IRC log of owl on 2008-06-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:52:52 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:52:52 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/04-owl-irc
16:53:07 [ewallace]: ewallace has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.06.04/Agenda
16:54:34 [ewallace]: Zakim, this will be owlwg
16:54:34 [Zakim]: ok, ewallace; I see SW_OWL()12:00PM scheduled to start 54 minutes ago
16:55:40 [bijan]: 54 minutes ago?
16:56:02 [ratnesh]: ratnesh has joined #owl
16:56:12 [Zakim]: SW_OWL()12:00PM has now started
16:56:19 [Zakim]: +??P1
16:56:23 [pfps-away]: pfps-away has joined #owl
16:56:24 [bijan]: zakim, I am ??p1
16:56:24 [Zakim]: +bijan; got it
16:56:29 [bijan]: zakim, mute me
16:56:29 [Zakim]: sorry, bijan, muting is not permitted when only one person is present
16:56:37 [bijan]: Grr. Why not?
16:56:55 [Zakim]: +Sandro
16:57:01 [pfps]: sorry, bijan, I cannot answer that question when only one person is present
16:57:08 [bijan]: zakim, mute me
16:57:08 [Zakim]: bijan should now be muted
16:57:12 [uli]: uli has joined #owl
16:57:17 [sandro]: (hi...)
16:57:21 [bijan]: zakim, mute everyone else
16:57:21 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'mute everyone else', bijan
16:57:26 [Zakim]: +Evan_Wallace
16:57:27 [bijan]: If only....
16:57:32 [m_schnei]: m_schnei has joined #owl
16:58:09 [msmith]: msmith has joined #owl
16:58:22 [Zakim]: +??P6
16:58:28 [bmotik]: Zakim, ??P6 is me
16:58:28 [Zakim]: +bmotik; got it
16:58:33 [bmotik]: Zakim, mute me
16:58:33 [Zakim]: bmotik should now be muted
16:58:38 [Elisa]: Elisa has joined #owl
16:58:57 [Zakim]: +??P7
16:59:06 [uli]: zakim, ??P7 is me
16:59:06 [Zakim]: +uli; got it
16:59:10 [uli]: zakim, mute me
16:59:10 [Zakim]: uli should now be muted
16:59:16 [Zakim]: +msmith
16:59:19 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
16:59:33 [Zakim]: +Elisa_Kendall
16:59:43 [Achille]: Achille has joined #owl
16:59:45 [m_schnei]: zakim, [IPcaller] is me
16:59:45 [Zakim]: +m_schnei; got it
16:59:47 [calvanese]: calvanese has joined #owl
16:59:51 [m_schnei]: zakim, mute me
16:59:51 [Zakim]: m_schnei should now be muted
17:00:15 [MarkusK]: MarkusK has joined #owl
17:00:25 [Zakim]: + +1.857.362.aaaa
17:00:27 [Zakim]: - +1.857.362.aaaa
17:00:33 [Zakim]: +[IBM]
17:00:47 [Zakim]: + +39.047.101.aabb
17:00:48 [Zakim]: +??P12
17:00:52 [Achille]: Zakim, IBM is Achille
17:00:52 [Zakim]: +Achille; got it
17:01:07 [Zakim]: +??P17
17:01:11 [ivan]: zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:01:11 [Zakim]: ok, ivan; the call is being made
17:01:13 [Zakim]: +Ivan
17:01:17 [calvanese]: Zakim, aabb is me
17:01:17 [Zakim]: +calvanese; got it
17:01:24 [ratnesh]: zakim, +??P17 is me
17:01:24 [Zakim]: sorry, ratnesh, I do not recognize a party named '+??P17'
17:01:28 [Zakim]: -Sandro
17:01:41 [ratnesh]: zakim, c??P17 is me
17:01:41 [Zakim]: sorry, ratnesh, I do not recognize a party named 'c??P17'
17:01:44 [bijan]: We need a chair, eh?
17:01:50 [calvanese]: zakim, mute me
17:01:50 [Zakim]: calvanese should now be muted
17:01:54 [ivan]: zakim, ??P17 us ratnesh
17:01:54 [Zakim]: I don't understand '??P17 us ratnesh', ivan
17:01:59 [uli]: alan should be chairing?
17:01:59 [ivan]: ????
17:02:10 [bijan]: He doesn't seem to be here,yes?
17:02:11 [Elisa]: scribe: Elisa
17:02:15 [ivan]: zakim, P17 is ratnesh
17:02:15 [Zakim]: sorry, ivan, I do not recognize a party named 'P17'
17:02:20 [bijan]: He's listed as chair
17:02:24 [ewallace]: scribeNick:Elisa
17:02:26 [Zakim]: +Sandro
17:02:27 [ratnesh]: zakim, ??P17 is ratnesh
17:02:27 [bijan]: Ian is on vacation
17:02:28 [Zakim]: +ratnesh; got it
17:02:43 [Rinke]: Rinke has joined #owl
17:02:48 [bijan]: I have the popular vote in non-caucus states...
17:03:19 [uli]: did anybody emailed/pinged Alan?
17:03:28 [bijan]: He's not on skype
17:03:30 [sandro]: I'll swing by his office on my way.
17:03:34 [Zakim]: +Alan
17:03:42 [sandro]: (never mind)
17:03:48 [alanr]: alanr has joined #owl
17:03:53 [Carsten]: Carsten has joined #owl
17:03:57 [bijan]: ...and since he's so very dillegent, I can't imagine anything but physical injury would keep him from attending!
17:04:02 [alanr]: hi
17:04:10 [bijan]: So, sandro, stop your harshing on alan!
17:04:18 [Elisa]: Topic: Admin
17:04:31 [Zakim]: +??P15
17:04:38 [alanr]: zakim, who is here?
17:04:38 [Zakim]: On the phone I see bijan (muted), Evan_Wallace, Peter_Patel-Schneider, bmotik (muted), uli (muted), msmith (muted), m_schnei (muted), Elisa_Kendall, Achille, calvanese (muted),
17:04:41 [Rinke]: Zakim, ??P15 is me
17:04:42 [Zakim]: ... MarkusK, ratnesh, Ivan, Sandro, Alan, ??P15
17:04:43 [Zakim]: On IRC I see Carsten, alanr, Rinke, MarkusK, calvanese, Achille, Elisa, msmith, m_schnei, uli, pfps, ratnesh, RRSAgent, ewallace, Zakim, bmotik, ivan, sandro, bijan, trackbot
17:04:45 [Zakim]: +Rinke; got it
17:04:48 [ewallace]: a good reason to be late
17:04:52 [Elisa]: Link to Agenda is http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.06.04/Agenda
17:04:56 [Rinke]: zakim, mute me
17:04:56 [Zakim]: Rinke should now be muted
17:05:13 [Elisa]: Agenda amendments: (1) we need to accept minutes of May 21
17:05:37 [Elisa]: (2) on imports and versioning, Alan needs to get back to Boris on wording, thus drop that
17:05:49 [Elisa]: Alan: first, previous minutes, 28 May
17:05:51 [alanr]: PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (28 May)
17:05:54 [Zakim]: + +49.351.463.3.aacc
17:05:56 [alanr]: +1
17:05:57 [msmith]: +1 on minutes
17:06:03 [Rinke]: +1
17:06:08 [pfps]: +1 minutes acceptable now
17:06:19 [Elisa]: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.05.28/Minutes
17:06:21 [Carsten]: zakim, aacc is me
17:06:21 [Zakim]: +Carsten; got it
17:06:25 [Carsten]: hi
17:06:27 [ivan]: +1
17:06:34 [alanr]: RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes (28 May)
17:06:34 [uli]: +1
17:06:39 [alanr]: PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (21 May)
17:06:45 [Carsten]: zakim, mute me
17:06:45 [Zakim]: Carsten should now be muted
17:06:47 [Elisa]: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.05.21/Minutes
17:07:04 [Elisa]: Alan: there was work to be done on these -- has anyone checked them since last week?
17:07:08 [Zakim]: +Zhe
17:07:08 [pfps]: +1 minutes are better than last week
17:07:09 [uli]: they look better than last time I looked
17:07:19 [msmith]: there appeared to be reorderings, etc.
17:07:19 [Zhe]: Zhe has joined #owl
17:07:20 [msmith]: +1
17:07:29 [Rinke]: +1
17:07:29 [uli]: +1
17:07:34 [ivan]: 0 (was not on that meeting:-)
17:07:40 [ewallace]: +1
17:07:45 [ratnesh]: 0
17:07:50 [alanr]: RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes (21 May)
17:08:18 [Elisa]: Alan: Registration for F2F3 reminder
17:08:27 [Elisa]: Topic: Pending Review Actions
17:08:57 [Elisa]: Alan: I've modified the action to be relative to the decision taken at the F2F
17:09:07 [Elisa]: I saw a note from Michael Schneider addressing some issues
17:09:28 [bmotik]: +1 to Alan
17:09:31 [Elisa]: if people agree, we could say that this action is done, but
17:09:36 [m_schnei]: +1 to boris has done his job
17:09:36 [Achille]: +1 to Alan
17:09:40 [Rinke]: +1
17:09:42 [pfps]: +1 to accepting action 131
17:09:53 [uli]: +1
17:09:54 [bijan]: +1
17:09:58 [Zhe]: +1
17:10:01 [Achille]: +1
17:10:09 [msmith]: +1
17:10:16 [Elisa]: but that as people review it that we would raise any issues, that we will discuss as they come up
17:10:17 [ewallace]: +1 to saying the action is done, related concerns may lead to new issues
17:10:33 [bijan]: I'll push
17:10:35 [Elisa]: let's consider that closed
17:10:44 [m_schnei]: zakim, unmute me
17:10:44 [Zakim]: m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:10:46 [Elisa]: Alan: issue 42
17:11:14 [ewallace]: issue 42 will be pushed out
17:11:15 [m_schnei]: zakim, mute me
17:11:15 [Zakim]: m_schnei should now be muted
17:11:22 [Elisa]: Michael -- expect something written towards the end of the week (issue 147)
17:11:54 [alanr]: q?
17:12:11 [bijan]: Primer is being rewritten to take all this into account
17:12:12 [Elisa]: Achille: I did the review - just added a reviewer note on a couple of issues; we need to adjust the primer accordingly
17:12:24 [Elisa]: (issue 148)
17:12:34 [Elisa]: Issue 148 will be closed
17:12:50 [Elisa]: Alan: action 150 continued to next week
17:13:16 [Elisa]: Alan: another agenda amendment, Ian and I have accepted 4 more issues - we'll send email
17:13:25 [m_schnei]: q+
17:13:32 [m_schnei]: zakim, unmute me
17:13:32 [Zakim]: m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:13:40 [Elisa]: Alan: Issue 104 - the status of this is editorial
17:14:01 [Elisa]: Michael: I didn't quite understand -- this issue is about to be resolved today .. difficult to see from the agenda
17:14:31 [Elisa]: Alan: when an issue is considered editorial, anyone in the wg can address it and close it when they do
17:14:56 [Elisa]: Michael: this certainly isn't editorial -- in the old OWL 1.1 DL spec there was a complete list of URIs that were
17:15:13 [Elisa]: not allowed to be used, and everything that was not in the list is allowed to be used
17:15:31 [alanr]: noted, boris
17:15:51 [Elisa]: in the current form, all RDF and RDFS URIs are excluded, so in particular the reification vocabulary would not allowed to be used and so this is a backwards compatibility issue
17:16:06 [Elisa]: Alan: if you and Boris can work this out, then we can make this editorial
17:16:33 [Elisa]: Michael: it's a problem to make this editorial - I would not be in favor of that
17:16:38 [uli]: q?
17:17:05 [Elisa]: Alan: that's enough for me to consider it an issue for discussion ... do you feel you would be comfortable to discuss it now or over email
17:17:08 [alanr]: q?
17:17:20 [alanr]: ack m_schnei
17:17:25 [Elisa]: Michael: I will come up with a list of uris from the old spec that were allowed
17:17:30 [bmotik]: OK.
17:17:30 [m_schnei]: q-
17:17:35 [m_schnei]: zakim, mute me
17:17:35 [Zakim]: m_schnei should now be muted
17:17:37 [Elisa]: Alan: let's put that on the list for discussion next week.
