See also: IRC log
<IanH> I think that all this stuff was written by fans of "adventure" games
<IanH> Well, all this "open agent using tripod" stuff is very reminiscent...
<IanH> Not to mention the "you didn't end that question with a question mark" stuff
<IanH> Although that reminds me more of the hitchhiker's guide
<m_schnei> I never made it out of the heart of gold - after having collected 3/4 of all points :)
<m_schnei> here, a simple "slash exit" suffices ;-)
<sandro> trackbot-ng, start meeting
<trackbot-ng> Date: 16 April 2008
<bijan> � Ratnesh Sahay
<bijan> � Deborah McGuinness scribed 2007-12-06
<bijan> � Giorgos Stoilos scribed 2007-12-06
<bijan> � Jeff Pan scribed 2007-12-07
<bijan> � Martin Dzbor scribed 2008-01-16
<bijan> � Doug Lenat scribed 2008-01-23
<bijan> � Carsten Lutz scribed 2008-02-06
<Ivan> ????????
ok - I will scribe
<bijan> scribenick: uli
thanks, Bijan
<jeremy_> yes there is another jeremy ... in the html group
<jeremy_> shall I try JeremyCarroll
<JeremyCarroll> ack
scribe: there is also ??P37
<sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/
IanH: public working draft from
RIF on OWL compatibility is out
... we should look at section 3 of this and comment
<JeremyCarroll> I believe I will need to review this for HP, so will also volunteer to do a WG review
Ian: any volunteers?
<pfps> can we comment on a document that we helped author?
<JeremyCarroll> yes
<sandro> ACTION: JeremyCarroll to review http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/16-owl-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - JeremyCarroll
<sandro> ACTION: Jeremy to review http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/16-owl-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-136 - to review http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/ [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2008-04-23].
<bijan> I am the liason
<bijan> But not in the task force
<JeremyCarroll> (formally I am in RIF, but I am an absent second)
<bijan> Uli and peter have discussed the compat doc and Uli is planning to look at it even more.
IanH: Uli and Peter will look at this anyway, so the action on Jeremy might be enough
JeremyCarroll: has heard back from Bristol coordinator
Sandro: will send out pointers to poll shortly
Alanr: they have been taken, and I am waiting for Evan to put it on the meeting page
<pfps> F2F2 minutes are minimally acceptable - Bernardo is not correctly listed as scribe, some tidying could be done
IanH: any comments? I did some tidying
AlanR: they could use some more cleaning up
<Rinke> I thought they looked rather good, overall. We've accepted minutes that weren't as tidy by far
IanH: suggest that we approve, but ask scribes to take 10min to fix up
PROPOSED: accept F2F minutes
<IanH> PROPOSED: Accept F2F2 Minutes
<IanH> +1
+1
<Rinke> +1
<alanr> +1
<ewallace> second
<pfps> +1 to accept F2F2 minutes
<baojie> +1
<msmith> +1
<ewallace> +1
<Carsten> +1
<bijan> +1
<diego> +1
<Ivan> 0
<IanH> RESOLVED: PROPOSED: Accept F2F2 Minutes
<IanH> RESOLVED: Accept F2F2 Minutes
<Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to speak on last weeks minutes
JeremyCarroll: last week's minutes have only been cleaned up recently, so perhaps we shouldn't vote on them today
<pfps> 4/16 minutes were minimally acceptable even before Jeremy's tidying
IanH: I have tidyed them up already
PROPOSED: accept April 9 minutes
<Rinke> +1
<IanH> +1
<msmith> +1
+1
<diego> +1
<pfps> +1 to 4/9 minutes
<bijan> +1
<baojie> =1
<baojie> +1
RESOLUTION: accept April 9 minutes
JeremyCarroll: I haven't completed it yet, but 86 and 90 are now redundant
AlanR: doesn't know what the status is since Jim has left the group
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask about action 100
pfps: Jim has left and has never done anything regarding n3 rules
<pfps> 102 was done
IanH: I suggest to kill this one and see whether anybody will ever raise a similar one
<JeremyCarroll> +1
<alanr> n3 is at http://www.w3.org/mid/6481386B-0C20-457C-871A-8BF9BB86B5F9@cs.rpi.edu
m_schnei: should be closed if Peter is happy
<alanr> as attachment
<m_schnei> 102 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0206.html
pfps: the issue has been appropriately put to death
IanH: Boris says he has done it
pfps: 115 is done, but not
documented correctly
... later/second changes of Boris needs to be documented
<JeremyCarroll> I don't think more documentation is needed ...
IanH: can you do this, Boris?
<IanH> ack 115
<Carsten> boris is not here, is he?
<bijan> I didn't understand jeremy
<Ivan> alanr: the mail you refer to does not contain the full OWL-R n3, only a part of it
<bijan> I.e., garbled voice
??? help the scribe, Jeremy
<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
<bijan> One provides a diff?
<m_schnei> +1 to postpone
<JeremyCarroll> I said: that at and after last call such detailed tracking is needed
<pfps> 116 is OK
<JeremyCarroll> Peter disagreed
IanH: this was uncontroversial?!
<JeremyCarroll> yes
IanH: done by Jeremy
<bijan> Done
<bijan> Also done
<bijan> I just attached text and links to the action items
IanH: is done as well
<bijan> Tomorrow
Sandro: will do this in a couple of weeks
<bijan> I would write test cases
IanH: isn't top priority, but would like to see them in the not too far future
<pfps> various stuff could easily give rise to test cases - one reason they are not being generated is that there is no mechanism
bijan: it would help some of my actions if we had test cases
<bijan> Even an incomplete version woudl be fine
<bijan> Yes
IanH: asks Sandro to help us see test cases
<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.)
Evan: will re-schedule
IanH: believes that this occurred
<bijan> See text in the primer on this (120)
Sandro: is done
<bijan> She did it
<ewallace> Done
<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."
IanH: believes this is work in progress and working on it
IanH: will be done soon
<m_schnei> what about F2F3?
IanH: for each, we will have a short initial discussion to see whether we will open them
pfps: it's not an issue, just a comment
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to talk about 110
alar: perhaps the issue is that somebody else trying to use CURIEs has some problems
pfps: this should be made clear
IanH: ... agrees: we have many issues
bijan: it would be nice if we could signal, for an rdf graph, under what semantics this document is intended to be used
<m_schnei> +1 to have some ontology property
<Carsten> would they be allowed or forced to specify that?
<bijan> Carten, I imagine just allowing htem
<Carsten> allowing is fine, IMHO
Sandro: agrees that we should have something like this
JeremyCarroll: remembers that this was already discussed in web-ont
<Rinke> And if the flag is incorrect?
<bijan> It can't be incorrect
<bijan> Issue 111
<alanr> ACTION: Jeremy to look up discussion of issue 111 in previous webont [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/16-owl-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-137 - Look up discussion of issue 111 in previous webont [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2008-04-23].
<bijan> Except in how anything can be incorrect (i.e., I get my intent wrong)
it's uncontroversial from a semantic point of view, but we should find a good name for this universal property
MarkusK: it's uncontroversial from a semantic point of view, but we should find a good name for this universal property
IanH: top-role is not really syntactic sugar as top-thing
<alanr> uli: didn't you say something about this being pseudo top role?
MarkusK: for SROIQ, it sort of is
Carsten: agrees that it can easily be reduced out, but it is not really syntactic sugar
<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> :)
<alanr> call it "yente"
JeremyCarroll: warns cautiously against new vocabulary if it isn't really used
<alanr> skos:relatedTransitive ;-)
bijan: finds top and bottom role
really useful from a tool developers' perspective
... and it would be useful for interaction with users
<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?
MarkusK: universal role might really add expressivity to the profiles
<alanr> this was from f2f, no?
<IanH> yes
<pfps> F2F2: RESOLVED: DL does not have certain OWL Full entailments. OWL-R
<pfps> does not have certain OWL Full entailments. Vendors can
<pfps> implement other/related languages if they want.
<bijan> Didn't we make a choice?
JeremyCarroll: is an OWL-R reasoner allowed to infer OWL-Full entailments that are not OWL-R entailments?
