16:53:12 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:53:12 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/03/26-owl-irc
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:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), ivan
16:54:58 <Zakim> +??P0
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> +Ivan
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> +??P11
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> +Sandro
16:58:13 <Zakim> +??P19
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> +??P20
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> +??P25
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> +Evan_Wallace
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> +msmith
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> Admin
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> +1
17:04:24 <MarkusK> Telcos will start at 19:00 CET again starting next telco (after F2F)
17:04:32 <Zhe> +1
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> +[IBM]
17:05:20 <Zakim> +pfps
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 http://www.webont.org/owled/2008dc/f2fregistration.html
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> s/110/101/
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> q+
17:15:15 <MarkusK> ACTION 108 completed
17:15:54 <MarkusK> s/108/109/
17:16:20 <MarkusK> ACTION 93 completed
17:16:41 <MarkusK> ACTION 114 completed
17:17:31 <MarkusK> Issues
17:18:00 <msmith> yes, this proposal was from alan
17:18:11 <MarkusK> Issue 86   http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/86  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0189.html
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> q+
17:19:04 <IanH> q?
17:19:46 <bmotik> q+
17:19:50 <IanH> q?
17:20:18 <bmotik> q-
17:20:26 <msmith> q+
17:20:35 <IanH> q?
17:21:03 <MarkusK> alanr: new updated proposal is indeed editorial, minor correction only
17:21:06 <Zakim> -jjc
17:21:22 <IanH> q?
17:21:28 <IanH> ack msmith
17:21:44 <alanr> q?
17:21:45 <alanr> q+
17:21:47 <IanH> q?
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> +jjc
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> q+
17:23:25 <IanH> q?
17:23:27 <jjc> q+
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> q?
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> s/inversee/inverses/
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> q?
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> q?
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> q?
17:26:26 <MarkusK> s/referrred/referred/
17:26:32 <pfps> q+
17:26:42 <jjc> i much prefer mike's
17:26:45 <pfps> q-
17:26:45 <IanH> q?
17:26:54 <msmith> q+
17:26:59 <IanH> q?
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> q-
17:27:32 <MarkusK> alanr: if it is just about facts, then msmith's proposal might work as well
17:27:37 <alanr> indeed
17:27:39 <jjc> q+
17:27:53 <MarkusK> ianh: does anybody doubt that msmith's proposal works?
17:27:54 <IanH> ack jjc
17:27:57 <IanH> q?
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> q?
17:28:53 <alanr> 0 (want to think about Mike's first)
17:28:55 <uli_> 0
17:28:56 <MarkusK> Ianh: Who thinks that alan's proposal is the way to go
17:28:58 <DougL> 0
17:28:59 <Achille> 0
17:28:59 <sandro> STRAWPOLL: alan's proposal
17:29:02 <jjc> -0.1
17:29:03 <pfps> +1 for Alan
17:29:05 <Zhe> 0
17:29:09 <calvanese> 0 
17:29:09 <MarkusK> 0
17:29:11 <sandro> 0
17:29:11 <baojie> 0
17:29:16 <Ratnesh> 0
17:29:18 <ivan> 0
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> 0
17:29:38 <jjc> +0.4
17:29:39 <ewallace> 0
17:29:41 <alanr> 0 (want to think about it first)
17:29:41 <Zhe> +0
17:29:42 <DougL> -0.5
17:29:43 <Achille> 0
17:29:43 <uli_> 0 (the same, need to think)
17:29:44 <MarkusK> -0
17:29:50 <bcuencagrau> 0
17:30:03 <msmith> q+
17:30:10 <IanH> q?
17:30:28 <IanH> q?
17:30:30 <bmotik> q+
17:30:38 <IanH> ack msmith
17:30:41 <IanH> q?
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> q?
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> q?
17:32:07 <MarkusK> s/it/them/
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> q?
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> q+
17:33:34 <IanH> q?
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> -1
17:34:34 <jjc> +1
17:34:34 <bcuencagrau> ivan, Peter is a member; I think so is Ian
17:34:34 <uli_> -1
17:34:35 <MarkusK> -1
17:34:35 <pfps> -1 AIPs have their place in the world
17:34:38 <alanr> 0
17:34:43 <Zhe> +0.1
17:34:44 <baojie> 0
17:34:44 <Achille> +1
17:34:45 <bcuencagrau> -1
17:34:47 <ewallace> -1 
17:34:49 <sandro> STRAWPOLL: disallow anonymous inverse properties in facts
17:34:50 <calvanese> 0
17:34:52 <DougL> 0 (need to think about it)
17:34:52 <Rinke> 0
17:34:52 <ivan> 0
17:34:52 <calvanese> 0
17:34:56 <msmith> +1 to disallowing anonym in obas
17:34:59 <sandro> 0
17:35:37 <MarkusK> Issue 12
17:35:55 <IanH> q?
