IRC log of owl on 2008-05-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:56:26 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:56:26 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:56:28 [trackbot-ng]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:56:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #owl
16:56:30 [trackbot-ng]
Zakim, this will be OWLWG
16:56:30 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot-ng; I see SW_OWL()12:00PM scheduled to start 56 minutes ago
16:56:31 [trackbot-ng]
Meeting: OWL Working Group Teleconference
16:56:31 [trackbot-ng]
Date: 07 May 2008
16:57:08 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
16:57:14 [Rinke]
Rinke has joined #owl
16:57:20 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has joined #owl
16:57:27 [pfps]
pfps has changed the topic to:
16:57:55 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()12:00PM has now started
16:57:56 [uli]
uli has joined #owl
16:57:56 [Zakim]
16:57:57 [jeremy_]
jeremy_ has joined #owl
16:58:13 [Zakim]
16:58:15 [Zakim]
16:58:15 [Zakim]
16:58:26 [bcuencagrau]
bcuencagrau has joined #owl
16:58:42 [Rinke]
ScribeNick: Rinke
16:58:51 [Ivan]
Ivan has joined #owl
16:59:09 [Zakim]
16:59:34 [Ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
16:59:34 [Zakim]
ok, Ivan; the call is being made
16:59:35 [Zakim]
16:59:38 [Zakim]
16:59:42 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
16:59:48 [uli]
zakim, ??P17 is me
17:00:00 [Zakim]
+uli; got it
17:00:13 [Zakim]
17:00:19 [m_schnei]
m_schnei has joined #owl
17:00:22 [uli]
zakim, mute me
17:00:22 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
17:00:33 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
17:00:46 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
17:00:56 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
17:01:04 [Zakim]
17:01:22 [Zakim]
17:01:27 [Zakim]
17:01:31 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, ??P9 is me
17:01:31 [Zakim]
+bcuencagrau; got it
17:01:36 [Zakim]
17:01:36 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??P11 is me
17:01:37 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
17:01:43 [Zakim]
17:01:45 [m_schnei]
zakim, ??P3 is me
17:01:45 [Zakim]
+m_schnei; got it
17:01:49 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, mute me
17:01:49 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:01:54 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:01:54 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:01:56 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:01:56 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:01:58 [Achille]
Zakim, IBM is Achille
17:01:58 [Zakim]
+Achille; got it
17:02:25 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:02:25 [Zakim]
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 [Zakim]
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 [Zakim]
17:02:55 [Zakim]
17:03:47 [bijan]
bijan has joined #owl
17:04:03 [Zakim]
17:04:05 [sandro]
zakim, mute anyone trying to assign me an action item
17:04:05 [Zakim]
I don't understand you, sandro
17:04:15 [bijan]
zakim, ??p18 is me
17:04:15 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
17:04:29 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:04:29 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:04:46 [Zakim]
17:05:10 [JeremyCarroll]
Zakim, IPcaller is me
17:05:10 [Zakim]
+JeremyCarroll; got it
17:05:15 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:05:15 [Zakim]
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 [Zakim]
... bijan (muted), JeremyCarroll
17:05:19 [Zakim]
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 [Rinke]
topic: Admin
17:05:30 [Rinke]
roll call
17:05:33 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
17:05:33 [Zakim]
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]
ewallace has joined #owl
17:05:37 [Zakim]
... bijan (muted), JeremyCarroll
17:05:38 [Zakim]
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 [Rinke]
alanr: any amendments?
17:06:11 [pfps]
what about the recent message sent out about next week?
17:06:35 [Zakim]
17:06:56 [pfps]
that was it
17:07:18 [Rinke]
alanr: next week's TC cancelled, no chairs, DL workshop
17:07:31 [Rinke]
alanr: any objections?
17:07:48 [pfps]
presumably Zakim would be available
17:07:54 [Rinke]
alanr: F2F3 in Boston on july 28 and 29
17:08:07 [alanr]
17:08:34 [Rinke]
alanr: please put yourself on the list if you're planning to attend or not
17:08:51 [Rinke]
pending review actions
17:09:06 [Rinke]
previous minutes
17:09:15 [Rinke]
alanr: needed some cleanup, heard from peter
17:09:17 [baojie]
baojie has joined #owl
17:09:19 [IanH]
I did some work on them
17:09:36 [Rinke]
proposed: accept previous minutes
17:09:41 [pfps]
depends on whether jeremy is happy
17:10:12 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
17:10:12 [RRSAgent]
17:10:15 [sandro]
17:10:16 [pfps]
17:10:24 [IanH]
17:10:24 [bmotik]
17:10:25 [Rinke]
17:10:25 [uli]
17:10:25 [alanr]
17:10:26 [Ivan]
17:10:27 [msmith]
+1 to accept minutes
17:10:27 [bcuencagrau]
17:10:33 [ewallace]
+0 (wasn't present)
17:10:37 [Rinke]
resolved: accept previous minutes
17:10:39 [JeremyCarroll]
17:10:39 [baojie]
17:10:58 [Rinke]
alanr: if you weren't there you're actually a very good reviewer of the minutes: should be comprehensible
17:11:01 [Rinke]
topic: pending review actions
17:11:12 [Rinke]
action 131
17:11:28 [Rinke]
alanr: implement decisions from the F2F2 for RDF mapping in particular
17:11:34 [Rinke]
alanr: has obviously been done
17:12:04 [Rinke]
alanr: solicit some reviewers to see whether this has been done (implementers, and someone involved in OWL Full)
17:12:07 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
17:12:07 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:12:16 [Rinke]
alanr: Michael? would you be willing to review
17:12:29 [Rinke]
m_schnei: well, hmm, ok, yes..
