IRC log of owl on 2008-07-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:59:53 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:59:53 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:00:08 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
17:00:19 [IanH]
zakim, this will be owlwg
17:00:20 [Zakim]
ok, IanH; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start now
17:00:25 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
17:00:32 [Zakim]
17:00:34 [Zakim]
17:00:38 [bparsia]
zkaim, ??p15 is me
17:00:41 [IanH]
IanH has changed the topic to:
17:00:45 [bparsia]
zakim, mute me
17:00:45 [Zakim]
sorry, bparsia, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:00:57 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
17:01:01 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
17:01:06 [ivan]
zakim, ??p15 is bparsia
17:01:06 [Zakim]
+bparsia; got it
17:01:15 [bparsia]
zakim, mute me
17:01:15 [Zakim]
bparsia should now be muted
17:01:25 [Zakim]
17:01:25 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:01:26 [Zakim]
17:01:26 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
17:01:27 [Zakim]
17:01:39 [IanH]
zakim IanH_ is IanH
17:01:41 [Zakim]
17:01:45 [Zakim]
17:01:51 [uli]
zakim, ??P24 is me
17:01:51 [Zakim]
+uli; got it
17:01:56 [uli]
zakim, mute me
17:01:56 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
17:01:59 [IanH]
zakim, IanH_ is IanH
17:01:59 [Zakim]
+IanH; got it
17:02:04 [Zakim]
17:02:07 [Zakim]
17:02:17 [Zhe]
zakim, mute me
17:02:17 [Zakim]
Zhe should now be muted
17:02:21 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
17:02:29 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
17:02:29 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bparsia (muted), IanH (muted), Ivan, uli (muted), [IBM], alanr, Zhe (muted)
17:02:31 [Zakim]
On IRC I see alanr, Achille, Zhe, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, uli, bparsia, Carsten, trackbot
17:02:32 [Achille]
Zakim, IBM is me
17:02:32 [Zakim]
+Achille; got it
17:02:48 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl
17:02:56 [Zakim]
17:02:59 [ivan]
zakim, mute me
17:02:59 [Zakim]
Ivan should now be muted
17:03:04 [Zakim]
17:03:07 [IanH]
RRSAgent, make records public
17:03:12 [rob]
rob has joined #owl
17:04:06 [Zakim]
17:04:15 [Zhe]
17:04:18 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
17:04:18 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bparsia (muted), IanH (muted), Ivan (muted), uli (muted), Achille, alanr, Zhe (muted), Sandro, msmith, ??P40
17:04:21 [Zakim]
On IRC I see rob, sandro, alanr, Achille, Zhe, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, uli, bparsia, Carsten, trackbot
17:04:35 [rob]
Zakim, +??P40 is probably me.
17:04:41 [Zakim]
sorry, rob, I do not understand your question
17:04:48 [baojie]
baojie has joined #owl
17:04:55 [rob]
zakim, +??P40 might be me
17:05:08 [Zakim]
I don't understand '+??P40 might be me', rob
17:05:13 [ivan]
zakim, ??P40 is rob
17:05:17 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
17:05:18 [Zakim]
+rob; got it
17:05:45 [rob]
zakim, mute me
17:05:45 [Zakim]
rob should now be muted
17:05:46 [IanH]
They looked OK to me.
17:05:59 [Achille]
alanr: no agenda amendments
17:06:06 [Zakim]
17:06:12 [IanH]
They looked OK to me too
17:06:25 [bmotik_]
bmotik_ has joined #owl
17:06:39 [ewallace]
ewallace has joined #owl
17:06:42 [Achille]
alanr: let's wait for peter
17:06:48 [Achille]
for the minutes
17:06:48 [bmotik_]
Zakim. bmotik_ is bmotik
17:07:03 [ivan]
zakim, bmotik_ is bmotik
17:07:03 [Zakim]
sorry, ivan, I do not recognize a party named 'bmotik_'
17:07:04 [Achille]
alanr: there is an agenda for f2f 3
17:07:24 [Achille]
alanr: anything missing from the agenda for the f2f3?
17:07:27 [Zakim]
17:07:31 [Rinke]
Rinke has joined #owl
17:07:37 [Achille]
topic: action items
17:08:05 [Achille]
alanr : action 156 done by ian
17:08:28 [Zakim]
17:08:36 [Carsten]
zakim, mute me
17:08:36 [Zakim]
Carsten should now be muted
17:08:49 [baojie]
17:08:50 [Achille]
ewallace: action 167 done
17:09:20 [rob]
zakim, who is here
17:09:20 [Zakim]
rob, you need to end that query with '?'
17:09:26 [Achille]
jie: i just sent an email summarizing the action at the last meeting of RIF WG
17:09:27 [Zakim]
17:09:30 [rob]
zakim, who is here?
17:09:30 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bparsia (muted), IanH (muted), Ivan (muted), uli (muted), Achille, alanr, Zhe (muted), Sandro, msmith, rob (muted), baojie, Evan_Wallace, Carsten (muted), ??P3
17:09:32 [Rinke]
zakim, ??P3 is me
17:09:34 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Rinke, ewallace, bmotik, baojie, rob, sandro, alanr, Achille, Zhe, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, uli, bparsia, Carsten, trackbot
17:09:35 [Rinke]
zakim, mute me
17:09:36 [Zakim]
+Rinke; got it
17:09:36 [Zakim]
Rinke should now be muted
17:10:09 [Achille]
alanr: what is your sense of the status for the RIF WG
17:10:34 [Achille]
jie: as far as this action is concerned it is well on tracj
17:10:43 [Achille]
17:11:15 [Achille]
alanr: micheal is not here for action 152
17:11:27 [sandro]
17:11:33 [bmotik]
Zakim, bmotik is with Achille
17:11:33 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
17:11:35 [alanr]
17:11:36 [Achille]
sandro: add food restriction on the f2f 3 page
17:11:55 [Achille]
topic: proposal to resolve issue
17:12:28 [IanH]
doing it
17:12:56 [Achille]
alanr: issue 125 shuld be left for the primer not the technical documents
17:13:01 [bparsia]
17:13:07 [bparsia]
zakim, unmute me
17:13:07 [Zakim]
bparsia should no longer be muted
17:13:10 [alanr]
ack bparsia
17:13:13 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #owl
17:14:20 [Achille]
bparsia: I think it should be just an editorial issue
17:14:30 [IanH]
PROPOSED: resolve issue with no change to serialisation but document this and other "interesting" equivalences in user facing documents
17:14:49 [Achille]
bparsia: I don;t like the micro management of this issue
17:14:54 [IanH]
zakim, unmute me
17:14:54 [Zakim]
IanH should no longer be muted
17:14:59 [alanr]
17:15:27 [ewallace]
17:15:45 [Achille]
ianh: I made the proposal as an easy way to fix the issue. Bijan would you prefer changing the serializarion
17:15:49 [bmotik]
+1 to close
17:15:54 [alanr]
17:15:55 [Achille]
bijan: no
17:15:58 [bparsia]
zakim, mute me
17:15:58 [Zakim]
bparsia should now be muted
17:16:14 [Achille]
alanr: any opinion on htis issue?
17:16:16 [bmotik]
17:16:21 [alanr]
ack bmotik
17:16:41 [Achille]
boris: in the syntax doc, I have already mentioned some equivalences
17:16:53 [Achille]
boris: this could be just one more line
17:17:02 [bparsia]
I'm not saying I wouldn't put it in, but I think we should just close it
17:17:05 [Achille]
boris: I would like to close it
17:17:06 [bparsia]
I don't care
17:17:08 [bparsia]
Close it
17:17:09 [bparsia]
17:17:16 [Achille]
boris: by adding it in the syntax document
17:17:19 [bparsia]
zakim, unmute me
17:17:19 [Zakim]
bparsia should no longer be muted
17:17:40 [bparsia]
zakim, mute me
17:17:40 [Zakim]
bparsia should now be muted
17:17:53 [Achille]
parsia: I'm not going to argue further. I will not vote against it
17:18:02 [alanr]
Proposed: resolve issue with no change to serialisation but document this and other "interesting" equivalences in user facing documents
17:18:08 [bmotik]
17:18:10 [ivan]
17:18:11 [IanH]
17:18:15 [uli]
17:18:15 [Rinke]
17:18:17 [Achille]
17:18:17 [sandro]
17:18:17 [Zhe]
17:18:23 [alanr]
17:18:26 [Carsten]
17:18:29 [msmith]
17:18:47 [ewallace]
17:18:48 [ivan]
scribenick: Achille
17:18:55 [ivan]
scribe: Achille
17:19:20 [alanr]
Resolved: resolve issue with no change to serialisation but document this and other "interesting" equivalences in user facing documents
17:19:31 [Achille]
topic: issue discussion
17:19:51 [bparsia]
zakim, mute me
17:19:51 [Zakim]
bparsia was already muted, bparsia
17:20:03 [Achille]
alanr: discussion on bijan's email on option for N-ary datatype
17:20:21 [Achille]
17:20:46 [Achille]
alanr: what should be our direction for N-ary datatype support
17:20:48 [bparsia]
That was not included
17:21:07 [alanr]
17:21:08 [Achille]
alanr: I 'd like to add an option : "not to include N-ary datatype at all"
17:21:26 [bparsia]
I suspect manchester would object if we not included the base hook
17:21:42 [Achille]
alanr: what do implements think about N-ary datatype?
17:21:55 [rob]
17:22:13 [msmith]
17:22:14 [bmotik]
Achille: I don't think we have a good stor whether we are going to implement this feature
17:22:24 [bmotik]
Achille: The implementation is done by our colleagues in China
17:22:35 [bmotik]
Achille: This doesn't seem as something that they'll implement soon
17:22:48 [bmotik]
Achille: It is quite complex and we haven't a clear path towards the implementation
17:22:50 [rob]
zakim, unmute me
17:22:50 [Zakim]
rob should no longer be muted
17:22:51 [alanr]
ack rob
17:23:16 [Achille]
rob: the usecase are not convincing
17:23:20 [bmotik]
17:23:25 [Achille]
rob: it is a low priority
17:23:36 [Achille]
rob: I do not particularly care
17:23:38 [Zakim]
17:23:40 [alanr]
ack msmith
17:23:41 [rob]
zakim, mute me
17:23:42 [Zakim]
rob should now be muted
17:23:42 [bparsia]
More details on the use cases are coming; I've had meetings with various people and some examples
17:24:01 [uli]
17:24:03 [Achille]
mike: from customer we hear that it is interesting
17:24:12 [alanr]
ack bmotik
17:24:17 [Achille]
mike: it is a gap that i would like to close
17:24:34 [Achille]
boris: I have the feeling that this will be hard
17:24:41 [alanr]
ack uli
17:24:46 [Achille]
boris: I'm not convince of the usefulness
17:24:52 [uli]
zakim, unmute me
17:24:52 [Zakim]
uli was not muted, uli
17:25:00 [Achille]
uli: two things
17:25:16 [Achille]
uli: various kinds of N-ary
17:25:35 [Achille]
uli: linear ineq vs simpler ...
17:25:47 [Achille]
uli: I would report from racer
17:25:59 [rob]
17:26:00 [Achille]
uli: they did it because of customer;s requirements
17:26:09 [msmith]
where "simpler" is comparison operators only
17:26:15 [bmotik]
17:26:20 [uli]
zakim, mute me
17:26:20 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
17:26:20 [alanr]
ack rob
17:26:21 [rob]
zakim, unmute me
17:26:21 [Achille]
uli: they found it usefull and not very hard in practice
17:26:23 [Zakim]
rob was not muted, rob
17:26:34 [bmotik]
17:26:41 [Achille]
rob: where are the success stories?
17:26:48 [uli]
zakim, unmute me
17:26:48 [Zakim]
uli should no longer be muted
17:26:56 [bparsia]
17:26:58 [Carsten]
17:27:14 [rob]
zakim, mute me
17:27:14 [Zakim]
rob should now be muted
17:27:15 [Achille]
uli: I'll go back to racer folks to gather more info
17:27:16 [Carsten]
zakim, unmute me
17:27:16 [Zakim]
Carsten should no longer be muted
17:27:29 [rob]
zakim, unmute me
17:27:29 [Zakim]
rob should no longer be muted
17:27:39 [Achille]
carsten: they consider it very important
17:27:51 [alanr]
17:28:03 [rob]
zakim, mute me
17:28:03 [Zakim]
rob should now be muted
17:28:04 [ewallace]
use cases from Product Modeling XG as well
17:28:10 [uli]
zakim, mute me
17:28:10 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
17:28:12 [Carsten]
zakim, mute me
17:28:12 [Zakim]
Carsten should now be muted
17:28:15 [bparsia]
zakim, unmute me
17:28:15 [Zakim]
bparsia should no longer be muted
17:28:15 [Achille]
carsten: disagree on the lack of success stories
17:28:16 [alanr]
ack bparsia
17:28:24 [bparsia]
17:28:57 [Achille]
bparsia: I spent some time with Robert Stevens, Alan R. to push for more examples
17:29:06 [alanr]
R = Rector
17:29:50 [Achille]
bparsia: even with the simple example (which could be handle fby DL safe rule) , they want N-Arydatatype
17:30:25 [rob]
but what do you expect to infer?
17:30:25 [Achille]
bparsia : this is particularly important for develop time
17:30:30 [bmotik]
17:30:45 [Carsten]
Sure this simple. There are tons of other features in OWL without *sophisticated* use cases
17:30:52 [Achille]
bparsia: the way it is done now is true precomputation
17:31:09 [alanr]
17:31:11 [Achille]
bparsia: it does not work very well
17:31:53 [Achille]
bparsia: the owl model becomes to complex in order to get his requirements in
17:32:03 [Achille]
17:32:18 [Achille]
bparsia: I'll send around his ontology soon
17:32:25 [alanr]
q+ to ask whether conversations prioritize level?
17:32:30 [alanr]
ack bmotik
17:32:38 [Achille]
bparsia: I was convinced by his use case
17:32:44 [bparsia]
zakim, mute me
17:32:44 [Zakim]
bparsia should now be muted
17:33:08 [Achille]
boris: we are not making progress by discussing what is the right use case
17:33:34 [bparsia]
17:33:46 [Achille]
boris: if we provide a hook to allow implementation to plug their own datatype
17:34:09 [Achille]
boris: it solves the problem and gives flexibility to implementors
17:34:30 [Achille]
boris: I understand that there are some issues related to interoperability
17:35:17 [msmith]
17:35:17 [Achille]
alanr: my sense is that in OWL 1.0 was that there was no benefit with hook in the spec for datatype
17:36:02 [Achille]
alanr: so I advocate not have N-ary datatype in the spec, but leave them as extensions
17:36:06 [bparsia]
zakim, unmute me
17:36:06 [Zakim]
bparsia should no longer be muted
17:36:25 [Achille]
alanr: Bijan could you live without equation? Just comparison
17:36:26 [alanr]
17:36:33 [alanr]
ack alanr
17:36:33 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to ask whether conversations prioritize level?
17:36:39 [Achille]
bijan: comparisons would be better than nothing
17:36:50 [alanr]
ack bparsia
17:37:13 [Achille]
bparsia: there is already an implementation of linear
17:37:30 [Achille]
bparsia: pellet intends to have something in the space
17:37:50 [Achille]
bparsia: so about 3 implementations will be available, and we can test interop
17:38:17 [Achille]
bparsia: implementation should be encouraged - let's not raise the bar for implementation
17:38:30 [alanr]
achille - record the 3 implementations?
17:38:52 [Achille]
pellet, racer , I dd not get the 3rd
17:39:14 [Achille]
17:39:14 [sandro]
so ... Bijan is talking about an optional component of some sort ... something "standard" but not required in any profile. Interesting.
17:39:16 [Zakim]
17:39:27 [alanr]
zakim, Jonathan_Rees is alanr
17:39:27 [Zakim]
+alanr; got it
17:39:51 [Achille]
bparsia: we should not worry too much about it before last call
17:39:54 [bparsia]
zakim, mute me
17:39:54 [Zakim]
bparsia should now be muted
17:40:16 [alanr]
17:41:12 [rob]
I didn't see use cases where you get anything terribly useful as a result of implementing it.
17:41:24 [msmith]
rob, which "it"
17:41:24 [Zakim]
17:41:33 [Achille]
msmith: it seems to me that some people are not implementing N-ary because the trade off bt easy of implementation/ usefulness is not in favor of implementation
17:41:35 [rob]
n-ary datatypes of any kind.
17:41:42 [bparsia]
17:41:45 [msmith]
rob, thanks
17:41:45 [Achille]
17:42:24 [Achille]
topic: let's postpone issue 133 for when diego is around
17:42:48 [alanr]
17:42:52 [alanr]
ack msmith
17:42:52 [Achille]
topic: Issue 87: rational datatype
17:43:11 [rob]
17:43:30 [bmotik]
Achille: I haven't paid much attention to this proposal.
17:43:46 [bmotik]
Achille: We haven't seen a use case.
17:43:49 [alanr]
ack rob
17:43:50 [rob]
zakim, unmute me
17:43:52 [Zakim]
rob was not muted, rob
17:43:55 [alanr]
17:44:08 [Achille]
17:44:23 [msmith]
q+ to clarify what we're talking about
17:44:46 [Achille]
rob: allowing constant as rational would not change the semantics at all
17:44:53 [uli]
17:45:03 [Achille]
rob: if it is not in the XML schema so maybe it is not important
17:45:25 [Achille]
rob: defining rational as a value space seems insane
17:45:41 [bparsia]
17:45:46 [alanr]
ack Achille
17:45:49 [rob]
zakim, mute me
17:45:49 [Zakim]
rob should now be muted
17:46:00 [bmotik]
Achille: We care a lot about XML Schema.
17:46:31 [alanr]
ack msmith
17:46:31 [Zakim]
msmith, you wanted to clarify what we're talking about
17:46:37 [bmotik]
Achille: We are not entusiastic about rational numbers because they depart from XML SChema.
17:47:25 [uli]
zakim, unmute me
17:47:25 [Zakim]
uli should no longer be muted
17:47:25 [alanr]
ack uli
17:47:43 [bparsia]
17:47:51 [Achille]
uli: I agree with mike that nobody even suggested a rational value space
17:47:53 [bparsia]
(for a critique of thelack of rationals in xml schema)
17:48:18 [Achille]
uli: having rational constants could be very useful if we have comparisons
17:48:49 [rob]
if you have that stuff then you have an implicit encoding for them, anyway
17:48:50 [bparsia]
ack me
17:48:56 [Achille]
uli: it could be useful in the context of comparisons
17:49:02 [alanr]
ack bparsia
17:49:08 [uli]
zakim, mute me
17:49:08 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
17:49:19 [Achille]
bparsia: I do not want to solve equation in rational, but in reals
17:49:29 [bparsia]
zakim, muteme
17:49:29 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'muteme', bparsia
17:49:34 [bparsia]
zakim, mute me
17:49:34 [Zakim]
bparsia should now be muted
17:50:01 [bparsia]
Rational constants are much less serious than having a real value space, for sure
17:50:07 [Achille]
topic : General Discussion
17:50:55 [Achille]
alanr: I addressed the error caught by peter on annotation proposal
17:51:16 [bparsia]
q+ to explain bundles
17:51:19 [alanr]
17:51:22 [bparsia]
zakim, umute me
17:51:22 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'umute me', bparsia
17:51:27 [alanr]
ack bparsia
17:51:28 [Zakim]
bparsia, you wanted to explain bundles
17:51:33 [Achille]
alanr: we could start by some evaluation about if the proposal works and what to do if it does not
17:51:46 [Zakim]
17:52:15 [Achille]
alanr: I thought that you had a name for an axiom
17:52:34 [Achille]
alanr: which means that you can have as many statement about the axiom
17:52:48 [alanr]
17:52:53 [Achille]
bijan: we do not want people to coin name for all axioms
17:53:06 [Achille]
bijan: it has to be done by the implementation
17:53:17 [alanr]
17:53:22 [Achille]
alanr: I believe my proposal achieve the same goal
17:53:33 [Achille]
bijan: that's orthorgonal to space
17:53:43 [Achille]
alanr: this proposal does not have spaces
17:53:44 [msmith]
17:53:49 [alanr]
ack msmith
17:54:03 [Achille]
alanr: if there is a strong desire for spaces we can add it later
17:54:19 [Achille]
mike: only one level of annotation?
17:54:33 [Achille]
alanr: yes, for now only one level of annotations
17:54:35 [alanr]
17:54:57 [bparsia]
zakim, unmute me
17:54:57 [Zakim]
bparsia was not muted, bparsia
17:55:07 [Achille]
alanr: what is your sense about the effectiveness of this approach?
17:55:18 [Achille]
bparsia: I do not know yet
17:55:54 [Achille]
alanr: peter has a strong concern about the idea of having two files
17:56:07 [Achille]
bijan: I agree with peter
17:56:37 [IanH]
17:56:42 [IanH]
zakim, unmute me
17:56:42 [Zakim]
IanH should no longer be muted
17:56:46 [Achille]
bparsia: People are in general opposed to multiple file solutions. It is a non-starter
17:57:12 [Achille]
alanr: the main reason to having them in separate files
17:57:29 [Achille]
alanr: is to facilitate SPARQL queries
17:57:43 [alanr]
17:58:01 [Achille]
bparsia: it is not substantially easier with multiple file solution
17:58:30 [Achille]
ianh: I agree with bijan. I remember similar issues raising in the context of DAML/OIL
17:59:01 [bmotik]
Achille: I'm on the same page as Bijan.
17:59:27 [Achille]
Boris: I have not been able to see the proposal
17:59:41 [Achille]
Boris: I would prefer a single file in general
18:00:35 [Achille]
alanr: we need bijan and boris to have a close look at the proposal
18:00:55 [Achille]
bparsia: you should also contact Deborah
18:01:05 [alanr]
action: bparsia to analyze and comment on Annotation_System_2
18:01:05 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - bparsia
18:01:15 [Achille]
bparsia: she was interested in the issue
18:01:24 [alanr]
action: bmotik to analyze and comment on Annotation_System_2
18:01:24 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - bmotik
18:01:45 [alanr]
action: alanr to ask Deb about nesting level of annotations on annotations.
18:01:45 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - alanr
18:02:30 [Achille]
topic: issue 16
18:02:38 [alanr]
18:02:44 [alanr]
ack Ianh
18:02:53 [Achille]
alanr: we should not discuss this issue since it is subsumed by rich annotation
18:03:12 [Achille]
topic: issues of time and date related datatypes
18:03:16 [Rinke]
action: alan to ask Deb about nesting level of annotations on annotations
18:03:16 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-169 - Ask Deb about nesting level of annotations on annotations [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-07-30].
18:03:20 [alanr]
18:03:25 [bparsia]
18:03:29 [Rinke]
action: bijan to analyze and comment on Annotation_System_2
18:03:29 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-170 - Analyze and comment on Annotation_System_2 [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-07-30].
18:03:42 [Rinke]
action: boris to analyze and comment on Annotation_System_2
18:03:42 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-171 - Analyze and comment on Annotation_System_2 [on Boris Motik - due 2008-07-30].
18:03:58 [bparsia]
zakim, unmute me
18:03:58 [Zakim]
bparsia was not muted, bparsia
18:04:00 [alanr]
ack bparsia
18:04:00 [Achille]
alanr: most pb have to do with time zone and non-time zone datatype
18:04:08 [ewallace]
calendar elements are the problem mentioned in Boris' email
18:04:17 [Achille]
bparsia: they are nonstarters
18:04:57 [alanr]
18:05:01 [Achille]
bparsia: they are so many ways to integrate the notion of time in owl. It is not clear that our solution will not be too constraining
18:05:03 [alanr]
q+ to make suggestion
18:05:05 [bparsia]
zakim, mute me
18:05:05 [Zakim]
bparsia should now be muted
18:05:53 [Achille]
alanr: two levels of supports: 1) actual time poiny or interval 2) the second level are intervals
18:06:09 [bparsia]
18:06:27 [alanr]
ack alanr
18:06:27 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to make suggestion
18:06:27 [bparsia]
zakim, unmute me
18:06:30 [Zakim]
bparsia should no longer be muted
18:06:33 [alanr]
ack bparsia
18:07:03 [Achille]
bparsia: any implementers interested in supporting it?
18:07:24 [Achille]
bparsia: it is not clear how to design a solution that fit XML schema
18:07:26 [bmotik]
18:07:50 [alanr]
ack bmotik
18:08:04 [Achille]
alanr: we can do something close to owl real (a departure from XML schema)
18:08:10 [alanr]
18:08:20 [Achille]
boris: supporting xsd:dateTime is not trival
18:08:27 [alanr]
18:08:41 [Achille]
boris: supporting recurring interval is even more complex
18:08:52 [bparsia]
What about the simpler version: No support
18:09:10 [bparsia]
THen the next simplest: treat them as strings (roughly) with colors
18:09:10 [Zakim]
18:09:11 [alanr]
18:09:18 [Achille]
alanr: it will be useful to support some simple manipulation with time instants
18:09:24 [bparsia]
18:09:30 [bparsia]
zakim, unmute me
18:09:30 [Zakim]
bparsia was not muted, bparsia
18:09:32 [alanr]
ack bparsia
18:09:45 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
18:09:47 [Achille]
bparsia: there are simpler support:
18:09:54 [Achille]
bparsia: 1) do nothing
18:10:21 [Achille]
bparsia: 2) support them but in a very minimal way
18:10:37 [Achille]
bparsia: maybe just treat them as string
18:10:45 [alanr]
18:10:46 [bmotik]
18:10:54 [Achille]
bparsia: i.e. no commitment to any temporal model
18:11:10 [alanr]
ack bmotik
18:11:34 [msmith]
18:11:51 [msmith]
18:12:00 [alanr]
q+ to comment on tz
18:12:10 [Achille]
boris: for instant, it could be doable . I am not sure xsd:dateTime is the right type (I do not really understand its value space)
18:12:22 [msmith]
18:12:30 [Achille]
boris: with a fixed time zone, it could be easy to support
18:12:34 [Achille]
18:12:44 [bparsia]
18:12:57 [alanr]
ack alanr
18:12:57 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to comment on tz
18:13:00 [alanr]
ack Achille
18:13:13 [bmotik]
Achille: I would like us to keep in sync as much as we can with XML Schema
18:13:26 [bmotik]
Achille: There are many existing interpretations of XML Schema
18:13:31 [ewallace]
TimeLine = Time Axis or Time Scale?
18:13:33 [alanr]
ack bparsia
18:13:33 [Achille]
boris: I think we would have to go away from XML Schema
18:14:37 [alanr]
xml schema: dateTime values are ordered by their ·timeOnTimeline· value.
18:14:53 [Achille]
bparsia: number case is a much easy case. I think we are less force in the case of time to depart from XML Schema
18:14:53 [uli]
18:15:28 [alanr]
ack uli
18:15:28 [Achille]
bparsia: i'm unclear what the constraints are and where we are going
18:15:29 [uli]
zakim, unmute me
18:15:30 [Zakim]
uli was not muted, uli
18:16:25 [alanr]
this is the sense that I intended - very easy way
18:16:30 [Achille]
uli: Just remember some discussions we had, there are some simple usecases which can be supported if we had some datetime constants
18:16:44 [uli]
zakim, mute me
18:16:44 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
18:16:53 [Rinke]
I agree with uli
18:17:04 [Achille]
alanr: there are serious question about date time datatype
18:17:28 [Achille]
alanr: do we think it is worth thinking about this issue further?
18:17:39 [msmith]
+1 to think about this further
18:17:44 [Achille]
alanr: or just a sentiment poll?
18:17:54 [Rinke]
+1 to think further
18:18:07 [sandro]
+1 more work for free is great! :-)
18:18:08 [ewallace]
+1 to generation of a proposal for simple time rep
18:18:13 [Zhe]
+1 need more time
18:18:16 [Achille]
18:18:19 [bmotik]
18:18:20 [baojie]
18:18:21 [ivan]
18:18:23 [alanr]
18:18:26 [Elisa]
+1 for the simple case
18:18:32 [bparsia]
-1 to requesting more work of overloaded people...
18:18:33 [uli]
+1 for a bit more thought
18:18:51 [IanH]
0 not *too* much more thought
18:18:58 [Achille]
alanr: objection from bijan
18:19:23 [Achille]
alanr: I'll leave it uli and boris about how to proceed further
18:19:53 [Achille]
alanr: going back to the datatype issue: how and whether to support the float
18:21:10 [Achille]
ewallace: I'm not prepare to talk about this issue today
18:21:19 [bparsia]
18:21:23 [bparsia]
zakim, unmute me
18:21:23 [Zakim]
bparsia was not muted, bparsia
18:21:24 [alanr]
ack bparsia
18:21:48 [msmith]
18:21:53 [Achille]
bparsia: the proposal is just fine
18:22:02 [alanr]$56a68a80$7212a8c0@wolf
18:22:12 [alanr]
18:22:32 [alanr]
ack msmith
18:22:36 [Achille]
bparsia: we are supproting the more commun case and the more likely to be effective case
18:22:38 [bparsia]
zakim, mute me
18:22:38 [Zakim]
bparsia should now be muted
18:23:05 [alanr]
q+ to express uncertainty about whether range constraints are useful
18:23:06 [Achille]
msmith: I need a clarification from boris. would float acceptable in datatype restriction?
18:23:18 [alanr]
18:23:37 [Achille]
boris: i do not see a problem in using it in description as long as it is not discrete
18:23:39 [msmith]
18:23:53 [alanr]
ack msmith
18:23:57 [Achille]
boris: can be supported for a few facets
18:24:15 [alanr]
ack alanr
18:24:15 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to express uncertainty about whether range constraints are useful
18:25:04 [alanr]
18:25:27 [Achille]
alanr could you type your previous point. i did not =get it
18:25:53 [Achille]
18:25:58 [alanr]
18:26:22 [Achille]
alanr: any question about the next f2f
18:26:23 [Achille]
18:26:29 [uli]
18:26:33 [Zakim]
18:26:34 [Zakim]
18:26:34 [Zakim]
18:26:35 [ivan]
18:26:36 [Zakim]
18:26:37 [Zakim]
18:26:37 [Achille]
18:26:39 [Zakim]
18:26:40 [uli]
uli has left #owl
18:26:41 [Zakim]
18:26:42 [IanH]
18:26:43 [Zakim]
18:26:44 [Zakim]
18:26:44 [Zakim]
18:26:44 [Rinke]
18:26:45 [Zakim]
18:26:47 [Zakim]
18:26:55 [Zakim]
18:27:19 [Achille]
rrsagent, make log public
18:27:23 [alanr]
I am uncertain whether it makes sense to have a float datatype which is effectively faceted range on possible reals. Certainly think that lexical support support and checking is useful.
18:30:22 [Zakim]
18:35:02 [msmith]
msmith has left #owl
19:35:00 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, baojie, in SW_OWL()1:00PM
19:35:03 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
19:35:04 [Zakim]
Attendees were Zhe, bparsia, Ivan, uli, IanH, alanr, Achille, Sandro, msmith, rob, baojie, Evan_Wallace, Carsten, Rinke, bmotik, Elisa_Kendall, Peter_Patel-Schneider
22:10:01 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl