17:00:01 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:00:01 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-owl-irc
17:00:12 <pfps> Zakim, this will be owlwg
17:00:12 <Zakim> ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL()12:00PM scheduled to start 60 minutes ago
17:00:23 <pfps> RRSagent, make records public
17:00:32 <pfps> zakim, who is here?
17:00:32 <bmotik> bmotik has joined #owl
17:00:36 <Zakim> SW_OWL()12:00PM has not yet started, pfps
17:00:44 <Zakim> On IRC I see bmotik, RRSAgent, msmith, Zhe, uli, Zakim, ivan, bcuencagrau, Ratnesh, sandro, pfps, trackbot
17:00:47 <baojie> baojie has joined #owl
17:00:55 <Zhe> zakim, mute me
17:00:56 <Zakim> sorry, Zhe, I don't know what conference this is
17:01:18 <IanH> IanH has joined #owl
17:01:21 <pfps> zakim, this will be owlwg
17:01:21 <Zakim> ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL()12:00PM scheduled to start 61 minutes ago
17:01:28 <pfps> zakim, who is here?
17:01:28 <Zakim> SW_OWL()12:00PM has not yet started, pfps
17:01:29 <Zakim> On IRC I see IanH, baojie, bmotik, RRSAgent, msmith, Zhe, uli, Zakim, ivan, bcuencagrau, Ratnesh, sandro, pfps, trackbot
17:01:54 <uli> aha, this explains things
17:02:03 <uli> zakim, mute me
17:02:03 <Zakim> sorry, uli, I don't know what conference this is
17:02:09 <bmotik> Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:02:09 <Zakim> SW_OWL()12:00PM has not yet started, bmotik
17:02:10 <Zakim> On IRC I see IanH, baojie, bmotik, RRSAgent, msmith, Zhe, uli, Zakim, ivan, bcuencagrau, Ratnesh, sandro, pfps, trackbot
17:02:11 <sandro> zakim, this will be owl
17:02:11 <Zakim> ok, sandro, I see SW_OWL()12:00PM already started
17:02:14 <msmith> ScribeNick: msmith
17:02:15 <Zakim> +??P21
17:02:20 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:02:25 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:02:29 <bmotik> >	Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:02:34 <bmotik> Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:02:39 <Zakim> -??P3
17:02:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, +1.603.897.aaaa, +1.202.408.aabb, ??P5, ??P8, +0186527aacc, ??P21
17:02:49 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
17:02:52 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
17:02:52 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-owl-irc#T17-02-52
17:02:53 <Ratnesh> zakim, ??P21 is Ratnesh
17:02:55 <Zakim> +Ivan
17:03:00 <sandro> RRSAgent, make log public
17:03:01 <Zhe> zakim, +1.603.897.aaaa is me
17:03:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, +1.603.897.aaaa, +1.202.408.aabb, ??P5, ??P8, +0186527aacc, ??P21, Ivan
17:03:12 <pfps> zakim, who is here?
17:03:13 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:03:14 <Zakim> On IRC I see IanH, baojie, bmotik, RRSAgent, msmith, Zhe, uli, Zakim, ivan, bcuencagrau, Ratnesh, sandro, pfps, trackbot
17:03:14 <sandro> it's always slow at the top of the hour.
17:03:17 <Zakim> +Sandro
17:03:25 <Zakim> +Ratnesh; got it
17:03:27 <Zakim> -??P8
17:03:31 <Zakim> +Zhe; got it
17:03:33 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, ??P8 is me
17:03:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe, +1.202.408.aabb, ??P5, +0186527aacc, Ratnesh, Ivan, Sandro
17:03:39 <Zhe> Zakim, aaaa is me
17:03:45 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe, +1.202.408.aabb, ??P5, +0186527aacc, Ratnesh, Ivan, Sandro
17:03:49 <Zhe> zakim, mute me
17:03:57 <Zakim> +??P1
17:03:58 <Achille> Achille has joined #owl
17:04:02 <bcuencagrau> Zakim ??P8 is me
17:04:03 <Zakim> I already had ??P8 as ??P8, bcuencagrau
17:04:05 <Zakim> +??P2
17:04:11 <Zakim> sorry, Zhe, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
17:04:13 <Zakim> On IRC I see IanH, baojie, bmotik, RRSAgent, msmith, Zhe, uli, Zakim, ivan, bcuencagrau, Ratnesh, sandro, pfps, trackbot
17:04:13 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
17:04:24 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted
17:04:29 <Zakim> -??P5
17:04:30 <JeffP> JeffP has joined #owl
17:04:34 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
17:04:36 <Zakim> sorry, bcuencagrau, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:04:38 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aadd
17:04:42 <Zakim> +??P4
17:04:47 <baojie> zakim, aadd is me
17:04:47 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P4
17:04:52 <Zakim> sorry, bcuencagrau, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:04:55 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P4 is me
17:04:59 <Zakim> +baojie; got it
17:04:59 <IanH> zakim, aacc is me
17:05:02 <Zakim> I don't understand '??P4', bmotik
17:05:06 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
17:05:08 <Zakim> -??P1
17:05:12 <Zakim> +IanH; got it
17:05:12 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:05:14 <pfps> ack ??P5 
17:05:24 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:05:26 <Zakim> +[IBM]
17:05:26 <uli> zakim, ??P2 is me
17:05:29 <Achille> Zakim, IBM is me
17:05:30 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:05:31 <uli> zakim, mute me
17:05:40 <Zakim> +uli; got it
17:05:44 <Zakim> + +0122427aaee
17:05:48 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
17:05:48 <IanH> ack +0186527aacc
17:05:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe (muted), msmith, IanH, Ratnesh, Ivan, Sandro, uli, baojie, bmotik (muted), Achille, +0122427aaee
17:05:55 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
17:05:55 <JeffP> zakim, aaee is me
17:05:57 <IanH> ack ??P2
17:06:04 <Zakim> On IRC I see JeffP, Achille, IanH, baojie, bmotik, RRSAgent, msmith, Zhe, uli, Zakim, ivan, bcuencagrau, Ratnesh, sandro, pfps, trackbot
17:06:09 <msmith> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.06.25/Agenda
17:06:12 <Zakim> +JeffP; got it
17:06:18 <Zakim> +??P8
17:06:24 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, ??P8 is me
17:06:30 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:06:38 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it
17:06:42 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe (muted), msmith, IanH, Ratnesh, Ivan, Sandro, uli (muted), baojie, bmotik (muted), Achille, JeffP, bcuencagrau
17:06:44 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
17:06:55 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:06:58 <Zakim> On IRC I see JeffP, Achille, IanH, baojie, bmotik, RRSAgent, msmith, Zhe, uli, Zakim, ivan, bcuencagrau, Ratnesh, sandro, pfps, trackbot
17:07:02 <alanr> alanr has joined #owl
17:07:04 <Zakim> +Alan
17:07:33 <msmith> topic: roll call
17:07:41 <msmith> topic: agenda amendments?
17:07:51 <Rinke> Rinke has joined #owl
17:07:58 <msmith> ianh: no agenda amendments
17:08:06 <Zakim> -bmotik
17:08:20 <msmith> topic: PROPOSED: Accept Previous3 Minutes (04 June)
17:08:26 <Zakim> +??P4
17:08:30 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P4 is me
17:08:30 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
17:08:32 <pfps> 4 june minutes look acceptable
17:08:36 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:08:36 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:08:38 <calvanese> calvanese has joined #owl
17:08:54 <msmith> RESOLVED: Accept Previous3 Minutes (04 June)
17:09:11 <msmith> topic: Accept Previous2 Minutes (11 June)
17:09:12 <pfps> 11 june minutes look acceptable
17:09:18 <IanH> +1
17:09:20 <msmith> PROPOSED: Accept Previous2 Minutes (11 June)
17:09:21 <uli> +1
17:09:26 <msmith> RESOLVED: Accept Previous2 Minutes (11 June)
17:09:38 <msmith> topic: Accept Previous Minutes (18 June)
17:09:40 <pfps> 18 june minutes are *perfect*  :-)
17:09:43 <msmith> PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (18 June)
17:09:52 <IanH> +1
17:10:09 <msmith> RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes (18 June)
17:10:31 <msmith> topic: f2f3
17:10:37 <Zakim> + +39.047.101.aaff
17:10:49 <msmith> ianh: clarify status on http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F3_People
17:11:00 <calvanese> zakim, mute me
17:11:00 <Zakim> sorry, calvanese, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:11:06 <msmith> topic: pending review actions
17:11:14 <calvanese> zakim, +39.047.101.aaff is me
17:11:14 <Zakim> +calvanese; got it
17:11:20 <calvanese> zakim, mute me
17:11:20 <Zakim> calvanese should now be muted
17:11:22 <Zakim> +??P18
17:11:23 <uli> zakim, unmute me
17:11:23 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted
17:11:30 <Rinke> zakim, ??P18 is me
17:11:34 <Zakim> +Rinke; got it
17:11:35 <IanH> q?
17:11:41 <Rinke> zakim, mute me
17:11:41 <Zakim> Rinke should now be muted
17:11:48 <msmith> ianh: on action-160 wasn't there question on top/bottom in profiles?  keys in profiles?
17:11:56 <calvanese> q+
17:12:01 <msmith> ... there was an action on uli re: top/bottom in profiles
17:12:09 <calvanese> zakim, unmute me
17:12:13 <uli> zakim, mute me
17:12:13 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
17:12:32 <msmith> uli: I sent an email on top/bottom in dl-lite.  diego?
17:12:57 <uli> zakim, unmute me
17:12:57 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted
17:13:03 <IanH> q?
17:13:04 <uli> q+
17:13:13 <IanH> ack calvanese
17:13:14 <msmith> calvanese: dl-lite has no top concept... there is no point to having it.  we don't believe it would impact properties, but there is not point
17:13:29 <msmith> ... if it doesn't change computation properties, it is just by chance
17:13:36 <msmith> ... you don't gain any expressivity
17:13:50 <msmith> ianh: its already that it doesn't add expressive power to DL
17:13:50 <IanH> q?
17:14:01 <uli> zakim, unmute me
17:14:01 <Zakim> uli was not muted, uli
17:14:06 <IanH> ack uli
17:14:09 <msmith> calvanese: yes, b/c you have nominals, that might not apply to profile which is strict subset
17:14:21 <bmotik> q+
17:14:25 <msmith> uli: reason to add is not to add expressivity, it is to add useful syntactic sugar
17:14:31 <calvanese> q+
17:14:46 <msmith> ... e.g., rooting a property hierarchy from a top property
17:15:11 <msmith> ianh: with profiles, ruling things out is costly rather than having them
17:15:25 <IanH> q?
17:15:27 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:15:27 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
17:15:27 <msmith> ... we should only rule things out if e.g., they have adverse impact on properties
17:15:33 <msmith> msmith: +1 to ianh
17:15:42 <IanH> ack calvanese
17:16:22 <uli> zakim, mute me
17:16:22 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
17:16:28 <IanH> q?
17:16:34 <msmith> calvanese: I partially agree.  adding construct gives indication it is to be used.  this may have bad impact, even if it can be simulated with existing constructs
17:16:43 <JeffP> +1 calvanese
17:16:47 <msmith> ... similar argument for dl-lite profile
17:16:57 <Zakim> -Ratnesh
17:17:01 <IanH> q?
17:17:07 <IanH> ack bmotik
17:17:27 <msmith> bmotik: only profile now including top/bottom is EL++
17:17:33 <uli> q+
17:17:46 <msmith> ... I don't think property must be in profile for editor to hang things off it in UI
17:18:11 <IanH> q?
17:18:14 <uli> 1-
17:18:14 <msmith> ianh: we had discussion about top/bottom being useful and addressed if it *tempts* users in a negative way
17:18:15 <uli> q-
17:18:21 <Zakim> +??P15
17:18:26 <msmith> ... it seems we can have it in dl-lite
17:18:26 <JeffP> q+
17:18:33 <Ratnesh> zakim, ??P15 is Ratnesh
17:18:33 <Zakim> +Ratnesh; got it
17:18:37 <msmith> calvanese: I'd like to check the details on whether we can have it
17:18:59 <JeffP> q-
17:19:15 <msmith> ianh: revisit this in future telecon
17:19:19 <IanH> q?
17:19:22 <msmith> ... top/bottom is in el++
17:19:30 <msmith> bmotik: not in owl-r
17:19:43 <msmith> ianh: should we action someone to investigate easy keys
17:19:45 <IanH> q?
17:19:58 <msmith> bmotik: no.  its clear no easy keys in dl-lite
17:20:03 <JeffP> q+
17:20:04 <calvanese> q+
17:20:11 <msmith> ... I added it to owl-r
17:20:12 <IanH> q?
17:20:25 <msmith> ... unknown for EL++
17:20:34 <msmith> jeffp: top/bottom in el++ ?
17:20:43 <msmith> bmotik: yes, checked with Carsten
17:20:53 <msmith> jeffp: it doesn't have nominals
17:20:55 <uli> q+
17:20:58 <uli> q-
17:21:03 <msmith> ianh: yes, presumably it doesn't hurt
17:21:13 <msmith> bmotik: yes, it doesn't hurt
17:21:15 <IanH> ack JeffP
17:21:18 <msmith> jefffp: what about el+
17:21:20 <bcuencagrau> EL++ without nominals
17:21:23 <IanH> q?
17:21:26 <msmith> bmotik: what's el+
17:21:46 <msmith> jeffp: el+ is supported by CEL
17:21:56 <JeffP> ok
17:22:04 <msmith> ianh: a bit off topic, we're only cerned with EL++ profile, not other fragments
17:22:14 <msmith> s/cerned/concerned/
17:22:28 <IanH> q?
17:22:51 <msmith> ... interesting that CEL doesn't support all of EL++ since we'll need to follow-up moving forward the recs
17:23:36 <msmith> calvanese: follow-up on keys in dl-lite, and boris's comments on it adding recursion.  we'd like to see some version of keys, could we consider a restricted version.
17:23:41 <msmith> ianh: are you willing to take action
17:23:56 <msmith> action: calvanese to investigate top/bottom roles in dl-lite
17:23:56 <trackbot> Created ACTION-162 - Investigate top/bottom roles in dl-lite [on Diego Calvanese - due 2008-07-02].
17:24:12 <msmith>  action: calvanese to investigate easy keys in dl-lite
17:24:21 <IanH> q?
17:24:31 <msmith> ACCEPT ACTION-160 as completed
17:24:36 <msmith> topic: due and overdue actions
17:24:46 <IanH> q?
17:24:55 <IanH> ack calvanese
17:24:56 <calvanese> q-
17:24:57 <msmith> ianh: action-155
17:25:12 <pfps> could we have a pointer to the document from the ACTION-155 page?
17:25:16 <IanH> q?
17:25:29 <msmith> ianh: there is a document, we also need implementation
17:25:40 <calvanese> zakim, mute me
17:25:40 <Zakim> calvanese should now be muted
17:25:46 <msmith> ianh: yes, we should add pointer to doc to action
17:26:01 <ivan> no
17:26:10 <msmith> ... bump date forward for action-155 pending arrival of an implementation?
17:26:18 <ivan> q+
17:26:22 <ivan> q-
17:26:26 <msmith> ianh: ok, that's what we'll do
17:26:28 <IanH> q?
17:26:40 <msmith> ianh: action-156, action-157
17:26:47 <msmith> alanr: push them both a week
17:26:52 <msmith> ianh: ok
17:27:13 <IanH> q?
17:27:14 <alanr> q+
17:27:15 <msmith> topic: issue-21 and issue-24
17:27:42 <IanH> q?
17:27:47 <IanH> ack alanr
17:27:53 <msmith> ianh: proposal to resolve says "per pfps email and subsequent discussion", are we really here?  it doesn't seem complete
17:28:01 <bmotik> q+
17:28:05 <IanH> q?
17:28:07 <msmith> alanr: we're close, have 1 issue open
17:28:28 <msmith> ... is inconsistent independent of header? bmotik and I disagreed
17:28:40 <pfps> q+
17:28:54 <msmith> ... it may be case inconsistency is noticed by user, not maintainer, we'd like to state this
17:28:54 <IanH> q?
17:28:59 <IanH> ack bmotik
17:29:06 <msmith> bmotik: one ontology saying something about another is recipe for disaster
17:29:12 <pfps> q-
17:29:21 <msmith> ... breaks encapsulation.  let's people say anything about anything
17:29:35 <alanr> how is this different from having axioms on a class in two different ontologies?
17:29:37 <IanH> q?
17:29:40 <Rinke> Not sure whether this has anything to do with the issues per se? Seems that the issues are being overloaded with side-issues that prevent them from being resolved. 
17:29:40 <msmith> ...detecting these incompatibilities and maintenance could get out of hand
17:29:49 <alanr> detecting is trivial
17:29:54 <alanr> q+
17:29:57 <IanH> q?
17:30:01 <IanH> ack alanr
17:30:07 <pfps> q-
17:30:25 <IanH> q?
17:30:29 <bmotik> q+
17:30:30 <uli> q+
17:30:31 <msmith> alanr: I'm not persuaded
17:30:37 <IanH> ack bmotik
17:31:03 <IanH> q?
17:31:04 <msmith> bmotik: allowing one ont to say something about another seems to me as a conceptual hack
17:31:26 <Rinke> +1 to separate issue!
17:31:29 <msmith> alanr: you're arguing conceptual integrity vs. use case from personal experience
17:31:40 <uli> zakim, unmute me
17:31:40 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted
17:31:42 <msmith> ... we can spin this off to another issue and resolve the rest
17:31:56 <msmith> uli: +1 on separate issue
17:32:14 <bmotik> q+
17:32:15 <msmith> ... +1 to bmotik that this will open can of worms and may be difficult to explain behavior
17:32:18 <alanr> q+
17:32:33 <uli> ack uli
17:32:48 <IanH> q?
17:32:51 <IanH> ack bmotik
17:32:55 <IanH> q?
17:33:02 <msmith> ianh: I see what you mean, just as you don't have control over another on, you may not have control over statements saying what onts are incompatible
17:33:10 <IanH> q?
17:33:10 <msmith> bmotik: already what we have is an improvement
17:33:15 <IanH> ack alanr
17:33:18 <IanH> q?
17:33:19 <msmith> alanr: not sure that's the case for owl 1
17:33:26 <msmith> bmotik: but there was no semantics
17:33:35 <IanH> q?
17:33:37 <msmith> alanr: yes, problem was no teeth to semantics
17:34:06 <msmith> bmotik: tool is more that welcome to do this.  seems to be extrapolating from one use case
17:34:37 <msmith> ianh: given we have agreement other than this, can we move forward closing ISSUE-21 and ISSUE-24 and open new issue to discuss versioning?
17:34:44 <bmotik> q+
17:34:48 <msmith> alanr: incompatible with, not versioning
17:34:50 <pfps> fine by me
17:34:56 <Rinke> +1
17:35:07 <msmith> ianh: yes, incompatibleWith
17:35:55 <IanH> PROPOSED: resolve Issue 21 and Issue 24 Imports and Versioning, per update from Boris, Peter's email and subsequent discussion, modulo opening new issue on incompatibleWith
17:36:34 <msmith> bmotik: if we move forward splitting, I think we should take everything out
17:36:45 <bmotik> -q
17:36:49 <msmith> alanr: I disagree unless strong opposition.  it would be a step backwards
17:37:09 <msmith> ianh: if we resolve in favor of your approach, doesn't that mean ripping out what's there now?
17:37:26 <IanH> q?
17:37:27 <msmith> alanr: ontology header is better than nothing, if we remove it we may have to readd it later
17:37:40 <msmith> bmotik: I'd prefer to discuss if we need incompatibleWith at all
17:38:14 <alanr> q?
17:38:19 <msmith> alanr: it seems we're now moving backwards
17:38:39 <msmith> pfps: I suggest going as proposal says, discuss incompatible with as separate issue
17:38:48 <msmith> bmotik: out of document?
17:39:06 <msmith> pfps: minimal change to current doc.  it is an interim state, even if no one likes it
17:39:12 <msmith> bmotik: ok
17:39:34 <IanH> PROPOSED: resolve Issue 21 and Issue 24 Imports and Versioning, per update from Boris, Peter's email and subsequent discussion, but open new issue on status of incompatibleWith
17:39:46 <pfps> +1 to resolve this way 
17:39:49 <bmotik> +1
17:39:51 <alanr> +1
17:39:53 <uli> +1
17:39:53 <Rinke> +1
17:39:56 <IanH> +1
17:39:58 <ivan> 0
17:39:59 <msmith> +1
17:40:03 <baojie> 0
17:40:08 <Ratnesh> +1
17:40:17 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:40:25 <IanH> RESOLVED: resolve Issue 21 and Issue 24 Imports and Versioning, per update from Boris, Peter's email and subsequent discussion, but open new issue on status of incompatibleWith
17:40:37 <Zhe> +1
17:40:38 <alanr> happy happy
17:40:42 <alanr> joy joy
17:40:46 <bmotik> ACTION to bmotik2: Update the strucutral spec according to resolution of ISSUE 21 and ISSUE 24
17:40:46 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to
17:41:00 <bmotik> ACTION bmotik2: Update the strucutral spec according to resolution of ISSUE 21 and ISSUE 24
17:41:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-163 - Update the strucutral spec according to resolution of ISSUE 21 and ISSUE 24 [on Boris Motik - due 2008-07-02].
17:41:03 <msmith> Topic: ISSUE-81
17:41:05 <Achille> Achille has joined #owl
17:41:06 <IanH> q?
17:41:37 <IanH> q?
17:41:53 <msmith> ianh: ISSUE-81 can be resolved using bmotik's proposal to use an alternative vocabulary for reification
17:42:08 <msmith> ... any reasons not to resolve?
17:42:18 <IanH> PROPOSED: resolve Issue 81 Reification of Negative Property Assertions, per Boris's email 
17:42:21 <pfps> +1 to proceed apace
17:42:24 <bmotik> +1
17:42:25 <Rinke> +1
17:42:26 <IanH> +1
17:42:27 <msmith> +1
17:42:28 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:42:37 <ivan> +1
17:42:37 <Ratnesh> +1
17:42:46 <uli> +1
17:42:58 <IanH> RESOLVED: resolve Issue 81 Reification of Negative Property Assertions, per Boris's email (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jun/0156.html)
17:43:06 <alanr> +1
17:43:09 <ivan> happy happy
17:43:15 <Zhe> +1
17:43:16 <JeffP> +1
17:43:35 <msmith> topic: issue discussions
17:43:47 <Rinke> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jun/0171.html
17:43:57 <msmith> ianh: brief revisit of profile naming (ISSUE-108)
17:44:10 <bmotik_> bmotik_ has joined #owl
17:44:28 <msmith> ...(as in Carsten's email) at least OWL-R and OWL-EL names are ok, DL-Lite needs a name
17:44:48 <msmith> ... Carsten proposed calling it owl-db, but that's likely to be contentious
17:44:48 <IanH> Q?
17:44:50 <msmith> q+
17:44:51 <calvanese> q+
17:44:52 <Zhe> :_
17:44:59 <bmotik__> bmotik__ has joined #owl
17:45:01 <IanH> q?
17:45:29 <msmith> msmith: why can't we call it dl-lite?
17:45:30 <calvanese> unmute me
17:45:34 <IanH> ack msmith
17:45:35 <ivan> ack msmith 
17:45:39 <calvanese> unmute me
17:45:40 <alanr>  we want to market to a larger community!!
17:45:48 <msmith> ianh: owl-lite is deprecated, owl dl-lite seems rather long winded
17:45:51 <calvanese> zakim, unmute me
17:45:51 <Zakim> calvanese should no longer be muted
17:46:04 <sandro> "OWL2 Lite" ?
17:46:21 <alanr> OWL-D
17:46:22 <IanH> q?
17:46:25 <Zhe> q+
17:46:27 <msmith> calvanese: we believe name owl-db would be suitable, since owl-r people like owl-r lets use owl-db
17:46:30 <Zhe> zakim, unmute me
17:46:30 <Zakim> Zhe should no longer be muted
17:46:38 <msmith> ... owl-d doesn't evoke anything related to dl-lite
17:46:50 <alanr> OWL-I
17:46:51 <IanH> q?
17:46:51 <msmith> ... I am not in favor of owl-d
17:46:56 <IanH> ack Zhe
17:47:06 <IanH> q?
17:47:07 <msmith> zhe: is this profile specific for db modeling integration and nothing else?
17:47:16 <IanH> q?
17:47:21 <msmith> ... owl-db name implies something
17:47:44 <alanr> quantify "large"?
17:47:50 <uli> zakim, who is speaking
17:47:50 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is speaking', uli
17:47:50 <msmith> calvanese: profile was created to connect to large databases.  we believe it is specifically suited to databases
17:47:55 <alanr> millions, 100s of millions?
17:47:56 <IanH> q?
17:48:03 <JeffP> zakim, who is talking?
17:48:07 <alanr> 10s of billions?
17:48:11 <IanH> q?
17:48:15 <msmith> .... also conceptually matches expressivity of databases
17:48:16 <Zakim> JeffP, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Sandro (4%), Ratnesh (9%), calvanese (27%), Zhe (82%)
17:48:33 <msmith> zhe: misleading to me because dl-lite can be provided to other domains
17:48:52 <msmith> ... plus gives users belief dedicated to storing owl
17:49:00 <Ratnesh> zakim,  mute me
17:49:00 <Zakim> Ratnesh should now be muted
17:49:03 <IanH> q?
17:49:04 <msmith> ... gives impression only implementable with db, nothing else
17:49:23 <msmith> ... dl-lite could apply to sparql endpoint as well
17:49:27 <IanH> q?
17:49:42 <msmith> calvanese: one point is that its implemented using database technologies
17:49:55 <msmith> zhe: is this implementation specific?
17:50:02 <msmith> calvanese: its how the profile came about
17:50:12 <msmith> ... its tuned to these features
17:50:26 <bmotik> q+
17:50:27 <alanr> q+
17:50:29 <IanH> q?
17:50:42 <IanH> ack bmotik
17:50:44 <IanH> q?
17:50:45 <msmith> ianh: useful exchange, and what we suspected.  owl-db is controversial.  any other less controversial names?
17:50:45 <Rinke> Profile names are easily interpreted as denoting disjoint `features'
17:50:55 <msmith> bmotik: why not 1,2,3 or A,B,C?
17:51:07 <alanr> the only reasonable mnemonic is "R"
17:51:20 <msmith> ianh: we have reasonable names for EL++ and OWL-R which people are comfortable with.  isn't 1,2,3 silly?
17:51:28 <msmith> bmotik: what's wrong with current names?
17:51:28 <IanH> q?
17:51:38 <msmith> ianh: owl dl-lite is too much of a mouthful
17:51:38 <bmotik> q+
17:52:06 <msmith> alanr: only name with good pneumonic is OWL-R, EL++ is historical and only relevant to small audience
17:52:14 <IanH> q?
17:52:19 <IanH> ack alanr
17:52:25 <sandro> +1 get away from history.   
17:52:31 <msmith> ... I support getting away from historical names and suggest 1 letter (fairly meaningless) names
17:53:07 <alanr> yes, peter, but for how many others?
17:53:07 <IanH> q?
17:53:08 <sandro> "DL" is another bad name.
17:53:10 <msmith> bmotik: owl dl-lite is too much of a mouthful, what about just dl-lite
17:53:18 <alanr> I agree, that DL is another bad name
17:53:24 <IanH> q?
17:53:35 <sandro> q+ to propose leaving this to marketing
17:53:36 <msmith> ... el++ has established itself, it doesn't need the owl prefix
17:53:36 <IanH> ack bmotik
17:53:39 <IanH> q?
17:53:48 <msmith> ianh: that may be a step too far
17:53:49 <alanr> OWL-C for OWL-DL (OWL-Complete)
17:53:56 <calvanese> q+
17:54:02 <alanr> OWL-A for (OWL-Anything for OWL-Full)
17:54:04 <IanH> ack sandro
17:54:04 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to propose leaving this to marketing
17:54:04 <Rinke> DL-Lite: about assertions, why not OWL-A
17:54:06 <IanH> q?
17:54:22 <msmith> sandro: we are worst people to pick names.  someone should subject a marketing department to this not us
17:54:36 <msmith> ... knowledge of history is an impediment
17:55:12 <IanH> q?
17:55:15 <msmith> ianh: another side, the marketing people ask you to explain because they  know nothing.  so, names they create will depend on who explains them
17:55:24 <Rinke> agree with Sandro, one complaint that came up in my  little survey was that people didn't know what the names meant
17:55:33 <ivan> +1 to Rinke
17:55:46 <IanH> q?
17:55:46 <msmith> sandro: names should be targeted at people making the purchase decision
17:55:56 <msmith> calvanese: name is indication, choice will be made on features
17:56:12 <alanr> I was convinced
17:56:15 <msmith> ... I made several good arguments for why owl-db is good for dl-lite
17:56:25 <alanr> q?
17:56:28 <msmith> ... I didn't hear compelling, non-marketing counterarguments
17:56:31 <Zhe> q+
17:56:38 <ivan> ack calvanese 
17:56:46 <ivan> ack Zhe 
17:57:14 <msmith> zhe: why not call owl-r owl-db?  oracle is largest database in the world and implements owl-r?
17:57:25 <JeffP> We can call it OWL-Aberdeen 
17:57:43 <ivan> JeffP: I would prefer OWL-Amsterdam!
17:57:48 <JeffP> hehe
17:57:49 <Rinke> me too!
17:57:49 <msmith> ianh: enough of this discussion.  owl-db is just too attractive, so probably no one can have it
17:57:57 <sandro> +1 to random city names.  :-)
17:58:12 <ivan> rowl, dowl?
17:58:14 <calvanese> zakim, mute me
17:58:14 <Zakim> calvanese should now be muted
17:58:21 <Rinke> howl?
17:58:21 <alanr> who gets OWL-Bagdad?
17:58:22 <msmith> topic: issue-67 reification
17:58:47 <IanH> q?
17:58:49 <pfps> q+
17:58:59 <msmith> ... anyone?
17:59:00 <IanH> q?
17:59:11 <msmith> pfps: I don't think anything needs to be done, current status is fine
17:59:14 <alanr> q+
17:59:17 <bmotik> q+
17:59:20 <ivan> ack pfps 
17:59:20 <pfps> q-
17:59:22 <msmith> ianh: current status is that we're using rdf reification
17:59:30 <msmith> alanr: I'm happy with current reification
17:59:32 <Zhe> second alanr
17:59:34 <IanH> ack alanr
17:59:38 <IanH> ack bmotik
17:59:42 <msmith> ... as long as triple being reified is included
17:59:52 <msmith> bmotik: I don't think we should output triple being reified
17:59:59 <IanH> q?
18:00:03 <Zhe> q+
18:00:05 <msmith> ... this can be handled in the semantics
18:00:09 <alanr> that's not an argument against. It's an argument that says we can also do it a different way
18:00:09 <IanH> q?
18:00:30 <ivan> ack Zhe 
18:00:39 <alanr> q+
18:00:43 <IanH> q?
18:00:47 <bmotik> q+
18:00:49 <msmith> zhe: conceptually, bmotik is 100% correct.  but with tons of annotations this makes implementers life difficult
18:00:55 <ivan> ack alanr 
18:00:57 <msmith> ... what's the objection to adding the triple
18:01:03 <pfps> q+
18:01:23 <msmith> alanr: yes, what's argument against?  this is a divergence from rdf semantics
18:01:39 <IanH> q?
18:01:48 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:01:56 <alanr> I put a proposal for how to solve this on the email
18:02:11 <msmith> bmotik: impossible to know when mapping rdf to ontology if ontology contained axiom or just annotation of axiom
18:02:17 <Zhe> q+
18:02:27 <alanr> q+
18:02:30 <msmith> ... I consider sticking with current better solution
18:02:51 <msmith> +1 to supporting annotation of non-present axioms
18:03:08 <alanr> There is also rdf/xml support for concise  reification when it includes the triple
18:03:16 <pfps> q-
18:03:34 <IanH> ack Zhe
18:03:36 <msmith> pfps: I don't believe argument that additional processing burden is accurate since it introduces an additional triple to parse
18:03:54 <msmith> zhe: bmotik, I believe you proposed solutions via email to some of these problems.
18:04:09 <msmith> ... pfps, oracle believes not including triple will make life harder
18:04:12 <IanH> q?
18:04:23 <bmotik> +q to respont to Zhe
18:04:55 <IanH> q?
18:04:59 <msmith> alanr: support for concise reification in RDF/XML, but only in some circumstances
18:05:01 <IanH> ack alanr
18:05:10 <sandro> (er, no, you still need to parse the triples even when not using the RDF/XML trick.)
18:05:27 <Zakim> -Rinke
18:05:29 <msmith> bmotik: are you proposing we use this special syntax
18:06:00 <msmith> alanr: if triple is in serialization, on can put an id on the predicate to indicate reification
18:06:10 <msmith> ... there is no shorthand for only the reified part
18:06:17 <msmith> ianh: closing discussion soon
18:06:21 <IanH> q?
18:06:38 <IanH> q?
18:06:43 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:06:43 <Zakim> bmotik, you wanted to respont to Zhe
18:07:19 <alanr> no bad ida
18:07:29 <alanr> better to add a special annotation so they are parallel
18:07:37 <IanH> q?
18:08:12 <IanH> q?
18:08:14 <alanr> I don't understand
18:08:20 <ivan> me neither
18:08:26 <msmith> bmotik: one could use following procedure.... if re-ified and non-reified version are present... but this is non-monotonic.  question to zhe - if hint that reified triples in RDF/XML should use this shorthand, would that be ok?
18:08:43 <ivan> I do not think we can do that, Boris
18:09:00 <IanH> q?
18:09:05 <Zhe> sounds good
18:09:10 <msmith> ianh: take to email, then revisit discussion
18:09:39 <msmith> topic: general discussion, schedule
18:09:45 <IanH> q?
18:10:12 <msmith> ianh: agenda has short list of things needing attention
18:10:24 <msmith> ... features: 1) rich annotations, 2) nary datatypes
18:10:26 <IanH> q?
18:10:27 <uli> Bijan isn't here
18:10:32 <sandro> zakim, where is bijan?
18:10:32 <Zakim> sorry, sandro, I do not understand your question
18:10:47 <msmith> ... no bijan?  :( perhaps uli on nary?
18:10:50 <IanH> q?
18:10:52 <uli> zakim, unmute me
18:10:52 <Zakim> uli was not muted, uli
18:11:18 <msmith> uli: what are you after?
18:11:36 <msmith> ianh: I'd like some comments on schedule?
18:12:14 <msmith> uli: we could be moving really faster.  I won't be around for next two weeks, otherwise I'd say proposal in 1 week
18:12:27 <msmith> ianh: a concrete proposal for what should be added to spec?
18:12:42 <msmith> ... but not now?
18:12:51 <alanr> probably depends on what happens next week and the week after too...
18:12:57 <msmith> uli: depends on this week.
18:12:59 <IanH> q?
18:13:05 <uli> zakim, mute me
18:13:05 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
18:13:07 <IanH> q?
18:13:07 <msmith> ianh: this is reasonable guesstimate
18:13:43 <msmith> alanr: we should get quick check-in on prioritizing things.  rich annotations, nary
18:13:53 <bmotik> q+
18:14:06 <msmith> ... how are people on nary? priorities, benefits vs cost of delaying?
18:14:22 <msmith> ... when do we say it's out?
18:14:45 <msmith> ianh: is my answer some number of weeks?
18:14:54 <bmotik> -q
18:15:10 <bmotik> +q
18:15:11 <msmith> alanr: I would like to hear from people.  I'd like to hear input.
18:15:35 <msmith> ianh: is it significant delay worthy?
18:15:39 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
18:15:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe, msmith, IanH, Ivan, Sandro, uli (muted), baojie, Achille, JeffP, bcuencagrau (muted), Alan, bmotik, calvanese (muted), Ratnesh
18:15:43 <Zakim> ... (muted)
18:15:51 <msmith> msmith: I think nary are important and would be prepared to wait some
18:15:58 <uli> "How horrible would you think failing on n-ary be?"
18:16:04 <pfps> i'm prepared to wait forever as long as it isn't more than 15 minutes (thanks Oscar Wilde)
18:16:09 <uli> q+
18:16:11 <bmotik> I believe that n-ary datatypes are a high-risk feature
18:16:39 <Achille> we can leave without nary
18:16:44 <alanr> I'm concerned about unknowns with n-aries, and known issues, like difficulty in combinations.
18:16:47 <IanH> q?
18:16:48 <msmith> bmotik: adding nary adds a huge burden to developers.  some algorithmic issues haven't been resolved and I'm skeptical
18:16:57 <msmith> msmith: notes Carsten also absent
18:17:04 <uli> good point
18:17:06 <Achille> it is not worth delaying the spec for it
18:17:11 <uli> zakim, unmute me
18:17:11 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted
18:17:14 <IanH> q?
18:17:16 <msmith> ianh: not time now to get to into the details
18:17:16 <ivan> ack bmotik 
18:17:19 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:17:22 <IanH> ack uli
18:17:30 <ivan> owl3?
18:17:38 <msmith> uli: not having any nary support would be regretted later as something we missed
18:17:50 <msmith> ianh: perhaps we should set some implementation bar
18:18:05 <IanH> q?
18:18:07 <msmith> ... 2 implementations to get to rec, correct?
18:18:07 <sandro> q+
18:18:09 <alanr> q+
18:18:18 <ivan> ack sandro 
18:18:20 <uli> ack uli
18:18:41 <msmith> sandro: in general, should only add things for which we think reasonable to there may be two implementations
18:18:48 <ivan> ACK alanr 
18:18:49 <pfps> +1 to "at risk"iness
18:18:50 <msmith> ... if we're unsure, that means its at risk
18:19:19 <msmith> alanr: that doesn't help because there's significant work to get it into the spec
18:19:47 <msmith> ianh: i agree with that, but the implementation point clarifies just how much expressive power we want to add.
18:19:51 <alanr> q+ to give one more thought
18:19:59 <IanH> q?
18:20:07 <IanH> ack alanr
18:20:07 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to give one more thought
18:20:10 <msmith> ... those wanting it very powerful must weight that against cost of implementing it so that it can proceed
18:20:11 <IanH> q?
18:20:42 <bmotik> +q
18:20:46 <IanH> q?
18:20:46 <msmith> alanr: so far focused on one type of concrete domain extension, < > simple arithmetic
18:20:56 <uli> alanr, can you explain this?
18:21:05 <msmith> ... perhaps allen interval relations instead.  I'm taking this up with carsten
18:21:07 <alanr> uli, yes, via email
18:21:22 <msmith> bmotik: allen interval for time intervals will not solve problems for owl
18:21:44 <alanr> won't solve all time problems for time. But may solve some some time problems
18:21:45 <IanH> q?
18:21:46 <msmith> bmotik: nary datatypes won't help this ...
18:21:54 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:22:27 <msmith> ...(scribe interpret) because they only apply to data properties on a single individuals (not comparison between multiple events)
18:22:37 <msmith> ianh: will ask bijan next week about this
18:23:01 <msmith> ianh: also discussion about datatypes in general, what should be supported.  is this going to derail us?
18:23:03 <bmotik> +q
18:23:04 <IanH> q?
18:23:12 <IanH> q?
18:23:17 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:23:20 <msmith> bmotik: thinks we can resolve.  we have to resolve
18:23:21 <alanr> I have concerns that this will take time.
18:23:40 <IanH> q?
18:23:43 <msmith> ... I don't think solution is difficult
18:23:54 <Zakim> -calvanese
18:24:17 <uli> ;)
18:24:23 <uli> yes
18:24:26 <uli> very
18:24:36 <msmith> ianh: ISSUE-118 is languishing
18:24:47 <alanr> q+
18:24:48 <IanH> q?
18:24:52 <msmith> ... any champion for this issue?
18:25:24 <msmith> alanr: I've suggested unnamed and bnodes as alternative constructs
18:25:47 <msmith> ianh: documents need to be produced.  test, ufds
18:25:48 <alanr> action: alan to send email re: suggestions (again) for unnamed individuals *in addition* to bnodes
18:25:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-164 - Send email re: suggestions (again) for unnamed individuals *in addition* to bnodes [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-07-02].
18:25:57 <IanH> q?
18:26:25 <IanH> q?
18:26:30 <alanr> mike, you know about action=raw ? to get raw mediawiki pages?
18:26:44 <alanr> q-
18:26:46 <msmith> alanr, no.  thanks
18:27:18 <msmith> msmith: re tests, I'm targeting f2f3 as a milestone.  two parts, the tests, and the documents
18:27:26 <IanH> q?
18:27:29 <msmith> ... I'll try to get something to the group before f2f3 on each
18:27:32 <alanr> mike, see http://svn.neurocommons.org/svn/trunk/product/wiki/get-ncpage-ontology.pl
18:27:49 <msmith> ianh: none for ufd
18:28:00 <msmith> pfps: I think bijan is working on primer
18:28:09 <msmith> topic: additional business
18:28:12 <JeffP> bye
18:28:17 <ivan> bye
18:28:17 <msmith> ianh: no additional business, adjourn
18:28:17 <Zhe> thanks
18:28:18 <uli> bye bye
18:28:21 <Zakim> -uli
18:28:23 <Ratnesh> bye
18:28:24 <Zakim> -Ivan
18:28:25 <Zakim> -baojie
18:28:26 <Zakim> -JeffP
18:28:26 <Zakim> -Achille
18:28:28 <Zakim> -bmotik
18:28:28 <Zakim> -Ratnesh
18:28:30 <Zakim> -Zhe
18:28:32 <Zakim> -Sandro
18:28:33 <Zakim> -IanH
18:28:38 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
18:28:41 <sandro> msmith, I put some notes about scribing here: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Scribe_Conventions#After_scribing_.28New_Style_Minutes.29
18:28:45 <Zakim> -msmith
18:28:48 <IanH> I'm hoping that Turkey wins on penalties :-)
18:29:02 <msmith> rrsagent, pointer
18:29:02 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-owl-irc#T18-29-02
18:29:14 <alanr> e.g http://sw.neurocommons.org/cgi-bin/get-ncpage-ontology.pl?page=CommonsPurl:Record/Ncbi_gene&section=purlRdf
18:29:18 <uli> I hope that they have great game
18:29:26 <sandro> Zakim, list attendees
18:29:26 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Peter_Patel-Schneider, +1.202.408.aabb, +0186527aacc, Ivan, Sandro, Ratnesh, Zhe, msmith, +1.518.276.aadd, baojie, bmotik, IanH, uli,
18:29:30 <Zakim> ... +0122427aaee, Achille, JeffP, bcuencagrau, Alan, calvanese, Rinke
18:29:39 <Zakim> -Alan
18:31:07 <msmith> zakim, bye
18:31:07 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, +1.202.408.aabb, +0186527aacc, Ivan, Sandro, Ratnesh, Zhe, msmith, +1.518.276.aadd, baojie, bmotik, IanH, uli,
18:31:07 <Zakim> Zakim has left #owl
18:31:10 <Zakim> ... +0122427aaee, Achille, JeffP, bcuencagrau, Alan, calvanese, Rinke
18:31:21 <msmith> rrsagent, make log public
18:31:32 <msmith> rrsagent, draft minutes
18:31:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-owl-minutes.html msmith
18:31:39 <msmith> rrsagent, bye
18:31:39 <RRSAgent> I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-owl-actions.rdf :
18:31:39 <RRSAgent> ACTION: calvanese to investigate top/bottom roles in dl-lite [1]
18:31:39 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-owl-irc#T17-23-56
18:31:39 <RRSAgent> ACTION: bmotik2 to Update the strucutral spec according to resolution of ISSUE 21 and ISSUE 24 [2]
18:31:39 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-owl-irc#T17-41-00
18:31:39 <RRSAgent> ACTION: alan to send email re: suggestions (again) for unnamed individuals *in addition* to bnodes [3]
18:31:39 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-owl-irc#T18-25-48