request feedback on open issues 17:36:57 zakim, mute me 17:36:57 bijan should now be muted 17:37:10 -0.5 17:37:17 STRAWPOLL: publish fragments document as is, asap 17:38:07 achille: I feel like it has to be made more accessible. One point raised by Jim, there is an assumption that you are already familiar with the full vocabulary of OWL DL 17:38:17 achille: although I think the document is well-written, I think it needs to be more accessible. The production rules assume you're already familiar with the full details of OWL DL. It will not really help get feedback from the people who are only interested in their one fragment. 17:38:20 q? 17:38:23 ack ivan 17:38:23 ack ivan 17:38:25 q+ 17:38:51 Alan: So, we should reference the appropriate semantics document? 17:39:02 How about an appendix with a complete grammar for each fragment 17:39:04 q+ to respond to achille 17:39:10 ack alanr 17:39:12 Alan: Or are you suggesting the document should recapitulate the semantics? 17:39:43 achille: My assumption is that people who might usefully review parts of the fragments document, might not be ready to understand all our documents. 17:39:46 Achille, this document is a specification for three fragments. IMHO it should not be a *guide* for three fragments. 17:39:53 +1 achille's point. 17:40:11 q+ 17:40:17 +q 17:40:18 Alan: Achille, would you be willing to try to fix this? 17:40:23 Does having a complete grammar for each fragment move things at all to address this issue? 17:40:26 I am with Boris: it is not intended to be a user-faced document 17:40:55 Alan: Could you do this in the next week, Achille? 17:41:07 achille: That would be difficult. 17:41:10 Is this "nice to have" or "must have"? 17:41:23 achille: end of next week. 17:41:33 q+ 17:41:48 ack msmith 17:41:48 msmith, you wanted to respond to achille 17:41:51 achille: What I'd like is for this fragments document to be as self-contained as possible. 17:42:39 ack ivan 17:43:24 michael, ivan: we can publish want we want now, and make them self contained later 17:43:24 q+ 17:43:26 +q 17:43:28 Zakim, unmute me 17:43:28 bmotik should no longer be muted 17:43:31 ack bmotik 17:44:42 ack bijan 17:44:44 Not tutorial, Boris -- Just written in the jargon of the dialect, instead of your jargon. 17:44:46 Zakim, mute me 17:44:46 bmotik should now be muted 17:44:46 ack bijan 17:44:51 at one point, we discussed having a statement about a description of a class of users that each fragment is aimed at 17:45:17 bijan: how about an appendix? 17:45:29 action: Peter to check whether all OWL 1.0 ontologies are representable in RDF 17:45:29 Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Peter 17:45:29 Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ppatelsc, phaase) 17:45:37 action: pfps to check whether all OWL 1.0 ontologies are representable in RDF 17:45:37 Sorry, couldn't find user - pfps 17:45:43 bijan: some example ontologies might also be useful 17:45:58 action: Patel to check whether all OWL 1.0 ontologies are representable in RDF 17:45:58 Sorry, couldn't find user - Patel 17:45:58 action: patelschneider to check whether all OWL 1.0 ontologies are representable in RDF 17:45:58 Sorry, couldn't find user - patelschneider 17:46:05 bijan: maybe a little more about the design 17:46:15 zakim, unmute me 17:46:15 m_schnei should no longer be muted 17:46:17 q? 17:46:18 zakim, mute me 17:46:18 bijan should now be muted 17:46:22 ack m_schnei 17:46:36 action: ppatelsc to check whether all OWL 1.0 ontologies are representable in RDF 17:46:37 Created ACTION-103 - Check whether all OWL 1.0 ontologies are representable in RDF [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2008-03-19]. 17:46:59 michael: it has not been published since the recent important changes 17:47:05 zakim, mute me 17:47:05 m_schnei should now be muted 17:47:08 ack achille 17:47:11 q? 17:48:18 q+ 17:48:32 q+ 17:49:02 Zakim, unmute me 17:49:02 bmotik should no longer be muted 17:49:17 +q 17:49:22 ack bmotik 17:49:47 +q 17:50:09 ack alanr 17:50:14 Zakim, mute me 17:50:14 bmotik should now be muted 17:51:09 Alan: There are a number of reasons why we make fragments. I don't think we can say from here what people should be looking for in fragments. I think the sentiment is toward publishing it. 17:51:09 I think boris's overstates...there are many possible fragments with good comptuational properties (e.g., FL family) which are expressively horrid and thus aren't proposed 17:51:39 Alan: I think Achille should go ahead and draft what he has in mind. 17:51:45 ack deb 17:51:48 ack dlm 17:51:54 Action: achille start editing the document by the end of next week 17:51:54 Created ACTION-104 - Start editing the document by the end of next week [on Achille Fokoue - due 2008-03-19]. 17:52:19 q+ 17:52:39 q- 17:52:59 ack achille 17:53:03 Deb: While some fragments are computation-oriented, some are not. Some populations which are not DL-literate could benefit from the fragments document. It would be nice if, reading the document, you could see which audience each fragment is aimed at -- and Bijan's idea of identifying which KBs are in which fragments. 17:53:21 I'll note that there is also a fragment intro, then a feature overview... 17:53:29 ack bmotik 17:53:32 Zakim, unmute me 17:53:32 bmotik was not muted, bmotik 17:53:58 Zakim, mute me 17:53:58 bmotik should now be muted 17:54:40 Alan: I don't hear any objections to Achille trying to trying to draft some changes. 17:55:06 +q 17:55:09 q+ 17:56:07 Sandro: I don't see how to handle this without a branch 17:56:17 ack achille 17:56:23 Alan: Achille's changes ARE targetted for this publication round. 17:56:30 all versions are in the wiki 17:57:32 Achille: I want people to be able to read the section on a fragment and understand what it's about, without understanding the rest of OWL. 17:57:36 +1 to that goal. 17:58:17 q+ 17:58:21 Alan: Achille, I'm comfortable with you editing the document in that direction, with the edits being reviewed in 10 days. Alternatively, we can publish more like what we have now, and let your edits wait. 17:59:03 ack bmotik 17:59:03 Zakim, unmute me 17:59:06 bmotik was not muted, bmotik 17:59:15 Achille: In that case, I will try. But my schedule is very tight, so I might not make it. So I'm going to try the edits on a copied wiki page, in case they do not get done. 17:59:20 Sandro: okay./ 17:59:36 ack bijan 18:00:03 Boris: Sometimes you want to make a speculative change to a document. I am in favor of making such copy-and-modify documents often. 18:00:14 Zakim, mute me 18:00:14 bmotik should now be muted 18:00:15 +1 for boris 18:00:42 bijan: we agree that the current design is ok for publication 18:00:48 Bijan: It seems like we agree that the current design is okay for publishing; the concerns have been editorial. 18:01:09 Bijan: I suggest we publish the current draft, pretty much as-is, and note that we are working on the editorial reason. 18:01:18 cgi-irc has joined #owl 18:01:18 alan: next week a formal vote on publication 18:01:27 Alan: more or less. next week we'll vote on whether to publish. 18:01:50 zakim, mute me 18:01:50 bijan should now be muted 18:01:59 where are we going to make the statement about planned updates? 18:02:02 alan: reviewrs will be needed 18:02:08 jeremy has joined #owl 18:02:12 q? 18:02:20