IRC log of owl on 2008-04-16

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:41:09 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:41:09 [RRSAgent]
logging to
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]
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]
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]
16:55:14 [Zakim]
16:55:14 [Zakim]
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]
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]
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]
17:00:22 [Rinke]
zakim, aaaa is me
17:00:23 [Zakim]
+Rinke; got it
17:00:23 [Zakim]
17:00:30 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
17:00:31 [bijan]
scribenick: uli
17:00:34 [Zakim]
17:00:39 [uli]
thanks, Bijan
17:00:47 [Zakim]
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]
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]
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]
17:02:11 [baojie]
zakim, mute me
17:02:11 [Zakim]
baojie should now be muted
17:02:20 [Zakim]
17:02:38 [Zakim]
17:02:45 [Zakim]
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]
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]
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]
17:04:07 [Zakim]
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]
17:05:04 [JeremyCarroll]
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]
17:05:48 [Carsten]
zakim, aabb is me
17:05:48 [Zakim]
+Carsten; got it
17:05:51 [JeremyCarroll]
17:05:59 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:06:05 [JeremyCarroll]
q- ??P37
17:06:07 [bijan]
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]
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]
17:08:27 [sandro]
ACTION: JeremyCarroll to review
17:08:27 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - JeremyCarroll
17:08:33 [sandro]
ACTION: Jeremy to review
17:08:33 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-136 - to review [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]
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]
17:10:58 [IanH]
ack JeremyCaroll
17:11:00 [uli]
JeremyCarroll: has heard back from Bristol coordinator
17:11:07 [IanH]
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]
17:14:24 [uli]
17:14:26 [Rinke]
17:14:26 [alanr]
17:14:27 [ewallace]
17:14:28 [pfps]
+1 to accept F2F2 minutes
17:14:29 [baojie]
17:14:32 [msmith]
17:14:32 [ewallace]
17:14:33 [Carsten]
17:14:33 [bijan]
17:14:34 [diego]
17:14:35 [Ivan]
17:14:41 [IanH]
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]
17:16:12 [IanH]
17:16:13 [msmith]
17:16:15 [uli]
17:16:16 [diego]
17:16:17 [pfps]
+1 to 4/9 minutes
17:16:22 [bijan]
17:16:22 [baojie]
17:16:24 [baojie]
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]
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]
17:18:51 [uli]
pfps: Jim has left and has never done anything regarding n3 rules
17:19:09 [m_schnei]
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]
17:19:24 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
17:19:24 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:19:25 [IanH]
17:19:27 [uli]
Topic: Action 102
17:19:44 [alanr]
n3 is at
17:19:48 [uli]
m_schnei: should be closed if Peter is happy
17:20:01 [alanr]
as attachment
17:20:03 [m_schnei]
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]
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]
17:22:09 [IanH]
17:22:09 [uli]
IanH: can you do this, Boris?
17:22:14 [IanH]
ack 115
17:22:17 [IanH]
17:22:26 [Carsten]
boris is not here, is he?
17:22:33 [bijan]
I didn't understand jeremy
17:22:39 [pfps]
17:22:43 [IanH]
17:22:47 [pfps]
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]
17:24:20 [uli]
IanH: done by Jeremy
17:24:25 [uli]
Topic: Action 125
17:24:31 [bijan]
17:24:40 [uli]
Topic: Action 126
17:24:44 [bijan]
Also done
17:24:54 [uli]
Topic: Action 130
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]
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]
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]
17:27:46 [bijan]
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]
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]
17:29:30 [uli]
Topic: action 133
17:29:43 [bijan]
Alan: "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]
17:31:09 [uli]
Topic: Issue 110
17:31:22 [IanH]
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]
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]
17:32:16 [pfps]
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]
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]
17:33:59 [JeremyCarroll]
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]
17:35:45 [IanH]
17:35:59 [IanH]
ack MarkusK
17:36:02 [IanH]
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]
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]
17:36:42 [Carsten]
17:36:43 [bijan]
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]
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 <> :)
17:37:59 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:37:59 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
17:38:00 [MarkusK]
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]
17:38:42 [alanr]
skos:relatedTransitive ;-)
17:38:45 [m_schnei]
17:38:56 [uli]
bijan: finds top and bottom role really useful from a tool developers' perspective
17:38:58 [alanr]
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]
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]
17:40:08 [uli]
Topic: Issue 113
17:40:12 [alanr]
this was from f2f, no?
17:40:20 [IanH]
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]
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]
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]
17:41:13 [pfps]
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]
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]
17:42:49 [uli]
Topic: Issue 114
17:43:07 [bijan]
17:43:13 [JeremyCarroll]
17:43:13 [IanH]
17:43:21 [alanr]
good question
17:43:22 [pfps]
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]
17:43:49 [JeremyCarroll]
17:43:50 [uli]
17:43:55 [IanH]
17:43:55 [pfps]
+1 to bijan
17:43:57 [pfps]
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]
17:44:24 [uli]
IanH: agrees
17:44:33 [alanr]
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]
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]
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]
17:46:43 [IanH]
17:46:44 [uli]
Rinke has a nice OWL2 picture!
17:46:45 [alanr]
not an issue for publications
17:46:52 [IanH]
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]
17:48:21 [Zakim]
17:48:23 [IanH]
17:48:31 [MartinD]
MartinD has left #OWL
17:48:34 [m_schnei]
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]
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]
17:51:47 [IanH]
17:51:49 [bijan]
The axiomatic triples don't seem to be part of the RDFS entailment rules
17:51:59 [bijan]
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]
17:52:57 [alanr]
17:52:58 [pfps]
mute DLP
17:52:59 [uli]
IanH: this is mute
17:53:04 [bijan]
17:53:06 [MarkusK]
17:53:06 [uli]
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]
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]
17:54:13 [uli]
PROPOSAL: resolve issue 76, 77
17:54:25 [IanH]
PROPOSAL: resolve issue 76, 77 as per
17:54:34 [bijan]
17:54:36 [pfps]
+1 to mute 76, 77
17:54:37 [Rinke]
17:54:37 [JeremyCarroll]
17:54:38 [Carsten]
17:54:40 [msmith]
17:54:41 [ewallace]
17:54:41 [alanr]
17:54:42 [IanH]
17:54:43 [MarkusK]
17:54:44 [diego]
17:54:49 [baojie]
17:54:52 [uli]
IanH: because issue 76 and 77 relate to no-longer existent fragments
17:54:54 [uli]
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
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]
17:56:01 [IanH]
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]
17:57:23 [uli]
17:57:24 [IanH]
17:57:26 [Carsten]
17:57:26 [alanr]
17:57:28 [msmith]
17:57:30 [JeremyCarroll]
17:57:35 [sandro]
17:57:36 [diego]
17:57:39 [Ratnesh]
17:57:45 [Rinke]
17:57:47 [MarkusK]
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]
17:59:17 [IanH]
17:59:27 [pfps]
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]
18:01:08 [alanr]
we were going to wait for Bijan
18:01:11 [IanH]
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]
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]
18:03:15 [bijan]
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]
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]
18:04:58 [alanr]
18:05:02 [uli]
Topic: Issue 60
18:05:11 [alanr]
also not culturally universal :)
18:05:20 [Ivan]
18:05:21 [alanr]
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]
18:05:24 [uli]
IanH: this is no longer an issue since no more wine in primer
18:05:25 [diego]
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]
18:05:43 [pfps]
+1 to moot 9 and 60
18:05:46 [JeremyCarroll]
18:05:48 [uli]
18:05:49 [ewallace]
18:05:53 [Carsten]
18:05:55 [MarkusK]
18:05:56 [msmith]
18:06:02 [Ivan]
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]
18:09:07 [Carsten]
have to leave, sorry; bye
18:09:10 [Zakim]
18:09:30 [uli]
JeremyCarroll: I would like to add some primitives: language tags and language range
18:09:30 [m_schnei]
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]
18:10:16 [IanH]
ack m_schnei
18:10:17 [bijan]
18:10:21 [pfps]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
18:15:02 [msmith]
ISSUE-16 discussion at f2f2
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]
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]
18:16:15 [ewallace]
18:16:16 [bijan]
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]
18:16:27 [uli]
18:16:34 [pfps]
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]
18:18:16 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:18:16 [Zakim]
m_schnei was already muted, m_schnei
18:18:22 [m_schnei]
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]
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]
18:20:35 [uli]
alanr: would think that it would be more productive to not have a meeting next week
18:20:40 [IanH]
18:20:49 [pfps]
18:21:13 [IanH]
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]
18:21:47 [uli]
18:22:12 [uli]
pfps: I cannot put in my proposal because Boris has a lock currently
18:22:13 [IanH]
18:22:37 [uli]
alanr: why don't we meet for 10min and see where we are at
18:22:44 [IanH]
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]
18:23:13 [alanr]
claps for Ian!
18:23:15 [Rinke]
18:23:17 [alanr]
18:23:19 [Zakim]
18:23:20 [Zakim]
18:23:20 [Zakim]
18:23:21 [Zakim]
18:23:21 [Zakim]
18:23:21 [Ratnesh]
18:23:22 [diego]
18:23:22 [Zakim]
18:23:23 [MarkusK]
18:23:23 [Zakim]
18:23:23 [Ivan]
regrets for next week, I am in Beijing...
18:23:24 [Zakim]
18:23:25 [Rinke]
18:23:26 [Zakim]
18:23:26 [uli]
IanH: wew have resolved many issues and deserve and early evening
18:23:28 [Zakim]
18:23:28 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has left #owl
18:23:30 [Zakim]
18:23:31 [JeremyCarroll]
last week was quicker
18:23:32 [Zakim]
18:23:34 [Zakim]
18:23:36 [Zakim]
18:23:40 [Zakim]
18:23:41 [Zakim]
18:23:43 [Zakim]
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]
18:29:19 [uli]
see you!
18:31:52 [IanH]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
18:31:52 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate 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