17:12:43 [Rinke]
alanr: have the potential to affect owl full
17:12:53 [Rinke]
sandro: would it be helpful to create a colour-coded diff
17:12:59 [bmotik]
Don't really bother with a diff: it will be useless.
17:13:07 [Rinke]
m_schnei: differences are quite big
17:13:13 [Rinke]
m_schnei: will simply read it
17:13:22 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:13:22 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:13:28 [Rinke]
alanr: Achille are you willing to take this on?
17:13:35 [Rinke]
Achille: won't be able to do this in the next two weeks
17:13:45 [Rinke]
alanr: that's no problem
17:14:02 [Rinke]
alanr: do you want to do this, and if so before when would you be able to do this?
17:14:06 [Rinke]
Achille: maybe end of may?
17:14:14 [Rinke]
alanr: would be happy personally, if you're willing
17:14:18 [bijan]
Do we have publication goals?
17:14:59 [Zakim]
17:15:14 [Rinke]
sandro: will action Achille and Michael
17:15:30 [Rinke]
sandro: all documents? or parts? due date?
17:15:33 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
17:15:33 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:15:40 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:15:40 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:15:47 [sandro]
ACTION: m_schnei to review the changes made as result of ACTION-131 due May 20
17:15:47 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - m_schnei
17:15:53 [sandro]
ACTION: schneider to review the changes made as result of ACTION-131 due May 20
17:15:53 [trackbot-ng]
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 [sandro]
ACTION: achille to review the changes made as result of ACTION-131 due May 30
17:16:02 [trackbot-ng]
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 [Rinke]
action 133
17:16:21 [Rinke]
alanr: is actually related, and the review would include that action as well
17:16:33 [Rinke]
alanr: if anyone disagrees that these actions aren't done, speak up
17:16:38 [bijan]
17:16:42 [Rinke]
action 132
17:16:57 [bijan]
17:17:20 [Rinke]
action 129
17:17:21 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:17:21 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:17:40 [Rinke]
alanr: you laid out the possible options, do you have any particular idea about this, bijan?
17:17:52 [Rinke]
bijan: I didn't think that would be part of the action
17:18:31 [Rinke]
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 [pfps]
how to effect the request?
17:18:49 [Rinke]
bijan: didn't feel like iterating all examples, if someone feels like adding examples, please do!
17:18:56 [Rinke]
action 42
17:18:59 [Rinke]
action 43
17:19:12 [Rinke]
alanr: any update about this from jeremy, bijan, sandro?
17:19:19 [bijan]
I wait upon a solution
17:19:35 [Rinke]
sandro: no progress, willing to work on this, can't get it to the top of my queue
17:20:04 [Rinke]
alanr: if anyone has test cases, please add them to the wiki
17:20:08 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:20:08 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:20:16 [Rinke]
bijan: if anyone could point me to a preferred format for this
17:20:23 [Rinke]
action 136
17:20:29 [Rinke]
alanr: jeremy?
17:20:50 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: don't know how much time is needed to discuss this, for next week is within the RIF timescale
17:20:55 [Rinke]
alanr: no meeting next week
17:20:55 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:20:55 [Zakim]
m_schnei was already muted, m_schnei
17:21:05 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: any chance to fit 5 minutes in toda?
17:21:16 [Rinke]
alanr: I'll put it in as the first issue
17:21:35 [Rinke]
17:21:43 [pfps]
remember to refresh :-)
17:21:56 [Rinke]
action 142
17:22:01 [bijan]
Peter finished it before I could start
17:22:07 [Rinke]
alanr: taken over by proposals from peter
17:22:13 [Rinke]
alanr: let's close that
17:22:34 [Rinke]
action 145
17:22:39 [Rinke]
alanr: Jeremy?
17:22:42 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: forgot this
17:22:45 [Rinke]
action 146
17:22:49 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: working on this
17:22:53 [Rinke]
action 144
17:22:58 [Carsten]
Carsten has joined #owl
17:23:16 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: this one has slipped my mind, and I am unlikely to push this forward
17:23:30 [Rinke]
alanr: does the current proposal satisfy our need in this area
17:24:37 [Rinke]
action 143
17:24:37 [bijan]
17:24:43 [Rinke]
alanr: didn't get to that
17:24:48 [bijan]
17:24:51 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:24:51 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:24:56 [alanr]
17:25:00 [Rinke]
bijan: one question about this last question
17:25:02 [alanr]
ack bijan
17:25:16 [bijan]
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 [bijan]
OWL Lite is a subset of OWL DL 2 and OWL Full 2 but is no longer a recommended profile.