17:35:55 <MarkusK> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/12  http://www.w3.org/mid/20080318.213218.171431830.pfps@research.bell-labs.com
17:36:54 <alanr> q+ to discuss http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0254.html
17:37:06 <IanH> q?
17:37:13 <jjc> q-
17:37:52 <MarkusK> alanr: I suggested a modification for improving efficiency (see link above)
17:37:57 <IanH> q?
17:38:05 <IanH> ack alanr
17:38:05 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to discuss http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0254.html
17:38:10 <pfps> q+
17:38:44 <IanH> q?
17:38:51 <jjc> q+
17:38:51 <MarkusK> pfps: alan's proposal might be problematic, since it adds totally new different individuals
17:38:59 <jjc> q-
17:39:01 <IanH> q?
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> q?
17:39:59 <MarkusK> ... but the creation of new individuals as such is the main problem
17:40:26 <IanH> q?
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> q?
17:41:37 <MarkusK> ... it seems we cannot resolve the isue with that solution without further investigation
17:41:46 <MarkusK> s/isue/issue/
17:41:53 <jjc> q+
17:42:01 <IanH> q?
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> q?
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> +1
17:44:17 <uli_> 1
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> 1
17:44:27 <baojie> +1
17:44:28 <ewallace> +1
17:44:30 <bmotik> +1
17:44:32 <MarkusK> +1
17:44:34 <ivan> 0
17:44:34 <bmotik> +1
17:44:38 <msmith> +1
17:44:39 <bmotik> +1
17:44:40 <Rinke> +1
17:44:45 <Ratnesh> 0
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  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0254.html 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> +1
17:46:21 <msmith> +1
17:46:22 <IanH> +1
17:46:23 <MarkusK> +1
17:46:24 <uli_> +1
17:46:25 <Rinke> +1
17:46:26 <Achille> +1
17:46:29 <jjc> +0 concur
17:46:30 <Zhe> +1
17:46:30 <bmotik> +1
17:46:31 <ewallace> +1
17:46:32 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:46:39 <Ratnesh> 0
17:46:41 <sandro> 0
17:46:42 <calvanese> 0
17:46:52 <ivan> 0
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> s/PROPOSAL;/RESOLVED:/
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> q?
17:49:19 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/draft/owl11-syntax/
17:49:25 <MarkusK> Ianh: Time for issues is up, proceed with reviews of candidate worknig drafts first
17:50:07 <IanH> q?
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> q?
17:53:37 <alanr> "Fragments of OWL"
17:53:47 <MarkusK> Sandro: we might want to change the title
17:53:54 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/draft/owl11-fragments/
17:54:01 <MarkusK> Alanr: "Fragments of OWL" seems to be a good name
17:54:02 <IanH> q?
17:54:12 <sandro> "Language Fragments"
17:54:12 <IanH> q?
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> "Fragments" 
17:55:26 <Achille> q+
17:55:28 <Zhe> thanks
17:55:47 <IanH> q?
17:56:10 <MarkusK> jjc: the abstract of the fragments doc is insufficient
17:56:38 <pfps> -1
17:56:40 <uli_> "species"
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> Yes
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> q+
17:58:00 <IanH> q?
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> s/shold/should/
17:58:56 <pfps> An abstract is, by definition, one paragraph.  (Yes this is often violated.)
17:59:12 <IanH> q?
17:59:18 <alanr> q+
17:59:22 <jjc> q-
17:59:38 <alanr> q- alanr to say +1 to last thing sandro said
17:59:40 <IanH> q?
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> q?
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> q+
18:01:46 <MarkusK> ... several other additions could be made
18:01:51 <bcuencagrau> Wouldn't functionality be problematic?
18:02:27 <IanH> ack
18:02:34 <IanH> q?
18:02:35 <msmith> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/80
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> ok
18:04:06 <msmith> bmotik, Suggest merging note about ISSUE-80 into it
18:04:09 <calvanese> ok
18:04:12 <IanH> q?
18:04:21 <IanH> q?
18:04:23 <pfps> q-
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> q?
18:05:44 <MarkusK> XML serialisation
18:05:44 <IanH> q?
18:06:04 <MarkusK> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/XML_Serialization
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> q?
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> q?
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> owl11xml:EntityAnnotation
18:09:04 <alanr> ox:EntityAnnotation
18:09:17 <MarkusK> ... there are still inconsitent namespace prefixes in the codument
18:09:27 <MarkusK> s/codument/document/
18:10:01 <IanH> q?
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 http://www.w3.org/2006/12/owl11-xml , because this  what is what the OWLAPI uses
18:10:51 <MarkusK> ... (above note in IRC is an example case)
18:11:00 <bmotik> Yes.
18:11:05 <sandro> q?
18:11:07 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
18:11:07 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
18:11:09 <IanH> q?
18:11:23 <msmith> q+
18:11:24 <MarkusK> ianh: who has implemented OWL 1.1 software? Which namespaces would users prefer?
18:11:40 <IanH> q?
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> s/boris/bmotik/
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>  http://www.w3.org/ns/owl11-xml
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> +1
18:14:19 <IanH> +1
18:14:22 <Zhe> looks good
18:14:24 <DougL> +1
18:14:25 <bcuencagrau> +1
18:14:26 <uli_> +1
18:14:29 <baojie> +1
18:14:32 <ivan> +1
18:14:35 <Rinke> looks ok, what does the rdf namespace look like?
18:14:36 <Achille> +1
18:14:37 <MarkusK> Strawpoll: use  http://www.w3.org/ns/owl11-xml as a namespace
18:14:46 <calvanese> 0
18:14:48 <MarkusK> +1
18:14:50 <Zhe> Is OWL 1.1 name itself fixed?
18:14:50 <sandro> PROPOSED: use http://www.w3.org/ns/owl11-xml as the XML namespace name for OWL 1.1 XML serialization
18:14:57 <pfps> +1
18:14:58 <MarkusK> +1
18:15:00 <IanH> +1
18:15:06 <DougL> +1 again
18:15:09 <Rinke> +1
18:15:10 <sandro> RESOLVED: use http://www.w3.org/ns/owl11-xml as the XML namespace name for OWL 1.1 XML serialization
18:15:23 <Zhe> q?
18:15:27 <Zhe> q+
18:15:31 <msmith> q-
18:15:34 <IanH> q?
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> s/relaetd/related/
18:16:11 <IanH> q?
18:16:17 <Zhe> q-
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> http://www.w3.org/ns/2008/04/xml
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> q+
18:16:47 <MarkusK> s/standrad/standard/
18:16:48 <ivan> alan: no
18:17:08 <IanH> q?
18:17:51 <MarkusK> ianh: should we rather change the namespace to drop the 11?
18:17:52 <IanH> q?
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> q?
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> Primer
18:20:06 <baojie> +q
18:20:07 <MarkusK> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Primer
18:20:21 <IanH> q?
18:20:37 <IanH> q?
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> q?
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> s/Asumption/Assumption/
18:22:28 <DougL> q+
18:23:06 <IanH> q?
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> q?
18:24:17 <uli_> +1 to alanr
18:24:21 <Rinke> +1 too
18:24:26 <bmotik> +1
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> q+
18:24:41 <MarkusK> ... I therefore would object to moivng that to the appendix
18:24:58 <IanH> q?
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> q?
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> q?
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> q+
18:25:57 <IanH> sorry!
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> q?
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> q?
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> s/onyl/only/
18:28:34 <IanH> q?
18:28:40 <sandro> q+
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> q+
18:29:00 <IanH> q?
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> q?
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> q?
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> q?
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> sure
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> -jjc
18:36:04 <MarkusK> pfps: agenda amendment: RIF statement on OWL compatibility
18:36:13 <Zhe> bye
18:36:15 <Zakim> -DougL
18:36:15 <Rinke> bye
18:36:17 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
18:36:17 <uli_> bye
18:36:17 <Zakim> -bmotik
18:36:18 <baojie> bye
18:36:18 <calvanese> bye
18:36:18 <Zakim> -Ivan
18:36:19 <Ratnesh> bye
18:36:20 <Zakim> -Zhe
18:36:20 <Zakim> -Sandro
18:36:21 <baojie> --bye
18:36:21 <Zakim> -alanr
18:36:23 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
18:36:24 <Zakim> -Ratnesh
18:36:25 <Zakim> -uli_
18:36:26 <Zakim> -msmith
18:36:27 <alanr> thanks ian!
18:36:28 <Zakim> -Rinke
18:36:30 <Zakim> -IanH
18:36:32 <Zakim> -baojie
18:36:33 <sandro> MarkusK, give me a minute to get the minutes ready on the wiki.
18:36:34 <Zakim> -pfps
18:36:42 <Zakim> -calvanese
18:36:51 <MarkusK> ok
18:36:53 <Zakim> -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 -- http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.03.26/Minutes 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