17:17:48 [alanr]: put 104 on next week's agenda for discussion. Not editorial any more
17:18:16 [Elisa]: Topic: Issue Discussions
17:18:42 [bmotik]: Yes
17:18:47 [Elisa]: Alan: should we proceed on the general discussion first, since Boris needs to leave at 2
17:18:54 [Elisa]: Topic: General Discussion
17:19:29 [bmotik]: Zakim, unmute me
17:19:29 [Zakim]: bmotik should no longer be muted
17:19:35 [Elisa]: Alan: there were some concerns with easy keys, one had to do with implementation, the other had to do with being at risk since there were no implementations yet
17:20:10 [Elisa]: Boris: so, I've been thinking about implementation -- in email I tried to explain why I don't think this is trivial and on the other hand why it might work
17:20:22 [alanr]: q?
17:20:26 [alanr]: q+
17:20:35 [bijan]: q+
17:20:48 [Elisa]: In order to explain the details, you need to be involved in tableaux algorithms ...
17:20:50 [ivan]: q+
17:20:59 [alanr]: ack alanr
17:21:10 [Elisa]: For the moment I would say that this is work in progress, and then we shall see whether or not it goes into the spec
17:21:28 [Elisa]: Alan: does that mean it cannot be implemented using rule-based techniques?
17:21:47 [uli]: q+
17:21:48 [Elisa]: Boris: in rule-based techniques it is much easier
17:22:03 [alanr]: ack bijan
17:22:04 [MarkusK]: Re Boris (the problem is in existentials): this is not the case for EL++, where the existentials are also harmless
17:22:04 [Elisa]: The problems arise when you get these existentially introduced individuals
17:22:12 [bijan]: zakim, unmute me
17:22:12 [Zakim]: bijan was not muted, bijan
17:22:48 [Elisa]: Bijan: I think we need to keep a distinction between it being easy in all cases and easy in key cases and easy for users to write properly
17:23:00 [bmotik]: Markus, why do you thhink this?
17:23:12 [Elisa]: so it's clear that the much easier keys, where you look for explicit data values, rather than data ranges, is going to be easier
17:23:21 [Elisa]: but that's always going to be the case
17:23:29 [MarkusK]: Boris, because you can compiel EL++ into Datalog, and use a rule based reasoning too
17:23:38 [Elisa]: if you enumerate, or define finite subsets of individuals you may have trouble there
17:23:53 [Elisa]: so I'm wondering what standard Boris thinks we need for scalability
17:23:56 [MarkusK]: ... where the compilation is trivial
17:24:08 [Elisa]: we could put a restriction on the data properties, but that seems unfortunate in this case
17:24:14 [alanr]: ack ivan
17:24:16 [bijan]: zakim, muteme
17:24:16 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'muteme', bijan
17:24:44 [bijan]: zakim, mute me
17:24:44 [Zakim]: bijan should now be muted
17:24:45 [Elisa]: Ivan: in some ways I agree with what Bijan just said ... in some ways easy keys seems an important set of use cases
17:24:48 [alanr]: q+
17:24:54 [bijan]: To be precise, it is "pay as you go"
17:24:58 [bmotik]: q+ to answer to Ivan
17:25:02 [Carsten]: +1 to ivan
17:25:03 [alanr]: ack uli
17:25:05 [uli]: zakim, ack me
17:25:05 [Zakim]: I see alanr, bmotik on the speaker queue
17:25:18 [Elisa]: It seems doable in OWL-R, and with some difficulty in OWL DL, but that doesn't seem a good argument
17:25:37 [Elisa]: Uli: we know the harmful and harmless cases and can distinguish them
17:25:49 [alanr]: ack alanr
17:25:53 [MarkusK]: +1 to Uli: there are other ways to break reasoning already
17:26:01 [Elisa]: if you want to break the reasoning you can do this -- I don't see the difference between this case and other cases in OWL DL
17:26:12 [bijan]: Or to rephrase it, would people prefer to have a syntactic restriction on key properties or to have potential nonscalable cases.
17:26:31 [Elisa]: Alan: perhaps it makes sense to distinguish between the two cases -- handle the easier case in the first pass
17:26:49 [Elisa]: and then have a pass if possible
17:27:10 [bijan]: (It's easier to spec easy keys than easy peasy keys)
17:27:17 [alanr]: ack bmotik
17:27:17 [Zakim]: bmotik, you wanted to answer to Ivan
17:27:28 [uli]: zakim, mute me
17:27:28 [Zakim]: uli should now be muted
17:27:35 [Elisa]: Uli: If we can leave it with the easy case, then the easy keys become "easy-peasy"
17:28:02 [Zakim]: +??P0
17:28:05 [bijan]: (Right, easy keys dumb down to easypeasy keys in e.g., owl-r)
17:28:05 [Zakim]: -??P0
17:28:07 [Elisa]: Boris: in OWL-R both are the same -- I wasn't necessarily advocating for only easy-peasy keys
17:28:25 [alanr]: q?
17:28:28 [Elisa]: I do believe that there is a difference, though, because of the complexity of the algorithms
17:28:52 [bijan]: q+
17:29:01 [Elisa]: but we have had some validation of these features - snomed, galen, where we have empirically demonstrated that you can use the existing constructs and not get into problems
17:29:14 [alanr]: ack bijan
17:29:18 [Zakim]: +??P0
17:29:24 [ratnesh]: zakim, ??P0 is ratnesh
17:29:24 [Zakim]: +ratnesh; got it
17:29:33 [Elisa]: the email I wrote talked about difficulties that could arise
17:30:03 [Elisa]: Bijan: we haven't had implementation experience, but you believe that the examples are going to be relatively common
17:30:12 [Elisa]: Boris: yes
17:30:29 [Elisa]: Bijan: so let's say that it turns out to be harder in that case, what's your strategy for it
17:30:43 [pfps]: if there are no implementations, then keys *have* to be dumped, right?
17:30:49 [alanr]: yes
17:31:12 [Elisa]: Boris: if it turns out in these typical cases where you go beyond OWL-R, then ... I would really suggest that we keep these two things separate
17:31:20 [bijan]: WE can always have implemetnatiosn :)
17:31:31 [alanr]: do they need to be correct?
