16:56:26 RRSAgent has joined #owl 16:56:26 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-owl-irc 16:56:28 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:56:28 Zakim has joined #owl 16:56:30 Zakim, this will be OWLWG 16:56:30 ok, trackbot-ng; I see SW_OWL()12:00PM scheduled to start 56 minutes ago 16:56:31 Meeting: OWL Working Group Teleconference 16:56:31 Date: 07 May 2008 16:57:08 IanH has joined #owl 16:57:14 Rinke has joined #owl 16:57:20 MarkusK has joined #owl 16:57:27 pfps has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.05.07/Agenda 16:57:55 SW_OWL()12:00PM has now started 16:57:56 uli has joined #owl 16:57:56 +Peter_Patel-Schneider 16:57:57 jeremy_ has joined #owl 16:58:13 +Rinke 16:58:15 -Rinke 16:58:15 +Rinke 16:58:26 bcuencagrau has joined #owl 16:58:42 ScribeNick: Rinke 16:58:51 Ivan has joined #owl 16:59:09 +??P16 16:59:34 zakim, dial ivan-voip 16:59:34 ok, Ivan; the call is being made 16:59:35 +Ivan 16:59:38 +??P17 16:59:42 alanr has joined #owl 16:59:48 zakim, ??P17 is me 17:00:00 +uli; got it 17:00:13 +IanH 17:00:19 m_schnei has joined #owl 17:00:22 zakim, mute me 17:00:22 uli should now be muted 17:00:33 msmith has joined #owl 17:00:46 Achille has joined #owl 17:00:56 bmotik has joined #owl 17:01:04 +??P3 17:01:22 +??P9 17:01:27 +??P11 17:01:31 Zakim, ??P9 is me 17:01:31 +bcuencagrau; got it 17:01:36 +msmith 17:01:36 Zakim, ??P11 is me 17:01:37 +bmotik; got it 17:01:43 +[IBM] 17:01:45 zakim, ??P3 is me 17:01:45 +m_schnei; got it 17:01:49 Zakim, mute me 17:01:49 bcuencagrau should now be muted 17:01:54 Zakim, mute me 17:01:54 bmotik should now be muted 17:01:56 zakim, mute me 17:01:56 m_schnei should now be muted 17:01:58 Zakim, IBM is Achille 17:01:58 +Achille; got it 17:02:25 zakim, who is here? 17:02:25 On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Rinke, MarkusK, Ivan, uli (muted), IanH (muted), m_schnei (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), msmith, Achille 17:02:28 On IRC I see bmotik, Achille, msmith, m_schnei, alanr, Ivan, bcuencagrau, jeremy_, uli, MarkusK, Rinke, IanH, Zakim, RRSAgent, pfps, sandro, Carsten, trackbot-ng 17:02:32 +Alan 17:02:55 +Sandro 17:03:47 bijan has joined #owl 17:04:03 +??P18 17:04:05 zakim, mute anyone trying to assign me an action item 17:04:05 I don't understand you, sandro 17:04:15 zakim, ??p18 is me 17:04:15 +bijan; got it 17:04:29 zakim, mute me 17:04:29 bijan should now be muted 17:04:46 +[IPcaller] 17:05:10 Zakim, IPcaller is me 17:05:10 +JeremyCarroll; got it 17:05:15 zakim, who is here? 17:05:15 On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Rinke, MarkusK, Ivan, uli (muted), IanH (muted), m_schnei (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), msmith, Achille, Alan, Sandro, 17:05:18 ... bijan (muted), JeremyCarroll 17:05:19 On IRC I see bijan, bmotik, Achille, msmith, m_schnei, alanr, Ivan, bcuencagrau, JeremyCarroll, uli, MarkusK, Rinke, IanH, Zakim, RRSAgent, pfps, sandro, Carsten, trackbot-ng 17:05:24 topic: Admin 17:05:30 roll call 17:05:33 zakim, who is here? 17:05:33 On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Rinke, MarkusK, Ivan, uli (muted), IanH (muted), m_schnei (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), msmith, Achille, Alan, Sandro, 17:05:36 ewallace has joined #owl 17:05:37 ... bijan (muted), JeremyCarroll 17:05:38 On IRC I see bijan, bmotik, Achille, msmith, m_schnei, alanr, Ivan, bcuencagrau, JeremyCarroll, uli, MarkusK, Rinke, IanH, Zakim, RRSAgent, pfps, sandro, Carsten, trackbot-ng 17:05:51 alanr: any amendments? 17:06:11 what about the recent message sent out about next week? 17:06:35 +Evan_Wallace 17:06:56 that was it 17:07:18 alanr: next week's TC cancelled, no chairs, DL workshop 17:07:31 alanr: any objections? 17:07:48 presumably Zakim would be available 17:07:54 alanr: F2F3 in Boston on july 28 and 29 17:08:07 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F3_People 17:08:34 alanr: please put yourself on the list if you're planning to attend or not 17:08:51 pending review actions 17:09:06 previous minutes 17:09:15 alanr: needed some cleanup, heard from peter 17:09:17 baojie has joined #owl 17:09:19 I did some work on them 17:09:36 proposed: accept previous minutes 17:09:41 depends on whether jeremy is happy 17:10:12 RRSAgent, pointer? 