See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: MartinD
<pfps> I got kicked off a minute ago, so try again
<pfps> not since I turned off my speakers :-)
zakimm, mute me
<alanr> markus, will you be able to scribe until end of call?
<sandro> IanH, I'm going to be a bit late to the meeting, sorry.
<bijan> I request tha nary-data predicates be put on the General Discussions list
<bijan> There is quite a worked out proposal: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/N-ary_Data_predicate_proposal
<ewallace> Agenda amendments: I have change the deadline for action 112 so this need not be discussed
<alanr> noted
<bijan> And there is an issue: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/5
<bijan> Great
<alanr> no
<MarkusK> alanr, I think so -- is there another scribe before me or am I the only one?
I am scribing.... no probs... things setup
alanr: we're starting
Alanr: F2F - we're settling 18-29 July at MIT
<alanr> 28-29
a/18/28
<IanH> Is it just me or has the line gone dead?
<diegoc> i hear just static
<alanr> static
<IanH> here too
<JeremyCarroll> liar
<ewallace> Sound like background noise
<alanr> mutes baojie
<IanH> better!
Alanr: F2F - we're settling 28-29 July at MIT
<Rinke> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/41712/f2f3_dates/results
alanr: topic on issues raised and
how handled
... talking to IanH and things are going to change how issues
are handled, raised,
... there was an email about first batch of issues to
review
alanr: four points - update on
RDF mapping (ISSUE 115)
... ISSUE 137, ISSUE 120, ISSUE 138
{Action|115} Update the RDF mapping with the accepted resolution of ISSUE-12 as per Peter's suggestion/Boris
PROPOSED: the above issues to be considered done
<bijan> My overdue acitions got siderailed by the easyclasskey discussion so remain undone
<bijan> Should be done in a few days
RESOLUTION: SSUE 137, ISSUE 120, ISSUE 138, ISSUE 115 done
<pfps> minimally acceptable - scribes should prefix their comments with their names
alanr: are minutes acceptable?
<uli> I will change my comments...
PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (16 April)
RESOLUTION: Accept Previous Minutes (16 April)
Action 115 (Update the RDF mapping with the accepted resolution of ISSUE-12 as per Peter's suggestion/Boris)
<bijan> Scroll up in the log
<bijan> bijan : My overdue acitions got siderailed by the easyclasskey discussion so remain undone
<bijan> bijan : Should be done in a few days
bijan: should be done in a few days
Jeremy: to review doc on OWL compatibility with RIF - prob. mid May
alanr: will be timed to 30
mins
... two raised issues 113 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/113)
... Open/Shut per Jeremy's note (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Apr/0198.html)
<JeremyCarroll> issue-113: I am OK with this (but still -epsilon vote!)
alanr: Issue 115 Icon needed for the WG pages.
<pfps> i'll remind him
alanr: minor change, not related
to OWL
... Issue 120 Bug fixes to OWL 1 Semantics/Backwards
compatibility
... considered editorial, already updated to reflect the
issue
... any further issues
... proposals to resolve issues
... {Issue|22} Syntactic sugar for a rule, per email
<JeremyCarroll> +1
alanr: we suggest to close it with no action
markusk: ok to close but there are some issues that may violate rules in the future, in theory problematic
alanr: does this affect spec?
markusk: if you want to express...
<Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to mention possibility of postponement
Jeremy: maybe we should postpone these issues to future WG-s?
Uli: agrees to close this
issue
... maybe consider this in the next extensions to OWL
<MarkusK> OK, I am fine with that.
uli: might not be right point to talk about this, also late?
alanr: non-structural constraints in the current work?
<alanr> closed: "no action" sort of postponed.
<Rinke> this email from Carsten just came in, http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.64.0804231914440.2230%2540frege.inf.tu-dresden.de
uli: some work can be done, but not really to change it all now
alanr: nothing to do on this now...
<ewallace> me too
PROPOSED: Consider ISSUE 22 formally postponed
<MarkusK> +1 to postpone
<uli> +1
<JeremyCarroll> +1
<alanr> +1
<bmotik> +1
+1
<Rinke> +1
<diegoc> +1
<IanH> +1
<msmith> +1
<bijan> +1
RESOLUTION: Consider ISSUE 22 formally postponed
alanr: some errors spotted in OWL
doc, since they are not worked on, we should close or postpone
this
... suggests postponing
<Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to further argue for postponement
JeremyCarroll: probably postpone is better
<ewallace> postpone is better
<bijan> None of the erros show up in OWL2 yes?
alanr: strawpoll on postpone vs. close
<JeremyCarroll> I will vote 0 but don't wish to argue further
<ewallace> postpone
<bmotik> Close
<pfps> close
<JeremyCarroll> 0 (neither postpone nor close)
<Rinke> close, I guess
<alanr> 0
<IanH> close
<uli> close
<diegoc> 0
<baojie> 0
0
<bijan> Close
<msmith> clsoe
alanr: let's close it then
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE 57
<JeremyCarroll> 0
<ewallace> 0
<JeremyCarroll> as moot
<JeremyCarroll> 0
<bmotik> +1
<alanr> +1
<ewallace> 0
<pfps> +1 to close
<uli> +1
<IanH> +1
<bijan> +1 to the moot
<Rinke> +1 close
PROPOSED: Issue 57 Errata in OWL 1.0 documents closed as moot (not relevant)
<msmith> +1 to close
<Elisa> 0
<diegoc> +1
<MarkusK> +1
RESOLUTION: Issue 57 Errata in OWL 1.0 documents closed as moot (not relevant)
alanr: what about namespaces? we keep old one, so OWL2 has the same namespace as the old one
bmotik: are we talking about RDF only or also about XML
alanr: only about RDF
<bijan> +super1
<alanr> PROPOSED Resolve Issue 57 by saying that new OWL 2 vocabulary goes in old OWL 1 namespace
<JeremyCarroll> 0 (there are differences of opinion in HP)
<bmotik> +100
<pfps> +1 to make owl2 be the same as owl :-)
<alanr> +1
<ewallace> 0
+1
<Rinke> 0
<baojie> 0
<IanH> +1
<diegoc> +1
<uli> +1
<bijan> +1
<Elisa> 0
<MarkusK> +1
<alanr> RESOLVED Resolve Issue 57 by saying that new OWL 2 vocabulary goes in old OWL 1 namespace
alanr: not sure if to accept this as a real issue
<JeremyCarroll> +1
alanr: should we close it completed
<alanr> PROPOSED Close Issue 63 as done.
<ewallace> +1
<alanr> +1
<pfps> +1 to agree that we're doing what we should
<Rinke> +1
<bmotik> +1
0
<msmith> +1 to close ISSUE-63
<MarkusK> +1
<diegoc> +1
<uli> +1
<IanH> +1
<Elisa> +1
<baojie> +1
<alanr> RESOLVED Close Issue 63 as done.
alanr: OWL full comprehension issue
<Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to ask peter about solipism
JeremyCarroll: to members of previous OWLWG, whether there is new evidence to reconsider comprehension principle?
pfps: relationship between DL and
Full needs rethink
... if comprehension principle goes away
alanr: what do we lose if we go the wway Jeremy proposed
JeremyCarroll: deleting all comprehension principles allows us to rethink all relations, practically that might not be valuable?
pfps: one can do a patch to keep
things the same,
... that might be adequate
<JeremyCarroll> Have I seen this patch?
alanr: action on Peter or Ian?
IanH: agrees with Peter, needs
convincing that we should completely revise OWL Full
semantics
... this might be close to "out of scope" w.r.t. our
charter
<bijan> I wouldn't mind a new owl full, whether we can agree on the new version is a different issue :)
alanr: someone should coordinate, sheperd the patching process
<IanH> OK
<scribe> ACTION: IanH to sheperd/coordinate the patching process (per ISSUE 119) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/23-owl-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - IanH
alanr: anyone willing to take this issue?
bijan: wants to say a thing on GRDDL
<IanH> ACTION: IanH to sheperd/coordinate the patching process (per ISSUE 119) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/23-owl-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - IanH
<JeremyCarroll> I think we need the XSLT!
<IanH> RSSAgent claims not to recognise me -- I will do it the old fashioned way!
bijan: this seems to be almost
editorial, depends on what level we are looking at
this...
... there might be issue with going only for XSLT
transformations
<JeremyCarroll> That's a real difference of opinion
<Rinke> Think I agree with bijan on this point, esp. since the syntax is still in flux
alanr: new information; why don't we ...
<Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to respond to Bijan
alanr: discuss it later when there are others like Ivan and Sandro
JeremyCarroll: we may get into maintenance problem; can clearly state that text is normative
bijan: with OWL API we already have pretty reliable implementation, no point in preferring one implementation or that it should be part of OWLWG deliverables
<ewallace> OWL API relation to OWL2 spec?
<bijan> OWL API tracks the OWL2 spec
alanr: my concern was satisfied with GRDDL; the main thing now is an easy, compatible translation
bijan: there was supposed to be spec and then possibly different implementations?
JeremyCarroll: GRDDL addresses
how to do transformation from XSLT 1
... that was recommended
<JeremyCarroll> That's cute!
alanr: there is a trick, if you want to create a transformation into a language, create a trivial XSLT that replaces the output with the translation... can be done
<bijan> As noted above, each GRDDL transformation specifies a transformation property, a function from XPath document nodes to RDF graphs. This function need not be total; it may have a domain smaller than all XML document nodes. For example, use of xsl:message with terminate="yes" may be used to signal that the input is outside the domain of the transformation.
<bijan> http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/#txforms
<scribe> ACTION: alanr to explore whether a simple transformation via XSLT would work in this case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/23-owl-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - alanr
<bijan> Jeremy, I don't read the GRDDL spec as you do, afaict
alanr: would be good to allow
users to signal, flag that ontology should be interpreted as
OWL1, etc.
... in the past MIME type was rejected
... Sandro put an initial email, any comments?
<IanH> Sorry, but I have to leave now.
bmotik: idea was good, we need to
include in the doc a switch to use given OWL semantics
... given RDF doc, we need to see under what OWL it is
interpreted (DL, Full,...)
<alanr> ACTION: alanr to show trick for how to *generate* an xslt to create a grddl transform [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/23-owl-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - alanr
bmotik: maybe we don't need a switch per profile
JeremyCarroll: correction - MIME wasn't rejected in principle, just because there was no time
alanr: from notes - this was not needed at the time
bijan: one problem with MIME -
tends not to work offline
... not robust enough
... for profiles - one reason for including is that people may
want to signal that a mixed ontology is interpreted in
appropriate way (say DL)
<bmotik> Agree with Bijan, but then we might use then a different switch
bijan: not necessary to disambiguate semantics, but good to flag if users want to emphasize
<Zakim> alanr, you wanted to ask about what to do about interaction between imports and conflicting user intent
<bijan> importing file wins
alanr: what happens when doing imports and there are different intents in diff files
sandro: mentioned in email, but
no good answer
... not sure anybody knows how to implement certain
combinations = may need to ban certain combinations?
alanr: in solving this issue, we need to discuss and know what is the behavior
JeremyCarroll: maybe we should
have no semantics involved here, just graph (?)
... to understand triples if we want to have just a graph, you
can't use RDF semantics, as graph has no semantics
<bijan> Ok, in case of incompatible profiles, then a warning to the user SHOULD be signaled and the user offered a choice of which semantics to use
alanr: kind of like intended semantics RDF entailment
<bijan> Rdf Abstract Syntax semantics, simple interpreation, rdf, rdfs...
<bijan> er...plus d entailment variants
alanr: specific suggestions from bijan, sandro, jeremy? discuss on email and come back with revised proposal
<sandro> Alan: Bijan, Jeremy, Sandro, Boris --- you four discuss over e-mail and bring back a revised proposal.
<bmotik> Please no, I'm swamped
<bijan> I can reply to sandro's email
<JeremyCarroll> [I am leaving early, sorry. On EasyKeys it would be good to have some Full semantics]
alanr: out of time...
<sandro> Alan: okay - let's let this lie for a few weeks.
<ewallace> top property discussion postponed?
<bijan> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Easy_Keys
<alanr> yes
<alanr> unless we have remaining time today
<bijan> Rdf mapping: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Easy_Keys#RDF_Mapping
uli: in the easy keys proposals
we described a few things more explicit
... semantics more explicit, explained why "easy", why this
would cause problems
<bmotik> Sorry, I had problems unmuting me
bijan: there is one raised, open issue - depends on what we do about key and b-nodes (?)... if variables can't do with easy keys
alanr: can you collect situations we are trying to accomplish here?
bijan: will be included on easy keys page
bmotik: spoke to uli and got explanations, so no more reservations left
alanr: we don't have achille and zhe - implementers and their position on this
bijan: the intent of easy keys was to make it easy for implementation; unless they start messing with datatypes
<ewallace> What is meant by mucking around with datatypes?
bijan: should work with anything that follows datalog rules
alanr: bijan can you add a note about the case you worry about or explain it
bijan: when you thing about dl-safe rules and datalog, you may not have some things (e.g. negation) in the right place, maybe boris, uli can tell more
<ewallace> OK Thanks, looking at that now
bijan: if you have finite datatypes you may have more work to do
<bijan> Jeremy left, didn't he?
alanr: Jeremy is also among implementers - any issues?
<alanr> zakime, who is here?
<bijan> JeremyCarroll : [I am leaving early, sorry. On EasyKeys it wo
<bijan> Zakim : -JeremyCarroll
<ewallace> Jeremy left
alanr: affirmative responses from
three implementers so that we can report on this
... action needed
<msmith> 3 /other/ implementers. bmotik and I both implement reasoners
<bijan> And me, Ian, and Peter
<bijan> (at least)
alanr: getting response from all implementers on the WG
<alanr> ACTION: alan will get responses from Achille,Zhe, Jeremy as implementors - review of Easy Keys proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/23-owl-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-140 - Will get responses from Achille,Zhe, Jeremy as implementors - review of Easy Keys proposal [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-04-30].
alanr: other comments on easy
keys or a straw poll?
... should we go ahead and have this feature added?
... strawpoll - are we ready to add this to spec
<pfps> +1 to proceed on EasyKeys
<sandro> NONBINDING-PROPOSED: add easykeys to spec
<baojie> +1
<sandro> +1
<msmith> +1 to easy keys, they will be added to Pellet
+1
<bijan> +1 to adding to spec
<uli> +1
<MarkusK> +1
<alanr> +1
<Rinke> +1
<diegoc> +1
<Elisa> +1
<ewallace> +1 to adding EasyKeys with usual qualifications
<bijan> (and fact++)
alanr: looks good, good work from
bijan and uli to have proposal in such a good shape
... back to issue l ist
... more discussion on any previous issues
alanr: Jeremy not here, anybody has opinions on this - should we be handling XML literals as well?
<pfps> -1 on XML literals
bijan: some variant on extending datatype language is fine, to do it somehow - may be useful
<alanr> Bijan asked my question
<alanr> also -1 to XML literals
bijan: XML literals are a bit dodgy - there is some form of inheritance... we should not support this, we don't support many other XML subtyping, because they are a hard problem
<pfps> .. and not well-formed
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to suggest a facet for this purpose
bijan: got for a middle ground
<bijan> +1 to a facet
pfps: suggests facets for this purpose
<bmotik> +1 to adding facets
pfps: you don't to impose syntax...
<bijan> A facet would be an easy add
alanr: will you write something for spec how this may look
pfps: response sent to jeremy, may contain enough info
<bijan> How about an action to add this to the spec?
alanr: jeremy was suggesting wildcarding? is that covered?
<alanr> en-*
alanr: e.g. EN* not necessarily, EN-GB EN-US
bijan: if we want this from
scratch, we can represent this using schema - string + values
(facets can go into string part)
... this is not a fundamentally difficult thing, just needs to
be in a neat way
... we should be able to search, cluster strings and in
principle it's about having pattern facets
<msmith> pattern facets are in the spec
alanr: what is the status of this right now?
<bijan> xsd:string, xsd:normalizedString, xsd:anyURI,
<bijan> xsd:token, xsd:language, xsd:NMTOKEN,
<bijan> xsd:Name, xsd:NCName,
<bijan> xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary
<bijan> length, minLength, maxLength, pattern
<bijan> Table 1
<bijan> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Datatype_Restrictions
alanr: will it be easier to use patterns? bijan, will spec ideas?
<bijan> am I offering...
<bijan> I guess
alanr: other comments?
<bijan> ACTION: Work out syntax for langed literals [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/23-owl-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - Work
<bijan> ACTION on bijan to work out syntax for langed literals
alanr: someone who understands "top" property to update us
uli: we were unsure how to call it, but for some reason we needed "bottom" role, there was some discussion on universality
<MarkusK> +1 to uli's summary
uli: reasoners can get away with faking this
alanr: bottom role - when debugging ontologies, one thing that came with unsatisfiable roles was that it could not have any values - could this be equivalent to a bottom role (e.g. maxCard 0)
uli: might be a way to fake
implementing bottom properties
... maybe this needs syntactic sugar to name this
alanr: would this add burden to reasoners?
<ewallace> yes please have name for both topProperty and bottomProperty if supported
uli: not really, reasoners can handle this
alanr: what the name should
be
... there are few possibilities, anybody?
uli: some in the email posted recently...
<ewallace> The issue lists: "universalProperty", "thingProperty", "relatesTo", "topProperty", "universal"
<alanr> toAll, toNone
<pfps> goodnight to All
<pfps> goodnight "toAll"
<alanr> relatesTo, doesNotRelateTo
uli: should mirror owl:thing
<MarkusK> +1 to uli "relates to" implies a meaning
uli: relatesTo implies meaning which it doesn't really have
<bijan> owl:TopProperty and owl:BottomProperty
<uli> +1 to bijan
<MarkusK> +1
<pfps> let's do Dr Seuss (Thing and Thing2)
<bijan> owl:BijanProperty and owl:JermeyProperty
alanr: the usual way to read properties is like a sentence - A topproperty B... sounds like relation between them
uli: topProperty should related every individual with every other individual
<bijan> owl:isRelatedVacuouslyTo
uli: "relatesTo" may be too ambiguous
<MarkusK> +1 to uli again: "topProperty" implies no *relevant* relation whatsoever
<pfps> there is the expectation that "relates to" has some domain implication
<bijan> owl:isNotRelatedAtAllNyahNyeahTo
alanr: no problems with
this
... strawpoll on adding top and bottom roles to OWL 2
<ewallace> +1 to add top and bottom roles to OWL2
<sandro> NONBINDING-PROPOSED: add "top" and "bottom" by some name, to OWL 2 ?
<MarkusK> +1
<Rinke> +1 to add them
<bijan> +1
<msmith> +1 to adding top and bottom roles
<alanr> +1
+1
<uli> +1
<sandro> +0 no clueif it's really useful
<pfps> +top
alanr: we have good sentiment
that this is worth adding, let's discuss the actual names on
email
... one last thing
<pfps> separate
alanr: where we are going on
whether there should be 1 or 2 OWL semantics documents...
... should there be one or separate
<uli> hurray!
alanr: adjourned
<ewallace> 5 minutes early!
<uli> bye!
<Elisa> bye
<MarkusK> bye
<Rinke> thanks, bye
<diegoc> bye
<alanr> sandro, you got the notes?
<alanr> minutes?
how to generate them
>
?
<alanr> sandro usuall handles
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/ACCEPTED/RESOLVED/ Found ScribeNick: MartinD Inferring Scribes: MartinD Default Present: Peter_Patel-Schneider Present: Peter_Patel-Schneider WARNING: Fewer than 3 people found for Present list! WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 23 Apr 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/04/23-owl-minutes.html People with action items: alan alanr ianh work WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]