<alanr> was a raised so that it could be pointed to in the documentation
pfps: this was resolved at the F2F
<alanr> so accept/resolve
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to 113
<bijan> Shouldn't it be an action then, instead of an issue?
m_schnei: if you allow a reasoner to make additional entailments, then you have non-sound reasoning
<pfps> what would the action be to do?
<alanr> if it wasn't an issue, presumably it wouldn't have made it in as editor note? Makes sense though
m_schnei: because they can produce conflicts
<alanr> ACTION: document it [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/16-owl-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - document
<Carsten> seems related to the "signalling semantics" issue raised by bijan
<pfps> the resolution was after the issue was raised
JeremyCarroll: suggest to defer to next week to see what happened at the F2F regarding 113
<alanr> good question
MichaelSchneider: which of the different punnings do we want/not want
<pfps> +1 to bijan
<alanr> Seems sensible to me.
bijan: doesn't understand the issue there - it's not precise as it is
<MarkusK> +1 to bijan that we should discuss concrete punning cases directly
IanH: agrees
bijan: we have ruled out 1 form of punning because we had good reasons to do so -- all others are still there
<bijan> There is a general argumetn for punning
alanr: it seems sensible to me to look through remaining punning and see whether they are useful
JeremyCarroll: MichaelSchneider and me could look into this in the FullTF
<m_schnei> there is *no* problem with OWL Full wrt Punning!
<JeremyCarroll> but there might be divergence ...
<alanr> favicon
Rinke has a nice OWL2 picture!
<alanr> not an issue for publications
alanr: 2 different questions: whether we want an icon always and in all browser
Sandro: not high priority, but fixable
<JeremyCarroll> +1 to fixing link checker problem
Ivan: OWL-R-Full is currently not having some axiomatic triples: we need to see whether we want them or not
pfps: this has been decided
through the semantics
... your first triple follows from the Full semantics, so it
should be there
IanH: so this means that there is a bug in the OWL-R-Full rule set
m_schnei: for the mentioned one,
it should be there - but the question is whether there should
be more..
... all rules from the RDFS spec should also go into the
OWL-R-FUll rules, for the other ones, this has to be
decided
<bijan> The axiomatic triples don't seem to be part of the RDFS entailment rules
<bijan> See: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#rules
JeremyCarroll: I accept that we need to take Ivan's question and work on the rules/document
<bijan> (so we're no worse off than the RDF semantics rec)
<Carsten> si
<alanr> +1
<pfps> mute DLP
IanH: this is mute
<bijan> +1
<MarkusK> +1
+1
<Ivan> bijan: there are a bunch of triples at the beginning of section 4.1 of that document
<alanr> moot
<Carsten> same for 77, 80
<bijan> Can we resolve all three with one proposal?
PROPOSAL: resolve issue 76, 77, 80
<bijan> 76, 77, 80
<msmith> 80 is a bit different, since DL-Lite is still there
<alanr> agree
PROPOSAL: resolve issue 76, 77
<IanH> PROPOSAL: resolve issue 76, 77 as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Apr/0165.html
<bijan> +1
<pfps> +1 to mute 76, 77
<Rinke> +1
<JeremyCarroll> +1
<Carsten> +1
<msmith> +1
<ewallace> +1
<alanr> +1
<IanH> +1
<MarkusK> +1
<diego> +1
<baojie> +1
IanH: because issue 76 and 77 relate to no-longer existent fragments
+1
<m_schnei> bijan, the RDFS axiomatic triples *are* belonging to the semantic conditions, and *also* to the entailment rules
<IanH> RESOLVED: resolve issue 76, 77 as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Apr/0165.html
IanH: we had to decide which flavour of DL-lite to have as a profile
<Carsten> This is ongoing work, but I don't think we need an issue for this
alanr: likes to keep issue since it is an ongoing work
<msmith> +! to bijan, carsten. this issue is too broad to know when to close it.
<pfps> +1 to bijan
bijan: would prefer to resolve it because this is the same as with all other works/documents in progress
<JeremyCarroll> +1 to bijan
<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.
<IanH> PROPOSED: close issue-80 as moot
<pfps> +1 to mute 80
<ewallace> +1
+1
<IanH> +1
<Carsten> +1
<alanr> 0
<msmith> +1
<JeremyCarroll> +1
<sandro> +1
<diego> +1
<Ratnesh> +1
<Rinke> +1
<MarkusK> +1
<IanH> RESOLVED: close issue-80 as moot
IanH: reification in axiom annotation
<bijan> Thanks michael...I my search didn't find it
<pfps> proposal is from Alan
<bijan> I have an action on this topic
<bijan> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/actions/129
bijan: I have an action related to this, so we cannot resolve it before I have done this action
JeremyCarroll: at the F2F, alanr said that annotation and reification both are semantically difficult
<alanr> we were going to wait for Bijan
<Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to speak against closing this issue, but OK with next
JeremyCarroll: is anxious regarding this issue, especially with negative property assertions
<bijan> I'm supposed to compare it to other proposals
<bijan> Isn't it silly to discuss this when I have an action to come up with stuff?
pfps: there is a proposal on the table
<JeremyCarroll> on neg prop assertions at f2f some people spoke against alan's proposal, and I found arguments compelling
<m_schnei> +1 to wait for bijan
<bijan> This is why I have *my action*(
<JeremyCarroll> I didn't feel my coutnerarguments were as strong
<Ivan> +1 to wait for bijan
<diego> +1 to wait for bijan
<pfps> ha ha ha
IanH: let's move on to an issue we can resolve
<bijan> This is part of my ACTION:)
<alanr> re: neg prop, best argument against was introduction of nominals which raised the expressivity ante unnecessarily
<bijan> ACTION-129
<bijan> open
<bijan> Come up with proposals for ISSUE-67 and ISSUE-81.
Ian: we had a proposal at the F2F
alanr: we need to wait for Bijan for this as well
<bijan> The point was that we didn't have agreement on *any* proposal,s o I have action to enumerate and compare them
IanH: this should be
easy/resolvable
... the statement/worry this issue refers to is no longer in
the document
<JeremyCarroll> I am happy
RESOLUTION: Issue 9
<alanr> moot
<alanr> also not culturally universal :)
<Ivan> +1
<alanr> +1
<JeremyCarroll> happy families certainly aren't culturally universal :(
<bijan> We replaced wine with a sterotypical, imperialistic, western 50's style family
<baojie> +1
IanH: this is no longer an issue since no more wine in primer
<diego> +1
<Rinke> +1 very eager
<bijan> Every happy family is the same. Every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.
<IanH> PROPOSAL: close issues 9 and 60 as moot
<bijan> +1
<pfps> +1 to moot 9 and 60
<JeremyCarroll> +1
+1
<ewallace> +1
<Carsten> +1
<MarkusK> +1
<msmith> +1
<Ivan> +1
<JeremyCarroll> so at least unhappy families are interesting
<bijan> So says tolstoy
<IanH> RESOLVED: : close issues 9 and 60 as moot
<m_schnei> if we have time, we should consider talking about f2f3
IanH: these issues have been with us for a while
<bijan> How about without the static!
<Carsten> not understandable
<bijan> Much better!
JeremyCarroll: the language tag issue arose from some prior work. When dealing with natural language literals in OWL, we cannot talk about these things
<Carsten> have to leave, sorry; bye
JeremyCarroll: I would like to add some primitives: language tags and language range
<alanr> fwiw, I have recently wanted this in some ontology development
<bijan> If we had XML schema lists, couldn't we handle this?
JeremyCarroll: it would be similar as the literal handling for XSD derived types
<bijan> Add a bit of syntactic sugar for langed literals
m_schnei: dislikes this because it is domain-specific knowledge
alanr: the use case is to distinguish bar-codes from comments
<m_schnei> I dislike it in RDF, too
<Zakim> alanr, you wanted to say why
<Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to respond
JeremyCarroll: it's not domain specific knowledge - it is to relate a language-specific tag to its language
bijan: agrees that this is not
domain knowledge
... it's a xsd datatype, and this is a sensible proposal to use
it
<m_schnei> ok, then I will wait for a concrete proposal,
<bijan> I'd happily work on one with jeremy
IanH: could somebody to come up with a proposal
<m_schnei> might well be that I misunderstood this issue
JeremyCarroll: I can go back to my previous work and come up with one
<bijan> jeremy: see my scratch proposal above
<scribe> ACTION: JeremyCarroll to come up with a proposal to issue 71 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/16-owl-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - JeremyCarroll
<msmith> ISSUE-16 discussion at f2f2 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F2_Minutes#Issue_16_entity_annotations
<scribe> ACTION: Jeremy to come up with a proposal to issue 71 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/16-owl-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-138 - Come up with a proposal to issue 71 [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2008-04-23].
<msmith> ACTION: jjc to drive this issue forward to resolutio [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/16-owl-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - jjc
<msmith> sorry, that was me quoting, not assigning new action
<m_schnei> didn't peter and boris had proposals for this?
IanH: there was an action generated at the F2F2 on Jeremy, but this was clearly to short a time for this
<ewallace> Hurray!
<bijan> easykeys!
IanH: end of agenda
m_schnei: ... we have missed F2F3 meeting on this agenda
IanH: disagrees - we have agreed
that Sandro will put a poll out
... would people be willing to discuss easykeys?
<bijan> Boris actually
alanr: Peter and Bernardo wanted the more careful semantics
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask about Monday meeting for imports task force
pfps: will we have an imports TF on monday?
<bijan> That's fine
<bijan> The proposal is more fleshed out...please reveiw
alanr: we discussed having an
imports TF on monday
... has spent some time looking at XML catalogue
... we could meet and discuss Peter's proposal
... would think that it would be more productive to not have a
meeting next week
... we can put it Peter's proposal and discuss in in the WG
???
pfps: I cannot put in my proposal because Boris has a lock currently
alanr: why don't we meet for 10min and see where we are at
IanH: suggests to have Boris there as well
<JeremyCarroll> +1 to adjourn
IanH: anything else?
<IanH> +1
<alanr> claps for Ian!
<Rinke> thanks
<alanr> bye
<Ratnesh> bye
<diego> bye
<MarkusK> bye
<Ivan> regrets for next week, I am in Beijing...
<Rinke> bye
IanH: wew have resolved many issues and deserve and early evening
<JeremyCarroll> last week was quicker
<IanH> but we didn't resolve any issues last week!
<IanH> I hope so -- Sandro?
<IanH> Anyone technically competent?
<IanH> Let me see if I can figure it out.
IanH: Sandro is still here
<IanH> Sandro is omnipresent, but perhaps only in spirit
wow - I am impressed, Ian!
I guess this is it?
<IanH> but now I am in a twisty maze of passages all the same :-(
<IanH> I hope that is it -- not completely sure.
<IanH> Anyway, you get on your way and I will take care of it
<IanH> Thanks!
see you!
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/exist/exit/ Succeeded: s/??/Boston/ Succeeded: s/and/an/ Succeeded: s/AlanR/Evan/ Succeeded: s/refer/defer/ Succeeded: s/JeremyCarroll/MichaelSchneider/ Succeeded: s/JeremyCarroll/m_schnei/ Succeeded: s/it/in/ Found ScribeNick: uli Inferring Scribes: uli Default Present: bijan, IanH, uli, +31.20.525.aaaa, Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, Rinke, Sandro, Evan_Wallace, MartinD, Ivan, baojie, m_schnei, diegoc, Ratnesh, MarkusK, Achille, JeremyCarroll, ChristineG, +49.351.463.3.aabb, Alan, Carsten Present: bijan IanH uli +31.20.525.aaaa Peter_Patel-Schneider msmith Rinke Sandro Evan_Wallace MartinD Ivan baojie m_schnei diegoc Ratnesh MarkusK Achille JeremyCarroll ChristineG +49.351.463.3.aabb Alan Carsten WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 16 Apr 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/04/16-owl-minutes.html People with action items: document jeremy jeremycarroll jjc[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]