17:31:31 [ivan]: pfps: actually, the usual CR exit criteria is to have 2 independent implementations for each feature...
17:31:32 [Elisa]: we would have something in the language that doesnt really fit
17:31:44 [alanr]: q?
17:31:49 [Elisa]: perhaps given the implementation we will know how to put the proper disclaimer on it
17:32:06 [Elisa]: Bijan: I still didn't quite understand the alternative to dumping keys altogether
17:32:23 [Elisa]: Boris: you could consider them DL-safe rules, or define them outside the spec
17:32:42 [Elisa]: Bijan: you do advocate dumping them from our spec and keeping them outside
17:32:57 [uli]: q+
17:33:00 [Elisa]: Boris: well it depends on the results of the implementation experience, but yes
17:33:17 [Elisa]: Alan: perhaps we should discuss this over the week and then revisit it next week
17:33:23 [bijan]: No
17:33:29 [Elisa]: would it help to have more time?
17:33:51 [Elisa]: I wouldn't mind having another week to figure out some way forward to putting these in the spec,
17:33:56 [m_schnei]: q+
17:33:56 [uli]: zakim, unmute me
17:33:57 [Zakim]: uli should no longer be muted
17:33:58 [alanr]: ack uli
17:34:01 [Elisa]: perhaps at least easy-peasy keys
17:34:13 [bmotik]: +1 to Uli
17:34:27 [ivan]: q+
17:34:48 [Elisa]: Uli: what would help to sort this out would be to see use cases, and if nobody uses datatype predicates on them, then we will know that easy keys are not more difficult than easy peasy keys, and we could check syntactically
17:34:53 [alanr]: ack m_schnei
17:34:54 [m_schnei]: zakim, unmute me
17:34:54 [Zakim]: m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
17:34:55 [uli]: zakim, mute me
17:34:55 [Zakim]: uli should now be muted
17:35:01 [Elisa]: and I agree with Boris that we don't have other cases like that in there
17:35:09 [uli]: yes
17:35:13 [uli]: yes
17:35:19 [bijan]: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Easy_Keys#Why_not_easiest_keys.3F
17:35:50 [bijan]: See that uri
17:35:50 [uli]: Michael, this makes trouble to define
17:35:54 [Elisa]: Michael: I see even an easier feature, where the property versions that would be the easiest way
17:36:09 [uli]: Michael, we can't define a semantics for these - or can you?
17:36:12 [Elisa]: compared to easy-peasy keys, these
17:36:35 [m_schnei]: zakim, mute me
17:36:35 [Zakim]: m_schnei should now be muted
17:36:37 [uli]: yes
17:36:38 [m_schnei]: q-
17:36:41 [Elisa]: Boris: as long as the assertions contain constants, it isn't too bad, the issue is when you have individuals that can be interpreted in any way
17:36:44 [bijan]: q+
17:36:47 [bijan]: zakim, unmute me
17:36:47 [Zakim]: bijan was not muted, bijan
17:36:49 [alanr]: q?
17:36:52 [alanr]: ack bijan
17:37:00 [bmotik]: +q
17:37:07 [Elisa]: Bijan: can I just point out that there is a pretty extensive discussion on the easy keys page
17:37:12 [alanr]: ack ivan
17:37:43 [Elisa]: Ivan: so one more thing - I can't really comment on the DL side, but I would object to removing the keys from OWL-R, where it isn't really a problem
17:37:48 [pfps]: Are keys *in* OWL-R? If not, how can they be *removed*?
17:37:50 [alanr]: ack bmotik
17:37:59 [Elisa]: I certainly don't think that removing from the whole spec is justifiable
17:38:01 [uli]: Ivan, I don't think that this will be necessary
17:38:18 [ivan]: pfps: my understanding is that it can be added to OWL-R easily
17:38:19 [Elisa]: Boris: im not advocating a change to the semantics, or two different constructs
17:38:20 [alanr]: peachy keys
17:38:42 [m_schnei]: uli, yes you're right, this seems hard. for the variables, we have the "HU(.)" predicate, but what can we say about the "r(.,.)" ?
17:38:51 [bijan]: Deliberately so!
17:38:54 [Elisa]: the semantics is ok; I do believe that there might be a reason to drop this out of owl -- they apply only to these explicitly named individuals and are much more akin to rules
17:39:12 [uli]: michael, indeed (see the discussion Bijan has pointed out)
17:39:38 [Elisa]: Boris: it might make sense to think about how to implement it before putting it in there
17:39:54 [uli]: q?
17:39:57 [uli]: q+
17:40:09 [alanr]: ack uli
17:40:11 [Elisa]: I do think in all likelihood it is implementable but if you have a million individuals then you have a million squared individuals
17:40:22 [Elisa]: we should see if it really works before putting it into the spec
17:40:38 [bmotik]: q+
17:40:55 [bijan]: +1 to uli
17:40:57 [Elisa]: Uli: in contrast to easy keys, i have seen more use cases for top and bottom property, but i haven't heard anyone shout so loudly for them as I have for keys
17:40:58 [uli]: zakim, mute me
17:40:58 [Zakim]: uli should now be muted
17:40:58 [alanr]: ack bmotik
17:41:07 [Elisa]: I think we can drop them far more easily than keys
17:41:34 [bijan]: q+
17:41:35 [Elisa]: Boris: we dont see OWL DL reasoners that can handle a million individuals ... in OWL R you can ...
17:42:00 [alanr]: q?
17:42:03 [uli]: ...and bottom role is easy anyway
17:42:04 [Elisa]: you put it into one of our reasoners, you see whether or not it can be done ... let's just do this
17:42:04 [alanr]: ack bijan
17:42:06 [bijan]: zakim, unmute me
17:42:06 [Zakim]: bijan was not muted, bijan
17:42:49 [alanr]: q+ alnr
17:42:49 [Elisa]: Bijan: I think that Uli pointed out that in one of these cases there has been a huge battle/desire/complaints for keys, not so much for top and bottom property, so I think it's easier to drop these
17:43:20 [sandro]: sandro has joined #owl
17:43:21 [bmotik]: q+
17:43:26 [Elisa]: there is different motivation for these, for keys it's a huge wart on the language, but we can request implementation and see what happens
17:43:46 [Elisa]: so there is always a wide balance of considerations, and no one was trying to suggest otherwise
17:43:51 [Zakim]: +Sandro.a
17:44:00 [alanr]: ack alnr
17:44:09 [Zakim]: -Sandro
17:44:22 [Elisa]: whether we keep this on a separate page or include them is a different issue now -- we're at the implementation stage and need to see whether or not we can do them
17:44:39 [uli]: s/keyes/keys
17:44:48 [Elisa]: Alan: would there be any strong objectors to dropping top and bottom role? do you think there isn't any reason to spend more time on them?
17:45:08 [Carsten]: yes
17:45:08 [sandro]: +0.5 keep top and bottom
17:45:09 [pfps]: no - no strong objection from me to not including top/bottom
17:45:10 [Elisa]: If you say yes then you really want them
17:45:11 [MarkusK]: +0.5 to top
17:45:16 [ivan]: 0
17:45:17 [bmotik]: +1 to investigate top and bottom
17:45:21 [Elisa]: 0
17:45:23 [uli]: +0.3 ...it would be a shame if we dropped them unnecessarily
17:45:25 [m_schnei]: 0
17:45:29 [Rinke]: +0.5 to have top
17:45:29 [Achille]: 0
17:45:33 [MarkusK]: (+1 to not drop something based on theoretical performance considerations)
17:46:02 [Elisa]: Alan: so it's been mentioned several times, so regardless of whether we put something into the spec, we will need 2 implementations
17:46:04 [sandro]: zakim, who is talking?
17:46:06 [Zakim]: -Alan
17:46:11 [bijan]: zakim, mute me
17:46:11 [Zakim]: bijan should now be muted
17:46:12 [ivan]: oops, lost our boss
17:46:15 [Zakim]: sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Sandro.a (24%), ratnesh (50%), Ivan (20%)
17:46:16 [alanr]: hang on
17:46:16 [uli]: Alan went!
17:46:19 [bijan]: zakim, mute scary noise
17:46:19 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'mute scary noise', bijan
17:46:20 [pfps]: alan is lost in the fog :-)
17:46:20 [Rinke]: +1 MarkusK
17:46:22 [uli]: Can we go as well?
17:46:25 [sandro]: zakim, who is talking?
17:46:27 [bijan]: Hello!
17:46:33 [Zhe]: that is strange
17:46:37 [Zakim]: sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ratnesh.a (14%), bmotik (5%), Sandro.a (5%), ratnesh (9%), Ivan (5%)
17:46:39 [Zakim]: +Alan
17:46:46 [uli]: Alan got taken over by Aliens!
17:47:16 [Elisa]: Alan: so I'm wondering whether we should resolve such problems by saying that we should put these things in and see what happens, or not
17:47:30 [bijan]: I'd prefer for things to get into Working Drafts
17:47:32 [Elisa]: the advantage of putting them in is that folks have something to think about for longer
17:47:43 [sandro]: "at risk"
17:47:54 [uli]: sounds fine
17:48:00 [Elisa]: Sandro: the W3C key is to say that something is at risk, then if you take it out later you don't have to worry about the process
17:48:02 [ratnesh]: zakim, mute me
17:48:02 [Zakim]: ratnesh should now be muted
17:48:06 [bmotik]: q+
17:48:08 [alanr]: q?
17:48:11 [bijan]: If something is not labeled at risk and gets pulled out, the default is to go back to last call
17:48:13 [alanr]: ack bmotik
17:48:54 [Elisa]: Boris: I don't think that discussing this over email would be useful -- my proposal would be to implement these features and then come back and say yes this was the experience
17:49:08 [ewallace]: do we have volunteers to implement?
17:49:31 [bijan]: I'm experiementing with Top and Bottom
17:49:37 [bijan]: And some easy key stuff as well
17:49:40 [Elisa]: my proposal would be to postpone this for a week, 2, 3 and then see what really happens ... in my case the implemetnation isnt really there so it would be a month before I could come back with an answer
17:50:00 [bijan]: We can always mark them in WDs as "needing implementor feedback"
17:50:03 [Elisa]: Alan: we should discuss next week whether or not we should put things that are at risk into the spec
17:50:20 [Elisa]: Topic: Issue Discussions
17:50:38 [alanr]: q?
17:51:00 [bmotik]: It's not issue 108; it's a thing that doesn't have an issue
17:51:07 [bmotik]: q+
17:51:14 [alanr]: ack bmotik
17:51:16 [Elisa]: Alan: issue 108 -- i sent out mail to the W3C space to see what was there and there seemed to be some relevant things about how we should be using the keywords (should, must)
17:51:55 [Elisa]: Boris: I also looked in one of these RFCs, regarding "should" and i wasnt happy with that because it says this is optional, and I would like something more than optional
17:52:07 [bijan]: SHOULD, in practice, varies in its strength
17:52:10 [alanr]: 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
17:52:11 [alanr]: may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
17:52:11 [alanr]: particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
17:52:11 [alanr]: carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
17:52:12 [bijan]: q+
17:52:22 [alanr]: 4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
17:52:22 [alanr]: there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
17:52:22 [alanr]: particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
17:52:22 [alanr]: implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
17:52:23 [alanr]: before implementing any behavior described with this label.
17:52:24 [Elisa]: we've been using this to say something is default ... do it like this unless you have a very good reason for not doing it
17:52:31 [alanr]: q?
17:52:35 [Elisa]: Bijan: it doesn't mean optional ...
17:52:38 [msmith]: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
17:52:40 [bijan]: zakim, unmute me
17:52:40 [Zakim]: bijan should no longer be muted
17:52:47 [bijan]: That was sandro :)
17:52:52 [Elisa]: Boris: then I looked at a different document
17:53:28 [bmotik]: +q
17:53:34 [Elisa]: Bijan: the official definition is what you were asking for, but in general, "should" can have the effect of being optional, or could have the effect of being mandatory, depending on how you read it
17:53:41 [alanr]: q?
17:53:46 [alanr]: ack bijan
17:53:58 [ewallace]: We SHOULD use SHOULD an interpret it as Alan quoted under 3 (Boris' meaning)
17:53:59 [Elisa]: If we are going to have shoulds, then we can use it as specified in the RFC -- shoulds are compatibility points
17:54:22 [Elisa]: Boris: as we are using it, the meaning is exactly as in the RFC, so perhaps we should repeat it
17:54:31 [Elisa]: I don't think we will be using other keywords
17:54:44 [Elisa]: if you are departing from this default, you should advertize it clearly
17:54:51 [bijan]: "Warnings"
17:54:55 [Elisa]: the inventor is obliged to say what he really did there
17:54:59 [alanr]: q?
17:55:04 [alanr]: ack bmotik
17:55:12 [sandro]: +1 boris, yes we can/should require vendors to be clear about when they are exercising a SHOULD.
17:55:21 [bijan]: q+
17:55:26 [alanr]: ack bijan
17:55:31 [alanr]: http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#RFC
17:55:32 [Elisa]: Alan: the only question I have is that the manuals say how to do this and make it typographically visible - is there any reason we shouldn't do that
17:55:42 [bijan]: zakim, unmute me
17:55:42 [Zakim]: bijan was not muted, bijan
17:55:46 [Elisa]: in the w3c manual, it says explicitly how to use them
17:56:18 [sandro]: "conformance labels"
17:56:33 [bmotik]: +q
17:56:38 [Elisa]: Bijan: this idea that we should have some kind of --- from vendors we should talk about some notion of conformance, and that we could ask that warnings be given in some form or another
17:56:44 [Elisa]: we havent done any of that yet
17:57:04 [Elisa]: Alan: if you could put an issue in for this, it's distinct from what we're discussing and useful
17:57:38 [bijan]: we do!
17:57:39 [Elisa]: Boris: if people really depart from these things, it has to be clear that an implementation is really departing from the "should"
17:57:44 [bijan]: q+
17:57:49 [sandro]: I think we can require warnings.
17:58:12 [bijan]: zakim, unmute me
17:58:12 [Zakim]: bijan was not muted, bijan
17:58:13 [alanr]: ack bmotik
17:58:18 [alanr]: q+ alanr
17:58:22 [alanr]: ack bijan
17:58:23 [Elisa]: it would be useful for the implementer to say what part of the shoulds they did not implement; if a vendor says they are compliant, they should say that they are OWL 2 compliant BUT ...
17:58:49 [bmotik]: +q
17:59:12 [bmotik]: -q
17:59:28 [Elisa]: Bijan: among our options are conformance labels, warnings ... and we can choose what we say about these, similar things occur in other W3C specifications - we can say that in order to conform with OWL 2 you must adhere to the shoulds ...
17:59:52 [Elisa]: Boris: I agree that the last thing you said is just a conformance label and I've put this into the spec
17:59:54 [alanr]: ack alanr
18:00:45 [Elisa]: Alan: the issue is if we are going to use "SHOULD" then we should follow the advice of the TR with respect to how we use them; if we are going to talk about conformance levels, that's an interesting and separate issue that we should put in and take up at another meeting
18:01:05 [bijan]: Issue-130 has been raised
18:01:05 [Elisa]: we also need to cite it as a reference and do the other things they say we need to do
18:01:30 [Zakim]: -bmotik
18:01:30 [alanr]: q?
18:02:25 [Elisa]: Alan: Issue 97 - we decided that we would write up a short doc about how to handle GRDDL for the OWL XML syntax; the issue is regarding who would take up this document development
18:02:30 [bijan]: Ok
18:02:59 [sandro]: ivan! ivan!
18:03:01 [Elisa]: Action on Bijan to write up this point of view
18:03:08 [bijan]: I could do it :)
18:03:33 [bijan]: I won't be at the f2f either
18:03:43 [bijan]: I can write the pro case!
18:03:44 [Elisa]: It would be good to have one of the W3c guys write up something on how to do this using XSLT
18:03:51 [Elisa]: I want to get someone to commit to the writing
18:04:07 [Elisa]: Alan: Ivan would you write up the first draft?
18:04:11 [Elisa]: Ivan: ok
18:04:21 [Elisa]: on irc or the wiki
18:04:32 [ivan]: s/irc/email/
18:05:07 [alanr]: action: bijan write 1/2 of GRDDL pro/con document for presentation and vote in next f2f
18:05:07 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-154 - Write 1/2 of GRDDL pro/con document for presentation and vote in next f2f [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-06-11].
18:05:31 [alanr]: ivan write 1/2 of GRDDL pro/con document for presentation and vote in next f2f, Sandro to own it at F2F
18:05:48 [alanr]: action: ivan write 1/2 of GRDDL pro/con document for presentation and vote in next f2f, Sandro to own it at F2F
18:05:49 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-155 - Write 1/2 of GRDDL pro/con document for presentation and vote in next f2f, Sandro to own it at F2F [on Ivan Herman - due 2008-06-11].
18:06:13 [bijan]: Can I get a pointer ot hte discussion last week?
18:06:16 [bijan]: I'mahving trouble finding it
18:06:20 [pfps]: I'm happy to talk about 124
18:06:26 [Elisa]: Alan: Issue 124 - should we discuss this
18:06:29 [bijan]: zakim, unmute me
18:06:29 [Zakim]: bijan was not muted, bijan
18:06:31 [m_schnei]: zakim, unmute me
18:06:31 [Zakim]: m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:06:42 [m_schnei]: zakim, mute me
18:06:42 [Zakim]: m_schnei should now be muted
18:07:03 [alanr]: agreed to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008May/0118.html
18:07:27 [Elisa]: Bijan: I'm confused about what I should be writing up on GRDDL - need a little context, but it came from the discussion two weeks ago
18:08:29 [Elisa]: Sandro: the process could be that Bijan writes it, and everyone screams, or Alan writes it and everyone screams -- Sandro will provide the context to Bijan with regard to how to resolve this
18:08:32 [ivan]: :-0
18:08:38 [Elisa]: from the minutes two weeks ago
18:08:58 [Elisa]: Alan: we were going to have a formal vote on this ...
18:09:14 [Elisa]: Bijan: so where does that leave us?
18:09:46 [Elisa]: Alan: I would rather have Bijan contribute the piece he needs to create, and then have Ivan do the same with the other side
18:09:55 [pfps]: q+
18:09:56 [m_schnei]: zakim, unmute me
18:09:57 [Zakim]: m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:09:58 [sandro]: two weeks ago discussion: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.05.21/Minutes#General_Discussion:_Issue_97
18:10:05 [Elisa]: Issue 124
18:10:41 [pfps]: q+ to note that the "related notes" in the issue appear to be incorrect, ...
18:11:12 [Zakim]: -ratnesh
18:11:44 [alanr]: peter - agree, my mistake - will fix
18:11:45 [Elisa]: Michael: the issue is for OWL Full in the current semantics, the complement is relative to the whole domain, and the problem is that all datatypes, or all subsets of RDFSLiteral ...
18:12:21 [Elisa]: the currently used URI for this is overloaded
18:12:26 [m_schnei]: zakim, mute me
18:12:26 [Zakim]: m_schnei should now be muted
18:12:28 [alanr]: ack pfps
18:12:28 [Zakim]: pfps, you wanted to note that the "related notes" in the issue appear to be incorrect, ...
18:12:34 [Elisa]: there are two domains for this in OWL DL but only one domain in OWL Full
18:13:45 [m_schnei]: what i am talking about here is actually a distinct issue, which just came up in the discussion of 124
18:14:09 [alanr]: q?
18:14:10 [m_schnei]: zakim, unmute me
18:14:11 [Zakim]: m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:14:13 [Elisa]: Alan: originally, when we talked about complement of datarange, when we talked about the complement of 5 integer, you got all other integers ... but then Boris said that the complement would include all other datatypes, not just integers
18:14:37 [Elisa]: Michael: what i propose is to just give it a strict name for this other complement
18:14:52 [alanr]: q?
18:14:55 [m_schnei]: zakim, mute me
18:14:55 [Zakim]: m_schnei should now be muted
18:15:03 [Elisa]: this is different from issue 124 -- it is much easier to fix, all we need to do is provide an owl data complement uri
18:15:13 [Elisa]: this came up during the discussion of issue 124
18:15:27 [m_schnei]: m_schnei: this is an RDF mapping issue
18:15:34 [Elisa]: Alan: my thought is to include this in the same issue, rather than opening another issue
18:15:38 [m_schnei]: thanks, peter ;-)
18:15:44 [Elisa]: Peter: Michaels solution for this is perfect
18:15:45 [m_schnei]: zakim, unmute me
18:15:45 [Zakim]: m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:15:53 [m_schnei]: zakim, mute me
18:15:53 [Zakim]: m_schnei should now be muted
18:16:02 [Elisa]: Alan: Michael, would you come up with a solution of this for our agenda for next week?
18:16:08 [Elisa]: Michael: yes, I'll do that
18:16:38 [alanr]: q?
18:16:44 [ivan]: q+
18:17:00 [Elisa]: Alan: Issue 109 is a question of what namespace to use for the OWL XML schema, and whether or not it should be distinct from or the same as what we're using for the RDF/XML OWL namespace
18:17:05 [alanr]: ack ivan
18:17:12 [ivan]: http://www.w3.org/mid/4846A073.2020203@w3.org
18:17:45 [bijan]: I'm not so pessimistic either
18:18:16 [bijan]: Or homicide!
18:18:26 [Elisa]: Ivan: I have written up some of the discussion I had yesterday with Bijan, but I am not as pessimistic about this as you are. I tried to write down what the choice is and next week we can vote on this and people can choose between the two options. It's not that big of a deal
18:18:39 [Elisa]: Alan: that's fine with me unless anyone has anything else to add
18:18:56 [alanr]: put 109 on agenda for next week - all to read http://www.w3.org/mid/4846A073.2020203@w3.org
18:19:22 [Elisa]: Topic: Additional Other Business
18:19:54 [Elisa]: Alan: we have a mail from a user asking about horn shiq and about why it's not in owl ... how should we respond
18:19:58 [bijan]: hornSHIQ is a good profile!
18:20:02 [bijan]: zakim, unmute me
18:20:02 [Zakim]: bijan was not muted, bijan
18:20:02 [alanr]: http://www.w3.org/mid/006a01c8c278$9cd57cc0$d6807640$@com
18:20:13 [Carsten]: He is within OWL2 DL
18:20:20 [Elisa]: Bijan: is there any reason not to include it as one more profile?
18:20:20 [uli]: ...there was "too many profiles"
18:20:31 [msmith]: +1 to uli's recollection
18:20:54 [Elisa]: depending on whether you count 3 or 5 or 7, depending on how you count the full versions of the little ones ...
18:21:11 [Carsten]: q+
18:21:32 [Elisa]: Bijan: hornshiq is a distinct and interesting profile, so would this open the floodgates? there is a user who wants this ...
18:21:33 [Carsten]: zakim, unmute me
18:21:33 [Zakim]: Carsten should no longer be muted
18:21:35 [alanr]: ack Carsten
18:22:22 [bijan]: q+
18:22:28 [Elisa]: Carsten: if we want to consider adding this, is it interesting enough to become rec? that's not a very strong point for adding it - we already have one data complexity profile, so I'm not really convinced
18:22:29 [alanr]: ack bijan
18:22:30 [pfps]: +1 to carsten
18:22:33 [Carsten]: zakim, mute me
18:22:33 [Zakim]: Carsten should now be muted
18:22:49 [Carsten]: That applies to every user
18:22:51 [MarkusK]: +1 to Carsten
18:23:03 [alanr]: q+
18:23:06 [Elisa]: Bijan: the other thing is that there are modeling problems that fall into hornSHIQ that are not relevant to the other data complexity profile - that's where he's coming from
18:23:17 [Elisa]: otherwise i agree with you in general
18:23:20 [alanr]: ack alanr
18:23:22 [Carsten]: q+
18:23:32 [Elisa]: but Christian was coming from both a modeling and performance perspective
18:23:42 [Carsten]: I disagree
18:23:51 [Carsten]: zakim, unmute me
18:23:51 [Zakim]: Carsten should no longer be muted
18:23:54 [Elisa]: Alan: I wonder if we should have the requirements people capture the modeling issue
18:23:59 [alanr]: ack Carsten
18:24:30 [uli]: +1 to Carsten's recollection
18:24:35 [Elisa]: Carsten: I disagree, because that something was good for modeling is not a good reason to include something - there should be an additional virtue that it has when you don't use DL full
18:24:38 [alanr]: q+ to say perhaps I mispoke
18:24:39 [ivan]: +1 to Carsten
18:24:43 [alanr]: ack alanr
18:24:43 [Zakim]: alanr, you wanted to say perhaps I mispoke
18:24:44 [Carsten]: zakim, mute me
18:24:45 [Zakim]: Carsten should now be muted
18:24:56 [Carsten]: ok
18:25:27 [Elisa]: Alan: I meant modeling in the sense of the inference you could make from it -- and whether the use case was compelling enough and the performance gain compelling enough to consider
18:25:35 [bijan]: Well, hornSHIQ can be compiled to (potentially exponentially many) datalog rules. KAON2 shows that performance (in that case) is pretty reasonable. In that sense, it's sort ofa "maximal" DLP
18:25:53 [Carsten]: maximal in OWL*2*?
18:26:11 [bijan]: So we could respond: It's unclear that hornSHIQ is a profile that will have enough implementor and user support to be a viable profile, esp. given how many fragments we already have. If you would like the WG to reconsider, could you provide some more information...
18:26:19 [bijan]: Carsten, ooo, dunno
18:26:23 [Elisa]: so - we have on one hand some people are saying well use OWL DL, we have too many fragments already and it isn't sufficiently compelling; the alternative would be to say we will investigate a little more and you shoudl talk with our requirements people about it
18:26:24 [uli]: +1 to Bijan
18:26:36 [uli]: ...to Bijan's first suggestion!
18:26:37 [ivan]: +1 to bijan
18:26:50 [calvanese]: +1 to Bijan
18:26:52 [pfps]: +1 to bijan
18:26:56 [Zhe]: +1 to bijan
18:26:57 [alanr]: +1
18:26:59 [Achille]: +1 to bijan
18:26:59 [Elisa]: Alan: I like what Bijan says -
18:27:00 [msmith]: +1
18:27:04 [Rinke]: +1
18:27:04 [Carsten]: +1
18:27:05 [bijan]: +1 to me
18:27:08 [MarkusK]: +1
18:27:09 [ewallace]: +1
18:27:20 [bijan]: Chair response
18:27:28 [Elisa]: Ivan: I think Alan should respond
18:27:42 [alanr]: action: Alan to respond to the email along the lines Bijan suggests above
18:27:42 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-156 - Respond to the email along the lines Bijan suggests above [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-06-11].
18:28:17 [Elisa]: Alan: last item -- Bijan brought up the issue of accessibility guidelines, and the work that needs to be done to follow those guidelines in our documents
18:28:30 [bijan]: q+
18:28:32 [Elisa]: what work needs to be done, how do we get started
18:28:35 [alanr]: ack bijan
18:28:47 [Elisa]: Sandro: I know there is something to be done but don't know how much work it is
18:28:55 [Rinke]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008May/0433.html
18:29:02 [ivan]: q+
18:29:16 [Elisa]: Bijan: it's certainly the case that for our images we need to have alternate text, tables are often hard for assisted technology without additional mark-up
18:29:21 [m_schnei]: unless there is no official W3C policy on this (is there any?), are we supposed to do anything in this direction?
18:29:34 [alanr]: q?
18:29:37 [Elisa]: there may be work to be done to make sure that the tables are good enough
18:29:39 [uli]: michael, I think we should
18:29:51 [Elisa]: there are some tools that check from an accessibility point of view
18:30:04 [bijan]: ALl our javascript dumbs down well
18:30:15 [Elisa]: Ivan: I don't know how extensively we use java scripting - that would require some additional explanation in the text
18:30:37 [uli]: Sandro, what does W3C normally do?
18:30:54 [Elisa]: Alan: it seems like we need some research on this, and someone to review our documents ... maybe we can discuss on the chairs list how we can get additional information and get back to the group with some harder facts
18:31:13 [Elisa]: Alan: AOB?
18:31:26 [Zakim]: -Evan_Wallace
18:31:26 [uli]: bye bye
18:31:27 [MarkusK]: bye
18:31:29 [Zakim]: -msmith
18:31:30 [Rinke]: bye
18:31:30 [Zakim]: -uli
18:31:30 [calvanese]: bye
18:31:30 [m_schnei]: bye
18:31:31 [ratnesh]: bye
18:31:32 [Zhe]: bye
18:31:32 [Zakim]: -Ivan
18:31:33 [Zakim]: -MarkusK
18:31:34 [Zakim]: -bijan
18:31:36 [Zakim]: -Zhe
18:31:38 [Zakim]: -Peter_Patel-Schneider
18:31:38 [Zakim]: -calvanese
18:31:41 [Zakim]: -ratnesh.a
18:31:43 [Zakim]: -Rinke
18:31:44 [Zakim]: -m_schnei
18:31:44 [Zakim]: -Carsten
18:31:57 [alanr]: action: Alan to confer with chairs list about how to get more information about what we need to do re: accessibility
18:31:57 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-157 - Confer with chairs list about how to get more information about what we need to do re: accessibility [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-06-11].
18:32:01 [calvanese]: quit
18:32:13 [Zakim]: -Alan
18:32:20 [calvanese]: #quit
18:32:53 [Zakim]: -Sandro.a
18:32:55 [Zakim]: -Elisa_Kendall
18:32:58 [Zakim]: -Achille
18:32:59 [Zakim]: SW_OWL()12:00PM has ended
18:33:00 [Zakim]: Attendees were bijan, Sandro, Evan_Wallace, Peter_Patel-Schneider, bmotik, uli, msmith, Elisa_Kendall, m_schnei, +1.857.362.aaaa, +39.047.101.aabb, Achille, MarkusK, Ivan,
18:33:02 [Zakim]: ... calvanese, ratnesh, Alan, Rinke, +49.351.463.3.aacc, Carsten, Zhe
18:34:01 [sandro]: PRESENT: bijan, Sandro, Evan_Wallace, Peter_Patel-Schneider, bmotik, uli, msmith, Elisa_Kendall, m_schnei, Achille, MarkusK, Ivan, calvanese, ratnesh, Alan, Rinke, Carsten, Zhe
18:34:04 [sandro]: CHAIR: Alan
20:35:41 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #owl