17:10:12 See http://www.w3.org/2008/05/07-owl-irc#T17-10-12 17:10:15 +0 17:10:16 ~0 17:10:24 +1 17:10:24 +1 17:10:25 +1 17:10:25 +1 17:10:25 +1 17:10:26 +1 17:10:27 +1 to accept minutes 17:10:27 +1 17:10:33 +0 (wasn't present) 17:10:37 resolved: accept previous minutes 17:10:39 +0 17:10:39 0 17:10:58 alanr: if you weren't there you're actually a very good reviewer of the minutes: should be comprehensible 17:11:01 topic: pending review actions 17:11:12 action 131 17:11:28 alanr: implement decisions from the F2F2 for RDF mapping in particular 17:11:34 alanr: has obviously been done 17:12:04 alanr: solicit some reviewers to see whether this has been done (implementers, and someone involved in OWL Full) 17:12:07 zakim, unmute me 17:12:07 m_schnei should no longer be muted 17:12:16 alanr: Michael? would you be willing to review 17:12:29 m_schnei: well, hmm, ok, yes.. 17:12:43 alanr: have the potential to affect owl full 17:12:53 sandro: would it be helpful to create a colour-coded diff 17:12:59 Don't really bother with a diff: it will be useless. 17:13:07 m_schnei: differences are quite big 17:13:13 m_schnei: will simply read it 17:13:22 zakim, mute me 17:13:22 m_schnei should now be muted 17:13:28 alanr: Achille are you willing to take this on? 17:13:35 Achille: won't be able to do this in the next two weeks 17:13:45 alanr: that's no problem 17:14:02 alanr: do you want to do this, and if so before when would you be able to do this? 17:14:06 Achille: maybe end of may? 17:14:14 alanr: would be happy personally, if you're willing 17:14:18 Do we have publication goals? 17:14:59 +baojie 17:15:14 sandro: will action Achille and Michael 17:15:30 sandro: all documents? or parts? due date? 17:15:33 zakim, unmute me 17:15:33 m_schnei should no longer be muted 17:15:40 zakim, mute me 17:15:40 m_schnei should now be muted 17:15:47 ACTION: m_schnei to review the changes made as result of ACTION-131 due May 20 17:15:47 Sorry, couldn't find user - m_schnei 17:15:53 ACTION: schneider to review the changes made as result of ACTION-131 due May 20 17:15:53 Created ACTION-147 - Review the changes made as result of ACTION-131 due May 20 [on Michael Schneider - due 2008-05-14]. 17:16:02 ACTION: achille to review the changes made as result of ACTION-131 due May 30 17:16:02 Created ACTION-148 - Review the changes made as result of ACTION-131 due May 30 [on Achille Fokoue - due 2008-05-14]. 17:16:02 action 133 17:16:21 alanr: is actually related, and the review would include that action as well 17:16:33 alanr: if anyone disagrees that these actions aren't done, speak up 17:16:38 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Anonymous_Individuals 17:16:42 action 132 17:16:57 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Reification_Alternatives 17:17:20 action 129 17:17:21 zakim, unmute me 17:17:21 bijan should no longer be muted 17:17:40 alanr: you laid out the possible options, do you have any particular idea about this, bijan? 17:17:52 bijan: I didn't think that would be part of the action 17:18:31 alanr: what we should do at least is ask if people could respond to vent their ideas/opinions to the options listed by bijan 17:18:43 how to effect the request? 17:18:49 bijan: didn't feel like iterating all examples, if someone feels like adding examples, please do! 17:18:56 action 42 17:18:59 action 43 17:19:12 alanr: any update about this from jeremy, bijan, sandro? 17:19:19 I wait upon a solution 17:19:35 sandro: no progress, willing to work on this, can't get it to the top of my queue 17:20:04 alanr: if anyone has test cases, please add them to the wiki 17:20:08 zakim, mute me 17:20:08 bijan should now be muted 17:20:16 bijan: if anyone could point me to a preferred format for this 17:20:23 action 136 17:20:29 alanr: jeremy? 17:20:50 JeremyCarroll: don't know how much time is needed to discuss this, for next week is within the RIF timescale 17:20:55 alanr: no meeting next week 17:20:55 zakim, mute me 17:20:55 m_schnei was already muted, m_schnei 17:21:05 JeremyCarroll: any chance to fit 5 minutes in toda? 17:21:16 alanr: I'll put it in as the first issue 17:21:35 s/toda/today 17:21:43 remember to refresh :-) 17:21:56 action 142 17:22:01 Peter finished it before I could start 17:22:07 alanr: taken over by proposals from peter 17:22:13 alanr: let's close that 17:22:34 action 145 17:22:39 alanr: Jeremy? 17:22:42 JeremyCarroll: forgot this 17:22:45 action 146 17:22:49 JeremyCarroll: working on this 17:22:53 action 144 17:22:58 Carsten has joined #owl 17:23:16 JeremyCarroll: this one has slipped my mind, and I am unlikely to push this forward 17:23:30 alanr: does the current proposal satisfy our need in this area 17:24:37 action 143 17:24:37 q+ 17:24:43 alanr: didn't get to that 17:24:48 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Primer#OWL_1_Species 17:24:51 zakim, unmute me 17:24:51 bijan should no longer be muted 17:24:56 q? 17:25:00 bijan: one question about this last question 17:25:02 ack bijan 17:25:16 OWL Lite was intended to be similar to EL++, DL Lite, or OWL-R but there were several problems with its design, most notably that it was not significantly easier to implement nor more robustly scalable than OWL DL. Thus, there wasn't a huge performance (or tool) benefit to staying inside OWL Lite. OWL Lite also could express things that were in OWL DL but in very indirect ways that were very surprising. For example, while the "complementOf" construct was not part of 17:25:16 OWL Lite is a subset of OWL DL 2 and OWL Full 2 but is no longer a recommended profile. 17:25:19 bijan: I thought I sent this email, I already have some text about the old species. I just put a pointer to it 17:25:25 bijan: (in the primer) 17:25:37 alanr: thought was that the particular wording that jeremy had was quite nice 17:25:47 MartinD has joined #OWL 17:25:57 alanr: if you think you have covered it, communicate this to jeremy 17:26:06 zakim, mute me 17:26:06 bijan should now be muted 17:26:09 alanr: I'll put an editorial note to put in the text that he had 17:26:11 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008May/0028 17:26:20 topic: rif compatibility 17:26:36 JeremyCarroll: email linked from yesterday, mentioned a very few points. One point I forgot to put in the email 17:26:37 Scribe assist: Jeremy said: 118N guys don't know much about SW; rely on him to advise; he believes that they will be happy with our current position (dealing with literals) 17:26:53 JeremyCarroll: they use a generalised graphs something something bnodes literals 17:27:19 JeremyCarroll: an RDF graph a subject is a bnode or uri, a predicate which is a uri, an obect which is a uri or literal 17:27:32 q? 17:27:40 sparql dropped that! 17:27:42 JeremyCarroll: in their design they allow all three types in all three positions. This is a generalisation and quite an improvement, if you ask me 17:27:49 alanr: any impact on serialisation 17:27:58 q? 17:28:07 q+ 17:28:09 JeremyCarroll: it works with RDF graphs, it might mean that you can have a conclusion in RIF that can't be serialised 17:28:14 wait 17:28:15 Dropped what? 17:28:21 ack pfps 17:28:22 pfps: can we do this too? 17:28:26 +1 Peter 17:28:27 JeremyCarroll: allright by me 17:28:29 if we allow generilized graphs, then we can have anonymous inverses directly mapped to RDF :) 17:28:42 pfps: surprised that alan isn't jumping up and down and screaming 17:29:08 pfps: destroys serialisability of everything 17:29:14 I'll note that Alan is among the public, so can comment 17:29:29 Peter: I'd like OWL to do this too -- to use generalized RDF graphs. 17:29:44 JeremyCarroll: at the end of the email, they have text about OWL2 that could be more neutral 17:29:47 IIRC they don't have an RDF serialization at all 17:29:51 JeremyCarroll: about punning 17:30:19 JeremyCarroll: I would suggest that this WG should make that comment, it's not for me to say that by myself 17:30:33 JeremyCarroll: the minimal review is that comment, along with some text like 17:30:41 Well, actually, "go outside of RDF" - generalized RDF graphs are too limiting. 17:30:41 (...) 