17:25:19 [Rinke]
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 [Rinke]
bijan: (in the primer)
17:25:37 [Rinke]
alanr: thought was that the particular wording that jeremy had was quite nice
17:25:47 [MartinD]
MartinD has joined #OWL
17:25:57 [Rinke]
alanr: if you think you have covered it, communicate this to jeremy
17:26:06 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:26:06 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:26:09 [Rinke]
alanr: I'll put an editorial note to put in the text that he had
17:26:11 [JeremyCarroll]
17:26:20 [Rinke]
topic: rif compatibility
17:26:36 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: email linked from yesterday, mentioned a very few points. One point I forgot to put in the email
17:26:37 [IanH]
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 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: they use a generalised graphs something something bnodes literals
17:27:19 [Rinke]
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 [alanr]
17:27:40 [Ivan]
sparql dropped that!
17:27:42 [Rinke]
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 [Rinke]
alanr: any impact on serialisation
17:27:58 [alanr]
17:28:07 [pfps]
17:28:09 [Rinke]
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 [pfps]
17:28:15 [bijan]
Dropped what?
17:28:21 [alanr]
ack pfps
17:28:22 [Rinke]
pfps: can we do this too?
17:28:26 [sandro]
+1 Peter
17:28:27 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: allright by me
17:28:29 [m_schnei]
if we allow generilized graphs, then we can have anonymous inverses directly mapped to RDF :)
17:28:42 [Rinke]
pfps: surprised that alan isn't jumping up and down and screaming
17:29:08 [Rinke]
pfps: destroys serialisability of everything
17:29:14 [bijan]
I'll note that Alan is among the public, so can comment
17:29:29 [sandro]
Peter: I'd like OWL to do this too -- to use generalized RDF graphs.
17:29:44 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: at the end of the email, they have text about OWL2 that could be more neutral
17:29:47 [alanr]
IIRC they don't have an RDF serialization at all
17:29:51 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: about punning
17:30:19 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: I would suggest that this WG should make that comment, it's not for me to say that by myself
17:30:33 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: the minimal review is that comment, along with some text like
17:30:41 [pfps]
Well, actually, "go outside of RDF" - generalized RDF graphs are too limiting.
17:30:41 [Rinke]
17:31:02 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: a very minor point, is that they haven't decided what sorts of entailments to include for RDF
17:31:16 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: simple entailment, rdf entailment, rdfs entailment
17:31:19 [m_schnei]
I think the problem is that you cannot represent predicate bNodes in RDF/XML (?)
17:31:21 [alanr]
17:31:26 [pfps]
q+ to mention that this has already been raised to the RIF WG
17:31:26 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: should say, don't bother thinking about RDF entailments
17:32:00 [bijan]
q+ to ask about presentation syntax
17:32:05 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: bulk of my comment is about a very silly thing actually... syntax is not standard
17:32:44 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: we might want to have some minor supportive text from the WG
17:32:51 [alanr]
ack pfps
17:32:51 [Zakim]
pfps, you wanted to mention that this has already been raised to the RIF WG
17:33:20 [Rinke]
pfps: comment about the inscrutable syntax choices has been pointed out to them many times
17:33:25 [Rinke]
pfps: without much success
17:33:32 [bijan]
ack bijan
17:33:33 [Zakim]
bijan, you wanted to ask about presentation syntax
17:33:38 [ewallace]
+1 on complaining as a wg about the ^^ syntax
17:33:44 [pfps]
17:33:46 [Rinke]
bijan: I understand this to be part of the presentation syntax
17:34:03 [Rinke]
sandro: yes
17:34:13 [Rinke]
bijan: since it doesn't hit the wire, I don't care too much
17:34:33 [Rinke]
bijan: it's unclear whether our WG should care too much, unless we want to synchronise our spec. styles
17:34:39 [Ivan]
17:34:51 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:34:51 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:34:52 [IanH]
I'm inclined to agree with Bijan on this
17:35:13 [Rinke]
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 [Rinke]
sandro: I strongly disagree
17:35:29 [alanr]
17:35:33 [JeremyCarroll]
17:35:38 [Ivan]
ack Ivan
17:35:39 [Rinke]
sandro: there's no grammar, you are not allowed to parse this syntax, it just helps to explain the semantics
17:35:41 [bijan]
Though they claim that's not a writeable syntax, people always parse it
17:35:43 [alanr]
ack Ivan
17:35:46 [Rinke]
alanr: AS was parsed in OWL 1
17:35:54 [Rinke]
sandro: WG said you shouldn't
17:36:01 [Rinke]
alanr: is his specified as such?
17:36:05 [Rinke]
sandro: yes
17:36:23 [Rinke]
.. something about internationalised strings
17:36:24 [bijan]
17:36:32 [alanr]
ack JeremyCarroll
17:36:38 [alanr]
ack bijan
17:36:49 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: sandro was arguing agains including a comment on this topic (deviation from norms in presentation syntax)
17:36:50 [alanr]
q+ bijan to oops
17:36:52 [Rinke]
sandro: agnostic
17:37:12 [alanr]
q+ alanr
17:37:14 [Rinke]
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 [pfps]
q+ to note that rdf:iri shows up in the RIF XML syntax
17:37:22 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:37:22 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
17:37:25 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: each WG has a task to take notice of other WG's
17:38:03 [Rinke]
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 [Rinke]
bijan: it's still not a WG issue, jeremy is free to raise a last call issue
17:38:21 [alanr]
ack bijan
17:38:21 [Zakim]
bijan, you wanted to oops
17:38:31 [sandro]
Yeah -- it might make sense to have OWL and RIF rationalize their Presentation Syntaxes.
17:38:34 [Rinke]
bijan: we should focus on things that really impact our work
17:38:44 [alanr]
ack alanr
17:38:51 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:38:51 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:38:51 [Rinke]
bijan: not on just 'icky' stuf
17:38:55 [Rinke]
17:39:13 [Rinke]
alanr: there's no show stoppers here. 1) don't waste your time on rdf 2) presentation syntax isn't standard
17:39:34 [Rinke]
alanr: we could send a note saying that we think you have done a good job etc. etc.
17:39:45 [sandro]
q+ to ask how much effort / delay OWL-WG would be willing to tollerate on unifying Presentation Syntaxes?
17:39:51 [Rinke]
alanr: reading both specs shouldn't be confusing, it would help to have a common syntax for readability reasons
17:40:01 [pfps] shows the syntax
17:40:02 [alanr]
ack pfps
17:40:02 [Zakim]
pfps, you wanted to note that rdf:iri shows up in the RIF XML syntax
17:40:08 [Rinke]
alanr: just show our interest on this issue, but no requirement
17:40:17 [alanr]
ack sandro
17:40:17 [Zakim]
sandro, you wanted to ask how much effort / delay OWL-WG would be willing to tollerate on unifying Presentation Syntaxes?
17:40:22 [Rinke]
pfps: the syntax is not just in the presentation but also in the RIF-BLD
17:40:23 [sandro]
17:40:31 [Rinke]
sandro: I'm not sure what to make of that
17:40:38 [Rinke]
alanr: it's beyond presentation syntax
17:40:48 [Rinke]
sandro: I don't know what the concern is in RIF-BLD
17:41:00 [Rinke]
sandro: don't know if there's a problem with rif:iri
17:41:30 [Rinke]
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 [Rinke]
sandro: esp. michael kiefer preferred to do it like this
17:42:03 [Rinke]
alanr: do you think that's something we should be commenting on?
17:42:15 [Rinke]
pfps: that's a good question... if we wanna fight, sure... but expect to fight
17:42:26 [sandro]
17:42:54 [Rinke]
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 [sandro]
q+ to ask how much effort / delay OWL-WG would be willing to tollerate on unifying Presentation Syntaxes?
17:43:21 [Rinke]
alanr: if peter doesn't mind writing up the note (removing jeremy's irritation etc.)
17:43:27 [pfps]
i don't have any idea of what should be said in a communication to the RIF WG
17:43:39 [alanr]
17:43:42 [alanr]
ack sandro
17:43:42 [Zakim]
sandro, you wanted to ask how much effort / delay OWL-WG would be willing to tollerate on unifying Presentation Syntaxes?
17:43:46 [IanH]
I'm not sure if I can promise to remove Jeremy's irritation ;-)
17:43:53 [JeremyCarroll]
"We request one change [concerning description of OWL2] and have two other comments [RDF entailment & presentation syntax]"
17:44:24 [JeremyCarroll]
q+ to respond to Sandro
17:44:32 [Rinke]
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 [bijan]
But then that's a jeremy comment and not an OWLWG comment
17:44:54 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: it's not about RIF and OWL but about the specs that are already out there!
17:45:08 [ewallace]
Do we care about Jeremy's item 17 (text about OWL 2 and punning)?
17:45:18 [JeremyCarroll]
17:45:24 [Rinke]
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 [sandro]
+1 to alan's proposal
17:45:55 [Ivan]
17:45:57 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: we'll go on to the straw poll
17:45:57 [JeremyCarroll]
17:46:02 [Achille]
17:46:03 [Rinke]
17:46:04 [ewallace]
17:46:07 [pfps]
17:46:09 [Rinke]
Rinke: +1
17:46:12 [MarkusK]
17:46:13 [bcuencagrau]
17:46:15 [uli]
17:46:15 [m_schnei]
+epsilon (I still need more information on this)
17:46:18 [MartinD]
17:46:19 [msmith]
17:46:21 [bijan]
+1 to any response...I certainly wouldn't block arbitrary complaints to some other working group :)
17:46:43 [Rinke]
alanr: neutral and positive mix...
17:47:09 [Rinke]
alanr: keep this action open?
17:47:11 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: yes
17:47:23 [Rinke]
topic: issues
17:47:32 [Rinke]
Proposals to Resolve Issues
17:47:37 [Rinke]
alanr: 15 minutes max
17:47:43 [Rinke]
alanr: on issues
17:47:48 [Rinke]
issue 85
17:47:53 [Ivan]
17:48:05 [Rinke]
alanr: proposed to close as postponed, better use a better annotation syntax
17:48:19 [JeremyCarroll]
17:48:30 [Rinke]
alanr: Alan Rector, who is the champion on this, was fine to postpone
17:48:39 [alanr]
ack JeremyCarroll
17:48:54 [Rinke]
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 [Rinke]
alanr: my idea was that the action would address this, and we would have some text that we could approve
17:49:37 [alanr]
ack Ivan
17:49:43 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: perhaps approve on a draft via email, and send this draft before the deadline, vote on this post hoc
17:49:44 [m_schnei]
why do we only have /one/ week?
