16:41:09 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:41:09 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/04/16-owl-irc
16:41:31 <pfps> zakim, this will be owl-wg
16:41:31 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, pfps
16:41:38 <pfps> zakim, this will be oql
16:41:38 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, pfps
16:41:48 <pfps> zakim, this will be owl
16:41:48 <Zakim> ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL()12:00PM scheduled to start 41 minutes ago
16:42:14 <Rinke> RRSAgent, make records public
16:44:33 <IanH> I think that all this stuff was written by fans of "adventure" games
16:45:42 <IanH> Well, all this "open agent using tripod" stuff is very reminiscent...
16:46:16 <IanH> Not to mention the "you didn't end that question with a question mark" stuff
16:46:40 <IanH> Although that reminds me more of the hitchhiker's guide
16:48:23 <m_schnei> I never made it out of the heart of gold - after having collected 3/4 of all points :)
16:48:35 <Ivan> Ivan has joined #owl
16:49:45 <m_schnei> here, a simple "slash exist" suffices ;-)
16:50:15 <m_schnei> s/exist/exit
16:51:10 <sandro> sandro has joined #owl
16:53:20 <bijan> bijan has joined #owl
16:54:21 <Zakim> SW_OWL()12:00PM has now started
16:54:22 <Zakim> +??P13
16:54:42 <uli> uli has joined #owl
16:54:54 <Ratnesh> Ratnesh has joined #owl
16:55:10 <bijan> zakim, ??P13 is me
16:55:10 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
16:55:12 <Zakim> +IanH
16:55:14 <Zakim> -IanH
16:55:14 <Zakim> +IanH
16:55:22 <bijan> zakim, mute me
16:55:22 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
16:55:42 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
16:55:42 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
16:55:49 <Zakim> +??P16
16:55:58 <uli> zakim, ??P16 is me
16:55:58 <Zakim> +uli; got it
16:55:58 <IanH> zakim, who is on the call?
16:55:59 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan, IanH, uli
16:56:02 <sandro> trackbot-ng, start meeting
16:56:04 <trackbot-ng> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:56:06 <trackbot-ng> Zakim, this will be OWLWG
16:56:06 <Zakim> ok, trackbot-ng; I see SW_OWL()12:00PM scheduled to start 56 minutes ago
16:56:07 <trackbot-ng> Meeting: OWL Working Group Teleconference
16:56:07 <trackbot-ng> Date: 16 April 2008
16:56:36 <MartinD> MartinD has joined #OWL
16:58:05 <bijan> 	•	Ratnesh Sahay
16:58:05 <bijan> 	•	Deborah McGuinness scribed 2007-12-06
16:58:05 <bijan> 	•	Giorgos Stoilos scribed 2007-12-06
16:58:05 <bijan> 	•	Jeff Pan scribed 2007-12-07
16:58:05 <bijan> 	•	Martin Dzbor scribed 2008-01-16
16:58:06 <bijan> 	•	Doug Lenat scribed 2008-01-23
16:58:08 <bijan> 	•	Carsten Lutz scribed 2008-02-06
16:58:15 <pfps> zakim, mute me
16:58:15 <Zakim> sorry, pfps, I don't know what conference this is
16:58:28 <pfps> zakim, this will be OWLWG
16:58:28 <Zakim> ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL()12:00PM scheduled to start 58 minutes ago
16:58:39 <Ivan> ????????
16:59:45 <diego> diego has joined #owl
16:59:50 <sandro> zakim, this is OWL
16:59:50 <Zakim> ok, sandro; that matches SW_OWL()12:00PM
16:59:55 <uli> zakim, mute me
16:59:55 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
17:00:03 <baojie> baojie has joined #owl
17:00:06 <Zakim> +msmith
17:00:08 <Rinke> zakim, mute me
17:00:08 <Zakim> sorry, Rinke, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:00:15 <Rinke> zakim, who is here?
17:00:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan, IanH, uli (muted), +31.20.525.aaaa, Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith
17:00:17 <Zakim> On IRC I see baojie, diego, MartinD, Ratnesh, uli, bijan, sandro, Ivan, RRSAgent, Zakim, Carsten, m_schnei, pfps, Rinke, IanH, trackbot-ng, ewallace
17:00:18 <uli> ok - I will scribe
17:00:22 <Zakim> +??P25
17:00:22 <Rinke> zakim, aaaa is me
17:00:23 <Zakim> +Rinke; got it
17:00:23 <Zakim> +Sandro
17:00:30 <msmith> msmith has joined #owl
17:00:31 <bijan> scribenick: uli
17:00:34 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
17:00:39 <uli> thanks, Bijan
17:00:47 <Zakim> +MartinD
17:00:54 <MartinD> zakim, mute me
17:00:54 <Zakim> MartinD should now be muted
17:00:56 <Ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:00:56 <Zakim> ok, Ivan; the call is being made
17:00:58 <Zakim> +Ivan
17:01:02 <bijan> zakim, mute me
17:01:03 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
17:01:15 <MarkusK> MarkusK has joined #owl
17:01:24 <Zakim> +baojie
17:01:25 <Ivan> zakim, mute me
17:01:25 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
17:01:31 <m_schnei> zakim, zakim ??P25 is me
17:01:31 <Zakim> I don't understand 'zakim ??P25 is me', m_schnei
17:01:39 <m_schnei> zakim, ??P25 is me
17:01:39 <Zakim> +m_schnei; got it
17:01:45 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:01:45 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:01:53 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:01:53 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), IanH, uli (muted), Rinke, Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, m_schnei (muted), Sandro, Evan_Wallace, MartinD (muted), Ivan (muted), baojie
17:01:56 <Zakim> On IRC I see MarkusK, msmith, baojie, diego, MartinD, Ratnesh, uli, bijan, sandro, Ivan, RRSAgent, Zakim, Carsten, m_schnei, pfps, Rinke, IanH, trackbot-ng, ewallace
17:01:57 <Zakim> +diegoc
17:02:11 <baojie> zakim, mute me
17:02:11 <Zakim> baojie should now be muted
17:02:20 <Zakim> +??P34
17:02:38 <Zakim> +??P37
17:02:45 <Zakim> +??P38
17:02:53 <jeremy_> jeremy_ has joined #owl
17:02:57 <IanH> zakim, who is on the call?
17:02:57 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), IanH, uli (muted), Rinke, Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, m_schnei (muted), Sandro, Evan_Wallace, MartinD (muted), Ivan (muted), baojie (muted),
17:03:00 <Zakim> ... diegoc (muted), ??P34, ??P37, ??P38
17:03:01 <Zakim> -??P38
17:03:02 <Ratnesh> zakim,  ??P34 is me
17:03:03 <Zakim> +Ratnesh; got it
17:03:07 <Achille> Achille has joined #owl
17:03:15 <jeremy_> Zakim, P37 is me
17:03:15 <Zakim> sorry, jeremy_, I do not recognize a party named 'P37'
17:03:22 <jeremy_> Zakim, ??P37 is me
17:03:22 <Zakim> +jeremy_; got it
17:03:35 <Zakim> +??P38
17:03:37 <ChristineG> ChristineG has joined #owl
17:03:43 <jeremy_> yes there is another jeremy ... in the html group
17:03:49 <jeremy_> shall I try JeremyCarroll
17:03:58 <Zakim> +??P41
17:04:07 <Zakim> +[IBM]
17:04:10 <IanH> zakim, who is on the call?
17:04:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), IanH, uli (muted), Rinke, Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, m_schnei (muted), Sandro, Evan_Wallace, MartinD (muted), Ivan (muted), baojie (muted),
17:04:14 <Zakim> ... diegoc (muted), Ratnesh, jeremy_, ??P38, ??P41, [IBM]
17:04:19 <Achille> Zakim, IBM is Achille
17:04:19 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
17:04:19 <JeremyCarroll> Zakim, jeremy_ is JeremyCarroll
17:04:21 <Zakim> +JeremyCarroll; got it
17:04:34 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:04:34 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), IanH, uli (muted), Rinke, Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, m_schnei (muted), Sandro, Evan_Wallace, MartinD (muted), Ivan (muted), baojie (muted),
17:04:38 <Zakim> ... diegoc (muted), Ratnesh, JeremyCarroll, ??P38, MarkusK, Achille
17:04:39 <Zakim> On IRC I see ChristineG, Achille, JeremyCarroll, MarkusK, msmith, baojie, diego, MartinD, Ratnesh, uli, bijan, sandro, Ivan, RRSAgent, Zakim, Carsten, m_schnei, pfps, Rinke, IanH,
17:04:42 <Zakim> ... trackbot-ng, ewallace
17:04:50 <JeremyCarroll> q?
17:05:04 <JeremyCarroll> ack
17:05:24 <uli> ...there is also ??P37
17:05:28 <IanH> zakim, ??P38 is ChristineG
17:05:28 <Zakim> +ChristineG; got it
17:05:40 <Zakim> + +49.351.463.3.aabb
17:05:45 <Zakim> +Alan
17:05:48 <Carsten> zakim, aabb is me
17:05:48 <Zakim> +Carsten; got it
17:05:51 <JeremyCarroll> q?
17:05:59 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:06:05 <JeremyCarroll> q- ??P37
17:06:07 <bijan> q-
17:06:07 <alanr> alanr has joined #owl
17:06:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), IanH, uli (muted), Rinke, Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, m_schnei (muted), Sandro, Evan_Wallace, MartinD (muted), Ivan (muted), baojie (muted),
17:06:20 <Zakim> ... diegoc (muted), Ratnesh, JeremyCarroll, ChristineG, MarkusK, Achille, Carsten, Alan
17:06:28 <Zakim> On IRC I see alanr, ChristineG, Achille, JeremyCarroll, MarkusK, msmith, baojie, diego, MartinD, Ratnesh, uli, bijan, sandro, Ivan, RRSAgent, Zakim, Carsten, m_schnei, pfps, Rinke,
17:06:33 <Zakim> ... IanH, trackbot-ng, ewallace
17:06:54 <uli> Topic: Roll call - done
17:07:05 <uli> Topic: Agenda amendments
17:07:30 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/
17:07:39 <Carsten> zakim, mute me
17:07:39 <Zakim> Carsten should now be muted
17:07:40 <uli> IanH: public working draft from RIF on OWL compatibility is out
17:08:04 <uli> IanH: we should look at section 3 of this and comment 
17:08:09 <JeremyCarroll> I believe I will need to review this for HP, so will also volunteer to do a WG review
17:08:14 <uli> Ian: any volunteers?
17:08:20 <pfps> can we comment on a document that we helped author?
17:08:24 <JeremyCarroll> yes
17:08:27 <sandro> ACTION: JeremyCarroll  to review http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/
17:08:27 <trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - JeremyCarroll
17:08:33 <sandro> ACTION: Jeremy  to review http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/
17:08:33 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-136 -  to review http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/ [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2008-04-23].
17:08:38 <bijan> I am the liason
17:08:45 <bijan> But not in the task force
17:09:03 <JeremyCarroll> (formally I am in RIF, but I am an absent second)
17:09:30 <bijan> Uli and peter have discussed the compat doc and Uli is planning to look at it even more.
17:09:32 <uli> IanH: Uli and Peter will look at this anyway, so the action on Jeremy might be enough
17:09:55 <uli> Topic: F2F3
17:10:16 <JeremyCarroll> q+
17:10:20 <uli> Topic: Sandro is looking into Bristol and ?? dates and will be able to do a poll soon
17:10:40 <ewallace> s/??/Boston/
17:10:58 <IanH> ack JeremyCaroll
17:11:00 <uli> JeremyCarroll: has heard back from Bristol coordinator
17:11:07 <IanH> q?
17:11:24 <JeremyCarroll> ack JeremyCarroll
17:11:28 <uli> Sandro: will send out pointers to poll shortly
17:11:48 <uli> Topic: Minutes of Monday's UFDTF meeting
17:12:18 <uli> Alanr: they have been taken, and I am waiting for Evan to put it on the meeting page 
17:12:42 <uli> Topic: F2F minutes
17:12:55 <pfps> F2F2 minutes are minimally acceptable - Bernardo is not correctly listed as scribe, some tidying could be done
17:13:06 <uli> IanH: any comments? I did some tidying
17:13:18 <uli> AlanR: they could use some more cleaning up
17:13:48 <Rinke> I thought they looked rather good, overall. We've accepted minutes that weren't as tidy by far
17:14:04 <uli> IanH: suggest that we approve, but ask scribes to take 10min to fix up
17:14:15 <uli> PROPOSED: accept F2F minutes
17:14:15 <IanH> PROPOSED: Accept F2F2 Minutes
17:14:20 <IanH> +1
17:14:24 <uli> +1
17:14:26 <Rinke> +1
17:14:26 <alanr> +1
17:14:27 <ewallace> second
17:14:28 <pfps> +1 to accept F2F2 minutes
17:14:29 <baojie> +1
17:14:32 <msmith> +1
17:14:32 <ewallace> +1
17:14:33 <Carsten> +1
17:14:33 <bijan> +1
17:14:34 <diego> +1
17:14:35 <Ivan> 0
17:14:41 <IanH> RESOLVED: PROPOSED: Accept F2F2 Minutes
17:14:42 <JeremyCarroll> q+ to speak on last weeks minutes
17:14:57 <alanr> ack JeremeyCarroll
17:15:01 <IanH> RESOLVED: Accept F2F2 Minutes
17:15:03 <alanr> ack JeremyCarroll
17:15:03 <Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to speak on last weeks minutes
17:15:32 <uli> JeremyCarroll: last week's minutes have only been cleaned up recently, so perhaps we shouldn't vote on them today
17:15:36 <pfps> 4/16 minutes were minimally acceptable even before Jeremy's tidying
17:15:44 <uli> IanH: I have tidyed them up already
17:16:04 <uli> PROPOSED: accept April 9 minutes
17:16:12 <Rinke> +1
17:16:12 <IanH> +1
17:16:13 <msmith> +1
17:16:15 <uli> +1
17:16:16 <diego> +1
17:16:17 <pfps> +1 to 4/9 minutes
17:16:22 <bijan> +1
17:16:22 <baojie> =1
17:16:24 <baojie> +1
17:16:28 <uli> RESOLVED: accept April 9 minutes
17:16:48 <uli> Topic: Action item status
17:17:03 <uli> Topic: Action 76
17:17:15 <uli> Topic: Action 86
17:17:40 <pfps> q+ for action 100
17:17:42 <uli> JeremyCarroll: I haven't completed it yet, but 86 and 90 are now redundant
17:17:54 <uli> Topic: Action 100
17:17:56 <pfps> q+ to ask about action 100
17:18:26 <IanH> q?
17:18:27 <uli> AlanR: doesn't know what the status is since Jim has left the group
17:18:30 <IanH> ack pfps
17:18:30 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask about action 100
17:18:33 <alanr> q?
17:18:51 <uli> pfps: Jim has left and has never done anything regarding n3 rules
17:19:09 <m_schnei> q+
17:19:18 <pfps> 102 was done
17:19:19 <uli> IanH: I suggest to kill this one and see whether anybody will ever raise a similar one
17:19:24 <JeremyCarroll> +1
17:19:24 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
17:19:24 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:19:25 <IanH> q?
17:19:27 <uli> Topic: Action 102
17:19:44 <alanr> n3 is at http://www.w3.org/mid/6481386B-0C20-457C-871A-8BF9BB86B5F9@cs.rpi.edu
17:19:48 <uli> m_schnei: should be closed if Peter is happy
17:20:01 <alanr> as attachment
17:20:03 <m_schnei> 102 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0206.html
17:20:18 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:20:18 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:20:45 <uli> pfps: the issue has been appropriately put to death
17:20:55 <uli> Topic: Action 115
17:21:00 <pfps> q+ on 115
17:21:06 <uli> IanH: Boris says he has done it
17:21:11 <m_schnei> q-
17:21:20 <uli> pfps: 115 is done, but not documented correctly
17:21:45 <uli> pfps: later/second changes of Boris needs to be documented
17:21:47 <JeremyCarroll> I don't think more documentation is needed ...
17:21:49 <JeremyCarroll> q+
17:22:09 <IanH> q?
17:22:09 <uli> IanH: can you do this, Boris?
17:22:14 <IanH> ack 115
17:22:17 <IanH> q?
17:22:26 <Carsten> boris is not here, is he?
17:22:33 <bijan> I didn't understand jeremy
17:22:39 <pfps> q+
17:22:43 <IanH> q?
17:22:47 <pfps> q-
17:22:50 <Ivan> alanr: the mail you refer to does not contain the full OWL-R n3, only a part of it
17:22:51 <bijan> I.e., garbled voice
17:22:54 <JeremyCarroll> q- on,
17:22:55 <pfps> q- on
17:22:55 <uli> ??? help the scribe, Jeremy
17:22:57 <IanH> ack JeremyCarroll
17:23:00 <JeremyCarroll> q- JeremyCarroll
17:23:24 <JeremyCarroll> I said: I don't think that detailed changes to the mapping rules need to be documented at the level of detail that peter is asking for
17:23:31 <bijan> One provides a diff?
17:23:35 <m_schnei> +1 to postpone
17:23:50 <JeremyCarroll> I said: that at and after last call such detailed tracking is needed
17:23:50 <uli> Topic: Action 116
17:23:55 <pfps> 116 is OK
17:23:57 <JeremyCarroll> Peter disagreed
17:24:07 <uli> IanH: this was uncontroversial?!
17:24:11 <uli> Topic: Action 117
17:24:17 <JeremyCarroll> yes
17:24:20 <uli> IanH: done by Jeremy
17:24:25 <uli> Topic: Action 125
17:24:31 <bijan> Done
17:24:40 <uli> Topic: Action 126
17:24:44 <bijan> Also done
17:24:54 <uli> Topic: Action 130
17:24:56 <bijan> I just attached text and links to the action items
17:25:22 <uli> IanH: is done as well
17:25:39 <uli> Topic: Due and overdue Actions
17:25:46 <uli> Topic: action 43
17:26:10 <bijan> Tomorrow
17:26:16 <uli> Sandro: will do this in a couple of weeks
17:26:28 <bijan> I would write test cases
17:26:44 <uli> IanH: isn't top priority, but would like to see them in the not too far future
17:26:46 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
17:26:46 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
17:26:59 <IanH> q?
17:27:00 <pfps> various stuff could easily give rise to test cases - one reason they are not being generated is that there is no mechanism
17:27:09 <uli> bijan: it would help some of my actions if we had test cases
17:27:23 <bijan> zakim, mute me
17:27:23 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
17:27:29 <bijan> Even and incomplete version woudl be fine
17:27:34 <bijan> s/and/an/
17:27:46 <bijan> Yes
17:27:48 <uli> IanH: asks Sandro to help us see test cases 
17:27:58 <sandro> (Yeah, I didn't quite say "will do this in a couple of weeks"   -- I said there seemed to be more urgent things, and asked what time pressure there was.)
17:28:01 <uli> Topic: action 112
17:28:13 <uli> AlanR: will re-schedule
17:28:17 <uli> Topic: action 119
17:28:29 <uli> IanH: believes that this occurred
17:28:33 <ewallace> s/AlanR/Evan/
17:28:36 <uli> Topic: action 120
17:28:53 <bijan> See text in the primer on this (120)
17:29:04 <uli> Topic: action 124
17:29:09 <uli> Sandro: is done
17:29:13 <uli> Topic: action 127
17:29:16 <bijan> She did it
17:29:24 <ewallace> Done
17:29:30 <uli> Topic: action 133
17:29:43 <bijan> Alan: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Primer#OWL_1_Species  "OWL Lite is a subset of OWL DL 2 and OWL Full 2 but is no longer a recommended profile."
17:29:49 <uli> IanH: believes this is work in progress and working on it
17:29:59 <uli> Topic: action 134
17:30:07 <uli> IanH: will be done soon
17:30:21 <m_schnei> what about F2F3?
17:30:25 <uli> Topic: Raised Issues
17:30:56 <pfps> q+ to talk about 110
17:30:58 <uli> IanH: for each, we will have a short initial discussion to see whether we will open them
17:31:06 <IanH> q?
17:31:09 <uli> Topic: Issue 110
17:31:22 <IanH> q?
17:31:24 <uli> pfps: it's not an issue, just a comment
17:31:26 <IanH> ack pfps
17:31:26 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to talk about 110
17:31:30 <pfps> q+
17:31:48 <uli> alar: perhaps the issue is that somebody else trying to use CURIEs has some problems
17:31:59 <uli> pfps: this should be made clear
17:32:02 <uli> IanH:
17:32:16 <pfps> q-
17:32:17 <uli> ... agrees: we have many issues
17:32:32 <uli> Topic: Issue 111
17:32:38 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
17:32:38 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
17:33:18 <IanH> q?
17:33:40 <uli> bijan: it would be nice if we could signal, for an rdf graph, under what semantics this document is intended to be used
17:33:46 <m_schnei> +1 to have some ontology property
17:33:49 <Carsten> would they be allowed or forced to specify that?
17:33:58 <IanH> q?
17:33:59 <JeremyCarroll> q+
17:34:00 <bijan> Carten, I imagine just allowing htem
17:34:14 <Carsten> allowing is fine, IMHO
17:34:18 <uli> Sandro: agrees that we should have something like this
17:34:28 <IanH> ack JeremyCarroll
17:34:41 <uli> JeremyCarroll: remembers that this was already discussed in web-ont
17:34:43 <Rinke> And if the flag is incorrect? 
17:34:57 <bijan> It can't be incorrect
17:35:08 <bijan> Issue 111
17:35:14 <alanr> action: Jeremy to look up discussion of issue 111 in previous webont
17:35:14 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-137 - Look up discussion of issue 111 in previous webont [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2008-04-23].
17:35:24 <uli> Topic: Issue 112
17:35:31 <bijan> Except in how anything can be incorrect (i.e., I get my intent wrong)
17:35:32 <MarkusK> q+
17:35:45 <IanH> q?
17:35:59 <IanH> ack MarkusK
17:36:02 <IanH> q+
17:36:09 <uli> it's uncontroversial from a semantic point of view, but we should find a good name for this universal property
17:36:16 <IanH> q?
17:36:24 <uli> MarkusK: it's uncontroversial from a semantic point of view, but we should find a good name for this universal property
17:36:27 <alanr> ack IanH
17:36:41 <JeremyCarroll> q+
17:36:42 <Carsten> q+
17:36:43 <bijan> q+
17:36:51 <uli> IanH: top-role is not really syntactic sugar as top-thing
17:37:04 <Carsten> zakim, unmute me
17:37:04 <Zakim> Carsten should no longer be muted
17:37:05 <alanr> uli: didn't you say something about this being pseudo top role?
17:37:06 <uli> MarkusK: for SROIQ, it sort of is
17:37:15 <IanH> q?
17:37:40 <IanH> ack Carsten
17:37:46 <uli> Carsten: agrees that it can easily be reduced out, but it is not really syntactic sugar
17:37:51 <IanH> ack JeremyCarroll
17:37:53 <m_schnei> I have once managed to make it within OWL 1.1 itself <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2007OctDec/0166.html> :)
17:37:59 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
17:37:59 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
17:38:00 <MarkusK> q+
17:38:04 <alanr> call it "yente"
17:38:17 <IanH> ack bijan
17:38:22 <uli> JeremyCarroll: warns cautiously against new vocabulary if it isn't really used  
17:38:35 <m_schnei> q+
17:38:42 <alanr> skos:relatedTransitive ;-)
17:38:45 <m_schnei> q-
17:38:56 <uli> bijan: finds top and bottom role really useful from a tool developers' perspective
17:38:58 <alanr> q+
17:39:03 <bijan> zakim, mute me
17:39:03 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
17:39:05 <alanr> q- alanr
17:39:12 <MarkusK> q-
17:39:15 <uli> bijan: and it would be useful for interaction with users
17:39:25 <IanH> ack MarkusK
17:39:40 <alanr> curious about whether inclusion of top/bottom role means that roles will mean that reasoners will need to infer whether roles are equivalentproperty to them?
17:39:43 <uli> MarkusK: universal role might really add expressivity to the profiles 
17:39:52 <pfps> q+ to 113
17:40:01 <IanH> q?
17:40:08 <uli> Topic: Issue 113
17:40:12 <alanr> this was from f2f, no?
17:40:20 <IanH> yes
17:40:23 <pfps> F2F2: RESOLVED: DL does not have certain OWL Full entailments. OWL-R
17:40:25 <pfps> 	does not have certain OWL Full entailments. Vendors can
17:40:26 <pfps> 	implement other/related languages if they want.
17:40:41 <m_schnei> q+
17:40:46 <bijan> Didn't we make a choice?
17:40:49 <uli> JeremyCarroll: is an OWL-R reasoner allowed to infer OWL-Full entailments that are not OWL-R entailments?
17:40:55 <alanr> was a raised so that it could be pointed to in the documentation
17:41:02 <uli> pfps: this was resolved at the F2F
17:41:02 <IanH> q?
17:41:05 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
17:41:05 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:41:05 <alanr> so accept/resolve
17:41:07 <IanH> ack pfps
17:41:07 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to 113
17:41:10 <IanH> q?
17:41:13 <pfps> q-
17:41:17 <IanH> ack m_schnei
17:41:20 <bijan> Shouldn't it be an action then, instead of an issue?
17:41:38 <uli> m_schnei: if you allow a reasoner to make additional entailments, then you have non-sound reasoning
17:41:40 <JeremyCarroll> q+
17:41:46 <pfps> what would the action be to do?
17:41:47 <alanr> if it wasn't an issue, presumably it wouldn't have made it in as editor note? Makes sense though
17:41:53 <uli> ...because they can produce conflicts
17:42:01 <alanr> action: document it
17:42:01 <trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - document
17:42:14 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:42:14 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:42:17 <Carsten> seems related to the "signalling semantics" issue raised by bijan
17:42:26 <pfps> the resolution was after the issue was raised
17:42:40 <uli> JeremyCarroll: suggest to refer to next week to see what happened at the F2F regarding 113
17:42:41 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
17:42:41 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:42:47 <JeremyCarroll> s/refer/defer/
17:42:49 <uli> Topic: Issue 114
17:43:07 <bijan> q+
17:43:13 <JeremyCarroll> q-
17:43:13 <IanH> q?
17:43:21 <alanr> good question
17:43:22 <pfps> q+
17:43:25 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:43:25 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:43:26 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
17:43:26 <uli> JeremyCarroll: which of the different punnings do we want/not want
17:43:27 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
17:43:32 <IanH> q?
17:43:49 <JeremyCarroll> s/JeremyCarroll/MichaelSchneider/
17:43:50 <uli> s/JeremyCarroll/m_schnei
17:43:55 <IanH> q?
17:43:55 <pfps> +1 to bijan
17:43:57 <pfps> q-
17:44:05 <alanr> Seems sensible to me.
17:44:12 <uli> bijan: doesn't understand the issue there - it's not precise as it is
17:44:18 <MarkusK> +1 to bijan that we should discuss concrete punning cases directly
17:44:19 <IanH> q?
17:44:24 <uli> IanH: agrees
17:44:33 <alanr> q+
17:44:45 <bijan> zakim, mute me
17:44:45 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
17:44:45 <IanH> ack bijan
17:44:51 <IanH> ack alanr
17:44:55 <uli> bijan: we have ruled out 1 form of punning because we had good reasons to do so -- all others are still there
17:45:08 <JeremyCarroll> q+
17:45:15 <bijan> There is a general argumetn for punning
17:45:28 <uli> alanr: it seems sensible to me to look through remaining punning and see whether they are useful
17:45:30 <IanH> ack JeremyCarroll
17:45:53 <IanH> q?
17:45:54 <uli> JeremyCarroll: MichaelSchneider and me could look into this in the FullTF
17:46:11 <m_schnei> there is *no* problem with OWL Full wrt Punning!
17:46:13 <uli> Topic: Issue 115
17:46:30 <JeremyCarroll> but there might be divergence ...
17:46:35 <alanr> favicon
17:46:43 <IanH> q?
17:46:44 <uli> Rinke has a nice OWL2 picture!
17:46:45 <alanr> not an issue for publications
17:46:52 <IanH> q?
17:47:43 <uli> alanr: 2 different questions: whether we want an icon always and in all browser
17:47:53 <uli> Sandro: not high priority, but fixable
17:48:01 <Ivan> zakim, unmute me
17:48:01 <Zakim> Ivan should no longer be muted
17:48:07 <uli> Topic: Issue 116
17:48:11 <JeremyCarroll> +1 to fixing link checker problem
17:48:11 <pfps> q+
17:48:21 <Zakim> -MartinD
17:48:23 <IanH> q?
17:48:31 <MartinD> MartinD has left #OWL
17:48:34 <m_schnei> q+
17:48:47 <IanH> ack pfps
17:48:50 <uli> Ivan: OWL-R-Full is currently not having some axiomatic triples: we need to see whether we want them or not
17:49:04 <uli> pfps: this has been decided through the semantics
17:49:26 <JeremyCarroll> q+
17:49:35 <uli> pfps: your first triple follows from the Full semantics, so it should be there
17:49:45 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
17:49:45 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:49:56 <IanH> ack m_schnei
17:49:59 <uli> IanH: so this means that there is a bug in the OWL-R-Full rule set
17:50:43 <uli> m_schnei: for the mentioned one, it should be there - but the question is whether there should be more..
17:51:29 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:51:29 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:51:30 <uli> m_schnei: all rules from the RDFS spec should also go into the OWL-R-FUll rules, for the other ones, this has to be decided
17:51:34 <IanH> ack JeremyCarroll
17:51:38 <IanH> q?
17:51:47 <IanH> q?
17:51:49 <bijan> The axiomatic triples don't seem to be part of the RDFS entailment rules
17:51:59 <bijan> See: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#rules
17:52:17 <uli> JeremyCarroll: I accept that we need to take Ivan's question and work on the rules/document
17:52:34 <uli> Topic: Proposals to Resolve Issues
17:52:41 <uli> Topic: Issue 76
17:52:43 <bijan> (so we're no worse off than the RDF semantics rec)
17:52:53 <Carsten> si
17:52:57 <alanr> +1
17:52:58 <pfps> mute DLP
17:52:59 <uli> IanH: this is mute
17:53:04 <bijan> +1
17:53:06 <MarkusK> +1
17:53:06 <uli> +1
17:53:07 <Ivan> bijan: there are a bunch of triples at the beginning of section 4.1 of that document
17:53:07 <alanr> moot
17:53:08 <Carsten> same for 77, 80
17:53:22 <bijan> Can we resolve all three with one proposal?
17:53:32 <uli> PROPOSAL: resolve issue 76, 77, 80 
17:53:36 <bijan> 76, 77, 80
17:53:44 <msmith> 80 is a bit different, since DL-Lite is still there
17:53:56 <alanr> agree
17:54:13 <uli> PROPOSAL: resolve issue 76, 77 
17:54:25 <IanH> PROPOSAL: resolve issue 76, 77 as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Apr/0165.html
17:54:34 <bijan> +1
17:54:36 <pfps> +1 to mute 76, 77
17:54:37 <Rinke> +1
17:54:37 <JeremyCarroll> +1
17:54:38 <Carsten> +1
17:54:40 <msmith> +1
17:54:41 <ewallace> +1
17:54:41 <alanr> +1
17:54:42 <IanH> +1
17:54:43 <MarkusK> +1
17:54:44 <diego> +1
17:54:49 <baojie> +1
17:54:52 <uli> IanH: because issue 76 and 77 relate to no-longer existent fragments
17:54:54 <uli> +1
17:55:03 <m_schnei> bijan, the RDFS axiomatic triples *are* belonging to the semantic conditions, and *also* to the entailment rules
17:55:09 <IanH> RESOLVED: resolve issue 76, 77 as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Apr/0165.html
17:55:23 <uli> Topic: Issue 80
17:55:40 <Ivan> zakim, mute me
17:55:40 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
17:55:46 <uli> IanH: we had to decide which flavour of DL-lite to have as a profile
17:55:49 <Carsten> This is ongoing work, but I don't think we need an issue for this
17:55:50 <bijan> q+
17:56:01 <IanH> q?
17:56:03 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
17:56:03 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
17:56:14 <uli> alanr: likes to keep issue since it is an ongoing work
17:56:32 <msmith> +! to bijan, carsten.  this issue is too broad to know when to close it.
17:56:38 <pfps> +1 to bijan
17:56:41 <bijan> zakim, mute me
17:56:41 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
17:56:43 <uli> bijan: would prefer to resolve it because this is the same as with all other works/documents in progress 
17:56:43 <JeremyCarroll> +1 to bijan
17:56:57 <m_schnei> from chapter 7, RDFS spec: RDF entailment lemma. S rdf-entails E if and only if there is a graph which can be derived from S *plus the RDF axiomatic triples* by the application of rule lg and the RDF entailment rules and which simply entails E.
17:57:13 <IanH> PROPOSED: close issue-80 as moot
17:57:16 <pfps> +1 to mute 80
17:57:23 <ewallace> +1
17:57:23 <uli> +1
17:57:24 <IanH> +1
17:57:26 <Carsten> +1
17:57:26 <alanr> 0
17:57:28 <msmith> +1
17:57:30 <JeremyCarroll> +1
17:57:35 <sandro> +1
17:57:36 <diego> +1
17:57:39 <Ratnesh> +1
17:57:45 <Rinke> +1
17:57:47 <MarkusK> +1
17:57:49 <IanH> RESOLVED: close issue-80 as moot
17:58:01 <uli> Topic: Issue 67
17:58:12 <Carsten> zakim, mute me
17:58:12 <Zakim> Carsten should now be muted
17:58:20 <uli> IanH: reification in axiom annotation
17:58:21 <bijan> Thanks michael...I my search didn't find it
17:58:42 <pfps> proposal is from Alan
17:58:42 <bijan> I have an action on this topic
17:59:02 <JeremyCarroll> q+ to speak against closing this issue, but OK with next
17:59:05 <bijan> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/actions/129
17:59:17 <IanH> Q?
17:59:27 <pfps> q+
17:59:30 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
17:59:30 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
17:59:57 <bijan> zakim, mute me
17:59:57 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:00:02 <uli> bijan: I have an action related to this, so we cannot resolve it before I have done this action
18:00:37 <uli> JeremyCarroll: at the F2F, alanr said that annotation and reification both are semantically difficult
18:00:47 <IanH> q?
18:01:08 <alanr> we were going to wait for Bijan
18:01:11 <IanH> q?
18:01:19 <alanr> ack bijan
18:01:27 <alanr> ack JeremyCarroll
18:01:27 <Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to speak against closing this issue, but OK with next
18:01:28 <IanH> ack JeremyCaroll
18:01:29 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:01:31 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:01:31 <IanH> q?
18:01:33 <uli> JeremyCarroll: is anxious regarding this issue, especially with negative property assertions
18:01:39 <alanr> ack pfps
18:01:56 <bijan> I'm supposed to compare it to other proposals
18:02:09 <bijan> Isn't it silly to discuss this when I have an action to come up with stuff?
18:02:16 <uli> pfps: there is a proposal on the table
18:02:17 <JeremyCarroll> on neg prop assertions at f2f some people spoke against alan's proposal, and I found arguments compelling
18:02:28 <m_schnei> +1 to wait for bijan
18:02:30 <bijan> This is why I have *my action*(
18:02:32 <JeremyCarroll> I didn't feel my coutnerarguments were as strong
18:02:40 <Ivan> +1 to wait for bijan
18:02:49 <diego> +1 to wait for bijan
18:02:58 <pfps> ha ha ha
18:02:58 <uli> IanH: let's move on to an issue we can resolve
18:03:04 <bijan> This is part of my action :)
18:03:06 <uli> Topic: Issue 81
18:03:06 <alanr> re: neg prop, best argument against was introduction of nominals which raised the expressivity ante unnecessarily
18:03:15 <bijan> ACTION-129
18:03:15 <bijan> open
18:03:15 <bijan> Come up with proposals for ISSUE-67 and ISSUE-81.
18:03:27 <uli> Ian: we had a proposal at the F2F
18:03:31 <IanH> q?
18:03:39 <uli> alanr: we need to wait for Bijan for this as well
18:03:46 <uli> Topic: Issue 9
18:03:49 <bijan> The point was that we didn't have agreement on *any* proposal,s o I have action to enumerate and compare them
18:04:11 <uli> IanH: this should be easy/resolvable
18:04:41 <uli> IanH: the statement/worry this issue refers to is no longer in the document
18:04:48 <JeremyCarroll> I am happy
18:04:52 <uli> RESOLVED: Issue 9
18:04:58 <alanr> moot
18:05:02 <uli> Topic: Issue 60
18:05:11 <alanr> also not culturally universal :)
18:05:20 <Ivan> +1
18:05:21 <alanr> +1
18:05:22 <JeremyCarroll> happy families certainly aren't culturally universal :(
18:05:22 <bijan> We replaced wine with a sterotypical, imperialistic, western 50's style family
18:05:24 <baojie> +1
18:05:24 <uli> IanH: this is no longer an issue since no more wine in primer
18:05:25 <diego> +1
18:05:29 <Rinke> +1 very eager
18:05:40 <bijan> Every happy family is the same. Every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.
18:05:42 <IanH> PROPOSAL: close issues 9 and 60 as moot
18:05:42 <bijan> +1
18:05:43 <pfps> +1 to moot 9 and 60
18:05:46 <JeremyCarroll> +1
18:05:48 <uli> +1
18:05:49 <ewallace> +1
18:05:53 <Carsten> +1
18:05:55 <MarkusK> +1
18:05:56 <msmith> +1
18:06:02 <Ivan> +1
18:06:02 <JeremyCarroll> so at least unhappy families are interesting
18:06:12 <bijan> So says tolstoy
18:06:15 <IanH> RESOLVED: : close issues 9 and 60 as moot
18:06:37 <uli> Topic: Other Issue Discussions
18:06:49 <m_schnei> if we have time, we should consider talking about f2f3
18:06:59 <uli> IanH: these issues  have been with us for a while
18:07:05 <bijan> How about without the static!
18:07:12 <Carsten> not understandable
18:07:37 <bijan> Much better!
18:08:44 <uli> JeremyCarroll: the language tag issue arose from some prior work. When dealing with natural language literals in OWL, we cannot talk about these things 
18:08:55 <IanH> Q?
18:09:07 <Carsten> have to leave, sorry; bye
18:09:10 <Zakim> -Carsten
18:09:30 <uli> JeremyCarroll: I would like to add some primitives: language tags and language range 
18:09:30 <m_schnei> q+
18:09:44 <alanr> fwiw, I have recently wanted this in some ontology development
18:09:51 <alanr> q+ to say why
18:09:54 <bijan> If we had XML schema lists, couldn't we handle this?
18:10:01 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
18:10:01 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:10:03 <uli> JeremyCarroll: it would be similar as the literal handling for XSD derived types
18:10:03 <bijan> Add a bit of syntactic sugar for langed literals
18:10:11 <IanH> q?
18:10:16 <IanH> ack m_schnei
18:10:17 <bijan> q+
18:10:21 <pfps> q+
18:10:32 <uli> m_schnei: dislikes this because it is domain-specific knowledge 
18:10:39 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
18:10:39 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
18:10:43 <JeremyCarroll> q+ to respond
18:11:16 <uli> alanr: the use case is to distinguish bar-codes from comments
18:11:20 <pfps> q-
18:11:22 <m_schnei> I dislike it in RDF, too
18:11:32 <IanH> ack alanr
18:11:32 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to say why
18:11:45 <IanH> ack JeremyCarroll
18:11:45 <Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to respond
18:11:50 <IanH> q?
18:11:57 <uli> JeremyCarroll: it's not domain specific knowledge - it is to relate a language-specific tag to its language
18:12:25 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:12:25 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
18:12:33 <IanH> q?
18:12:38 <uli> bijan: agrees that this is not domain knowledge
18:12:40 <IanH> ack bijan
18:13:09 <uli> bijan: it's a xsd datatype, and this is a sensible proposal to use it 
18:13:11 <IanH> q?
18:13:18 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:13:18 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:13:21 <m_schnei> ok, then I will wait for a concrete proposal,
18:13:25 <JeremyCarroll> q+
18:13:29 <bijan> I'd happily work on one with jeremy
18:13:32 <uli> IanH: could somebody to come up with a proposal
18:13:43 <IanH> ack JeremyCarroll
18:13:51 <m_schnei> might well be that I misunderstood this issue
18:13:54 <uli> JeremyCarroll: I can go back to my previous work and come up with one
18:14:05 <bijan> jeremy: see my scratch proposal above
18:14:26 <uli> ACTION: JeremyCarroll to come up with a proposal to issue 71
18:14:26 <trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - JeremyCarroll
18:14:52 <uli> Topic: Issue 71
18:14:57 <pfps> q+
18:15:02 <msmith> ISSUE-16 discussion at f2f2 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F2_Minutes#Issue_16_entity_annotations
18:15:06 <uli> ACTION: Jeremy to come up with a proposal to issue 71
18:15:06 <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-138 - Come up with a proposal to issue 71 [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2008-04-23].
18:15:10 <msmith> ACTION: jjc to  drive this issue forward to resolutio
18:15:10 <trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - jjc
18:15:26 <msmith> sorry, that was me quoting, not assigning new action
18:15:45 <pfps> q-
18:15:59 <m_schnei> didn't peter and boris had proposals for this?
18:16:00 <uli> IanH: there was an action generated at the F2F2 on Jeremy, but this was clearly to short a time for this
18:16:13 <m_schnei> q+
18:16:15 <ewallace> Hurray!
18:16:16 <bijan> easykeys!
18:16:16 <uli> IanH: end of agenda
18:16:18 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
18:16:18 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:16:24 <IanH> q?
18:16:27 <uli> m_schnei:
18:16:34 <pfps> q+
18:16:41 <uli> ...we have missed F2F3 meeting on this agenda
18:16:51 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
18:16:51 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
18:17:00 <uli> IanH: disagrees - we have agreed that Sandro will put a poll out
18:17:02 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
18:17:02 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:17:20 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
18:17:20 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
18:17:45 <uli> IanH: would people be willing to discuss easykeys?
18:17:55 <pfps> q+ to ask about Monday meeting for imports task force
18:17:56 <bijan> Boris actually
18:18:03 <uli> alanr: Peter and Bernardo wanted the more careful semantics
18:18:08 <m_schnei> q-
18:18:16 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
18:18:16 <Zakim> m_schnei was already muted, m_schnei
18:18:22 <m_schnei> q-
18:18:45 <IanH> ack pfps
18:18:45 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask about Monday meeting for imports task force
18:18:51 <uli> pfps: will we have an imports TF on monday?
18:18:59 <bijan> That's fine
18:19:10 <bijan> The proposal is more fleshed out...please reveiw
18:19:35 <uli> alanr: we discussed having an imports TF on monday
18:19:39 <IanH> q?
18:19:56 <uli> alanr: has spent some time looking at XML catalogue
18:20:13 <uli> alanr: we could meet and discuss Peter's proposal
18:20:19 <pfps> q+
18:20:35 <uli> alanr: would think that it would be more productive to not have a meeting next week
18:20:40 <IanH> q?
18:20:49 <pfps> q-
18:21:13 <IanH> q?
18:21:19 <uli> alanr: we can put it Peter's proposal and discuss it in the WG
18:21:32 <uli> ???
18:21:46 <IanH> q?
18:21:47 <uli> s/it/in 
18:22:12 <uli> pfps: I cannot put in my proposal because Boris has a lock currently
18:22:13 <IanH> q?
18:22:37 <uli> alanr: why don't we meet for 10min and see where we are at
18:22:44 <IanH> q?
18:22:50 <uli> IanH: suggests to have Boris there as well
18:22:55 <JeremyCarroll> +1 to adjourn
18:22:59 <uli> IanH: anything else?
18:23:00 <IanH> +1
18:23:13 <alanr> claps for Ian!
18:23:15 <Rinke> thanks
18:23:17 <alanr> bye
18:23:19 <Zakim> -JeremyCarroll
18:23:20 <Zakim> -bijan
18:23:20 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
18:23:21 <Zakim> -msmith
18:23:21 <Zakim> -Achille
18:23:21 <Ratnesh> bye
18:23:22 <diego> bye
18:23:22 <Zakim> -Sandro
18:23:23 <MarkusK> bye
18:23:23 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
18:23:23 <Ivan> regrets for next week, I am in Beijing...
18:23:24 <Zakim> -ChristineG
18:23:25 <Rinke> bye 
18:23:26 <Zakim> -Ratnesh
18:23:26 <uli> IanH: wew have resolved many issues and deserve and early evening
18:23:28 <Zakim> -Alan
18:23:28 <MarkusK> MarkusK has left #owl
18:23:30 <Zakim> -diegoc
18:23:31 <JeremyCarroll> last week was quicker
18:23:32 <Zakim> -IanH
18:23:34 <Zakim> -Rinke
18:23:36 <Zakim> -MarkusK
18:23:40 <Zakim> -Ivan
18:23:41 <Zakim> -baojie
18:23:43 <Zakim> -m_schnei
18:23:44 <Zakim> SW_OWL()12:00PM has ended
18:23:46 <Zakim> Attendees were bijan, IanH, uli, +31.20.525.aaaa, Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, Rinke, Sandro, Evan_Wallace, MartinD, Ivan, baojie, m_schnei, diegoc, Ratnesh, MarkusK, Achille,
18:23:46 <IanH> but we didn't resolve any issues last week!
18:23:49 <Zakim> ... JeremyCarroll, ChristineG, +49.351.463.3.aabb, Alan, Carsten
18:24:46 <JeremyCarroll> JeremyCarroll has left #owl
18:24:54 <IanH> I hope so -- Sandro?
18:25:05 <IanH> Anyone technically competent?
18:25:26 <IanH> Let me see if I can figure it out.
18:25:29 <uli> ...Sandro is still here
18:25:52 <msmith> msmith has left #owl
18:25:53 <IanH> Sandro is omnipresent, but perhaps only in spirit
18:26:47 <IanH> RRSAgent, make record public
18:27:02 <uli> wow - I am impressed, Ian!
18:27:23 <uli> I guess this is it?
18:27:26 <IanH> but now I am in a twisty maze of passages all the same :-(
18:27:40 <IanH> I hope that is it -- not completely sure.
18:28:05 <IanH> Anyway, you get on your way and I will take care of it
18:28:08 <IanH> Thanks!
18:29:19 <uli> see you!
18:31:52 <IanH> RRSAgent, generate minutes
18:31:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/16-owl-minutes.html IanH
18:33:02 <calvanese> calvanese has joined #owl
18:33:27 <IanH> RRSAgent, make record public
18:35:17 <calvanese> calvanese has left #owl