17:31:02 JeremyCarroll: a very minor point, is that they haven't decided what sorts of entailments to include for RDF 17:31:16 JeremyCarroll: simple entailment, rdf entailment, rdfs entailment 17:31:19 I think the problem is that you cannot represent predicate bNodes in RDF/XML (?) 17:31:21 q? 17:31:26 q+ to mention that this has already been raised to the RIF WG 17:31:26 JeremyCarroll: should say, don't bother thinking about RDF entailments 17:32:00 q+ to ask about presentation syntax 17:32:05 JeremyCarroll: bulk of my comment is about a very silly thing actually... syntax is not standard 17:32:44 JeremyCarroll: we might want to have some minor supportive text from the WG 17:32:51 ack pfps 17:32:51 pfps, you wanted to mention that this has already been raised to the RIF WG 17:33:20 pfps: comment about the inscrutable syntax choices has been pointed out to them many times 17:33:25 pfps: without much success 17:33:32 ack bijan 17:33:33 bijan, you wanted to ask about presentation syntax 17:33:38 +1 on complaining as a wg about the ^^ syntax 17:33:44 s/many/several/ 17:33:46 bijan: I understand this to be part of the presentation syntax 17:34:03 sandro: yes 17:34:13 bijan: since it doesn't hit the wire, I don't care too much 17:34:33 bijan: it's unclear whether our WG should care too much, unless we want to synchronise our spec. styles 17:34:39 q+ 17:34:51 zakim, mute me 17:34:51 bijan should now be muted 17:34:52 I'm inclined to agree with Bijan on this 17:35:13 Ivan: it may affect one point. If we want to harmonise on the profile, we will be forced to take over that syntax in our description and pay the price 17:35:18 sandro: I strongly disagree 17:35:29 q? 17:35:33 q+ 17:35:38 ack Ivan 17:35:39 sandro: there's no grammar, you are not allowed to parse this syntax, it just helps to explain the semantics 17:35:41 Though they claim that's not a writeable syntax, people always parse it 17:35:43 ack Ivan 17:35:46 alanr: AS was parsed in OWL 1 17:35:54 sandro: WG said you shouldn't 17:36:01 alanr: is his specified as such? 17:36:05 sandro: yes 17:36:23 .. something about internationalised strings 17:36:24 q+ 17:36:32 ack JeremyCarroll 17:36:38 ack bijan 17:36:49 JeremyCarroll: sandro was arguing agains including a comment on this topic (deviation from norms in presentation syntax) 17:36:50 q+ bijan to oops 17:36:52 sandro: agnostic 17:37:12 q+ alanr 17:37:14 JeremyCarroll: many people have raised this, and it hasn't been taken notice of does suggest that it should be taken up as a WG issue 17:37:19 q+ to note that rdf:iri shows up in the RIF XML syntax 17:37:22 zakim, unmute me 17:37:22 bijan was not muted, bijan 17:37:25 JeremyCarroll: each WG has a task to take notice of other WG's 17:38:03 bijan: just to go back to ivan's point. I agree that it is not to be serialised. We do have an interest, it is generally good to have the specs harmonised: some harmony is beneficial to reader 17:38:20 bijan: it's still not a WG issue, jeremy is free to raise a last call issue 17:38:21 ack bijan 17:38:21 bijan, you wanted to oops 17:38:31 Yeah -- it might make sense to have OWL and RIF rationalize their Presentation Syntaxes. 17:38:34 bijan: we should focus on things that really impact our work 17:38:44 ack alanr 17:38:51 zakim, mute me 17:38:51 bijan should now be muted 17:38:51 bijan: not on just 'icky' stuf 17:38:55 s/stuf/stuff 17:39:13 alanr: there's no show stoppers here. 1) don't waste your time on rdf 2) presentation syntax isn't standard 17:39:34 alanr: we could send a note saying that we think you have done a good job etc. etc. 17:39:45 q+ to ask how much effort / delay OWL-WG would be willing to tollerate on unifying Presentation Syntaxes? 17:39:51 alanr: reading both specs shouldn't be confusing, it would help to have a common syntax for readability reasons 17:40:01 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#XML_Serialization_Syntax_for_RIF-BLD shows the syntax 17:40:02 ack pfps 17:40:02 pfps, you wanted to note that rdf:iri shows up in the RIF XML syntax 17:40:08 alanr: just show our interest on this issue, but no requirement 17:40:17 ack sandro 17:40:17 sandro, you wanted to ask how much effort / delay OWL-WG would be willing to tollerate on unifying Presentation Syntaxes? 17:40:22 pfps: the syntax is not just in the presentation but also in the RIF-BLD 17:40:23 ack 17:40:31 sandro: I'm not sure what to make of that 17:40:38 alanr: it's beyond presentation syntax 17:40:48 sandro: I don't know what the concern is in RIF-BLD 17:41:00 sandro: don't know if there's a problem with rif:iri 17:41:30 sandro: my understanding is that RIF does not use IRIs as symbols (As owl and rdf). Instead it has a data mapping to go from IRIs to the arbitrary resources they stand for 17:41:54 sandro: esp. michael kiefer preferred to do it like this 17:42:03 alanr: do you think that's something we should be commenting on? 17:42:15 pfps: that's a good question... if we wanna fight, sure... but expect to fight 17:42:26 q? 17:42:54 alanr: my proposal is that we don't wan to fight, but say very clearly what we feel, and go on the record. Without saying that they *have* to fix the issue in the way we propose 17:43:17 q+ to ask how much effort / delay OWL-WG would be willing to tollerate on unifying Presentation Syntaxes? 17:43:21 alanr: if peter doesn't mind writing up the note (removing jeremy's irritation etc.) 17:43:27 i don't have any idea of what should be said in a communication to the RIF WG 17:43:39 q? 17:43:42 ack sandro 17:43:42 sandro, you wanted to ask how much effort / delay OWL-WG would be willing to tollerate on unifying Presentation Syntaxes? 17:43:46 I'm not sure if I can promise to remove Jeremy's irritation ;-) 17:43:53 "We request one change [concerning description of OWL2] and have two other comments [RDF entailment & presentation syntax]" 17:44:24 q+ to respond to Sandro 17:44:32 sandro: one other comment, if you can say where it's actually harmful that would be good. If you want to have them change it, you should be clear on how much you would want this WG (owl) to slow down 17:44:53 But then that's a jeremy comment and not an OWLWG comment 17:44:54 JeremyCarroll: it's not about RIF and OWL but about the specs that are already out there! 17:45:08 Do we care about Jeremy's item 17 (text about OWL 2 and punning)? 17:45:18 q+ 17:45:24 alanr: strawpoll, action to a couple of people, simply to write up some documentation in a neutral tone about what we saw and what we thought 17:45:37 +1 to alan's proposal 17:45:55 +1 17:45:57 JeremyCarroll: we'll go on to the straw poll 17:45:57 +1 17:46:02 +1 17:46:03 STRAWPOLL 17:46:04 +1 17:46:07 ~0 17:46:09 Rinke: +1 17:46:12 0 17:46:13 0 17:46:15 0 17:46:15 +epsilon (I still need more information on this) 17:46:18 0 17:46:19 0 17:46:21 +1 to any response...I certainly wouldn't block arbitrary complaints to some other working group :) 17:46:43 alanr: neutral and positive mix... 17:47:09 alanr: keep this action open? 17:47:11 JeremyCarroll: yes 17:47:23 topic: issues 17:47:32 Proposals to Resolve Issues 17:47:37 alanr: 15 minutes max 17:47:43 alanr: on issues 17:47:48 issue 85 17:47:53 q+ 17:48:05 alanr: proposed to close as postponed, better use a better annotation syntax 17:48:19 q- 17:48:30 alanr: Alan Rector, who is the champion on this, was fine to postpone 17:48:39 ack JeremyCarroll 17:48:54 Ivan: we did not officially approve jeremy's last point as a comment to the RIF group and the text they use regarding owl 2 17:49:16 alanr: my idea was that the action would address this, and we would have some text that we could approve 17:49:37 ack Ivan 17:49:43 JeremyCarroll: perhaps approve on a draft via email, and send this draft before the deadline, vote on this post hoc 17:49:44 why do we only have /one/ week? 17:49:48 JeremyCarroll: on the next telecone 17:50:05 q? 17:50:06 alanr: any questions abbout issue 85 17:50:07 RIF's timeline includes deciding whether they are ready for last call or not soon 17:50:28 Proposed: to resolve ISSUE 83 as per http://www.w3.org/mid/61CBB11D-607F-40E0-AA1B-620C48E7E587%2540comlab.ox.ac.uk 17:50:37 +1 .................. (waiting for the proposal) 17:50:40 +1 17:50:40 +1 17:50:41 0 17:50:45 +1 17:50:45 +1 17:50:46 0 17:50:46 +1 17:50:46 +1 17:50:47 0 17:50:48 +1 17:50:48 +1 17:50:51 0 17:50:52 +1 17:50:52