17:49:48 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: on the next telecone
17:50:05 [alanr]
17:50:06 [Rinke]
alanr: any questions abbout issue 85
17:50:07 [JeremyCarroll]
RIF's timeline includes deciding whether they are ready for last call or not soon
17:50:28 [Rinke]
Proposed: to resolve ISSUE 83 as per
17:50:37 [pfps]
+1 .................. (waiting for the proposal)
17:50:40 [bmotik]
17:50:40 [alanr]
17:50:41 [JeremyCarroll]
17:50:45 [bijan]
17:50:45 [IanH]
17:50:46 [Ivan]
17:50:46 [uli]
17:50:46 [Rinke]
17:50:47 [ewallace]
17:50:48 [MartinD]
17:50:48 [MarkusK]
17:50:51 [sandro]
17:50:52 [msmith]
17:50:52 [JeremyCarroll]
0 (haven't been following this one)
17:50:53 [bcuencagrau]
17:51:04 [Achille]
17:51:12 [Rinke]
resolved: to resolve ISSUE 83 as per
17:51:23 [m_schnei]
still RIF - wouldn't this be something for after last call? then they belive they are fine, and ask others for input
17:51:28 [Rinke]
issue 97
17:51:38 [uli]
17:52:01 [alanr]
17:52:46 [Rinke]
alanr: question of whether or not the actual XSLT transformation needed to be there, or whether the GRDDL could simply point to the mapping
17:52:53 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:52:53 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:53:11 [bijan]
17:53:11 [Rinke]
alanr: trick that I proposed does not actually work, as GRDDL does require an XSLT
17:53:21 [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.
17:53:21 [bijan]
Developers of transformations should make available representations in widely-supported formats. XSLT version 1[XSLT1] is the format most widely supported by GRDDL-aware agents as of this writing, though though XSLT2[XSLT2] deployment is increasing. While technically Javascript, C, or virtually any other programming language may be used to express transformations for GRDDL, XSLT is specifically designed to express XML to XML transformations and has some good safety c
17:53:22 [Ivan]
17:53:40 [Rinke]
bijan: If I look at the GRDLL document it does not specify that you have to have an XSLT, it just mentions that you should have a transformation
17:53:55 [Rinke]
bijan: I would just like to have some textual support for your claim
17:54:10 [alanr]
ack Ivan
17:54:34 [Rinke]
Ivan: bijan is right in terms of the recommendation. In fact, the GRDDL spec does not require the XSLT.
17:54:38 [sandro]
can't hear Ivan very well --- distant echos or something.
17:54:43 [bijan]
17:54:52 [sandro]
(Ivan, it sounds like you're in a cathedral)
17:55:15 [bijan]
See: for why having speced retrievable thigns is a bad idea
17:55:39 [IanH]
17:55:40 [Rinke]
alanr: one of the objections to doing this was that we would have two normative rdf mappings. What we thought we could do is to assign an action to someone who would be happy to create an XSLT, and only publish it as a note of the wg
17:55:48 [pfps]
17:55:50 [JeremyCarroll]
17:55:55 [IanH]
zakim, unmute me
17:55:55 [Zakim]
IanH should no longer be muted
17:56:01 [Rinke]
alanr: would avoid any confusion about the status, and be friendly to anyone who would like to use that technology
17:56:34 [Rinke]
bijan: bad idea that the WG does implementation (especially as there are competing implementations such as the OWL API)
17:56:51 [Rinke]
bijan: best practice is to include it in their software
17:57:20 [alanr]
ack IanH
17:57:26 [Ivan]
ack bijan
17:57:35 [bijan]
17:57:47 [Rinke]
IanH: I find bijan's arguments quite persuasive on this. If it's not actually part of the GRDDL spec, I'm not sure why we're doing it
17:57:52 [alanr]
17:57:53 [alanr]
17:58:06 [Rinke]
IanH: I'm not quite sure what would be the note... algorithm? transformation?
17:58:09 [bijan]
I'm fine with us having pointers to implementations
17:58:35 [Rinke]
pfps: there is a competing implementation of the transformation (to XSLT)... the one we're writing
17:59:31 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: I wanted to take issue with bijan on the web retrievable issue. If you do object to this, you should have made an objection to the GRDDL spec. As it's actually a recommendation, there is a reason to take note of this
17:59:45 [bijan]
It's still expensive for the w3c
17:59:51 [bijan]
It's still expensive for the client
18:00:04 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: we can rely on the W3C of things not going away
18:00:16 [bijan]
q+ to ask where grddl *mandates* web retrievability
18:00:42 [alanr]
ack pfps
18:00:47 [alanr]
ack JeremeyCarroll
18:00:47 [sandro]
JeremyCarroll: point to TWO GRDDL transforms -- one in XSLT (informative), one being the english spec (normative). It would be clear and helpful.
18:00:55 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: my proposal would be that we could have two links, one to the actual spec (normative) and the xslt which is not normative (with a note on the top)
18:01:00 [Rinke]
alanr: chair hat off
18:01:10 [IanH]
18:01:11 [JeremyCarroll]
18:01:13 [Rinke]
alanr: I relate my understanding of what the point of this is
18:01:30 [Rinke]
alanr: same understanding as Jeremy's.
18:02:05 [Rinke]
alanr: the intention is that the XSLT is published, cached and then used to actually transform stuff to rdf/xml from xml. The spirit of this is that we put an XSLT transform there
18:02:09 [uli]
...this is about why we want an XSLT transform
18:02:33 [IanH]
18:02:53 [Rinke]
alanr: do not think it's damaging, do not think it should be blocked
18:03:15 [Rinke]
alanr: one of my objections to OWL/XML was resolved by adopting GRDDL
18:03:24 [Ivan]
ack alanr
18:03:31 [bijan]
My worry about adding grddl was assuage by my reading of the recommendation which ensured that we didnt' ahve to supply xslt!
18:03:36 [JeremyCarroll]
+1 to Alan - just pointing to the Mapping doc would not address my concerns about OWL/XML
18:03:44 [Rinke]
alanr: and if we're not staying in the spirit of this, then I question whether we want the OWL/XML syntax
18:03:53 [IanH]
18:03:59 [Rinke]
alanr: continue next week?
18:04:00 [bijan]
I would have objected to the grddl requirement if I knew there was secret extra-recommendation requriements!
18:04:21 [Rinke]
bijan: I don't see anything in the GRDDL spec that says that you have to retrieve something from the web
18:04:29 [sandro]
alan: If we're not going to support GRDDL in the live-on-the-web spirit, then that's new information, and I might object to having the XML format for OWL.
18:04:53 [Rinke]
bijan: I see the value of a web-retrievable transformation. We are not in that circumstance where we need that
18:05:23 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:05:23 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:05:28 [Rinke]
bijan: do people objecting to OWL/XML prefer to get some transformation somewhere from the web? I don't think this is a starter
18:05:37 [Rinke]
IanH: defer this until next week
18:05:55 [Rinke]
sandro: quick show of hands if anyone seconds Bijan's perspective
18:05:55 [bijan]
and the reason i didn't give a formal objection to GRDDL was because I had no idea that it would be read this way!
18:06:17 [Rinke]
sandro: strawpoll about retrievable but non-normative XSLT
18:06:27 [alanr]
note=actual transform
18:06:31 [alanr]
if there is a note
18:06:33 [Rinke]
IanH: is this about publishing a note, or is the note a uri that points to it, or describes it
18:06:49 [bijan]
In fact, people can add their own grddl property to *thier* owl/xml that points to whichever transformation function they want?
18:06:50 [sandro]
strawpoll: JJC's proposal for non-normative
18:06:51 [JeremyCarroll]
suggestion: strawpoll that we have retievable and non-normative XSLT pointed to from OWL/XML namespace
18:06:54 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: in the OWL/RDF there's a bit of code that points to a GRDDL transform
18:07:04 [Rinke]
alanr: don't have time for this (chair hat on)
18:07:09 [Rinke]
topic: general discussion
18:07:24 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:07:24 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:07:27 [Rinke]
alanr: Peter's updated proposal, Boris' comments on this
18:07:43 [Rinke]
alanr: didn't grab this from the web
18:08:12 [Rinke]
pfps: latest proposal is to publish by location, do versioning by publishing in multiple spots. Implement this by writing this in section 3 of the syntax document
18:08:17 [sandro]
Peter: import by location; multiple versions = multiple locations; ....
18:08:33 [Rinke]
bmotik: the idea is to somehow split the imports from the actual locations where the ontologies are published
18:08:42 [Rinke]
bmotik: question is, where is an ontology actually located?
18:09:15 [Rinke]
bmotik: an ontology can have an ontology uri, and optionally a versioning uri. If it has any of these uris it should be published at a location that is equal to either one of these uri's
18:09:38 [Rinke]
bmotik: imports points to a particular location, this location can be either equal to the ontology uri or the version uri that you want to import
18:09:49 [Rinke]
bmotik: this procedure can be overriden for the purposes of caching
18:09:58 [sandro]
pretty clear
18:10:04 [alanr]
18:10:07 [Rinke]
alanr: any questions from anybody?
18:10:11 [alanr]
ack bijan
18:10:12 [bijan]
18:10:13 [Zakim]
bijan, you wanted to ask where grddl *mandates* web retrievability
18:10:15 [bijan]
18:10:21 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:10:21 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:10:23 [JeremyCarroll]
+1 it's very elegant
18:10:23 [uli]
18:10:33 [bmotik]
18:10:51 [Rinke]
alanr: have you thought about forward moving, if we decide to have something more involved as regards version information, does this preclude that?
18:11:11 [Rinke]
bmotik: no, don't think so. You can actually encode additional information in the uri
18:11:41 [Rinke]
bmotik: this is completely orthogonal.. you could abstract the whole thing by saying that you need some way of comparing two version uri's.
18:11:48 [JeremyCarroll]
18:11:58 [alanr]
ack uli
18:11:58 [uli]
ack uli
18:12:01 [Rinke]
bmotik: you could encode numerical information and do comparison etc.
18:12:08 [Rinke]
uli: I was wondering in a similar direction
18:12:20 [Rinke]
uli: this mechanism would also allow me to always retrieve the latest version?
18:12:29 [Rinke]
bmotik: the latest version is always at the location of the ontology uri
18:12:54 [Rinke]
bmotik: when you create a next version, this current version goes somewhere else, and the new version gets put at the location
18:12:56 [uli]
zakim, mute me
18:12:56 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
18:13:11 [uli]
18:13:25 [Rinke]
bmotik: if you want to import the latest version, you just point to the ontology uri.
18:13:26 [alanr]
ack JeremyCarroll
18:13:50 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: this is very simple to spec, excellent, strong support
18:13:56 [sandro]
q+ to ask if you can have a updated-version version-URI (latest in the 4.x series, latest in the 5.x series) ?
18:14:42 [Rinke]
alanr: it is still my intention to write a note offering this more complicated thing that shows that the simple mechanism doesn't handle this. Could we keep an issue open explaining use cases that I have, just to say that there's still an issue here
18:14:48 [sandro]
and to ask about override / caching.....
18:14:56 [pfps]
q+ to talk about WG process
18:15:01 [bmotik]
18:15:05 [alanr]
ack sandro
18:15:05 [Zakim]
sandro, you wanted to ask if you can have a updated-version version-URI (latest in the 4.x series, latest in the 5.x series) ?
18:15:08 [Rinke]
alanr: easy to get out of sync in the obo
18:15:12 [Rinke]
alanr: no way to repair that
18:15:42 [uli]
...but this would require a version-naming scheme?
18:15:44 [Rinke]
sandro: have you thought of mechanisms where you would have double version mechanisms, i.e. latest in 4.x latest in 5.x
18:16:04 [Rinke]
sandro: main production releases, beta releases, major / minor releases (latest of some obsolete version etc.)
18:16:11 [pfps]
if you have multiple version URIs, something along these lines can be done
18:16:24 [uli]
I think that this proposal was oblivious to how versions are numbered/named
18:16:26 [Rinke]
bmotik: multiple ontology uri's, multiple default locations... this could be added, but in the existing proposal this is not captured
18:16:29 [JeremyCarroll]
That can be done with this: latest, versionInfo = latest4, versionInfo = latest4.2 versionInfo = latest4.3
18:16:34 [JeremyCarroll]
18:16:41 [alanr]
ack pfps
18:16:41 [Zakim]
pfps, you wanted to talk about WG process
18:16:59 [bmotik]
18:17:11 [Rinke]
pfps: a previous version allows for multiple version uris, which I think would allow multiple branching, slightly more complex... don't know whether it's worthwile allowing this
18:17:32 [Rinke]
pfps: the WG decides things, and then people give in or object. What is this thing about having a minority report?
18:17:35 [alanr]
18:17:49 [alanr]
ack JeremyCarroll
18:18:00 [IanH]
Very hard to hear now!
18:18:09 [bmotik]
18:18:13 [IanH]
18:18:15 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: I'm pretty sure that sandro's use case is covered by this. I'm happy to take up an action to describe multiple versioning using this scheme
18:19:07 [Rinke]
sandro: to recast what I think Alan was wanting to do, was say: let's go ahead with something like this, but have some text in the spec or issues list that explains to people who wants something they need, that we don't provide. This can be consensus text
18:19:17 [JeremyCarroll]
a postponed issue would be acceptable to me
18:19:25 [Rinke]
pfps: I thought I heard something about a separate note about this particular issue
18:19:52 [JeremyCarroll]
q+ to mention more capability
18:20:04 [Rinke]
alanr: what I was saying was that having something more stronger is not something we have consensus about, but we could have something in a note that describes a more elaborate scheme
18:20:14 [Rinke]
alanr: didn't think this was controversial
18:20:17 [alanr]
ack bmotik
18:20:33 [Rinke]
alanr: as sandro said, we could have some text about this, that could be taken up
18:20:37 [sandro]
Alan: Good idea to document what this mechanism does NOT support.
18:21:17 [Rinke]
bmotik: add a section about this, something similar to the 'oh, you could override the location in some way'
18:21:48 [Rinke]
bmotik: gives people an idea on how to use this versioning. We could easily capture what should or could be added... what tools might want to do with this
18:22:18 [Rinke]
bmotik: once we see what this looks like, it might be easier to comment on this. Unless anyone really objects, we could put this into the spec, and see how people feel about this
18:22:18 [alanr]
18:22:21 [alanr]
ack JeremyCarroll
18:22:21 [Zakim]
JeremyCarroll, you wanted to mention more capability
18:22:56 [IanH]
OWL 3 -- nooooooooooo!
