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
17:03:46 <Zakim> +baojie
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