IRC log of owl on 2008-07-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:55:10 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:55:10 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/07/09-owl-irc
16:55:29 [bijan]
Zakim, this is OWL
16:55:29 [Zakim]
bijan, I see SW_OWL()12:00PM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be OWL".
16:55:38 [bijan]
Zakim, This will be OWLO
16:55:38 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, bijan
16:55:40 [bijan]
Zakim, This will be OWL
16:55:40 [Zakim]
ok, bijan; I see SW_OWL()12:00PM scheduled to start 55 minutes ago
16:56:19 [Rinke]
Rinke has joined #owl
16:57:43 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()12:00PM has now started
16:57:50 [Zakim]
+??P0
16:57:58 [bijan]
zakim, ??P0 is me
16:57:58 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
16:58:35 [Zakim]
+??P6
16:58:38 [Zakim]
-bijan
16:58:39 [Zakim]
+bijan
16:58:46 [m_schnei]
zakim, ??P6 is me
16:58:46 [Zakim]
+m_schnei; got it
16:58:54 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
16:58:54 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
16:59:03 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
16:59:12 [baojie]
baojie has joined #owl
16:59:27 [Zakim]
+??P7
16:59:36 [Rinke]
zakim, ??P7 is me
16:59:36 [Zakim]
+Rinke; got it
16:59:38 [Zakim]
+ +0186528aaaa
16:59:44 [Rinke]
zakim, mute me
16:59:44 [Zakim]
Rinke should now be muted
16:59:46 [Zakim]
+MartinD
16:59:47 [IanH]
Thanks!
16:59:58 [MartinD]
zakim, mute me
17:00:00 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
17:00:00 [Zakim]
MartinD should now be muted
17:00:00 [Zakim]
-Rinke
17:00:11 [m_schnei]
thanks from me, too, I thought this would be scribe's job :)
17:00:11 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has joined #owl
17:00:25 [Zakim]
+??P22
17:00:30 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??P22 is me
17:00:30 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
17:00:32 [Zakim]
+ +86527aabb
17:00:36 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:00:36 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:00:49 [rob]
Zakim, +0186528aaaa is me.
17:00:49 [Zakim]
+rob; got it
17:00:54 [bcuencagrau]
bcuencagrau has joined #owl
17:01:00 [Zakim]
+??P28
17:01:02 [rob]
Zakim, mute me.
17:01:02 [Zakim]
rob should now be muted
17:01:06 [Rinke]
zakim, ??P28 is me
17:01:06 [Zakim]
+Rinke; got it
17:01:13 [m_schnei]
ScribeNick: m_schnei
17:01:13 [Rinke]
zakim, mute me
17:01:13 [Zakim]
Rinke should now be muted
17:01:30 [bijan]
(reminder to folks: http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot.html )
17:01:41 [Rinke]
RRSAgent, pointer?
17:01:41 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2008/07/09-owl-irc#T17-01-41
17:01:42 [Zakim]
+??P33
17:01:42 [IanH]
zakim, aabb is me
17:01:45 [Zakim]
+IanH; got it
17:01:50 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, ??P33 is me
17:01:50 [Zakim]
+bcuencagrau; got it
17:01:54 [Zakim]
+??P35
17:01:54 [Rinke]
RRSAgent, make records public
17:01:55 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, mute me
17:01:55 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:01:58 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
17:02:09 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
17:02:09 [m_schnei]
ScribeNick: m_schnei
17:02:09 [IanH]
scribenik: m_schnei
17:02:25 [Rinke]
zakim, unmute me
17:02:25 [Zakim]
Rinke should no longer be muted
17:02:42 [Zakim]
+ +0493514633aacc
17:02:49 [msmith]
msmith has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.07.09/Agenda
17:02:51 [Rinke]
zakim, mute me
17:02:51 [Zakim]
Rinke should now be muted
17:02:52 [Carsten]
zakim, aacc is me
17:02:52 [Zakim]
+Carsten; got it
17:02:59 [Carsten]
zakim, mute me
17:02:59 [Zakim]
Carsten should now be muted
17:03:00 [Zakim]
+msmith
17:03:18 [Zakim]
+??P37
17:03:20 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:03:20 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bijan (muted), m_schnei, rob (muted), MartinD (muted), bmotik (muted), IanH, Rinke (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), MarkusK, Carsten (muted), msmith, ??P37
17:03:23 [Zakim]
On IRC I see alanr, msmith, bcuencagrau, MarkusK, bmotik, baojie, IanH, Rinke, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, m_schnei, bijan, rob, Carsten, johnlsheridan, sandro, ewallace, trackbot
17:03:34 [alanr]
zakim, mute me
17:03:34 [Zakim]
sorry, alanr, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:03:36 [Zakim]
+Evan_Wallace
17:03:49 [alanr]
zakim, ??P37 is me
17:03:49 [Zakim]
+alanr; got it
17:03:54 [alanr]
mute me
17:03:57 [alanr]
zakim, mute me
17:03:57 [Zakim]
alanr should now be muted
17:03:59 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:03:59 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bijan (muted), m_schnei, rob (muted), MartinD (muted), bmotik (muted), IanH, Rinke (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), MarkusK, Carsten (muted), msmith, alanr (muted),
17:04:03 [Zakim]
... Evan_Wallace, baojie
17:04:04 [Zakim]
On IRC I see alanr, msmith, bcuencagrau, MarkusK, bmotik, baojie, IanH, Rinke, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, m_schnei, bijan, rob, Carsten, johnlsheridan, sandro, ewallace, trackbot
17:04:15 [rob]
I notice that my half of the datatype discussion is in the public-comments archive, but *not* the wg archive.
17:04:47 [alanr]
mostly that I am without good connectivity
17:04:48 [bijan]
Just my usual about 114
17:04:50 [m_schnei]
Topic: Agenda Amendments
17:04:57 [m_schnei]
IanH: no amendments
17:05:04 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:05:04 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:05:38 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:05:38 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:05:48 [m_schnei]
Bijan: amendment 114 should be discussed and perhaps resolved
17:05:51 [alanr]
objection on behalf of those not here
17:05:59 [m_schnei]
IanH: any objections
17:06:03 [alanr]
unmute me
17:06:06 [bijan]
(yes, do nothing)
17:06:18 [alanr]
zakim, unmute me
17:06:18 [Zakim]
alanr should no longer be muted
17:07:01 [bijan]
This issue is on the agenda
17:07:15 [bijan]
I'm fine with waiting
17:07:28 [m_schnei]
alanr: time too short
17:07:47 [Zakim]
+[IBM]
17:07:50 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:07:50 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:07:50 [Rinke]
let's discuss it today, and propose to resolve next week
17:08:08 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
17:08:10 [m_schnei]
alanr: 114 is not ready to be resolved
17:08:19 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:08:19 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:08:21 [ewallace]
+1 to moving up on the list
17:08:28 [Achille]
Zakim, IBM is me
17:08:28 [Zakim]
+Achille; got it
17:08:29 [m_schnei]
ianh: put it on top of the list, to be discussed at least
17:08:33 [bijan]
thanks!
17:08:41 [alanr]
zakim, mute me
17:08:41 [Zakim]
alanr should now be muted
17:08:43 [Zakim]
+??P11
17:08:48 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #owl
17:09:27 [m_schnei]
Topic: Actions
17:09:32 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #owl
17:09:53 [m_schnei]
Action 150
17:09:53 [trackbot]
Sorry, bad ACTION syntax
17:10:05 [JeffP]
(I am on IRC only)
17:10:10 [m_schnei]
Jie: I sent a mail to RIF group
17:10:46 [m_schnei]
... answer suggested to put intern String in RDF namespace
17:10:48 [IanH]
Jie: Contacted Axel Polaris and Ivan Herman
17:11:44 [bmotik]
s/Polaris/Polleres
17:12:02 [m_schnei]
Jie: someone should have a note (?)
17:12:09 [m_schnei]
s/note/vote
17:12:27 [bijan]
q+
17:12:41 [m_schnei]
IanH: summary, things are not quite complete yet, right?
17:12:48 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:12:48 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:12:48 [IanH]
q?
17:13:09 [m_schnei]
bijan: asks whether this is about intern. strings
17:14:04 [bmotik]
I believe that disjointness of xsd:string and owl:internationalizedString could be handled as part of ISSUE-126
17:14:34 [m_schnei]
IanH: to jie, is this email on our list?
17:14:39 [m_schnei]
jie: yes, it is
17:14:39 [bijan]
Thanks!
17:14:42 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:14:42 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:15:08 [m_schnei]
IanH: let's leave this open, because it didn't come to a conclusion
17:15:17 [m_schnei]
Action 156
17:15:17 [trackbot]
Sorry, bad ACTION syntax
17:15:29 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
17:15:36 [m_schnei]
Topic: Action 156
17:15:47 [m_schnei]
Topic: Action 157
17:15:51 [m_schnei]
skipped
17:15:52 [alanr]
sorry - can't see agenda atm
17:15:57 [alanr]
or web site.
17:16:03 [alanr]
I think postpone
17:16:11 [IanH]
Alan -- we skipped your actions till next week
17:16:13 [m_schnei]
Topic: Action 161
17:16:16 [m_schnei]
skipped
17:16:17 [alanr]
yes, please
17:16:21 [bmotik]
q+
17:16:21 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:16:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bijan (muted), m_schnei, rob (muted), MartinD (muted), bmotik (muted), IanH, Rinke (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), MarkusK, Carsten (muted), msmith, alanr (muted),
17:16:27 [Zakim]
... Evan_Wallace, baojie, Achille, ??P11 (muted)
17:16:28 [m_schnei]
Topic: Action162
17:16:29 [Zakim]
On IRC I see alanr, JeffP, cgi-irc, Achille, msmith, bcuencagrau, MarkusK, bmotik, baojie, IanH, Rinke, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, m_schnei, bijan, rob, Carsten, johnlsheridan,
17:16:32 [Zakim]
... sandro, ewallace, trackbot
17:16:38 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:16:38 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
17:16:41 [m_schnei]
IanH: Diego not here, skipped
17:16:51 [m_schnei]
Topic: Action165
17:16:59 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
17:17:00 [ewallace]
diego was supposed to do a write up
17:17:01 [m_schnei]
IanH: also Diego, skipped
17:17:13 [bmotik]
q-
17:17:14 [m_schnei]
Boris: Hasn't this already been done?
17:17:23 [m_schnei]
IanH: I did not see any emails
17:17:35 [m_schnei]
Boris: It's already updated in the profiles
17:17:35 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:17:35 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:17:50 [bmotik]
Yes
17:17:54 [msmith]
yes
17:18:05 [m_schnei]
IanH: 161 subsumed by 162
17:18:31 [m_schnei]
IanH: new member of the WG, which is Rob from Oxford
17:18:36 [rob]
zakim, unmute me
17:18:36 [Zakim]
rob should no longer be muted
17:18:42 [m_schnei]
... Rob helps with datatypes
17:18:47 [m_schnei]
Rob: Hi!
17:19:02 [rob]
zakim, mute me
17:19:02 [Zakim]
rob should now be muted
17:19:09 [Rinke]
q+ to ask about the minutes of the previous meeting?
17:19:18 [IanH]
q?
17:19:21 [bijan]
q-
17:19:30 [Rinke]
zakim, unmute me
17:19:30 [Zakim]
Rinke should no longer be muted
17:19:32 [alanr]
Action 156 needs to be pushed to next week. Haven't heard back from Judy Brewer on Action 157, so push
17:19:32 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - 156
17:19:55 [alanr]
"Action 156 needs to be pushed to next week. Haven't heard back from Judy Brewer on Action 157, so push"
17:19:56 [Rinke]
zakim, mute me
17:19:56 [Zakim]
Rinke should now be muted
17:20:00 [m_schnei]
Topic: previous minutes
17:20:22 [m_schnei]
Rinke: minutes not yet dealt with
17:20:56 [Rinke]
they looked ok to me as well
17:21:14 [IanH]
Proposed: accept minutes http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-07-02
17:21:17 [bmotik]
+1
17:21:20 [ewallace]
+1
17:21:22 [Rinke]
+1
17:21:32 [IanH]
+1
17:21:37 [MartinD]
+1
17:21:39 [JeffP]
0 (didn't check yet)
17:21:39 [IanH]
Resolved: accept minutes http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-07-02
17:22:00 [m_schnei]
IanH: no go on with issues to be resolved
17:22:09 [m_schnei]
Topic: ISSUE-5
17:22:46 [m_schnei]
IanH: slightly strange issue
17:22:59 [IanH]
q?
17:22:59 [alanr]
close as withdrawn
17:23:01 [m_schnei]
... Jeremy did not object
17:23:01 [Rinke]
q-
17:23:06 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:23:06 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:23:37 [m_schnei]
Bijan: Jeremy sent a mail that HP doen't care anymore
17:23:38 [alanr]
q+
17:23:48 [alanr]
zakim, unmute me
17:23:48 [Zakim]
alanr should no longer be muted
17:23:56 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:23:56 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:23:57 [IanH]
q?
17:24:02 [IanH]
ack alanr
17:24:13 [m_schnei]
alanr: supports close as withdrawn
17:24:43 [alanr]
zakim, mute me
17:24:43 [Zakim]
alanr should now be muted
17:25:04 [IanH]
PROPOSED: close Issue 5 as withdrawn
17:25:28 [ewallace]
+1
17:25:31 [Rinke]
+1
17:25:35 [MartinD]
+1
17:25:39 [bmotik]
+1
17:25:39 [IanH]
+1
17:25:43 [baojie]
1
17:25:44 [bijan]
+!
17:25:46 [bijan]
+1
17:25:47 [msmith]
+1
17:25:50 [alanr]
I didn't want closing the issue to imply that the technical issues that were raised were solved or rejected. They may be brought up again, if appropriate.
17:25:54 [alanr]
+1
17:26:02 [IanH]
RESOLVED: close Issue 5 as withdrawn
17:26:17 [m_schnei]
Topic: ISSUE 31
17:26:28 [alanr]
q+
17:26:37 [bijan]
q+
17:26:41 [m_schnei]
IanH: seems to me as a left over from early days
17:26:51 [IanH]
q?
17:26:52 [alanr]
zakim, unmute me
17:26:53 [Zakim]
alanr should no longer be muted
17:26:54 [m_schnei]
... looks moot to me
17:27:29 [bmotik]
+q
17:27:30 [m_schnei]
alanr: we haven't finished this conversation
17:27:50 [IanH]
q?
17:27:54 [alanr]
q-
17:28:07 [bijan]
unmute me
17:28:10 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:28:10 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:28:19 [IanH]
q?
17:28:23 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:28:25 [m_schnei]
bijan: i sent email
17:29:12 [msmith]
+1 to bijan. this issue has not been mooted. I also sent an email today.
17:29:14 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:29:14 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
17:29:15 [m_schnei]
... its not mooted just by the fact that we have internal syntax
17:29:34 [IanH]
q?
17:29:42 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:29:53 [m_schnei]
boris: i don't understand this issue
17:30:02 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:30:02 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:30:06 [IanH]
q?
17:30:27 [msmith]
See e.g., http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-xsch-datatypes/#sec-userDefined
17:30:29 [bmotik]
What are user-defined datatypes?
17:30:34 [bmotik]
q+
17:31:00 [m_schnei]
bijan: pellet supports working with external xml datatypes
17:31:03 [msmith]
+q
17:31:12 [IanH]
q?
17:31:18 [Zakim]
-Achille
17:31:34 [msmith]
q?
17:31:45 [ewallace]
because SWBPD didn't choose
17:31:47 [m_schnei]
IanH: why is this a problem for our WG
17:31:48 [Achille]
I have to leave because of a conflicting meeting
17:32:08 [m_schnei]
bijan: old owl wg did not do something about this
17:32:11 [msmith]
The last query to XML Schema said that XSCD work was ongoing
17:32:12 [IanH]
q?
17:32:14 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:32:14 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
17:32:32 [m_schnei]
boris: what is meant by "user defined datatypes"
17:32:34 [msmith]
bmotik, see http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-xsch-datatypes/#sec-userDefined
17:32:37 [IanH]
q?
17:32:41 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:32:50 [alanr]
1+
17:32:55 [rob]
Is the set of types open-ended in OWL 1.0? Our proposal is that the set of types is limited in OWL 2...
17:32:57 [alanr]
oops meant q+
17:32:59 [alanr]
q+
17:33:13 [alanr]
+1 to not moot
17:33:14 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:33:14 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:33:34 [alanr]
q-
17:33:43 [bijan]
I'm happy to resolve it negatively if the wg isn't interested
17:33:54 [m_schnei]
ianh: we are not in agreement at the moment
17:34:01 [IanH]
q?
17:34:09 [IanH]
ack msmith
17:34:32 [rob]
I think some of these issues might be mooted after discussion of the new datatype proposal, but not until then.
17:34:33 [m_schnei]
mikeS: would be nice to have OWL together with XML Schema
17:34:41 [bmotik]
Thanks!
17:35:00 [bijan]
And they're not being mooted doesn't mean we can't close it
17:35:00 [m_schnei]
IanH: let's take this offline, and defer resolution
17:35:14 [m_schnei]
Topic: Issue-53
17:35:15 [bijan]
If the group sentiment is against that, it's fine to close it.
17:35:41 [m_schnei]
IanH: issue raised long time ago, it's rather a usecase
17:35:43 [bijan]
I can add it ot the n-ary use case page
17:35:53 [IanH]
q?
17:35:58 [alanr]
+1 to resolve in this way
17:36:34 [ewallace]
+1 to resolve by adding the use case to the N-ary use case page
17:36:35 [IanH]
PROPOSE: Resolve issue-53 by turning it into an nary datatype use case
17:36:37 [bijan]
I've added it ot the n-ary data predicate use case page.
17:36:41 [Rinke]
+1
17:36:42 [ewallace]
+1
17:36:45 [bijan]
+1
17:36:45 [bmotik]
+1
17:36:48 [MartinD]
+1
17:36:55 [IanH]
+1
17:36:57 [msmith]
+1
17:37:00 [Carsten]
+1
17:37:04 [IanH]
RESOLVED: Resolve issue-53 by turning it into an nary datatype use case
17:37:31 [m_schnei]
Topic: Issue 87
17:37:37 [rob]
q+
17:37:46 [rob]
zakim, unmute me
17:37:46 [Zakim]
rob should no longer be muted
17:37:50 [IanH]
q?
17:37:55 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:37:55 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:37:57 [m_schnei]
IanH: rational number datatype should be subsumed below 126
17:38:01 [alanr]
fwiw, i do as well
17:38:08 [IanH]
q?
17:38:12 [msmith]
q+
17:38:12 [IanH]
ack rob
17:38:13 [rob]
zakim, mute me
17:38:13 [Zakim]
rob should now be muted
17:38:15 [bmotik]
I'd prefer closing the issue.
17:38:49 [rob]
we can decide 126 independently of whether we support rationals
17:38:53 [msmith]
msmith: I agree with Rob. It is easier to close smaller issues
17:38:56 [rob]
...thus easier to keep rationals as a separate issue
17:39:14 [m_schnei]
IanH: so let this one open
17:39:25 [m_schnei]
Topic: Issue 128
17:39:45 [alanr]
q+
17:39:48 [IanH]
q?
17:39:52 [alanr]
zakim, unmute me
17:39:52 [Zakim]
alanr was not muted, alanr
17:39:54 [m_schnei]
IanH: I have proposed to close this issue
17:40:02 [msmith]
q-
17:40:11 [m_schnei]
alanr: this kind of review will be ongoing
17:40:25 [rob]
so we resolve that it would be a good idea?
17:40:27 [bmotik]
Sure -- all documents have to de reviewed before publishign.
17:40:36 [alanr]
zakim, unmute me
17:40:36 [Zakim]
alanr was not muted, alanr
17:40:38 [bmotik]
s/publishign/publishing
17:40:40 [m_schnei]
IanH: we did our job for now
17:40:47 [alanr]
I prefer to leave it open as a reminder, but not bring it to meeting
17:40:53 [alanr]
zakim, unmute me
17:40:57 [Zakim]
alanr was not muted, alanr
17:40:58 [bmotik]
q+
17:41:25 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:41:25 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
17:41:30 [m_schnei]
alanr: though this issue should be a reminder for us to review later
17:41:56 [alanr]
ok, Boris, that's fine. Will start a wiki page.
17:42:01 [bijan]
+1 to morale boosting effect of issue list
17:42:04 [bijan]
reduction
17:42:12 [ewallace]
+1 on moving to QA list per Boris' suggestion
17:42:15 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:42:15 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:42:25 [m_schnei]
boris: have a quality list which contains things which have to be done at the end
17:42:44 [IanH]
PROPOSED: Issue 128 resolved by moving it to a QA wiki page
17:42:47 [rob]
+1
17:42:48 [bmotik]
+1
17:42:50 [bcuencagrau]
+1
17:42:54 [ewallace]
+1
17:42:56 [IanH]
+1
17:42:56 [alanr]
+1
17:42:56 [Rinke]
+1 perfect
17:43:06 [bijan]
+1
17:43:07 [IanH]
RESOLVED: Issue 128 resolved by moving it to a QA wiki page
17:43:09 [MartinD]
+1
17:43:33 [m_schnei]
IanH: happy about having closed several issues
17:43:46 [m_schnei]
Topic: Issue 114 (agenda amendment)
17:44:00 [alanr]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Draft_QA
17:44:01 [IanH]
q?
17:44:33 [m_schnei]
alanr: worries about sensibility of punning
17:44:41 [IanH]
q?
17:44:48 [m_schnei]
... I would like to understand the usecases
17:45:13 [IanH]
q?
17:45:39 [m_schnei]
... I looked at each possible combination and checked whether this makes sense (eg. class / constant punning)
17:45:43 [IanH]
q?
17:45:44 [bijan]
q+
17:46:04 [bmotik]
-q
17:46:06 [m_schnei]
... does punning make sense in the context of SPARQL queries?
17:46:58 [IanH]
q?
17:47:01 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:47:01 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:47:01 [alanr]
q-
17:47:06 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:47:19 [bmotik]
q+
17:47:42 [rob]
I'm very skeptical of calling any of this "trivial".
17:47:43 [m_schnei]
bijan: given that all other forms of punning are in Full and easy to implement, we can keep it in
17:47:59 [rob]
Rationale: explaining it to users will be hard.
17:48:07 [alanr]
-1 to perversions in the language
17:48:10 [rob]
Unless we have a simple conceptualization.
17:48:13 [m_schnei]
... would otherwise create artificial distinction
17:48:15 [alanr]
gives us a bad name
17:48:27 [rob]
Not all OWL-DL tools.
17:48:29 [alanr]
q?
17:48:32 [IanH]
q?
17:48:42 [alanr]
q+
17:49:00 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:49:00 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
17:49:04 [m_schnei]
... we should put it in, and give best practice notes if some form turns out to be harmful
17:49:13 [IanH]
q?
17:49:19 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:49:41 [m_schnei]
boris: what is the problem, what does it mean that a form of punning does not make sense?
17:50:07 [IanH]
q?
17:50:07 [MarkusK]
+1 to Boris: punning is no semantic problem
17:50:15 [IanH]
ack alanr
17:50:20 [bmotik]
q+
17:50:28 [m_schnei]
... we only dropped property/property punning because of RDF serialization problems
17:50:44 [bijan]
q+
17:50:50 [m_schnei]
alanr: there were also other problems
17:51:07 [IanH]
q?
17:51:20 [m_schnei]
... we are a Semantic Web working group
17:51:31 [m_schnei]
... have to take the usecases into account
17:51:47 [m_schnei]
Bijan: if you don't like a certain form of punning, don't use it
17:51:57 [IanH]
q?
17:51:58 [m_schnei]
s/Bijan/Boris
17:52:08 [alanr]
q+
17:52:34 [bmotik]
scribeassist: bmotik: What could go wrong with different types of punning?
17:52:51 [m_schnei]
Bijan: Why should wg spend so much time on this point, if there is only a single member org against
17:52:56 [bmotik]
SCRIBEASSIST: bmotik: What types of punning do you consider really bad?
17:53:12 [rob]
My concerns would be addressed by some good example of usage that could be used as the basis for some documentation.
17:53:24 [bmotik]
q-
17:53:33 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:53:33 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:53:48 [IanH]
q?
17:53:52 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:53:57 [IanH]
ack alanr
17:53:58 [bmotik]
q+
17:54:01 [IanH]
q?
17:54:09 [rob]
q+
17:54:11 [m_schnei]
alanr: what goes wrong is that things can be done which are nonsense
17:54:26 [m_schnei]
... general question is, what is a feature for
17:54:38 [bijan]
I didn't speak for them all
17:54:41 [bijan]
I made a prediction
17:55:06 [IanH]
You are breaking up very badly!
17:55:09 [bmotik]
Alan, we can't hear you at all
17:55:19 [Zakim]
-alanr
17:55:29 [rob]
zakim, unmute me
17:55:29 [Zakim]
rob should no longer be muted
17:55:38 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
17:55:40 [alanr]
hello
17:55:47 [alanr]
zakim, unmute me
17:55:47 [Zakim]
sorry, alanr, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:56:12 [IanH]
q?
17:56:34 [Zakim]
+??P1
17:56:42 [alanr]
zakim, ??P1 is me
17:56:42 [Zakim]
+alanr; got it
17:57:14 [alanr]
ok - that was said in the issue
17:57:18 [IanH]
q?
17:57:21 [alanr]
Thus, the same name can be used
17:57:21 [alanr]
in an ontology to denote a class, a datatype, a property
17:57:21 [alanr]
(object or data), an individual, and a constant
17:57:24 [bmotik]
I agree with michael here
17:57:27 [bmotik]
completely
17:57:29 [alanr]
good.
17:57:31 [alanr]
q+
17:57:38 [bijan]
Yep. It's syntactically impossible, yes?
17:57:54 [bijan]
Spelt differntly
17:58:00 [bijan]
Pun requries same spelling
17:58:08 [alanr]
Looks like a mistake in the issue submission
17:58:14 [alanr]
q+
17:59:02 [IanH]
q?
17:59:06 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:59:13 [alanr]
class/properties has no interesting inference
18:00:11 [IanH]
q?
18:00:20 [alanr]
Actually, perhaps this approach would work over email.
18:00:30 [m_schnei]
m_schnei: (answer to alanr) it is not possible to pun classes and constants, because of different syntax of URIs and constants
18:00:49 [Carsten]
Have to leave, buy.
18:00:53 [IanH]
q?
18:00:55 [Carsten]
s/buy/bye/
18:00:59 [bijan]
Interesting inferences aren't the only issue. It's useful in some cases to keep both forms in the same document instead of syntactically forbidding them.
18:01:00 [alanr]
Would like a definitive list of what it is possible to pun. Could someone email this?
18:01:00 [Zakim]
-Carsten
18:01:48 [alanr]
+1
18:01:56 [alanr]
zakim, unmute me
18:01:56 [Zakim]
alanr was not muted, alanr
18:01:57 [rob]
zakim, mute me
18:01:57 [Zakim]
rob should now be muted
18:02:08 [cgi-irc]
christine: also would like to se UC stemming from *reaml* appli not eagle
18:02:08 [cgi-irc]
christine: also would like to se UC stemming from *reaml* appli not eagle
18:02:16 [m_schnei]
rob: we can find a usecase for every form of punning
18:02:26 [cgi-irc]
s realm/real
18:02:30 [rob]
I've been searching the web site and can't find them...
18:02:43 [m_schnei]
alanr: would like to see a list of all possible punning combinations
18:02:49 [MarkusK]
Some use cases for punning are already at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/PropertyPunning#Use_cases; maybe more can be added there
18:02:52 [msmith]
IIRC, Evan has stated use cases for class/property more than once
18:03:12 [m_schnei]
alanr: there is no entailment for class property punning
18:03:15 [MarkusK]
Oops, better URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Punning#Use_cases
18:03:18 [bijan]
rob, the general use case is not to reject intelligible rdf graphs
18:03:22 [bijan]
(my general use cases)
18:03:42 [rob]
true---there are use cases on the site.
18:03:48 [msmith]
yes, the class property use cases http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Punning#UML_Association_Class_.28Class_.E2.86.94_ObjectProperty.29
18:04:07 [bmotik]
I'm already writing an e-mail
18:04:14 [m_schnei]
Ian: let's take this offline, and try to clarify the usecases for all the different kinds of punning
18:04:25 [bijan]
Because it's work?
18:04:26 [rob]
(as a newbie, I've got to say I see the burden on Alan to identify his problems with the current use cases)
18:04:58 [alanr]
zakim, unmute me
18:04:58 [Zakim]
alanr was not muted, alanr
18:05:00 [m_schnei]
boris: I will send a mail
18:05:02 [alanr]
zakim, mute me
18:05:02 [Zakim]
alanr should now be muted
18:05:15 [alanr]
yes
18:05:29 [alanr]
zakim, unmute me
18:05:29 [Zakim]
alanr should no longer be muted
18:05:31 [m_schnei]
IanH: alanr, can you take over chair, i have to go
18:05:45 [IanH]
q?
18:05:50 [rob]
q-
18:05:56 [m_schnei]
alanr: ok, but technical problems might arise
18:06:11 [Rinke]
me? sure
18:06:33 [bijan]
BTW, I object to the characterization that my point was a matter of haphazard langauge design. My point is in part about burden a proof: you need a convincing argument to get people to stop supporting such punning
18:06:42 [m_schnei]
IanH: Rinke as chair backup if alanr's connection go's down
18:06:42 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:06:42 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
18:07:40 [m_schnei]
Topic: general discussion on rich annotatoins
18:07:57 [alanr]
very interested in rich annotations
18:08:14 [Rinke]
me too
18:08:17 [m_schnei]
bijan: we have this proposal to let people put annotations into a separate domain
18:08:59 [alanr]
q+ to ask whether single annotation space/ serialized as one separate file is a useful extension
18:09:21 [m_schnei]
... in OWL 1 you could put annotations into a different document to have them separated
18:09:51 [alanr]
q+ to ask, are you thinking about how such annotations can be queried within SPARQL - or how important this would be
18:10:30 [alanr]
q+ to ask whether current question of annotations on annotations comes for free in this proposal
18:10:35 [m_schnei]
we get a lot requests to have a DC ontology, but one either have to pun or make those annotations meaningless
18:10:46 [alanr]
q?
18:11:04 [alanr]
ack alanr
18:11:04 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to ask whether single annotation space/ serialized as one separate file is a useful extension and to ask, are you thinking about how such annotations can be
18:11:08 [Zakim]
... queried within SPARQL - or how important this would be and to ask whether current question of annotations on annotations comes for free in this proposal
18:12:10 [m_schnei]
alanr: (to bijan) why not have annotations in different documents?
18:12:56 [m_schnei]
bijan: that's a design option, but some people don't like to work with several files
18:13:53 [m_schnei]
alanr: second question about annotations on annotations
18:14:05 [m_schnei]
... would this be problematic?
18:15:19 [m_schnei]
bijan: my current syntax doesn't allows this, but it would be an easy extension.
18:15:39 [m_schnei]
alanr: third question about SPARQL, doesn't look operable there
18:16:44 [m_schnei]
bijan: parser preprocessor should handle this
18:17:04 [alanr]
q?
18:18:13 [m_schnei]
alanr: strawpoll, whether bijan's approach or simply use multiple documents?
18:18:49 [IanH]
Got to go -- bye
18:18:53 [Zakim]
-IanH
18:19:27 [JeffP]
bye
18:19:32 [Rinke]
q+ to ask about the RDF problem
18:19:38 [Rinke]
zakim, unmute me
18:19:38 [Zakim]
Rinke should no longer be muted
18:19:40 [alanr]
ack Rinke
18:19:40 [Zakim]
Rinke, you wanted to ask about the RDF problem
18:20:21 [m_schnei]
rinke: question, if there are specific problems with the RDF serialization?
18:20:54 [m_schnei]
bijan: we use reification, because there is no other support in RDF
18:21:21 [Rinke]
zakim, mute me
18:21:21 [Zakim]
Rinke should now be muted
18:22:05 [bijan]
I'm indifferent
18:22:06 [ewallace]
Don't understand the question
18:22:08 [m_schnei]
alanr: asks for strawpoll whether special annotation layer approach is wanted
18:22:09 [msmith]
+0 1 or several files is acceptable if it works
18:22:12 [alanr]
STRAW Poll: Serializing rich annotation to separate files (for RDF) OK? Not OK?
18:22:22 [ewallace]
multiple files would be o.k.
18:22:26 [alanr]
ok
18:22:33 [Rinke]
+0.5 no objection myself
18:22:34 [msmith]
ok
18:22:41 [m_schnei]
+.025 to separate files (but I did not think about this)
18:22:55 [MartinD]
+epsilon
18:23:02 [JeffP]
0
18:23:07 [baojie]
0
18:23:13 [rob]
-0
18:23:14 [MarkusK]
0 if it works, how would we specify the location of the other file (sound like ontology import ...)?
18:23:16 [bmotik]
0
18:23:27 [bcuencagrau]
I am not sure if I understand completely
18:23:28 [Rinke]
good point MarkusK
18:23:52 [Rinke]
perhaps we should have sth. as owl:importAnnotation
18:24:17 [MartinD]
+1 to rinke's idea...
18:24:36 [m_schnei]
Bijan: suggests to send a proposal
18:24:52 [alanr]
q?
18:25:05 [m_schnei]
Topic: n-ary datatypes
18:25:27 [alanr]
action: alan to draft sketch of how to serialize rdf annotation spaces - separate files.
18:25:27 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-166 - Draft sketch of how to serialize rdf annotation spaces - separate files. [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-07-16].
18:25:48 [alanr]
q+ to ask about progress with mockup in racer
18:25:51 [m_schnei]
Bijan: i think there is a point with conformance
18:26:27 [m_schnei]
Bijan: some people want linear equations
18:26:37 [msmith]
Indeed, I'd like to see linear ineq in Pellet
18:26:52 [alanr]
mike, do you have a use case you could document?
18:27:16 [alanr]
q?
18:27:43 [alanr]
q-
18:27:57 [msmith]
alanr, I think some of the cases on http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/N-ary_Data_predicate_use_case motivate linear inequations
18:28:23 [m_schnei]
AlanR: Any questions to Bijan? No?
18:28:24 [Zakim]
-bijan
18:28:26 [alanr]
adjourned
18:28:26 [Zakim]
-Evan_Wallace
18:28:26 [Zakim]
-msmith
18:28:28 [Zakim]
-bmotik
18:28:29 [cgi-irc]
bye
18:28:29 [Rinke]
thanks, bye
18:28:31 [Zakim]
-bcuencagrau
18:28:32 [Zakim]
-MarkusK
18:28:33 [Zakim]
-rob
18:28:35 [Zakim]
-MartinD
18:28:40 [MartinD]
MartinD has left #OWL
18:28:42 [Zakim]
-Rinke
18:28:53 [Zakim]
-baojie
18:29:13 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
18:29:14 [Zakim]
-??P11
18:29:35 [m_schnei]
rrsagent, bye
18:29:35 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/09-owl-actions.rdf :
18:29:35 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: alan to draft sketch of how to serialize rdf annotation spaces - separate files. [1]
18:29:35 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/09-owl-irc#T18-25-27