18:23:01 [Rinke]
JeremyCarroll: OWL2 is an improvement on OWL1 and that's the basic idea. OWL2 imports+versioning is an improvement on OWL1, but OWL3 will (hopefully) be an improvement on OWL1
18:23:01 [alanr]
ack alanr
18:23:05 [Rinke]
18:23:25 [Rinke]
alanr: seems that this proposal is as far as the normative spec goes
18:23:44 [m_schnei]
18:23:50 [Rinke]
alanr: what I'm suggesting is that there's some work that has been done about use cases.. would be nice to have a record of this
18:24:03 [Rinke]
alanr: like what boris is saying.
18:24:10 [sandro]
OWL3, coming soon to a theater near you.
18:24:16 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:24:16 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:24:20 [alanr]
q+ m_schnei
18:24:24 [alanr]
ack m_schnei
18:24:27 [Rinke]
alanr: if I have time for a note, then we could discuss this at a later point
18:24:38 [bmotik]
18:25:05 [Rinke]
m_schnei: why have a normative part about this? Why not define the imports just as the imports closure
18:25:09 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:25:09 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
18:25:14 [alanr]
ack bmotik
18:25:14 [Rinke]
m_schnei: and just leave out the files stuff
18:25:42 [Rinke]
bmotik: we actually started from that position. The member submission said exactly that... quite a few people objected. Are we prepared to backpaddle?
18:25:46 [sandro]
(I think Normative is important.)
18:26:06 [Rinke]
alanr: strawpoll about this? General feeling about this proposal is that it's a positive step forward
18:26:09 [bijan]
+1 to normative
18:26:38 [sandro]
zakim, list attendees
18:26:38 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Peter_Patel-Schneider, Rinke, MarkusK, Ivan, uli, IanH, bcuencagrau, msmith, bmotik, m_schnei, Achille, Alan, Sandro, bijan, JeremyCarroll,
18:26:42 [Rinke]
STAWPOLL: are people comfortable having boris put in the changes that he suggested?
18:26:42 [Zakim]
... Evan_Wallace, baojie
18:26:53 [alanr]
18:26:55 [Rinke]
18:26:55 [msmith]
18:26:55 [m_schnei]
+1 on informative, -0.5 on normative (really my own opinion)
18:26:56 [sandro]
18:26:57 [IanH]
18:26:57 [MarkusK]
18:26:57 [uli]
+1 to the lovely proposal
18:26:57 [bijan]
18:26:58 [pfps]
+1 (surprise)
18:26:58 [bmotik]
+1 (unsurprisingly :-)
18:27:00 [Achille]
18:27:01 [ewallace]
18:27:04 [Ivan]
+1; I wonder whether having several version infos is not better than just one
18:27:07 [bcuencagrau]
18:27:08 [JeremyCarroll]
+1 on normative
18:27:23 [sandro]
Present: Peter_Patel-Schneider, Rinke, MarkusK, Ivan, uli, IanH, bcuencagrau, msmith, bmotik, m_schnei, Achille, Alan, Sandro, bijan, JeremyCarroll, Evan_Wallace, baojie
18:27:25 [Rinke]
alanr: strong support from doing this
18:27:35 [Rinke]
alanr: put action on boris, ready to close
18:27:42 [uli]
18:27:51 [bmotik]
ACTION: bmotik2 to Implement the imports proposal as described in
18:27:51 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-149 - Implement the imports proposal as described in [on Boris Motik - due 2008-05-14].
18:28:07 [Rinke]
alanr: thank you TF for putting effort on this?
18:28:11 [Rinke]
alanr: aob?
18:28:21 [Rinke]
bmotik: defer this action to next week, because of the workshop
18:28:23 [uli]
bye bye
18:28:39 [Zakim]
18:28:40 [JeremyCarroll]
bye bye
18:28:41 [Rinke]
alanr: UFDTF expect to have a telecon on monday
18:28:42 [Zakim]
18:28:43 [Zakim]
18:28:43 [Zakim]
18:28:44 [Zakim]
18:28:44 [Zakim]
18:28:44 [Zakim]
18:28:44 [bijan]
I'm traveling on monday
18:28:45 [Rinke]
alanr: adjourn
18:28:46 [Zakim]
18:28:47 [Zakim]
18:28:49 [Zakim]
18:28:51 [Zakim]
18:28:54 [Zakim]
18:28:54 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has left #owl
18:28:56 [Zakim]
18:28:59 [Zakim]
18:29:14 [Zakim]
18:29:16 [Zakim]
18:29:22 [Zakim]
18:29:22 [msmith]
msmith has left #owl
18:29:24 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()12:00PM has ended
18:29:25 [Zakim]
Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, Rinke, MarkusK, Ivan, uli, IanH, bcuencagrau, msmith, bmotik, m_schnei, Achille, Alan, Sandro, bijan, JeremyCarroll, Evan_Wallace, baojie
18:29:47 [sandro]
Rinke, I'll have the draft on the wiki in a couple of minutes.
18:29:57 [Rinke]
ok great
18:34:25 [sandro]
Ok, Rinke, it's ready.
18:34:37 [Rinke]
I'll have a look.. thanks!
18:40:54 [Rinke]
looks good, thanks.
18:40:55 [Rinke]
18:44:00 [MartinD]
MartinD has left #OWL
20:36:14 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl