IRC log of owl on 2008-03-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:59:26 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:59:26 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/03/12-owl-irc
16:59:37 [Zakim]
-??P7
16:59:38 [MartinD]
MartinD has joined #OWL
16:59:52 [ivan]
ivan has joined #owl
17:00:07 [Zakim]
-??P5
17:00:11 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.276.aaaa
17:00:20 [Zakim]
+Rinke
17:00:23 [Zakim]
+Peter_Patel-Schneider
17:00:32 [achille]
Zakim, IBM is achille
17:00:32 [Zakim]
+achille; got it
17:00:46 [pfps]
zakim, this will be OWL
17:00:46 [Zakim]
ok, pfps, I see SW_OWL()12:00PM already started
17:00:51 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
17:01:03 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
17:01:13 [achille]
ScribeNick: achille
17:01:23 [Zakim]
+Sandro
17:01:26 [Zakim]
+??P11
17:01:33 [bijan]
zakim, ??p11 is me
17:01:33 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
17:01:34 [Zakim]
+??P12
17:01:38 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??p12 is me
17:01:38 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
17:01:38 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:01:39 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:01:44 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:01:44 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:01:49 [Zakim]
+??P14
17:02:00 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, ??P14 is me
17:02:00 [Zakim]
+bcuencagrau; got it
17:02:02 [Zakim]
+Alan
17:02:56 [Zakim]
+MartinD
17:03:04 [m_schnei]
m_schnei has joined #owl
17:03:06 [MartinD]
zakim, mute me
17:03:06 [Zakim]
MartinD should now be muted
17:03:18 [Carsten]
Carsten has joined #owl
17:03:50 [achille]
Alan: Agenda amendment?
17:03:52 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:03:52 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
17:03:53 [Zakim]
+Ivan
17:04:08 [Zakim]
+??P16
17:04:10 [Zakim]
+ +49.351.463.3.aabb
17:04:17 [Carsten]
zakim, aabb is me
17:04:17 [Zakim]
+Carsten; got it
17:04:21 [Carsten]
zakim, mute me
17:04:21 [Zakim]
Carsten should now be muted
17:04:27 [m_schnei]
zakim, ??P16 is me
17:04:27 [Zakim]
+m_schnei; got it
17:04:31 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:04:31 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:04:48 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, mute me
17:04:48 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:04:57 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
17:04:57 [Zakim]
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 [Zakim]
... m_schnei (muted), Carsten (muted)
17:05:01 [Zakim]
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]
Ratnesh has joined #owl
17:05:29 [achille]
Alan: no agenda amendments
17:05:54 [achille]
PROPOSED: accept previous minutes
17:05:55 [pfps]
minutes are *minimally* acceptable
17:06:02 [DougL]
+1
17:06:03 [msmith]
+1 to previous minutes
17:06:05 [alanr]
+1
17:06:09 [m_schnei]
+1 to previous minutes
17:06:19 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl
17:07:01 [achille]
RESOLVED: previous minutes accepted
17:07:16 [Zakim]
+??P18
17:07:27 [achille]
Topic: Registration fees and signup f2f
17:07:41 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
17:07:41 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2008/03/12-owl-irc#T17-07-41
17:07:45 [Ratnesh]
zakim, ??P18 is me
17:07:46 [Zakim]
+Ratnesh; got it
17:08:15 [achille]
pfps: please register as soon as possible for the next f2f
17:08:48 [achille]
alan: unless it is too many, it is fine to have few observers
17:09:14 [achille]
s/it is too/ there are too
17:09:32 [pfps]
sign up for F2F is http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F2_People
17:09:44 [achille]
topic: Action item status
17:09:47 [Zakim]
+Deb_McGuinness
17:09:55 [pfps]
F2F local arrangements page is http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F2_Local_Arrangements
17:10:04 [achille]
alan: Michael has started working on the OWL Full semantics
17:10:06 [m_schnei]
q+ to full
17:10:12 [achille]
... feedback welcome
17:10:48 [achille]
PROPOSED: Action 97 completed
17:10:55 [sandro]
Zakim, who is on the call?
17:10:55 [Zakim]
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 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
17:10:57 [alanr]
q?
17:10:58 [Zakim]
... m_schnei (muted), Carsten (muted), Ratnesh, Deb_McGuinness
17:10:59 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:11:05 [alanr]
ack m_schnei
17:11:05 [Zakim]
m_schnei, you wanted to full
17:11:16 [dlm]
dlm has joined #owl
17:11:32 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
17:11:32 [Zakim]
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 [Zakim]
... m_schnei, Carsten (muted), Ratnesh, Deb_McGuinness
17:11:36 [Zakim]
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 [sandro]
dlm, we have an unidentified RPI person on the call (not you). Any clues?
17:11:55 [dlm]
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 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:12:06 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:12:06 [achille]
michael: I don't want to force anyone to look at the OWL Full Semantics at this point
17:12:11 [dlm]
I am calling from 650 but jie bao is a new member and he is calling in
17:12:50 [achille]
Topic: Due and overdue actions
17:13:20 [achille]
Alan: 3 of Jeremy's Actions, who is not here today and 2 are alan's
17:13:32 [achille]
... so there will still be pending
17:13:41 [achille]
topic: raised issues
17:14:02 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
17:14:02 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:14:05 [pfps]
q+ to say that there is no inconsistency
17:14:06 [alanr]
q?
17:14:09 [achille]
alan: issue 96
17:14:21 [achille]
michael: already some discussions on it
17:14:26 [alanr]
ack pfps
17:14:26 [Zakim]
pfps, you wanted to say that there is no inconsistency
17:14:30 [achille]
... now only editorial issues only
17:14:31 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:14:31 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:14:57 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
17:14:57 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:14:57 [achille]
alan: is issue 96 an valid issue?
17:15:08 [achille]
pfps: it is not an issue
17:15:17 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:15:17 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:15:20 [Rinke]
I don't think there is an issue, but if michael thinks there is, then that's an issue
17:15:30 [pfps]
-1
17:15:33 [bmotik]
-0
17:15:34 [achille]
Should issue 96 be accepted?
17:15:36 [m_schnei]
+1
17:15:39 [achille]
0
17:15:39 [Rinke]
0
17:15:39 [Ratnesh]
Ratnesh has joined #owl
17:15:42 [ivan]
0
17:15:44 [Carsten]
-0
17:15:46 [msmith]
+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 [DougL]
0
17:15:55 [bcuencagrau]
0
17:16:02 [bijan]
0
17:16:05 [alanr]
+1
17:16:19 [DougL]
(not a lot of strong sentiment on this one)
17:16:36 [achille]
alan: I'll talk to Ian about it. I tend to accept it tough
17:16:45 [bijan]
Is it subsumable in other issues with RDF mapping? I'd rather all such issues were clustered
17:16:47 [achille]
alan: Issue 100
17:17:07 [achille]
alan: it is not about last week discussion on RDF/XML serialization
17:17:24 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #owl
17:17:24 [achille]
... it came up on discussion related to punning with Boris
17:17:33 [bijan]
Examples?
17:17:47 [m_schnei]
q+
17:17:48 [bijan]
ah
17:17:55 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
17:17:55 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:17:59 [alanr]
ack m_schnei
17:18:04 [achille]
... In OWL 1.1 there seems to be ontologies that cannot be coverted to RDF
17:18:11 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #owl
17:18:30 [bijan]
q+ to ask a question
17:19:07 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:19:07 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:19:09 [alanr]
ack bijan
17:19:10 [Zakim]
bijan, you wanted to ask a question
17:19:11 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:19:13 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
17:19:37 [achille]
bijan: is it that it cannot be serialized or is just not serializable in OWL DL?
17:20:22 [achille]
bijan: let's not decide in abstract but rather on a case by case basis
17:20:29 [msmith]
-1 to accept issue 100 b/c drawing abstract lines in the sand doesn't seem necessary at this point
17:20:32 [baojie]
baojie has joined #owl
17:20:36 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:20:36 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:20:39 [bijan]
-1
17:20:42 [bmotik]
-1 (i.e., I think we should *not* consider this issue; rather, we should reject it)
17:20:56 [m_schnei]
there *are* owl-1.0-dl ontologies, which are *not* expressible in rdf (I *don't* talk about rdf/xml!)
17:21:38 [dlm]
sorry - i am not sure of the definition of a non-separated vocabulary
17:21:46 [Rinke]
me neither
17:21:56 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
17:21:56 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:22:02 [achille]
pfps: I will have to look carefully to find if it is really a pb
17:22:09 [ivan]
I think it should be accepted
17:22:10 [bijan]
separated vocabulary means e.g., no class is an instance
17:22:14 [pfps]
-1 to accepting, as it is too general
17:22:15 [sandro]
PROPOSE: accept this issue
17:22:23 [achille]
Action: Peter to look more carefully at the problem
17:22:23 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Peter
17:22:23 [trackbot-ng]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ppatelsc, phaase)
17:22:24 [dlm]
ah - thx.
17:22:27 [bijan]
non-separated vocbualry means that there is some term that is used in more than one syntactic category
17:22:45 [achille]
michael: it should be accepted
17:22:58 [bijan]
q+
17:23:08 [sandro]
achille, I don't think the chair has agreed to this action.
17:23:09 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:23:09 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:23:15 [alanr]
ack bijan
17:23:24 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:23:24 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:23:30 [Rinke]
-1 think that case-by-case is probably the best way to deal with this "issue"
17:23:32 [achille]
ACTION: pfps to look more carefully at issue 100
17:23:32 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - pfps
17:24:03 [bmotik]
+1 to bijan
17:24:13 [achille]
ACTION: Peter to look more carefully at issue 100
17:24:13 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Peter
17:24:13 [trackbot-ng]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ppatelsc, phaase)
17:24:29 [achille]
alan: I would accept it for discussion
17:24:45 [bmotik]
Four people voted against accepting the issue; why should we accept it? Nobody voted for it!
17:24:51 [achille]
alan: there is no concensus. So we will accept it
17:25:04 [bmotik]
Who is in favor of accepting this issue?
17:25:24 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:25:24 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:25:31 [bijan]
None of those votes were registered qua votes
17:25:35 [bmotik]
OK, I was looking for +1s.
17:25:36 [achille]
alan: Ivan, michael and alan want to accept it
17:25:47 [msmith]
to bmotik, ivan, m_schneider, alanr were for
17:25:48 [achille]
alan: issue 101
17:26:10 [pfps]
q+ to say that this is a bug and the fix is trivial
17:26:15 [bmotik]
Michael, I was not for accepting the issue; I was for rejecting it.
17:26:18 [alanr]
ack pfps
17:26:18 [Zakim]
pfps, you wanted to say that this is a bug and the fix is trivial
17:26:31 [msmith]
covered by statement in semantics doc, b/c such literals are "well formed constants from NV"
17:26:32 [msmith]
These datatypes, as well as the well-formed constants from NV, are interpreted as specified in [XML Schema Datatypes].
17:26:41 [m_schnei]
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 [msmith]
q+ to respond not a bug
17:26:43 [Rinke]
+1 to editorial
17:26:50 [bijan]
+1 to editorial
17:26:50 [achille]
pfps: it is just a bug. I will fix it
17:26:59 [achille]
alan: accept the issue as editorial
17:28:12 [achille]
alan: issue 102
17:28:39 [achille]
alan: what happen with annotation on annotation property
17:28:47 [achille]
s/with/to
17:29:03 [bmotik]
q+
17:29:07 [pfps]
q+ to argue that this is also a bug (but Boris may not agree) and the fix is easy
17:29:09 [msmith]
q-
17:29:10 [achille]
alan: Should it be accepted?
17:29:10 [alanr]
ack msmith
17:29:11 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:29:12 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
17:29:13 [alanr]
ack bmotik
17:29:53 [msmith]
i.e., you can't create an annotation property without using it in an annotation
17:29:54 [achille]
bmotik: the source of the problem is that annotation properties are not entities
17:30:10 [achille]
bmotik: I don't think we need a seperate issue for this
17:30:25 [achille]
bmotik: reject this issue, but take in the comment
17:30:28 [alanr]
ack pfps
17:30:28 [Zakim]
pfps, you wanted to argue that this is also a bug (but Boris may not agree) and the fix is easy
17:30:47 [achille]
pfps: disagree with Boris
17:30:52 [bijan]
+1 to peter
17:31:25 [achille]
alan: to be decided on email
17:31:27 [dlm]
+1 to any reasonable solution that allows annotations on annotations - it sounds like peters current solution does this
17:31:38 [achille]
alan: peter solution seems reasonable to me
17:31:49 [achille]
s/peter/peter's/
17:31:53 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:31:53 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:32:14 [achille]
topic: General discussions
17:32:36 [achille]
alan: formail vote to publish documents is needed
17:32:46 [achille]
s/formail/formal
17:32:51 [dlm]
do we have the minutes for the meeting with the primer discussion?
17:33:27 [Carsten]
+1 for some more reviewing time for fragments document
17:33:36 [achille]
alan: on the fragments, it is not clear that it should be published by the next f2f
17:33:53 [achille]
alan: reviewers needed for the documents
17:34:03 [achille]
alan: let's start with the fragment documents
17:34:25 [achille]
alan: distinction between must-have as opposed to it would be nice to have
17:34:27 [alanr]
q?
17:34:30 [bijan]
q+
17:34:35 [bijan]
ack bijan
17:34:36 [alanr]
ack bijan
17:35:06 [achille]
bijan: should be published as it
17:35:11 [bmotik]
+1 to bijan
17:35:15 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:35:15 [Zakim]
m_schnei was already muted, m_schnei
17:35:18 [achille]
... i don't see any showstopper
17:35:47 [ivan]
q+
17:35:50 [bcuencagrau]
+1 as well (not surprisingly)
17:35:51 [achille]
alan: the naming of the fragments is still open issue
17:36:18 [achille]
ivan: there is nothing wrong to ask explicit questions in the documents
17:36:23 [bijan]
I have no problem with including such questions, I jsut don't think they are showstoppers
17:36:40 [bijan]
I think they are a good idea
17:36:46 [achille]
ivan: it's ok to openly request feedback on open issues
17:36:57 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:36:57 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:37:10 [achille]
-0.5
17:37:17 [sandro]
STRAWPOLL: publish fragments document as is, asap
17:38:07 [Rinke]
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 [sandro]
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 [alanr]
q?
17:38:23 [alanr]
ack ivan
17:38:23 [ivan]
ack ivan
17:38:25 [alanr]
q+
17:38:51 [sandro]
Alan: So, we should reference the appropriate semantics document?
17:39:02 [bijan]
How about an appendix with a complete grammar for each fragment
17:39:04 [msmith]
q+ to respond to achille
17:39:10 [alanr]
ack alanr
17:39:12 [sandro]
Alan: Or are you suggesting the document should recapitulate the semantics?
17:39:43 [sandro]
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 [bmotik]
Achille, this document is a specification for three fragments. IMHO it should not be a *guide* for three fragments.
17:39:53 [sandro]
+1 achille's point.
17:40:11 [ivan]
q+
17:40:17 [bmotik]
+q
17:40:18 [sandro]
Alan: Achille, would you be willing to try to fix this?
17:40:23 [bijan]
Does having a complete grammar for each fragment move things at all to address this issue?
17:40:26 [bcuencagrau]
I am with Boris: it is not intended to be a user-faced document
17:40:55 [sandro]
Alan: Could you do this in the next week, Achille?
17:41:07 [sandro]
achille: That would be difficult.
17:41:10 [bijan]
Is this "nice to have" or "must have"?
17:41:23 [sandro]
achille: end of next week.
17:41:33 [bijan]
q+
17:41:48 [alanr]
ack msmith
17:41:48 [Zakim]
msmith, you wanted to respond to achille
17:41:51 [sandro]
achille: What I'd like is for this fragments document to be as self-contained as possible.
17:42:39 [alanr]
ack ivan
17:43:24 [achille]
michael, ivan: we can publish want we want now, and make them self contained later
17:43:24 [m_schnei]
q+
17:43:26 [achille]
+q
17:43:28 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:43:28 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
17:43:31 [alanr]
ack bmotik
17:44:42 [bijan]
ack bijan
17:44:44 [sandro]
Not tutorial, Boris -- Just written in the jargon of the dialect, instead of your jargon.
17:44:46 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:44:46 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:44:46 [alanr]
ack bijan
17:44:51 [dlm]
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 [achille]
bijan: how about an appendix?
17:45:29 [alanr]
action: Peter to check whether all OWL 1.0 ontologies are representable in RDF
17:45:29 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Peter
17:45:29 [trackbot-ng]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ppatelsc, phaase)
17:45:37 [alanr]
action: pfps to check whether all OWL 1.0 ontologies are representable in RDF
17:45:37 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - pfps
17:45:43 [achille]
bijan: some example ontologies might also be useful
17:45:58 [alanr]
action: Patel to check whether all OWL 1.0 ontologies are representable in RDF
17:45:58 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Patel
17:45:58 [bmotik]
action: patelschneider to check whether all OWL 1.0 ontologies are representable in RDF
17:45:58 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - patelschneider
17:46:05 [achille]
bijan: maybe a little more about the design
17:46:15 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
17:46:15 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:46:17 [alanr]
q?
17:46:18 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:46:18 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:46:22 [alanr]
ack m_schnei
17:46:36 [alanr]
action: ppatelsc to check whether all OWL 1.0 ontologies are representable in RDF
17:46:37 [trackbot-ng]
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 [achille]
michael: it has not been published since the recent important changes
17:47:05 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:47:05 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:47:08 [alanr]
ack achille
17:47:11 [alanr]
q?
17:48:18 [bmotik]
q+
17:48:32 [alanr]
q+
17:49:02 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:49:02 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
17:49:17 [dlm]
+q
17:49:22 [alanr]
ack bmotik
17:49:47 [achille]
+q
17:50:09 [alanr]
ack alanr
17:50:14 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:50:14 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:51:09 [sandro]
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 [bijan]
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 [sandro]
Alan: I think Achille should go ahead and draft what he has in mind.
17:51:45 [alanr]
ack deb
17:51:48 [alanr]
ack dlm
17:51:54 [achille]
Action: achille start editing the document by the end of next week
17:51:54 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-104 - Start editing the document by the end of next week [on Achille Fokoue - due 2008-03-19].
17:52:19 [bmotik]
q+
17:52:39 [achille]
q-
17:52:59 [alanr]
ack achille
17:53:03 [sandro]
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 [bijan]
I'll note that there is also a fragment intro, then a feature overview...
17:53:29 [alanr]
ack bmotik
17:53:32 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:53:32 [Zakim]
bmotik was not muted, bmotik
17:53:58 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:53:58 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:54:40 [sandro]
Alan: I don't hear any objections to Achille trying to trying to draft some changes.
17:55:06 [achille]
+q
17:55:09 [bmotik]
q+
17:56:07 [sandro]
Sandro: I don't see how to handle this without a branch
17:56:17 [alanr]
ack achille
17:56:23 [sandro]
Alan: Achille's changes ARE targetted for this publication round.
17:56:30 [alanr]
all versions are in the wiki
17:57:32 [sandro]
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 [sandro]
+1 to that goal.
17:58:17 [bijan]
q+
17:58:21 [sandro]
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 [alanr]
ack bmotik
17:59:03 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:59:06 [Zakim]
bmotik was not muted, bmotik
17:59:15 [sandro]
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]
Sandro: okay./
17:59:36 [alanr]
ack bijan
18:00:03 [sandro]
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 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:00:14 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:00:15 [achille]
+1 for boris
18:00:42 [achille]
bijan: we agree that the current design is ok for publication
18:00:48 [sandro]
Bijan: It seems like we agree that the current design is okay for publishing; the concerns have been editorial.
18:01:09 [sandro]
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]
cgi-irc has joined #owl
18:01:18 [achille]
alan: next week a formal vote on publication
18:01:27 [sandro]
Alan: more or less. next week we'll vote on whether to publish.
18:01:50 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:01:50 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:01:59 [dlm]
where are we going to make the statement about planned updates?
18:02:02 [achille]
alan: reviewrs will be needed
18:02:08 [jeremy]
jeremy has joined #owl
18:02:12 [alanr]
q?
18:02:20 [m_schnei]
Question - is it possible to compare the differences between two *different* pages in the wiki? This would help when creating speculative copies to see the differences
18:02:20 [achille]
... for the documents to publish
18:02:58 [msmith]
what is expected output from reviewer?
18:03:00 [DougL]
Willing to review primer
18:03:05 [Zakim]
+ +7.955.aacc
18:03:07 [achille]
volunteers?
18:03:19 [dlm]
repeating email offer to review primer
18:03:33 [achille]
sign me on for the fragment document
18:04:53 [msmith]
I will be a reviewer for any of the 3 documents. At present, I am most familiar with fragments.
18:05:05 [achille]
ACTION: dm to review primer
18:05:05 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-105 - to review primer [on Deborah McGuinness - due 2008-03-19].
18:05:16 [bijan]
I'll review fragment or xml
18:05:24 [achille]
sign me on for the XML doc
18:05:49 [bijan]
I'm happy to not review as well
18:05:56 [bijan]
?
18:05:57 [bijan]
I am?
18:06:02 [bijan]
I've nothing to do with either
18:06:05 [achille]
ACTION: achille to review the XML doc and the fragment
18:06:05 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-106 - Review the XML doc and the fragment [on Achille Fokoue - due 2008-03-19].
18:06:17 [DougL]
Deb, coordinate with me if you want so we can produce a joint review.
18:06:27 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #owl
18:06:49 [dlm]
i do not have enough time to review more than one but on the fragment document, can we include a request to describe a class of users for whom each fragment is targetted?
18:06:51 [JeffP]
(I am only available on IRC today)
18:07:11 [achille]
ACTION: bijan to review the XML document
18:07:11 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-107 - Review the XML document [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-03-19].
18:07:13 [sandro]
ACTION: Sandro to review XML document
18:07:13 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-108 - Review XML document [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-03-19].
18:09:08 [bijan]
q+
18:09:12 [achille]
ACTION: boajie to review the fragment
18:09:12 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - boajie
18:09:16 [alanr]
ack bijan
18:09:16 [bijan]
ack bijan
18:09:29 [msmith]
can you summarize?
18:10:22 [achille]
ACTION: bijan to review just the fragment
18:10:22 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-109 - Review just the fragment [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-03-19].
18:10:32 [msmith]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/actions/open
18:11:13 [DougL]
I will be reviewing the Primer
18:11:13 [bijan]
I will review the fragments document
18:11:19 [sandro]
I am to review XML
18:11:21 [achille]
I will review the XML and the fragment
18:11:27 [dlm]
I have taken on reviewing the primer with Jie Bao helping as well.
18:11:33 [jiebao]
my user name is "baojie" on the wiki
18:11:36 [m_schnei]
I will review nothing :)
18:11:43 [msmith]
for which?
18:11:50 [msmith]
sure :)
18:11:55 [msmith]
fragments it is!
18:11:55 [achille]
ACTION: DougL to review the primer
18:11:55 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - DougL
18:12:12 [achille]
ACTION: dlm to review the primer
18:12:12 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - dlm
18:12:22 [msmith]
ACTION: msmith to review the fragments document
18:12:22 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - msmith
18:12:26 [sandro]
jiebao, I don't suppose you'd be willing to pick one form of your name and stick to it, for us? (using the name you want to be called first.)
18:12:45 [msmith]
ACTION: smith to review the fragments document
18:12:45 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-110 - Review the fragments document [on Michael Smith - due 2008-03-19].
18:13:06 [bijan]
Didn't rpi delay this: http://www.w3.org/mid/47D80C16.6030504@ksl.stanford.edu
18:13:07 [achille]
alan: which syntax should be used for the primer?
18:13:29 [achille]
alan: should it be addressed before the submit the draft?
18:13:29 [bijan]
Wrong email: http://www.w3.org/mid/47D80CF7.2060006@ksl.stanford.edu
18:13:40 [bijan]
"We also recognize Bijan's email about the syntax issues and his very good suggestion of having an automated hookup to the owl api (or similar translator) so for the moment will not address the syntax issue."
18:14:06 [baojie]
i will stick to baojie to be consistent to my ids everywhere
18:14:16 [jeremy]
+1 to sotd fix
18:15:11 [achille]
ivan: we have to be careful that any language we use should be a clear stable description
18:15:45 [jeremy]
q+ to suggest owl/xml + xslt
18:15:55 [pfps]
q+ to ask why an informative document cannot reference non-W3 stuff
18:16:19 [bijan]
I'll note that it's the "Sandro Approach"
18:16:20 [achille]
alan: for the short term. can we voice your concern in the status of the document
18:16:37 [pfps]
q+ to say that the Manchester syntax could be turned into a WG note in short order
18:17:29 [jeremy]
q-
18:17:33 [pfps]
in RDF semantics [Conen&Klapsing]
18:17:34 [pfps]
A Logical Interpretation of RDF, Conen, W., Klapsing, R..Circulated to RDF Interest Group, August 2000.
18:17:35 [achille]
ivan: not sure. the issue is for the long term (once the primer becomes a standard)
18:17:46 [bijan]
Here is the wikipage: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/ManchesterSyntax
18:17:49 [ivan]
q+
18:17:58 [achille]
pfps: let's publish it in its current version
18:17:59 [alanr]
ack pfps
18:17:59 [Zakim]
pfps, you wanted to ask why an informative document cannot reference non-W3 stuff and to say that the Manchester syntax could be turned into a WG note in short order
18:18:06 [bijan]
FPWD of that would be fine by me
18:18:27 [bijan]
Turtle is on the list
18:18:27 [alanr]
q?
18:18:29 [achille]
ivan: turtle addition will be very valuable
18:18:30 [jeremy]
(silently) i agree with peter
18:18:38 [alanr]
ack ivan
18:18:43 [achille]
... for people from RDF background
18:18:44 [Rinke]
+1 to turtle
18:18:48 [bijan]
has been from the beginning
18:18:54 [pfps]
q+ to say turtle only if there was a spec that showed how turtle maps to RDF
18:19:09 [alanr]
ack pfps
18:19:09 [Zakim]
pfps, you wanted to say turtle only if there was a spec that showed how turtle maps to RDF
18:19:13 [dlm]
could we include an action to include the minutes from the task force where this document was discussed
18:19:23 [bijan]
Manchester syntax was there first partly as a historical reason...we found it easier to compose in that
18:19:41 [dlm]
+q
18:20:07 [ivan]
ack dlm
18:20:26 [jeremy]
i would like to see suvch minutes too
18:20:29 [bijan]
Translation and incorporation of more syntax is at the moment tedious so we've not done any more than the three we started with
18:20:31 [m_schnei]
but isn't there a "natural" mapping from turtle to ntriples? and a mapping from ntriples to RDF graphs?
18:21:05 [achille]
topic: Issue Discussions
18:21:07 [bmotik]
Yes, there are
18:21:09 [bmotik]
+q
18:21:12 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:21:12 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:21:14 [alanr]
ack bmotik
18:21:14 [pfps]
not really - there are subtleties
18:21:18 [achille]
alan: I did not undestand issue 16
18:21:39 [achille]
boris: it has to do with asymmetry
18:21:52 [dlm]
*action on alan - include minutes from user facing group discussion of documents on the wiki page for the task force
18:22:26 [achille]
boris: suggestion: annotations should be external to what is annotated
18:23:08 [alanr]
q?
18:23:37 [bijan]
I'm unsure about this proposal
18:23:58 [achille]
alan: why do we need a new desgin for annotation
18:24:00 [achille]
?
18:24:04 [m_schnei]
if someone would propose a solution to the problem, then I would perhaps understand the problem :)
18:24:10 [bijan]
There was a semantic change...entailments are different
18:24:14 [alanr]
ok, so I'm not the only one
18:24:32 [achille]
boris: annotation should be some kind of comments (without any semantics)
18:24:47 [jeremy]
q+
18:24:56 [alanr]
me by rinke
18:25:05 [jeremy]
ack me
18:25:07 [Zakim]
-Rinke
18:25:11 [alanr]
ack jeremy
18:25:31 [bmotik]
+q
18:25:39 [bijan]
q+
18:25:50 [achille]
jeremy: from the rdf point of view, are the substance of their concerns (e.g. Dublin )
18:26:12 [achille]
s/are/annotation are
18:26:57 [achille]
alan: we should continue this discussion on email
18:26:58 [alanr]
q+
18:27:12 [jeremy]
(only some rdf subcommunities - some rdf-ers have same view as hcls)
18:27:22 [bijan]
ack bijan
18:27:32 [alanr]
ack bmotik
18:27:46 [alanr]
q+ bijan
18:27:50 [alanr]
ack alanr
18:27:52 [achille]
boris: annotation from it's very name is something unimportant
18:27:52 [alanr]
q+ alanr
18:28:12 [bijan]
Read my new intro! http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Annotations
18:28:15 [alanr]
ack bijan
18:29:15 [m_schnei]
I understand an "annotation" to *not* inherently belong to the annotated thing. For the case of ontologies: Annotations for parts of an ontology should not add to the semantics of the ontology itself
18:29:29 [achille]
bijan: both parts (annotation and axioms) are important
18:29:45 [jeremy]
thank you ...
18:29:54 [bmotik]
+1 to bijan (even though he disagrees with me :-)
18:30:30 [achille]
alan: the current design of annotations breaks some use of ontologies
18:30:36 [jeremy]
q+
18:30:43 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
18:30:43 [Zakim]
On the phone I see achille, DougL, msmith, +1.518.276.aaaa, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, bijan, bmotik, bcuencagrau (muted), Alan, MartinD (muted), Ivan, m_schnei (muted),
18:30:45 [m_schnei]
important, but under different aspects
18:30:47 [Zakim]
... Carsten (muted), Ratnesh, Deb_McGuinness, jeremy
18:30:57 [achille]
alan: two issues with annotations
18:31:00 [sandro]
zakim, aaaa is baojie
18:31:01 [Zakim]
+baojie; got it
18:31:04 [bijan]
I think fixing the current backward compatibility point does not affect any o ther design consideration, IMHO
18:31:15 [achille]
... 1) whether the annotations should be in the same domain of discourse
18:31:39 [achille]
... 2) none of the owl properties should have both
18:31:48 [jeremy]
q-
18:31:50 [bijan]
AnnotationProperties puns data and object properties :)
18:31:58 [sandro]
Present: achille, DougL, msmith, baojie, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, bijan, bmotik, bcuencagrau, Alan, MartinD, Ivan, m_schnei, Carsten, Ratnesh, Deb_McGuinness, jeremy
18:31:59 [alanr]
ack alanr
18:32:03 [sandro]
ADJOURNED
18:32:04 [Zakim]
-bijan
18:32:07 [achille]
I will have to leave
18:32:11 [achille]
soon
18:32:13 [Ratnesh]
bye
18:32:16 [Zakim]
-bmotik
18:32:16 [m_schnei]
bye
18:32:17 [Zakim]
-Ratnesh
18:32:17 [Zakim]
-msmith
18:32:18 [achille]
bye
18:32:18 [Zakim]
-bcuencagrau
18:32:20 [Zakim]
-Deb_McGuinness
18:32:21 [Zakim]
-Carsten
18:32:22 [Zakim]
-Alan
18:32:24 [Zakim]
-m_schnei
18:32:25 [Zakim]
-baojie
18:32:26 [Zakim]
-Sandro
18:32:27 [Zakim]
-jeremy
18:32:37 [Zakim]
-Ivan
18:33:03 [jeremy]
jeremy has left #owl
18:33:10 [Zakim]
-MartinD
18:33:11 [Zakim]
-Peter_Patel-Schneider
18:33:16 [alanr]
Alan: Clarifying 3 aspects of annotation properties 1) Not being in the same domain of discourse 2) Able to have both individuals and literals as values 3) being able to create associations to classes and properties
18:34:01 [sandro]
I've got it, Alan.
18:34:08 [Zakim]
-achille
18:34:10 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
18:34:10 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2008/03/12-owl-irc#T18-34-10
18:34:22 [Zakim]
-DougL
18:34:23 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()12:00PM has ended
18:34:25 [Zakim]
Attendees were DougL, msmith, +1.518.276.aaaa, Rinke, Peter_Patel-Schneider, achille, Sandro, bijan, bmotik, bcuencagrau, Alan, MartinD, Ivan, +49.351.463.3.aabb, Carsten,
18:34:27 [Zakim]
... m_schnei, Ratnesh, Deb_McGuinness, +7.955.aacc, jeremy, baojie
18:35:02 [sandro]
RRSAgent, make record public
18:35:48 [MartinD]
MartinD has left #OWL
20:33:47 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl