IRC log of owl on 2008-07-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:48:43 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:48:43 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:48:53 [Rinke]
Zakim, this will be owl
16:48:53 [Zakim]
ok, Rinke; I see SW_OWL()12:00PM scheduled to start 48 minutes ago
16:49:13 [Rinke]
RRSAgent, make records public
16:53:30 [bijan]
bijan has joined #owl
16:53:47 [bijan]
bijan has joined #owl
16:54:24 [calvanese]
calvanese has joined #owl
16:54:49 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()12:00PM has now started
16:54:56 [Zakim]
16:55:06 [bijan]
zakim, ??P9 is me
16:55:06 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
16:55:12 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
16:55:12 [Zakim]
sorry, bijan, muting is not permitted when only one person is present
16:55:24 [bijan]
Why not? You think I *like* to hear myself talk?
16:55:29 [Rinke]
16:55:32 [calvanese]
so, bijna you have to say sth
16:55:37 [bijan]
What an aribtrary restriction!
16:55:47 [Rinke]
16:55:57 [bijan]
Like forbidding class/property punning!
16:56:09 [bijan]
16:56:19 [bijan]
Is that Italian for STFU? :)
16:56:30 [calvanese]
come on, usually you don't have problems in talking. the contrary would be harder :)
16:56:38 [Zakim]
+ +31.20.525.aaaa
16:56:41 [bijan]
Hence the need to mute myself!
16:56:44 [Rinke]
zakim, aaaa is me
16:56:44 [Zakim]
+Rinke; got it
16:56:46 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
16:56:46 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
16:56:49 [MartinD]
MartinD has joined #OWL
16:56:55 [bijan]
Oo, that' looks like I snubbed rinke
16:57:04 [Rinke]
16:57:06 [Rinke]
16:57:15 [bijan]
You can talk and I'll listen :)
16:57:18 [Carsten]
Carsten has joined #owl
16:57:32 [Rinke]
sure, as if I feel like talking after you've been so rude
16:57:33 [Rinke]
16:57:34 [bcuencagrau]
bcuencagrau has joined #owl
16:57:34 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
16:58:00 [Zakim]
16:58:02 [Zakim]
16:58:05 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
16:58:07 [ratnesh]
ratnesh has joined #owl
16:58:10 [Zakim]
16:58:12 [calvanese]
zakim, mute me
16:58:12 [Zakim]
calvanese should now be muted
16:58:14 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??P12 is me
16:58:14 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
16:58:17 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
16:58:17 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
16:58:51 [Zakim]
+ +49.351.463.3.aabb
16:59:00 [Carsten]
zakim, +aabb is me
16:59:00 [Zakim]
sorry, Carsten, I do not recognize a party named '+aabb'
16:59:01 [Zakim]
16:59:08 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, ??P14 is me
16:59:08 [Zakim]
+bcuencagrau; got it
16:59:13 [Carsten]
zakim, aabb is me
16:59:13 [Zakim]
+Carsten; got it
16:59:20 [Carsten]
zakim, mute me
16:59:20 [Zakim]
Carsten should now be muted
16:59:26 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, mute me
16:59:26 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted
16:59:37 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
16:59:52 [Zakim]
17:00:03 [Zakim]
17:00:04 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has joined #owl
17:00:11 [Zakim]
17:00:24 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:00:24 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, Evan_Wallace, calvanese (muted), bmotik (muted), Carsten (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), IanH, ??P17, baojie
17:00:25 [ratnesh]
zakim, ??P17 is ratnesh
17:00:27 [Zakim]
On IRC I see MarkusK, msmith, ratnesh, IanH, bmotik, bcuencagrau, Carsten, MartinD, calvanese, bijan, RRSAgent, Zakim, Rinke, sandro, baojie, ewallace, trackbot
17:00:28 [m_schnei]
m_schnei has joined #owl
17:00:29 [Zakim]
+ratnesh; got it
17:00:29 [Zakim]
+ +0190827aacc
17:00:38 [Zakim]
17:00:43 [MartinD]
zakim, aacc is me
17:00:43 [Zakim]
+MartinD; got it
17:00:53 [MartinD]
zakim, mute me
17:00:53 [Zakim]
MartinD should now be muted
17:01:26 [Zakim]
17:01:57 [ivan]
ivan has joined #owl
17:02:19 [ewallace]
scribeNick EvanWallace
17:02:30 [ewallace]
Topic: admin
17:02:34 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:02:34 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, Evan_Wallace, calvanese (muted), bmotik (muted), Carsten (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), IanH, ratnesh, baojie, MartinD (muted), msmith,
17:02:37 [Zakim]
... MarkusK
17:02:38 [Zakim]
On IRC I see ivan, MarkusK, msmith, ratnesh, IanH, bmotik, bcuencagrau, Carsten, MartinD, calvanese, bijan, RRSAgent, Zakim, Rinke, sandro, baojie, ewallace, trackbot
17:02:50 [bijan]
17:02:55 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:02:55 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:02:56 [m_schnei]
m_schnei has joined #owl
17:03:02 [IanH]
17:03:03 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:03:03 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
17:03:05 [Zakim]
17:03:12 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
17:03:26 [alanr_]
alanr_ has joined #owl
17:03:42 [Zakim]
17:03:49 [Zakim]
17:03:57 [m_schnei]
zakim, [IPcaller] is me
17:03:58 [Zakim]
+m_schnei; got it
17:04:02 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:04:02 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:04:05 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:04:05 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:04:08 [IanH]
17:04:13 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.278.aadd
17:04:17 [alanr]
zakim, aadd is alanr
17:04:17 [Zakim]
+alanr; got it
17:04:21 [ewallace]
Zakim, this will be owlwg
17:04:21 [Zakim]
ok, ewallace; I see SW_OWL()12:00PM scheduled to start 64 minutes ago
17:04:26 [ivan]
zakim, mute me
17:04:26 [Zakim]
sorry, ivan, I don't know what conference this is
17:04:31 [ivan]
17:04:46 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #owl
17:04:49 [IanH]
17:04:50 [Rinke]
zakim, this is owl
17:04:50 [Zakim]
ok, Rinke; that matches SW_OWL()12:00PM
17:04:54 [msmith]
the scribee thinks they look good
17:05:01 [ivan]
zakim, mute me
17:05:02 [Zakim]
Ivan should now be muted
17:05:17 [IanH]
PROPOSED: accept previous minutes
17:05:20 [msmith]
+1 to accept 2008-06-25 minutes
17:05:23 [Rinke]
17:05:26 [calvanese]
17:05:26 [MartinD]
17:05:27 [ivan]
17:05:28 [ewallace]
17:05:30 [IanH]
17:05:34 [Zakim]
17:05:48 [ewallace]
RESOLVED: accept previous minutes
17:05:49 [JeffP]
17:06:20 [ewallace]
Topic: Action Items status
17:06:22 [IanH]
17:07:01 [IanH]
17:07:07 [ewallace]
Act 163 completed
17:07:29 [bijan]
Done and closed
17:07:42 [bijan]
17:07:50 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:07:50 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:07:54 [IanH]
17:07:55 [ewallace]
Topic: Action 156
17:08:29 [IanH]
17:08:42 [msmith]
17:08:50 [ivan]
17:08:51 [ewallace]
Action 156 done
17:08:51 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - 156
17:09:07 [ewallace]
17:09:20 [ewallace]
topic: Action 156
17:09:25 [ewallace]
17:09:46 [ewallace]
topic: action 157
17:10:03 [ewallace]
17:10:03 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:10:03 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:10:06 [IanH]
17:10:34 [ewallace]
topic: action 158
17:10:42 [ewallace]
done and closed
17:10:54 [m_schnei]
17:11:02 [ewallace]
action 159 continued
17:11:02 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - 159
17:11:10 [calvanese]
zakim, unmute me
17:11:11 [Zakim]
calvanese should no longer be muted
17:11:13 [bijan]
He is
17:11:14 [IanH]
17:11:17 [ewallace]
action 161 continued
17:11:17 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - 161
17:11:34 [IanH]
17:11:48 [ewallace]
topic: action 161
17:11:57 [bmotik]
OK, I'll just add it right away.
17:12:04 [IanH]
17:12:24 [JeffP]
17:12:44 [JeffP]
17:12:47 [ewallace]
Diego will write up what his investigation revealed
17:12:59 [bijan]
Subject lin contains ACTION-Number
17:13:10 [IanH]
17:13:14 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
17:13:14 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:14:36 [ewallace]
topic: 159
17:14:37 [m_schnei]
i step back from 159
17:14:43 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:14:43 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:14:44 [IanH]
17:14:52 [IanH]
ack m_schnei
17:15:01 [ewallace]
jeffP: cmt on inconsistancy
17:15:01 [IanH]
ack JeffP
17:15:04 [IanH]
17:15:32 [bcuencagrau]
you need the data to have the inconsistency
17:15:42 [IanH]
17:16:03 [ewallace]
topic: action 165
17:16:06 [IanH]
17:16:15 [bmotik]
17:16:20 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:16:20 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:16:30 [ewallace]
Diego: Easy keys are compatible with key notion in DL-Lite
17:16:33 [bmotik]
17:16:48 [bmotik]
17:16:54 [ewallace]
Diego: we need to restict these keys in the same way
17:16:58 [IanH]
17:17:01 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
17:17:11 [ewallace]
Diego: the keys cannot be subtyped
17:17:16 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:17:16 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
17:17:28 [Zakim]
17:17:35 [Zhe]
Zakim, mute me
17:17:35 [Zakim]
Zhe should now be muted
17:17:36 [IanH]
17:17:43 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:17:46 [IanH]
17:17:53 [ewallace]
diego to write up how easy-keys could be used in DL-lite
17:17:55 [msmith]
17:18:01 [Zakim]
17:18:02 [IanH]
17:18:03 [Zakim]
17:18:23 [IanH]
17:18:29 [IanH]
ack msmith
17:18:53 [ewallace]
msmith: asked if we described unique names assumption in the profile document
17:18:57 [msmith]
I see, I didn't realize this had changed
17:19:14 [IanH]
17:19:21 [ewallace]
Boris: it is described
17:19:38 [ewallace]
topic: action 164
17:19:39 [calvanese]
zakim, mute me
17:19:39 [Zakim]
calvanese should now be muted
17:19:43 [IanH]
17:19:47 [ewallace]
17:19:53 [ewallace]
topic: Issues
17:20:42 [alanr_]
could we get a review of what the issue was?
17:20:42 [ewallace]
Issue 16
17:20:49 [IanH]
17:21:00 [bmotik]
17:21:10 [IanH]
17:21:15 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:21:17 [bijan]
Peter's not here, and he's the issue raiser?
17:21:41 [ewallace]
IanH: the issue was - could you annotate annotations?
17:22:32 [ewallace]
boris: problem - you can annotate entities and axioms, but not annotations
17:23:07 [ewallace]
... peter proposed that annotations could contain a set of other annotations
17:24:17 [IanH]
17:24:35 [ewallace]
boris: having an axiom that contains another axiom is hard in RDF
17:24:46 [alanr_]
17:24:57 [IanH]
17:25:04 [ewallace]
... my proposal is to can the issue because both proposed solutions are quite hard
17:25:24 [ewallace]
alanr: I wonder if the question might go away with rich annotations
17:25:45 [bmotik]
17:25:48 [IanH]
17:25:54 [IanH]
ack alanr_
17:25:55 [ivan]
ack alanr_
17:26:01 [ewallace]
... there are motivating use cases for this
17:26:09 [bijan]
17:26:27 [bijan]
17:26:29 [bijan]
17:26:41 [ewallace]
... how is the reification in one of the proposed solutions harder than where we have done this elsewhere
17:26:49 [IanH]
17:26:56 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:26:58 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:26:58 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:27:07 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:28:00 [alanr_]
Mcdermott was convincing to me....
17:28:13 [alanr_]
one + level of indirection
17:28:40 [alanr_]
17:28:43 [alanr_]
17:29:31 [ewallace]
bijan: may need to recommend how to construct annotations for meta-annotations
17:29:55 [ewallace]
bijan: set up your structure of annotations so that you always reify in a nice way
17:29:59 [IanH]
17:30:05 [ewallace]
... we could work out the pattern for this
17:30:06 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:30:06 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:30:39 [ewallace]
alan: the idea of structuring annotations works for new annotation but not for old rdf annotations
17:30:41 [IanH]
17:30:46 [ivan]
ack alanr_
17:30:47 [bijan]
data: uris could solve this
17:30:51 [bijan]
But they are ugly
17:30:57 [bijan]
Literals as well
17:31:40 [ewallace]
ianH: are annotations inside annotations asserted in the KB?
17:31:54 [m_schnei]
17:31:57 [m_schnei]
17:32:01 [bmotik]
17:32:19 [IanH]
17:32:24 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:32:44 [bijan]
17:32:45 [ewallace]
boris: the problem is that there is no way in rdf to say this axiom contains an axiom
17:33:04 [ewallace]
... as soon as its in a bag of triples in rdf it is asserted
17:33:43 [bijan]
there's a queue!
17:33:45 [ewallace]
... can't tell after whether the triple occured at the top level or inside another triple
17:34:17 [m_schnei]
17:34:50 [IanH]
17:34:57 [m_schnei]
17:34:59 [ewallace]
alan: I'd be happy to work through the example with Boris over email
17:35:05 [bijan]
ack me
17:35:15 [alanr_]
Note: I will have to leave at 2pm.
17:35:44 [ewallace]
bijan: this problem of not having syntactic context is something I considered
17:35:45 [IanH]
17:36:17 [ewallace]
... people who are tracking this should look at the reification table
17:36:33 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:36:33 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:37:30 [ewallace]
skipping 67
17:37:42 [ewallace]
issue 126
17:37:54 [ewallace]
topic: issue 126
17:38:03 [IanH]
17:38:07 [alanr_]
17:38:18 [IanH]
ack alanr_
17:38:35 [ewallace]
alan: it seemed like there was clear consensus on an underlying Real datatype
17:38:41 [msmith]
q+ to disagree on type promotion
17:38:52 [IanH]
17:38:56 [ewallace]
... and floating point is promoted to this for reasoning
17:39:16 [bijan]
+1 to disagree with type promotion
17:39:25 [bmotik]
17:39:35 [ewallace]
... there was a question on whether or not non-numeric values of float like +inf were also promoted
17:39:40 [ivan]
ack msmith
17:39:40 [Zakim]
msmith, you wanted to disagree on type promotion
17:40:14 [ewallace]
msmith: I agree we want an underlying real datatype, but disagree promoting xsd: float
17:40:15 [alanr_]
is it clear what "promotion" means? Perhaps Boris should explain.
17:40:15 [bijan]
I also thing Reals shouldn't have NaN. Those aren't reals! Why make a clean datatype and then crude it up!
17:40:38 [alanr_]
the argument is that floats are there to represent machine computations.
17:40:39 [ewallace]
... don't understand the point of having both xsd:float and xsd:decimal
17:41:02 [IanH]
17:41:03 [alanr_]
This is an important use case for Science Commons
17:41:04 [alanr_]
17:41:08 [alanr_]
17:41:10 [alanr_]
not 1+
17:41:15 [IanH]
17:41:16 [MartinD]
17:41:23 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:41:42 [ewallace]
boris: promotion means to restrict float values
17:42:06 [ewallace]
boris: I'm pretty happy with ditching float and double, but this will look bad
17:42:12 [bijan]
"Ditching"? Isn't it that we "aren't adding"
17:42:15 [bijan]
17:42:23 [ewallace]
boris: you might want to store these in an efficient way
17:42:50 [bijan]
Floats aren't continuous
17:42:52 [Carsten]
17:42:55 [bijan]
I'm confused
17:43:02 [IanH]
17:43:14 [bijan]
17:43:17 [ewallace]
boris: I would bet if we keep the continuous aspects of float, then now implementation will be correct
17:43:20 [bijan]
It's arbitrary sized decimals
17:43:34 [MarkusK]
yes, I also think that xsd:decimal supports no exponent notation
17:44:01 [bijan]
It can't !
17:44:13 [IanH]
17:44:13 [bijan]
There's too much here
17:44:16 [alanr_]
17:44:20 [bijan]
Can we chunk the discussion a littl
17:44:41 [IanH]
17:44:52 [ewallace]
boris: a possible way out is to define an owl:float and owl:real
17:45:13 [IanH]
17:45:15 [bijan]
17:45:28 [ewallace]
alan: wrt continuous aspect:
17:45:33 [MarkusK]
(for the minutes) xsd:float also has non-numerical numbers, NaN and infinite
17:45:39 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:45:39 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:45:55 [MarkusK]
s /numbers/values/
17:46:17 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:46:17 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:46:46 [IanH]
17:46:54 [IanH]
ack alanr_
17:47:08 [ewallace]
alan: effect on floats, the only consequence to considering them real would be
17:47:26 [ewallace]
17:47:46 [ewallace]
alan: asked some folk, they would prefer real
17:47:53 [m_schnei]
(for the minutes, too) IEEE floats also have +/- 0, do xsd:float have too?
17:48:04 [bmotik]
17:48:05 [ewallace]
alan: also asked about +-inf and NaN
17:48:18 [ewallace]
alan: they considered these to be essential
17:48:46 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:48:46 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:48:47 [IanH]
17:48:57 [ewallace]
alan: the objective is to be able to transmit and contain numeric data in an OWL file
17:49:18 [ewallace]
bijan: the first step I have is if we are going to talk about something with a binary rep.
17:49:50 [ewallace]
bijan: we can't avoid rounding, we can't separate the value space from the representation
17:49:53 [alanr_]
OWL does not produce new floats in the course of reasoning.
17:50:11 [alanr_]
17:50:40 [ewallace]
ianH: it seems to me that we are proposing in owl to have a virtual float that is continuous
17:50:59 [alanr_]
So precision issues are external to OWL - OWL would not disturb any precision or do any rounding.
17:51:01 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:51:09 [ewallace]
bijan: so you are just treating the float rep as an idiosyncratic rep of reals
17:51:30 [IanH]
17:51:31 [ewallace]
boris: the value space is the set of real numbers between the min and max of float
17:51:36 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:52:21 [alanr_]
17:52:23 [Carsten]
17:52:30 [alanr_]
Ian asked my question
17:52:35 [IanH]
17:53:12 [alanr_]
2.0 float is not considered different than int float
17:53:45 [IanH]
17:53:46 [Carsten]
zakim, unmute me
17:53:46 [Zakim]
Carsten should no longer be muted
17:53:52 [bmotik]
17:54:02 [ewallace]
carsten: I like this proposal
17:54:04 [IanH]
ack Carsten
17:54:24 [ewallace]
... either dropping float completely, or treating them as reals for reasoning
17:54:51 [alanr_]
no float predicate, I think.
17:54:54 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:54:54 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
17:54:57 [IanH]
17:55:06 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:55:14 [ewallace]
boris: floats are a subset of reals
17:55:49 [ewallace]
carsten: treat float as a property of a real number?
17:55:54 [bijan]
17:55:58 [IanH]
17:56:04 [msmith]
q+ to ask about the benefit of this proposal
17:56:13 [ewallace]
boris: the reason for doing this is so that you can ship data around as reals
17:56:22 [Carsten]
17:56:27 [Carsten]
zakim, mute me
17:56:27 [Zakim]
Carsten should now be muted
17:56:28 [IanH]
17:56:28 [alanr_]
consider: oracle than answers between a and b, how many values. For float we decide to answer: Infinity , always
17:56:29 [bijan]
One question at a time!
17:56:32 [bijan]
17:56:35 [m_schnei]
17:56:43 [alanr_]
q+ to mention nan as data bottom
17:56:46 [bijan]
I wanted to respond to the carsten questiona nd now we're off track
17:56:54 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:56:54 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
17:56:57 [ewallace]
boris: if you have something like 1 / 0 then the ontology is unsatisfiable
17:57:09 [alanr_]
17:57:09 [IanH]
17:57:17 [IanH]
17:57:21 [IanH]
17:59:01 [IanH]
17:59:06 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:59:13 [ewallace]
bijan: there are 3 options for the predicate thing
17:59:38 [alanr_]
comment: Lexical float doesn't work - because of defined rounding.
17:59:42 [ewallace]
... no predicate
18:00:18 [IanH]
18:00:59 [bmotik]
18:01:04 [IanH]
18:02:31 [ewallace]
alan: we want to capture the result of an experiment and that may include NaN values
18:02:40 [IanH]
18:02:55 [Zakim]
18:02:59 [IanH]
ack alanr_
18:02:59 [Zakim]
alanr_, you wanted to mention nan as data bottom
18:03:03 [ewallace]
... they don't care about how many discrete values between here and there
18:03:04 [IanH]
18:03:27 [bijan]
the ˇvalue spaceˇs of all ˇprimitiveˇ datatypes are disjoint (they do not share any values)
18:03:32 [ewallace]
msmith: people using XSD already make the choice between xsd:float and xsd:decimal
18:03:36 [bijan]
18:03:43 [IanH]
18:03:50 [bijan]
(double and decimal are primitive datatypes in xsd)
18:03:56 [IanH]
18:03:59 [ewallace]
... given the fact that they chose xsd:float, we ought to respect the choice
18:04:00 [IanH]
ack msmith
18:04:00 [Zakim]
msmith, you wanted to ask about the benefit of this proposal
18:04:07 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:04:10 [IanH]
18:04:22 [bijan]
q+ to point to 4.2
18:04:38 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:04:38 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
18:04:44 [ewallace]
boris: the reason that float is not put under decimal in xsd may be because of the 3 special values
18:04:59 [IanH]
18:05:12 [IanH]
ack bijan
18:05:12 [Zakim]
bijan, you wanted to point to 4.2
18:05:19 [JeffP]
the spec is somehow inconsistent
18:05:19 [msmith]
18:05:38 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
18:06:07 [ewallace]
bijan: the spec says the value spaces of float and decimal are disjoint
18:06:44 [alanr]
Does it actually say they are disjoint, or does it not say they have a shared value space (negation or naf)
18:06:54 [msmith]
it says disjoint
18:06:57 [ewallace]
topic: Issue 131
18:07:07 [Zhe]
18:07:18 [Zhe]
let boris go first
18:07:27 [IanH]
18:07:38 [Zhe]
zakim, unmute me
18:07:38 [Zakim]
Zhe should no longer be muted
18:07:49 [IanH]
18:07:52 [ewallace]
boris: problem with OWL R profile is OWL R full version is not a syntactic fragment
18:08:43 [ewallace]
the idea is to have basically 1 OWL R profile
18:08:58 [IanH]
18:09:12 [m_schnei]
18:09:16 [Zhe]
18:09:18 [ewallace]
boris: if the ontology is written in triples it is in OWL R if it is parseable as OWL R
18:09:37 [IanH]
18:09:46 [IanH]
ack Zhe
18:10:00 [ewallace]
Zhe: Yes. I do agree with Boris on this. It seems a bit odd to have these two versions.
18:10:14 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:10:14 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:10:17 [ewallace]
... I see the value of combining the syntactic restriction into the profile
18:10:51 [ewallace]
m_schei: regarding confusion - it is not confusing from an rdf point of view because
18:11:03 [bmotik]
18:11:04 [ewallace]
... any sublanguage is a semantic sublanguage
18:11:09 [bijan]
q+ to talk about user perspective
18:11:14 [IanH]
18:11:16 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:11:16 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
18:11:17 [ewallace]
... I don't share the argument.
18:11:26 [IanH]
ack m_schnei
18:11:36 [ewallace]
boris: I think what is confusing is from an ontology point of view.
18:11:37 [bcuencagrau]
18:11:57 [ewallace]
... you don't know what it means. You can't interpret it in an unambiguous way.
18:12:08 [bijan]
ack me
18:12:08 [Zakim]
bijan, you wanted to talk about user perspective
18:12:17 [bijan]
I'm still on the queue!
18:12:20 [bijan]
No no!
18:12:25 [ewallace]
... what is the point also from a user's perspective, when the meaning is ill-defined.
18:12:57 [ewallace]
bijan: In my experience users find the semantic subsetting confusing.
18:13:16 [IanH]
18:13:20 [bcuencagrau]
zakim, unmute me
18:13:20 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should no longer be muted
18:13:20 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:13:21 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:13:22 [bmotik]
18:13:26 [ewallace]
... In our spec.s, all the other profiles are syntactic subsets
18:13:30 [IanH]
18:13:41 [IanH]
ack bcuencagrau
18:13:50 [ewallace]
bernardo: I totally agree with Bijan on this. The purpose of OWL R is to define a language
18:14:04 [IanH]
18:14:11 [ewallace]
... that is easily implementable using production rules.
18:14:22 [IanH]
18:14:35 [ewallace]
... What people real care about is this ability to implement the reasoning using a rule engine.
18:14:36 [bcuencagrau]
zakim, unmute me
18:14:36 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau was not muted, bcuencagrau
18:14:40 [bcuencagrau]
zakim, mute me
18:14:40 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted
18:14:53 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:14:53 [Zakim]
m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
18:14:54 [bijan]
18:14:57 [JeffP]
18:15:24 [ewallace]
IanH: to M_schnei - what if they use some rdfs syntax and no rdfs interpretation is made
18:15:34 [ewallace]
... wouldn't the user be surprised?
18:15:38 [bijan]
18:15:42 [Rinke]
+q to ask about relation with DLP
18:15:49 [IanH]
18:15:52 [bmotik]
18:16:26 [IanH]
18:16:37 [ewallace]
m_schei: you would restrict the reasoning to rdf in a tool like Jena, you would be explicitly aware of this
18:17:05 [ewallace]
m_schei: run the reasoning and see what inference graph is produced
18:17:18 [IanH]
18:17:24 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:17:24 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
18:17:26 [Zhe]
18:17:26 [ewallace]
... you of course have to know which reasoner you are using
18:17:36 [ivan]
ack bijan
18:18:23 [ewallace]
Bijan: you will still be able to do the RDF style reasoning
18:18:49 [IanH]
18:18:59 [ivan]
ack Rinke
18:18:59 [Zakim]
Rinke, you wanted to ask about relation with DLP
18:19:06 [ewallace]
... In OWLland people are used to having certain syntax indicate the reasoning features in the interpretation
18:19:30 [bijan]
(DLP and hornSHIQ are also syntactic fragments)
18:19:34 [ewallace]
rinke: when we started we had dlp, and horn-shiq and others
18:19:47 [IanH]
18:20:00 [ivan]
ack bmotik
18:20:08 [ewallace]
... How will this impact people who use DLP like stuff
18:20:17 [m_schnei]
Motivation for OWL R was RDFS 3.0 / OWL-Prime
18:20:30 [ewallace]
boris: Horn-SHIQ was dropped because there were too many fragments
18:20:37 [bijan]
And a champion in the working group :)
18:20:48 [ewallace]
... we just kept those that had larger user bases
18:21:04 [m_schnei]
All the fragments in the beginning were *DL* fragments --> HENCE syntactic fragments
18:21:34 [bijan]
All the fragments in the beginning were *OWL* fragments --> HENCE syntactic fragments
18:21:39 [ewallace]
Boris: what remains is OWL R. You can still use production rules or other similar tools for it.
18:21:59 [bijan]
OWL lite is a syntactic fragment of OWL DL which is a syntactic fragment of OWL Full
18:22:02 [IanH]
18:22:04 [m_schnei]
Full fragements are always semantic fragments, they are always applyable on every RDF graph
18:22:04 [ivan]
ack Zhe
18:22:14 [ewallace]
Boris: We are just saying there is a syntactic check that can indicate which profile is being used.
18:22:43 [bijan]
OWL DL and OWL Lite *are* fragments of full. What you say is false. And I'll stop the back chat ;)
18:22:44 [ewallace]
Zhe: Oracle is planning to support this profile in the future and it is probable that we
18:22:51 [IanH]
18:22:52 [ivan]
18:23:00 [ivan]
ack ivan
18:23:06 [ewallace]
... will include the capability to bypass the syntax check.
18:23:27 [bmotik]
18:23:28 [IanH]
18:23:29 [ewallace]
ivan: what I would like to understand is if we go with Boris' proposal and I'm in RDFland
18:24:01 [ewallace]
IanH: I guess you lose the ability to consider some graphs as OWL R.
18:24:04 [bijan]
18:24:29 [IanH]
18:24:31 [ewallace]
IanH: Like if you include SomeValuesFrom constructs.
18:24:43 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:25:04 [ewallace]
Boris: you don't lose anything. The rules will work exactly as they are. You don't lose any
18:25:19 [IanH]
18:25:21 [Zhe]
18:25:55 [ewallace]
... expressive power. The syntax forbidden doesn't have rules for the corresponding reasoning.
18:26:04 [IanH]
18:26:10 [IanH]
ack bijan
18:26:22 [ewallace]
bijan: in a way the fragment is saying these are the things we know how to do something interesting with.
18:27:08 [m_schnei]
what is with the RDFS axiomatic triples?
18:27:09 [bcuencagrau]
18:27:14 [IanH]
18:27:18 [ivan]
ack Zhe
18:27:21 [Zhe]
zakim, unmute me
18:27:21 [Zakim]
Zhe was not muted, Zhe
18:27:22 [bcuencagrau]
zakim, unmute me
18:27:23 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should no longer be muted
18:27:26 [ewallace]
Zhe: to Ivan's point, expressivity is not lost. Just some ontologies will be rejected, if syntactic checking is on.
18:27:27 [ivan]
ack bcuencagrau
18:27:50 [ewallace]
bernardo: we have an additional benefit from specifying this as a syntactic fragment
18:28:25 [bcuencagrau]
zakim, mute me
18:28:25 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted
18:28:26 [ewallace]
... you can know if you are in the fragment, and that is a desirable feature.
18:29:03 [ivan]
18:29:07 [Rinke]
18:29:07 [JeffP]
18:29:08 [Zhe]
18:29:09 [MarkusK]
18:29:11 [ratnesh]
18:29:13 [Zakim]
18:29:15 [bijan]
Yay to evan!
18:29:15 [m_schnei]
18:29:17 [Zakim]
18:29:18 [Zakim]
18:29:18 [Carsten]
18:29:19 [Zakim]
18:29:19 [Zakim]
18:29:20 [Zakim]
18:29:21 [Zakim]
18:29:23 [Zakim]
18:29:25 [Zakim]
18:29:25 [ewallace]
rrsagent, draft minutes
18:29:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ewallace
18:29:27 [Zakim]
18:29:29 [Zakim]
18:29:31 [Zakim]
18:29:33 [Zakim]
18:29:35 [Zakim]
18:29:37 [Zakim]
18:29:39 [Zakim]
18:29:41 [Zakim]
18:29:43 [IanH]
rssagent, make minutes public
18:29:43 [ewallace]
rrsagent, make log world-readable
18:29:50 [MartinD]
MartinD has left #OWL
18:29:56 [ewallace]
rrsagent, make log public
18:30:02 [IanH]
Is that the right syntax?
18:30:08 [IanH]
OK -- got it now I think
18:30:22 [IanH]
I can *never* remember this stuff!
18:30:31 [IanH]
OK -- and thanks again.
18:30:51 [IanH]
I'll have to get one
18:30:55 [Zakim]
18:30:56 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()12:00PM has ended
18:30:57 [Zakim]
Attendees were bijan, +31.20.525.aaaa, Rinke, calvanese, Evan_Wallace, bmotik, +49.351.463.3.aabb, bcuencagrau, Carsten, IanH, baojie, ratnesh, +0190827aacc, msmith, MartinD,
18:30:59 [Zakim]
... MarkusK, Ivan, Sandro, m_schnei, +1.617.278.aadd, alanr, JeffP, Zhe
18:31:20 [sandro]
ewallace, I'm here if you need any help with the minutes, or just have suggestion (or more bugs).
18:53:48 [msmith]
msmith has left #owl
20:56:58 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl