IRC log of owl on 2008-03-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:53:12 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:53:12 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:53:20 [Zakim]
On IRC I see bmotik, MarkusK, ivan, bcuencagrau, IanH, calvanese, ewallace, jjc, trackbot-ng, sandro
16:53:51 [jjc]
zakim, this will be owl
16:53:53 [Zakim]
ok, jjc; I see SW_OWL()12:00PM scheduled to start 53 minutes ago
16:53:56 [ivan]
zakim, this will be owl
16:53:59 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()12:00PM has now started
16:54:01 [ivan]
16:54:03 [Zakim]
ok, ivan, I see SW_OWL()12:00PM already started
16:54:09 [Zakim]
+ +39.047.101.aaaa
16:54:11 [Zakim]
+ +0186527aabb
16:54:34 [IanH]
zakim, aabb is IanH
16:54:34 [Zakim]
+IanH; got it
16:54:41 [ivan]
rrsagent, set log public
16:54:48 [ivan]
zakim, code?
16:54:48 [Zakim]
the conference code is 69594 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), ivan
16:54:58 [Zakim]
16:55:13 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
16:55:13 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +39.047.101.aaaa, IanH, MarkusK
16:55:14 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, bmotik, MarkusK, ivan, bcuencagrau, IanH, calvanese, ewallace, jjc, trackbot-ng, sandro
16:55:32 [Zakim]
16:55:40 [MarkusK]
ScribeNick: MarkusK
16:55:53 [uli_]
uli_ has joined #owl
16:56:19 [IanH]
Who is aaaa? It was the first person to dial in and is from +39
16:56:37 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
16:56:40 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +39.047.101.aaaa, IanH, MarkusK, Ivan
16:56:41 [Ratnesh]
Ratnesh has joined #owl
16:56:46 [Zakim]
On IRC I see uli_, RRSAgent, Zakim, bmotik, MarkusK, ivan, bcuencagrau, IanH, calvanese, ewallace, jjc, trackbot-ng, sandro
16:57:06 [calvanese]
zakim, this is aaaa
16:57:09 [Zakim]
sorry, calvanese, I do not see a conference named 'aaaa' in progress or scheduled at this time
16:57:27 [IanH]
zakim, aaaa is calvanese
16:57:27 [Zakim]
+calvanese; got it
16:57:35 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
16:57:35 [IanH]
Hi Diego
16:57:39 [Zakim]
16:57:39 [calvanese]
hi ian
16:57:44 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, ??P11 is me
16:57:44 [Zakim]
+bcuencagrau; got it
16:57:45 [calvanese]
hi ian
16:57:55 [DougL]
DougL has joined #owl
16:58:01 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, mute me
16:58:01 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted
16:58:09 [Zakim]
16:58:13 [Zakim]
16:58:18 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??p19 is me
16:58:18 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
16:58:27 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
16:58:27 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
16:58:37 [Zakim]
16:58:43 [Zakim]
+ +1.512.342.aacc
16:58:46 [uli_]
zakim, ??P20 is me
16:58:46 [Zakim]
+uli_; got it
16:58:50 [Zakim]
16:58:51 [uli_]
zakim, mute me
16:58:52 [Zakim]
uli_ should now be muted
16:58:53 [DougL]
Zakim, aacc is me
16:58:53 [Zakim]
+DougL; got it
16:58:59 [Zakim]
16:59:03 [calvanese]
zakim, mute me
16:59:03 [Zakim]
calvanese should now be muted
16:59:23 [IanH]
If you precede such commands with /me it stops them going in the minutes
16:59:27 [Ratnesh]
Zakim, ??P25 is me
16:59:27 [Zakim]
+Ratnesh; got it
16:59:37 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
16:59:51 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
17:00:03 [Zakim]
17:00:26 [Zakim]
+ +0122341aadd
17:00:39 [jjc]
zakim, aadd is me
17:00:39 [Zakim]
+jjc; got it
17:00:40 [Zakim]
+ +1.603.897.aaee
17:00:56 [Zhe]
Zakim, +1.603.897.aaee is me
17:00:56 [Zakim]
+Zhe; got it
17:02:01 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:02:01 [Zakim]
On the phone I see calvanese, IanH, MarkusK, Ivan, bcuencagrau (muted), Sandro, bmotik (muted), uli_ (muted), DougL, Ratnesh, Evan_Wallace, msmith, jjc (muted), Zhe
17:02:05 [Zakim]
On IRC I see alanr, Zhe, DougL, msmith, Ratnesh, uli_, RRSAgent, Zakim, bmotik, MarkusK, ivan, bcuencagrau, IanH, calvanese, ewallace, jjc, trackbot-ng, sandro
17:02:30 [MarkusK]
17:02:36 [MarkusK]
Agenda Amendmends
17:02:53 [MarkusK]
s /Amendmends/amendments/
17:03:42 [msmith]
IanH, the amendment was added by pfps
17:03:57 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.276.aaff
17:04:02 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.253.aagg
17:04:09 [alanr]
zakim, aagg is me
17:04:09 [Zakim]
+alanr; got it
17:04:24 [alanr]
17:04:24 [MarkusK]
Telcos will start at 19:00 CET again starting next telco (after F2F)
17:04:32 [Zhe]
17:04:32 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #owl
17:04:44 [DougL]
+1 on minutes
17:04:44 [MarkusK]
Previous minutes accepted
17:05:06 [Zakim]
17:05:20 [Zakim]
17:05:38 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
17:05:45 [Zhe]
cash only ?
17:05:48 [Zhe]
17:05:49 [Achille]
Achille has joined #OWL
17:06:09 [baojie]
RPI is baojie
17:06:14 [Achille]
Zakim. IBM is Achille
17:06:17 [MarkusK]
F2F registration fees must be paid, see
17:06:25 [Achille]
Zakim, IBM is Achille
17:06:25 [Zakim]
+Achille; got it
17:06:29 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call
17:06:29 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the call', sandro
17:06:30 [ivan]
zakim, IBM is Achille
17:06:30 [Zakim]
sorry, ivan, I do not recognize a party named 'IBM'
17:06:32 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
17:06:32 [Zakim]
On the phone I see calvanese (muted), IanH, MarkusK, Ivan, bcuencagrau (muted), Sandro, bmotik (muted), uli_ (muted), DougL, Ratnesh, Evan_Wallace, msmith, jjc, Zhe,
17:06:34 [Zakim]
... +1.518.276.aaff, alanr, Achille, pfps
17:06:42 [sandro]
zakim, aaff is baojie
17:06:42 [Zakim]
+baojie; got it
17:06:45 [jjc]
Zakim, aaff is baojie
17:06:45 [Zakim]
sorry, jjc, I do not recognize a party named 'aaff'
17:06:54 [MarkusK]
Checks are also accepted on-site
17:07:08 [MarkusK]
Action items
17:07:49 [MarkusK]
ACTION 113 completed
17:07:49 [alanr]
Need to continue my actions 110, 114 - will adjust dates
17:08:06 [MarkusK]
ACTION 105 completed
17:08:16 [alanr]
17:08:55 [MarkusK]
ACTION 72 due tomorrow
17:11:04 [MarkusK]
ACTION 76 delayed, to be done soon (before F2F2)
17:11:23 [MarkusK]
Action 86 delayed
17:12:08 [MarkusK]
Action 90 delayed, discussion scheduled for F2F2
17:12:26 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:12:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see calvanese (muted), IanH, MarkusK, Ivan, bcuencagrau (muted), Sandro, bmotik (muted), uli_ (muted), DougL, Ratnesh, Evan_Wallace, msmith, jjc, Zhe, baojie, alanr,
17:12:29 [Zakim]
... Achille, pfps (muted)
17:12:30 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Achille, pfps, baojie, alanr, Zhe, DougL, msmith, Ratnesh, uli_, RRSAgent, Zakim, bmotik, MarkusK, ivan, bcuencagrau, IanH, calvanese, ewallace, jjc, trackbot-ng,
17:12:33 [Zakim]
... sandro
17:12:34 [calvanese]
hi uli, thanks
17:13:24 [MarkusK]
ACTION 100 remains open (James Hendler not on call)
17:13:39 [MarkusK]
Action 101 delayed, to be done for F2F2
17:14:06 [MarkusK]
ACTION 102 remains open (James Hendler not on call)
17:14:20 [MarkusK]
ACTION 104 completed
17:14:58 [pfps]
17:15:15 [MarkusK]
ACTION 108 completed
17:15:54 [MarkusK]
17:16:20 [MarkusK]
ACTION 93 completed
17:16:41 [MarkusK]
ACTION 114 completed
17:17:31 [MarkusK]
17:18:00 [msmith]
yes, this proposal was from alan
17:18:11 [MarkusK]
Issue 86
17:18:46 [pfps]
I just sent out a slight modification to the proposal (which should not change anyone's vote).
17:18:59 [pfps]
17:19:04 [IanH]
17:19:46 [bmotik]
17:19:50 [IanH]
17:20:18 [bmotik]
17:20:26 [msmith]
17:20:35 [IanH]
17:21:03 [MarkusK]
alanr: new updated proposal is indeed editorial, minor correction only
17:21:06 [Zakim]
17:21:22 [IanH]
17:21:28 [IanH]
ack msmith
17:21:44 [alanr]
17:21:45 [alanr]
17:21:47 [IanH]
17:22:04 [MarkusK]
msmith: inverse properties could also be handled in RDF mappnig by swapping object and subject and adding an annotation for enabling round-tripping
17:22:06 [Zakim]
17:22:30 [MarkusK]
alanr: annotations should not have any logical meaning
17:22:53 [MarkusK]
ianh: the annotation was just for round-tripping, no logical impact
17:22:57 [Rinke]
Rinke has joined #owl
17:23:20 [MarkusK]
alanr: I doubt that exchanging subject and object always works
17:23:22 [msmith]
17:23:25 [IanH]
17:23:27 [jjc]
17:23:30 [alanr]
ack aalnr
17:23:32 [alanr]
ack alanr
17:23:39 [MarkusK]
ianh: yes, it is obvious only for facts, but not for restrictions
17:23:47 [Zakim]
+ +31.20.525.aahh
17:23:56 [IanH]
17:24:03 [IanH]
ack msmith
17:24:04 [MarkusK]
msmith: I think facts are the only case where this applies, there is no problem with inversee in restrictions
17:24:04 [ivan]
ack msmith
17:24:19 [ivan]
ack jjc
17:24:21 [MarkusK]
17:24:51 [MarkusK]
jjc: I agree with msmith, it is only a problem in facts
17:24:54 [alanr]
q+ to get rid of nested inverse
17:25:07 [IanH]
17:25:19 [pfps]
Should we have a vote to go forward for now, but get a revised proposal?
17:26:02 [msmith]
we can separate nested inverses from this issue
17:26:08 [IanH]
17:26:08 [MarkusK]
alanr: Jeremy referrred to the problem of mutliple (nested) inverses; I also think that this should be disallowed
17:26:14 [IanH]
ack alanr
17:26:14 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to get rid of nested inverse
17:26:17 [IanH]
17:26:26 [MarkusK]
17:26:32 [pfps]
17:26:42 [jjc]
i much prefer mike's
17:26:45 [pfps]
17:26:45 [IanH]
17:26:54 [msmith]
17:26:59 [IanH]
17:26:59 [jjc]
yes i am sure
17:26:59 [MarkusK]
ianh: there seem to be two competing proposals now
17:27:07 [msmith]
17:27:32 [MarkusK]
alanr: if it is just about facts, then msmith's proposal might work as well
17:27:37 [alanr]
17:27:39 [jjc]
17:27:53 [MarkusK]
ianh: does anybody doubt that msmith's proposal works?
17:27:54 [IanH]
ack jjc
17:27:57 [IanH]
17:28:11 [alanr]
have to think about anonymous individuals and Mike's proposal
17:28:18 [MarkusK]
jjc: my problem with it is that the proposal requires annotating the triple for round-tripping
17:28:18 [uli_]
Jeremy, please repeat
17:28:27 [alanr]
push to email, I think
17:28:32 [alanr]
17:28:53 [alanr]
0 (want to think about Mike's first)
17:28:56 [MarkusK]
Ianh: Who thinks that alan's proposal is the way to go
17:28:58 [DougL]
17:28:59 [Achille]
17:28:59 [sandro]
STRAWPOLL: alan's proposal
17:29:02 [jjc]
17:29:03 [pfps]
+1 for Alan
17:29:05 [Zhe]
17:29:09 [calvanese]
17:29:09 [MarkusK]
17:29:11 [sandro]
17:29:11 [baojie]
17:29:16 [Ratnesh]
17:29:18 [ivan]
17:29:33 [msmith]
+1 to using annotations, but iff round-tripping is a rqmt
17:29:35 [sandro]
STRAWPOLL: who thinks that Mike's proposal is the way to go?
17:29:36 [pfps]
-1 for mike
17:29:37 [sandro]
17:29:38 [jjc]
17:29:39 [ewallace]
17:29:41 [alanr]
0 (want to think about it first)
17:29:41 [Zhe]
17:29:42 [DougL]
17:29:43 [Achille]
17:29:43 [uli_]
0 (the same, need to think)
17:29:44 [MarkusK]
17:29:50 [bcuencagrau]
17:30:03 [msmith]
17:30:10 [IanH]
17:30:28 [IanH]
17:30:30 [bmotik]
17:30:38 [IanH]
ack msmith
17:30:41 [IanH]
17:30:42 [ivan]
ack msmith
17:30:47 [alanr]
not facts
17:30:49 [MarkusK]
msmith: could we have a strawpoll on whether we wish to support ObjectProperty assertions where porperties are inverses at all
17:30:50 [alanr]
only restrictions
17:31:03 [MarkusK]
... it might be that we do not really need that
17:31:06 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:31:06 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
17:31:09 [ivan]
ack bmotik
17:31:09 [IanH]
17:31:16 [MarkusK]
... I suggested to disallow this in an email
17:31:44 [alanr]
objectAllValuesFrom := 'ObjectAllValuesFrom' '(' objectPropertyExpression description ')'
17:31:53 [MarkusK]
bmotik: support for inverse properties without explicitly naming it was requested from the DIG working group, and is used in many reasoners
17:32:05 [IanH]
17:32:07 [MarkusK]
17:32:08 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:32:08 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:32:09 [alanr]
inverseObjectProperty := 'InverseObjectProperty' '(' objectPropertyExpression ')'
17:32:10 [alanr]
objectPropertyExpression := objectPropertyURI | inverseObjectProperty
17:32:38 [IanH]
17:33:09 [bcuencagrau]
Ivan, Description Logics Implementors group
17:33:09 [msmith]
more email sounds good
17:33:13 [MarkusK]
ianh: further discussion needed, to be taken to email
17:33:22 [jjc]
17:33:34 [IanH]
17:33:54 [bcuencagrau]
A group of people that have implemented DL reasoners. it includes the people who have developed the major DL reasoners
17:34:16 [MarkusK]
jjc: can we have a strawpoll on disallowing inverses as proposed by msmith?
17:34:20 [alanr]
disallowing means no InverseObjectProperties inside Fact constructs
17:34:33 [bmotik]
17:34:34 [jjc]
17:34:34 [bcuencagrau]
ivan, Peter is a member; I think so is Ian
17:34:34 [uli_]
17:34:35 [MarkusK]
17:34:35 [pfps]
-1 AIPs have their place in the world
17:34:38 [alanr]
17:34:43 [Zhe]
17:34:44 [baojie]
17:34:44 [Achille]
17:34:45 [bcuencagrau]
17:34:47 [ewallace]
17:34:49 [sandro]
STRAWPOLL: disallow anonymous inverse properties in facts
17:34:50 [calvanese]
17:34:52 [DougL]
0 (need to think about it)
17:34:52 [Rinke]
17:34:52 [ivan]
17:34:52 [calvanese]
17:34:56 [msmith]
+1 to disallowing anonym in obas
17:34:59 [sandro]
17:35:37 [MarkusK]
Issue 12
17:35:55 [IanH]
17:35:55 [MarkusK]
17:36:54 [alanr]
q+ to discuss
17:37:06 [IanH]
17:37:13 [jjc]
17:37:52 [MarkusK]
alanr: I suggested a modification for improving efficiency (see link above)
17:37:57 [IanH]
17:38:05 [IanH]
ack alanr
17:38:05 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to discuss
17:38:10 [pfps]
17:38:44 [IanH]
17:38:51 [jjc]
17:38:51 [MarkusK]
pfps: alan's proposal might be problematic, since it adds totally new different individuals
17:38:59 [jjc]
17:39:01 [IanH]
17:39:07 [MarkusK]
alanr: but it is only an existential (a bnode)
17:39:09 [IanH]
ack pfps
17:39:20 [MarkusK]
pfps: yes, but it still might increase the size of the domain
17:39:31 [MarkusK]
pfps: this creates a burdon on round-tripping
17:39:46 [IanH]
17:39:59 [MarkusK]
... but the creation of new individuals as such is the main problem
17:40:26 [IanH]
17:40:42 [MarkusK]
alanr: for equivalent class and equivalent properties it should not be such a problem
17:41:00 [MarkusK]
ianh: not sure without having a closer look
17:41:29 [IanH]
17:41:37 [MarkusK]
... it seems we cannot resolve the isue with that solution without further investigation
17:41:46 [MarkusK]
17:41:53 [jjc]
17:42:01 [IanH]
17:42:06 [MarkusK]
alanr: my proposal for possible optimisation might be a separate issue
17:42:13 [ivan]
ack jjc
17:42:17 [IanH]
17:43:16 [MarkusK]
jjc: the issue touches other issues, and I would currently abstain on this issue until the relations are clearer
17:44:08 [MarkusK]
STRAWPOLL: should this issue by closed according to pfps's proposal?
17:44:16 [alanr]
17:44:17 [uli_]
17:44:18 [pfps]
+1 (surprise)
17:44:18 [jjc]
+0 concur
17:44:25 [DougL]
If asked I would respond +1
17:44:27 [Zhe]
17:44:27 [baojie]
17:44:28 [ewallace]
17:44:30 [bmotik]
17:44:32 [MarkusK]
17:44:34 [ivan]
17:44:34 [bmotik]
17:44:38 [msmith]
17:44:39 [bmotik]
17:44:40 [Rinke]
17:44:45 [Ratnesh]
17:45:11 [pfps]
PROPOSAL; close 12 as in pfps's email provided that new informatoin does not come in and noting that this does not close the general reification issue
17:46:11 [alanr]
considering as possible = new information
17:46:13 [pfps]
+1 ..................................................
17:46:14 [DougL]
+1 (peter's typing might be that new info of course)
17:46:16 [alanr]
17:46:21 [msmith]
17:46:22 [IanH]
17:46:23 [MarkusK]
17:46:24 [uli_]
17:46:25 [Rinke]
17:46:26 [Achille]
17:46:29 [jjc]
+0 concur
17:46:30 [Zhe]
17:46:30 [bmotik]
17:46:31 [ewallace]
17:46:32 [bcuencagrau]
17:46:39 [Ratnesh]
17:46:41 [sandro]
17:46:42 [calvanese]
17:46:52 [ivan]
17:47:01 [pfps]
RESOLVED: as per the proposal
17:47:02 [IanH]
RESOLVED: as per above proposal
17:47:13 [pfps]
PROPOSAL; close 12 as in pfps's email provided that new informatoin does not come in and noting that this does not close the general reification issue
17:47:40 [MarkusK]
17:47:53 [pfps]
RESOLVED: close 12 as in pfps's email provided that new informatoin does not come in and noting that this does not close the general reification issue
17:49:00 [IanH]
17:49:19 [sandro]
17:49:25 [MarkusK]
Ianh: Time for issues is up, proceed with reviews of candidate worknig drafts first
17:50:07 [IanH]
17:50:58 [bmotik]
ACTION: bmotik2 to Update the RDF mapping with the accepted resolution of ISSUE-12 as per Peter's suggestion
17:50:58 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-115 - Update the RDF mapping with the accepted resolution of ISSUE-12 as per Peter's suggestion [on Boris Motik - due 2008-04-02].
17:51:10 [MarkusK]
Fragments document
17:51:35 [MarkusK]
Achille: I corrected minor problems, and raised issues where needed
17:51:50 [MarkusK]
Msmith: mostly editorial comments, not put into wiki page yet
17:52:37 [MarkusK]
Alanr: uncontroversial editorial changes can be made directly in the document
17:53:00 [MarkusK]
Msmith: OK, I will shortly incorporate my comments then
17:53:11 [sandro]
q+ to comment on wiki page name, document title
17:53:15 [IanH]
17:53:37 [alanr]
"Fragments of OWL"
17:53:47 [MarkusK]
Sandro: we might want to change the title
17:53:54 [sandro]
17:54:01 [MarkusK]
Alanr: "Fragments of OWL" seems to be a good name
17:54:02 [IanH]
17:54:12 [sandro]
"Language Fragments"
17:54:12 [IanH]
17:54:14 [sandro]
ack sandro
17:54:14 [Zakim]
sandro, you wanted to comment on wiki page name, document title
17:54:15 [pfps]
owl pieces / owl bones
17:54:22 [MarkusK]
ianh: I would just say "OWL Fragments"
17:54:36 [jjc]
q+ to mention abstract
17:54:45 [alanr]
"Fragments" ok by me
17:54:51 [MarkusK]
... even just "Fragments" would be good
17:54:55 [Zhe]
"OWL Fragments" sounds good
17:54:55 [bcuencagrau]
To be consistent with the other documents we should simply say ``Fragments''
17:55:01 [pfps]
syntax is Syntax, so fragments should be .... Fragments
17:55:03 [Rinke]
17:55:26 [Achille]
17:55:28 [Zhe]
17:55:47 [IanH]
17:56:10 [MarkusK]
jjc: the abstract of the fragments doc is insufficient
17:56:38 [pfps]
17:56:40 [uli_]
17:56:45 [MarkusK]
... the term "fragment" may have a negative connotation
17:56:46 [bcuencagrau]
no species
17:57:05 [MarkusK]
alanr: "profiles"?
17:57:08 [bmotik]
"Fragment" is a standard term from logic.
17:57:18 [bcuencagrau]
17:57:20 [pfps]
To change the name requires moving the page, I think
17:57:40 [jjc]
fragment may be a term from logic, but ...
17:57:48 [calvanese]
17:58:00 [IanH]
17:58:08 [MarkusK]
ianh: this discussion shold be continued offline
17:58:09 [IanH]
ack jjc
17:58:10 [Zakim]
jjc, you wanted to mention abstract
17:58:14 [MarkusK]
17:58:56 [pfps]
An abstract is, by definition, one paragraph. (Yes this is often violated.)
17:59:12 [IanH]
17:59:18 [alanr]
17:59:22 [jjc]
17:59:38 [alanr]
q- alanr to say +1 to last thing sandro said
17:59:40 [IanH]
17:59:57 [IanH]
ack Achille
18:00:21 [bmotik]
I can review Achille's changes.
18:00:27 [MarkusK]
Achille: I would like an additional review of the changes I made recently
18:00:42 [IanH]
18:00:56 [msmith]
achille, I will review again with your edits in mind
18:01:22 [MarkusK]
Calvanese: regarding the DL Lite fragment, I think major changes are still required in the document
18:01:33 [MarkusK]
... for example function properties should be there
18:01:41 [bcuencagrau]
Diego, remember that we have role hierarchies
18:01:44 [pfps]
18:01:46 [MarkusK]
... several other additions could be made
18:01:51 [bcuencagrau]
Wouldn't functionality be problematic?
18:02:27 [IanH]
18:02:34 [IanH]
18:02:35 [msmith]
18:02:41 [IanH]
ack calvanese
18:03:09 [alanr]
+1 to pfps
18:03:19 [DougL]
good point
18:03:27 [calvanese]
+1 to pfps
18:03:29 [MarkusK]
pfps: we acan note in the current version that the presented DL Lite fragment is a conservative fragment that is likely to be extended later on
18:03:40 [bmotik]
I can do ti
18:03:49 [calvanese]
18:04:06 [msmith]
bmotik, Suggest merging note about ISSUE-80 into it
18:04:09 [calvanese]
18:04:12 [IanH]
18:04:21 [IanH]
18:04:23 [pfps]
18:04:42 [MarkusK]
ACTION: bmotik to add a note to the fragments document regarding possible later extension of DL Lite
18:04:42 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - bmotik
18:04:48 [MarkusK]
ACTION: bmotik2 to add a note to the fragments document regarding possible later extension of DL Lite
18:04:48 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-116 - Add a note to the fragments document regarding possible later extension of DL Lite [on Boris Motik - due 2008-04-02].
18:04:59 [IanH]
18:05:44 [MarkusK]
XML serialisation
18:05:44 [IanH]
18:06:04 [MarkusK]
18:06:30 [MarkusK]
Achille: my comments were already addressed by pfps
18:06:45 [MarkusK]
... the document is in a good shape overall
18:07:08 [bmotik]
Msmith, good point about ISSUE-80; will do.
18:07:09 [IanH]
18:07:20 [MarkusK]
Sandro: I noticed inconsistent uses of namespaces
18:07:27 [alanr]
q+ to say s/owl11xml:/ox:/
18:07:41 [MarkusK]
... maybe we should add a note that the namespaces might be changed later
18:07:51 [IanH]
18:07:59 [alanr]
q+ for a couple other non-showstopping comments
18:08:04 [alanr]
q+ to for a couple other non-showstopping comments
18:08:08 [MarkusK]
ianh: it would be good to have a sensible solution eaerly on, so as to prevent people using placeholders that are changed later
18:08:39 [pfps]
ox is a namespace name not a namespace
18:08:48 [MarkusK]
alanr: minor comment to change the namespace prefix in the schema to the one used in the text
18:08:59 [alanr]
18:09:04 [alanr]
18:09:17 [MarkusK]
... there are still inconsitent namespace prefixes in the codument
18:09:27 [MarkusK]
18:10:01 [IanH]
18:10:12 [MarkusK]
... my second comment is about "abstract" and "concrete" classes; the use of those terms is not fully clear yet
18:10:13 [IanH]
ack alanr
18:10:13 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to say s/owl11xml:/ox:/ and to for a couple other non-showstopping comments
18:10:23 [alanr]
Each abstract class (i.e., a class that is not intended to be instantiated, but is used to define a class hierarchy) is mapped to a global element group.
18:10:48 [msmith]
on namespaces, I've verified that we've been using , because this what is what the OWLAPI uses
18:10:51 [MarkusK]
... (above note in IRC is an example case)
18:11:00 [bmotik]
18:11:05 [sandro]
18:11:07 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:11:07 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:11:09 [IanH]
18:11:23 [msmith]
18:11:24 [MarkusK]
ianh: who has implemented OWL 1.1 software? Which namespaces would users prefer?
18:11:40 [IanH]
18:11:46 [MarkusK]
boris: I do not think users would care much; I have not received any user comments on that
18:11:57 [MarkusK]
18:12:19 [MarkusK]
alanr: we still should not change the namespace if there are already OWL 1.1 ontologies
18:12:25 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:12:25 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:12:36 [MarkusK]
bmotik: I think there are not so many OWL 1.1 ontologies that would be affected there
18:12:51 [MarkusK]
msmith: I posted the namespaces used in the OWL API into IRC
18:13:17 [MarkusK]
... I also think that there is no problem in changing the namespace now
18:13:26 [Rinke]
+1 to undated namespace
18:13:34 [MarkusK]
sandro: I would prefer a non-dated namespace now
18:13:51 [MarkusK]
ianh: yes, I also would like to not have dates in the namespace
18:13:59 [sandro]
18:14:07 [MarkusK]
sandor: yes, the dates were only used to generate unique names, the are not really needed
18:14:15 [pfps]
OK by me
18:14:15 [alanr]
18:14:19 [IanH]
18:14:22 [Zhe]
looks good
18:14:24 [DougL]
18:14:25 [bcuencagrau]
18:14:26 [uli_]
18:14:29 [baojie]
18:14:32 [ivan]
18:14:35 [Rinke]
looks ok, what does the rdf namespace look like?
18:14:36 [Achille]
18:14:37 [MarkusK]
Strawpoll: use as a namespace
18:14:46 [calvanese]
18:14:48 [MarkusK]
18:14:50 [Zhe]
Is OWL 1.1 name itself fixed?
18:14:50 [sandro]
PROPOSED: use as the XML namespace name for OWL 1.1 XML serialization
18:14:57 [pfps]
18:14:58 [MarkusK]
18:15:00 [IanH]
18:15:06 [DougL]
+1 again
18:15:09 [Rinke]
18:15:10 [sandro]
RESOLVED: use as the XML namespace name for OWL 1.1 XML serialization
18:15:23 [Zhe]
18:15:27 [Zhe]
18:15:31 [msmith]
18:15:34 [IanH]
18:15:43 [MarkusK]
sandro: relaetd question is where to publish the schema, but I need to do some more research on this
18:15:51 [alanr]
q+ to ask about GRDDL
18:15:55 [MarkusK]
18:16:11 [IanH]
18:16:17 [Zhe]
18:16:17 [IanH]
ack Zhe
18:16:17 [MarkusK]
Zhe: does this namespace decision imply that the new standrad is called OWL 1.1
18:16:24 [alanr]
18:16:27 [IanH]
ack alanr
18:16:27 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to ask about GRDDL
18:16:39 [sandro]
Yes, good point.... maybe not "owl11". just "owl"?
18:16:46 [jjc]
18:16:47 [MarkusK]
18:16:48 [ivan]
alan: no
18:17:08 [IanH]
18:17:51 [MarkusK]
ianh: should we rather change the namespace to drop the 11?
18:17:52 [IanH]
18:18:14 [pfps]
I prefer .../owl-xml
18:19:04 [MarkusK]
jjc: we can still change our minds on the namespace later on, since this is just a working draft
18:19:08 [IanH]
18:19:12 [IanH]
ack jjc
18:19:50 [MarkusK]
ianh: indeed, we can go with the current resolution for the early working draft now
18:19:59 [MarkusK]
18:20:06 [baojie]
18:20:07 [MarkusK]
18:20:21 [IanH]
18:20:37 [IanH]
18:20:43 [IanH]
ack baojie
18:20:57 [MarkusK]
Jie: there is still some work to do. The main question is who will read the Primer.
18:21:20 [MarkusK]
... I think the document needs to be restructured to become accessible for users of different levels of expertise
18:21:48 [alanr]
q+ to say OWA is not advanced topic
18:22:10 [IanH]
18:22:12 [MarkusK]
... advanced topics like Open World Asumption should go to later sections
18:22:13 [alanr]
q+ to say also commonly messed up
18:22:20 [MarkusK]
18:22:28 [DougL]
18:23:06 [IanH]
18:23:11 [MarkusK]
ianh: Jie, could you and Deborah cooperate with the authors to fix the perceived problems with the Primer until F2F2?
18:23:46 [MarkusK]
Jie: I think Sec 3 and 4 are mostly our problem, but fixing that might not require much time
18:23:51 [IanH]
18:24:17 [uli_]
+1 to alanr
18:24:21 [Rinke]
+1 too
18:24:26 [bmotik]
18:24:27 [MarkusK]
alanr: I object that OWA is considered an advanced topic. It is in fact a major point in using OWL
18:24:30 [baojie]
18:24:41 [MarkusK]
... I therefore would object to moivng that to the appendix
18:24:58 [IanH]
18:25:02 [IanH]
ack alanr
18:25:02 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to say OWA is not advanced topic and to say also commonly messed up
18:25:05 [IanH]
18:25:12 [IanH]
ack DougL
18:25:13 [MarkusK]
DougL: the Primer is far frmo being ready to be published
18:25:20 [MarkusK]
... whole sections are mostly blank
18:25:29 [IanH]
18:25:35 [IanH]
ack baojie
18:25:47 [MarkusK]
... e.g., the advanced features section is not containing advanced features
18:25:50 [baojie]
18:25:57 [IanH]
18:26:09 [MarkusK]
... more people from this group should review the Primer, since it is important for the perception of OWL
18:26:23 [MarkusK]
... the current content of the Primier is good, but more is n eeded
18:26:32 [MarkusK]
s/n eeded/needed/
18:26:45 [IanH]
18:26:53 [IanH]
ack baojie
18:26:56 [MarkusK]
Jie: I agree with DougL
18:27:21 [MarkusK]
... I think that an incremental presentation would be better
18:27:31 [alanr]
q+ to remind of UFDTF meeting this monday up coming
18:27:49 [IanH]
18:28:23 [MarkusK]
pfps: we have onyl two days left to make changes, which seems to preclude any substantial changes before F2F2
18:28:28 [alanr]
question is: Should we wait on publishing this?
18:28:30 [MarkusK]
18:28:34 [IanH]
18:28:40 [sandro]
18:28:48 [MarkusK]
pfps: the missing sections are "Using OWL" and "Using OWL Tools"
18:28:51 [sandro]
q+ to address WD vs LC
18:28:57 [jjc]
18:29:00 [IanH]
18:29:02 [MarkusK]
... not sure whether "Using OWL" is needed
18:29:25 [MarkusK]
... I do not agree, though, that the Primer is not publishable as is
18:29:32 [baojie]
I may help, but will be minor as Peter and Bijan are the authors
18:29:34 [pfps]
Monday is a travel day!
18:29:52 [MarkusK]
Alanr: there is a UFDTF meeting this monday where we might discuss this issue
18:30:06 [MarkusK]
... would it be harmful to not publish now but in two weeks?
18:30:11 [IanH]
18:30:17 [IanH]
ack alanr
18:30:17 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to remind of UFDTF meeting this monday up coming
18:30:19 [alanr]
ack alanr
18:30:20 [MarkusK]
Ianh: we can consider that at the F2F
18:30:20 [IanH]
18:30:27 [IanH]
ack sandro
18:30:27 [Zakim]
sandro, you wanted to address WD vs LC
18:30:30 [MarkusK]
Sandro: Publish early, publish often!
18:30:40 [DougL]
It's not "harmful",;we can make it very clear that it is a first draft.
18:30:41 [IanH]
18:30:44 [MarkusK]
... we could publish an incomplete document as a working draft
18:31:23 [MarkusK]
jjc: It would be useful to add a one-sentence summary of the review comments, to indicate open points that are still worked on
18:32:01 [MarkusK]
... in general we can have comment inline to indicate work in progress
18:32:21 [DougL]
that sounds like a workable idea. peter should probably summarize the revies, not point at them
18:32:32 [MarkusK]
pfps: It will be hard to point to the distributed reviews from the Primer
18:33:04 [MarkusK]
sandro: we should not point to the reviews, but reach a consensus on what needs to be done, and state that in the document
18:33:20 [DougL]
Let me reiterate that what *is* there is quite good.
18:33:44 [uli_]
+1 to Doug
18:34:05 [DougL]
18:34:24 [pfps]
The reviewers could come up with such a statement, Bijan and I could "fix" it.
18:34:52 [DougL]
Fixing dogs means...
18:35:21 [MarkusK]
Additional other business?
18:35:26 [jjc]
-- bye
18:35:30 [Zakim]
18:36:04 [MarkusK]
pfps: agenda amendment: RIF statement on OWL compatibility
18:36:13 [Zhe]
18:36:15 [Zakim]
18:36:15 [Rinke]
18:36:17 [Zakim]
18:36:17 [uli_]
18:36:17 [Zakim]
18:36:18 [baojie]
18:36:18 [calvanese]
18:36:18 [Zakim]
18:36:19 [Ratnesh]
18:36:20 [Zakim]
18:36:20 [Zakim]
18:36:21 [baojie]
18:36:21 [Zakim]
18:36:23 [Zakim]
18:36:24 [Zakim]
18:36:25 [Zakim]
18:36:26 [Zakim]
18:36:27 [alanr]
thanks ian!
18:36:28 [Zakim]
18:36:30 [Zakim]
18:36:32 [Zakim]
18:36:33 [sandro]
MarkusK, give me a minute to get the minutes ready on the wiki.
18:36:34 [Zakim]
18:36:42 [Zakim]
18:36:51 [MarkusK]
18:38:27 [msmith]
msmith has left #owl
18:40:37 [sandro]
Chair: Ian
18:40:45 [sandro]
Zakim, list attendees
18:40:45 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been +39.047.101.aaaa, +0186527aabb, IanH, MarkusK, Ivan, calvanese, bcuencagrau, Sandro, bmotik, +1.512.342.aacc, uli_, DougL, Evan_Wallace,
18:40:49 [Zakim]
... Ratnesh, msmith, +0122341aadd, jjc, Zhe, +1.518.276.aaff, +1.617.253.aagg, alanr, pfps, Achille, baojie, +31.20.525.aahh, Rinke
18:41:43 [sandro]
Present: IanH, MarkusK, Ivan, calvanese, bcuencagrau, Sandro, bmotik, uli_, DougL, Evan_Wallace, Ratnesh, msmith, jjc, Zhe, alanr, pfps, Achille, baojie, Rinke
18:41:54 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, Achille, in SW_OWL()12:00PM
18:41:57 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()12:00PM has ended
18:41:58 [Zakim]
Attendees were +39.047.101.aaaa, +0186527aabb, IanH, MarkusK, Ivan, calvanese, bcuencagrau, Sandro, bmotik, +1.512.342.aacc, uli_, DougL, Evan_Wallace, Ratnesh, msmith,
18:42:01 [Zakim]
... +0122341aadd, jjc, Zhe, +1.518.276.aaff, +1.617.253.aagg, alanr, pfps, Achille, baojie, +31.20.525.aahh, Rinke
18:42:34 [sandro]
Okay, MarkusK -- is all yours.
18:42:46 [MarkusK]
ok, thanks Sandro
18:43:15 [sandro]
no problem. thanks for scribing! :-)
19:01:33 [ivan]
ivan has left #owl
19:23:26 [jjc]
jjc has left #owl
20:57:09 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl