IRC log of owl on 2008-07-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

12:01:38 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #owl

12:01:38 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/07/29-owl-irc

12:01:57 [IanH]

zakim, this will be owl

12:01:57 [Zakim]

ok, IanH; I see SW_OWL()8:00AM scheduled to start now

12:02:32 [IanH]

IanH has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F3_Agenda#Day_2

12:02:49 [IanH]

Zakim, this will be owlwg

12:02:49 [Zakim]

ok, IanH; I see SW_OWL()8:00AM scheduled to start 2 minutes ago

12:03:02 [IanH]

RRSAgent, make records public

12:27:38 [IanH]

IanH has joined #owl

12:34:46 [Carsten]

good morning. :)

12:59:58 [Zakim]

SW_OWL()8:00AM has now started

13:00:04 [Zakim]

+??P2

13:00:13 [uli]

zakim, ??P2 is me

13:00:13 [Zakim]

+uli; got it

13:00:24 [uli]

and good morning to you!

13:02:11 [uli]

zakim, mute me

13:02:11 [Zakim]

sorry, uli, muting is not permitted when only one person is present

13:02:24 [pha]

pha has joined #owl

13:02:26 [uli]

zakim, mute me

13:02:26 [Zakim]

sorry, uli, muting is not permitted when only one person is present

13:03:00 [Zhe]

Zhe has joined #owl

13:03:55 [uli]

Hey, I should use this opportunity for advertisement!

13:04:53 [uli]

Please remember to submit to OWLED 2008 -- deadline for abstracts is next week, more details can be found at http://www.webont.org/owled/2008/

13:05:26 [uli]

we are looking forward to receiving your submissions.

13:06:03 [uli]

Also, around ISWC and OWLED, there will be interesting tutorials -- please have a look at http://iswc2008.semanticweb.org/program/tutorials/

13:06:15 [uli]

zakim, mute me

13:06:15 [Zakim]

sorry, uli, muting is not permitted when only one person is present

13:06:37 [Zakim]

+Meeting_Room

13:06:41 [uli]

zakim, mute me

13:06:41 [Zakim]

uli should now be muted

13:10:03 [Zakim]

+??P1

13:10:16 [bparsia]

zakim, ??p1 is me

13:10:16 [Zakim]

+bparsia; got it

13:10:19 [bparsia]

zakim, mute me

13:10:19 [Zakim]

bparsia should now be muted

13:11:17 [msmith]

msmith has joined #owl

13:11:31 [IanH]

zakim, who is here?

13:11:31 [Zakim]

On the phone I see uli (muted), Meeting_Room, bparsia (muted)

13:11:32 [Zakim]

On IRC I see msmith, Zhe, pha, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, bparsia, uli, ewallace, jar, Carsten, sandro, trackbot

13:11:42 [uli]

hiho

13:11:48 [bparsia]

hullo

13:11:56 [Achille]

Achille has joined #owl

13:11:58 [alanr]

alanr has joined #owl

13:11:58 [pfps]

pfps has joined #owl

13:12:18 [Achille]

sandro could you please make me the scribe? I forgot the magic command

13:12:38 [Mirek]

Mirek has joined #owl

13:12:59 [ekw]

ekw has joined #owl

13:13:10 [uli]

scribenick Achille

13:13:15 [Zakim]

+ +00493514633aaaa

13:13:20 [bmotik]

bmotik has joined #owl

13:13:24 [Carsten]

zakim, aaaa is me

13:13:24 [Zakim]

+Carsten; got it

13:13:33 [Carsten]

zakim, mute me

13:13:33 [Zakim]

Carsten should now be muted

13:13:47 [Achille]

topic: datatype roundup

13:15:02 [msmith]

working from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0306.html

13:15:07 [Achille]

subtopic: Issue 126 : list of normative datatype

13:15:38 [Achille]

ianh: as per the previous email, we decided to have xsd:float discret as in XML Schema

13:16:17 [Achille]

ianh: we need to decide about rational

13:16:32 [uli]

q+

13:16:38 [uli]

q-

13:16:43 [IanH]

q?

13:16:48 [Achille]

mike: we decide to postpone a decision on rational for the time of discussing N-ary datatype

13:17:11 [Achille]

mike = msmith

13:17:12 [m_schnei]

m_schnei has joined #owl

13:17:32 [Achille]

ianh: owl:numberPlus contains -0 what happen to facet?

13:17:41 [Achille]

s/ianh/boris

13:17:58 [Achille]

alanr: XSD should answer this question

13:18:09 [Achille]

msmith : XSD says that 0=-0

13:18:44 [msmith]

for +/-0 see http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#float

13:19:10 [Achille]

alanr: my worry is that float and double aren't not the same

13:19:23 [Achille]

s/aren't not/ aren't

13:20:51 [Achille]

msmith: xsd NaN when used for range defined an empty range

13:21:14 [bparsia]

It's definitely not maxfloat

13:22:03 [Achille]

alanr: adding 1 to maxfloat gets you to infinity

13:22:20 [Achille]

alanr: same thing for double

13:23:16 [Achille]

boris: any range that contains 0, also contains -0?

13:23:28 [Achille]

boris: XSD does different thing than us

13:23:52 [Achille]

boris: the pb is that we also have true number (integer decimal, etc)

13:24:00 [Achille]

alanr: what is the consequence?

13:24:16 [IanH]

q?

13:24:55 [Achille]

m_schnei: -0 also denotes 0

13:25:12 [IanH]

q?

13:25:20 [Achille]

boris: it should be fine since integer does not contain -0

13:26:13 [dlm]

dlm has joined #owl

13:26:26 [bparsia]

I like owl:real

13:26:29 [Achille]

ianh: owl:number is renamed owl:real

13:26:33 [IanH]

q?

13:26:46 [Achille]

ianh: owl:rational depends on the N-ary discussion

13:26:49 [m_schnei]

m_schnei: if you ask for "{-0} subset [-1,+1]", then the reasoner should say yes, because the float *literal* "-0" denotes the *value* ZERO

13:26:51 [IanH]

q?

13:26:55 [Achille]

... nothing about integer?

13:27:14 [Achille]

alanr: we should add a min conformance of 64 bit integer

13:27:46 [m_schnei]

ian: what about "owl:number" vs. "owl:real"?

13:27:59 [Achille]

alanr: what happen when there is a constant above the 64 bit restriction?

13:28:07 [bparsia]

q+

13:28:10 [Achille]

ianh: we should discuss that later

13:28:30 [IanH]

q?

13:28:47 [m_schnei]

several people: "owl:real" is better

13:28:48 [bparsia]

zakim, unmute me

13:28:48 [Zakim]

bparsia should no longer be muted

13:28:53 [IanH]

q?

13:28:56 [Achille]

alanr: a datatype range greater that the max integer is still statisfiable

13:28:57 [IanH]

ack bparsia

13:29:20 [bparsia]

zakim, mute me

13:29:20 [Zakim]

bparsia should now be muted

13:29:47 [Achille]

alanr: let make the datatype document easily searchable for the key word conformance

13:30:19 [Achille]

ianh: xsd:float and xsd:double value space are now discrete

13:30:39 [IanH]

q?

13:30:55 [Achille]

alanr: how do we decide between XSD & IEEE?

13:31:07 [Achille]

... for float and double

13:31:33 [bparsia]

I prefer IEEE in general

13:32:01 [Achille]

m_schnei: NaN is not comparable to anything else

13:32:10 [bparsia]

There are a lot of NaN. And for any NaN and any other float/double NaN != that number, including itself

13:32:47 [Achille]

msmith: xsd:float has a single lexical representation

13:33:09 [IanH]

q?

13:33:14 [Achille]

m_schnei: NaN is not comparable with itself!

13:33:39 [Achille]

alanr: you should also consider the need for counting float elements

13:33:55 [Achille]

msmith: can reasoning introduce NaN?

13:34:32 [Achille]

boris: let's go with XSD

13:34:58 [Achille]

ianh: everybody seems to agree with going with XSD

13:35:10 [bparsia]

q+

13:35:26 [Achille]

alanr: is it useful to have xsd:decimal as a type?

13:35:46 [bparsia]

q-

13:35:46 [Achille]

msmith: it gives you arbitrary precision decimal number

13:35:55 [bparsia]

What's the question?

13:36:07 [bparsia]

1/10 is a decimal but not a binary number (e.g., float)

13:36:10 [Achille]

alanr: how do i test that something is a decimal number

13:36:19 [bparsia]

I can't understand alan rut

13:36:31 [bparsia]

What's the question?

13:36:39 [msmith]

http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#decimal

13:36:40 [Achille]

pfps: XSD has a well answer to that question. please read the spec?

13:36:46 [bparsia]

I can't udnerstand alan at all

13:36:48 [Achille]

s/?/

13:36:52 [IanH]

q?

13:36:53 [bparsia]

zakim, unmute me

13:36:54 [Zakim]

bparsia should no longer be muted

13:36:59 [IanH]

q?

13:36:59 [bparsia]

q+

13:37:33 [Achille]

alanr: i'll read xsd spec to get the answer to my question

13:37:59 [Achille]

alanr: my pb is bt real and decimal

13:38:41 [Achille]

pfps: decimal= integer * 10^integer

13:39:02 [bparsia]

I still didn't catch that from alan

13:39:17 [bparsia]

It would help if he slowed down, becuase thphone seems to cut out on soft bits

13:39:19 [sandro]

Alan: Is it required that every datatype for serialization is also a datatype for range restrictions? I don't think so.

13:39:58 [Achille]

m_schnei: I can approximate as precisely as wish sqrt(2) using decimal but not with float or double

13:40:13 [IanH]

q?

13:40:20 [bparsia]

But the way, I wasn't intending those searchs as determinative

13:40:29 [bparsia]

I was just gathering some evidence

13:40:31 [Achille]

boris: we should allow it as a legacy datatype

13:40:41 [bparsia]

+1 to boris

13:40:49 [bparsia]

q+

13:40:53 [Achille]

alanr: that's agood argument. thanks!

13:40:57 [bparsia]

zakim, unmute me

13:40:59 [Zakim]

bparsia was not muted, bparsia

13:41:00 [IanH]

ack bijan

13:41:06 [IanH]

ack bparsia

13:42:23 [Achille]

bijan I did not get your point, could you type it?

13:43:09 [Achille]

alanr: there is not oneon one mapping between decimal and real

13:43:33 [bparsia]

I'm worried about things like (not sure that is a correct case) 0.1^^xsd:float != 0.1^^xsd:decimal

13:43:53 [IanH]

q?

13:44:04 [Achille]

alanr: decimal as a datatype is a synonym for real

13:44:29 [bparsia]

-1 to decimal as a synonym for real

13:44:39 [Achille]

zhe: do we need to specify a minimal conformance for decimal

13:44:47 [bparsia]

decimal isn't even a synonym for rational :)

13:44:48 [Achille]

boris: there is such restriction in XSD

13:45:25 [bparsia]

Integer, rational, decimal etc.

13:45:33 [bparsia]

Algebraic reals are denumeral

13:45:37 [bparsia]

Only the transcendental

13:45:47 [bparsia]

+1 evan

13:45:51 [IanH]

q?

13:45:55 [uli]

Alan Rector was really glad about decimal

13:45:57 [Achille]

ekw: decimal is the most useful datetype in XSD

13:46:34 [Achille]

alanr: I'm ok with keeping deciimal in the spec

13:46:44 [msmith]

zhe and others interested in conformance, new page itemizing what needs to be addressed at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/ConformanceIssues

13:47:19 [Achille]

m_schnei: I do not understand why xsd:decimal is owl:real

13:47:33 [bparsia]

zakim, mute me

13:47:33 [Zakim]

bparsia should now be muted

13:47:36 [Achille]

ianh: we have discussed it and decided to leave them separate

13:48:01 [IanH]

q?

13:49:04 [Achille]

alanr: for base64Binary, should will allow length, minLength, maxLength?

13:49:40 [Achille]

m_schnei: why these datatypes (base64Bin, hexBin)?

13:49:44 [Achille]

boris: why not?

13:49:54 [Carsten]

Wouldn't it make sense to make a lot of this exotic stuff optional?

13:49:58 [IanH]

q?

13:49:59 [Achille]

m_schnei: why not everything from xsd?

13:50:21 [bparsia]

q+

13:50:28 [Achille]

alanr: we are trying to get an well agreed list of acceptable datatype

13:50:28 [bparsia]

zakim, unmute me

13:50:28 [Zakim]

bparsia should no longer be muted

13:50:29 [IanH]

q?

13:50:30 [Carsten]

Seems bad to *force* implementors to have datatypes like base64bin

13:50:44 [sandro]

q?

13:50:49 [sandro]

ack bparsia

13:51:09 [Achille]

bijan: the most important thing is to make sure that we say something meaningful about each datatype

13:51:21 [Achille]

... about its usage

13:51:42 [bparsia]

zakim, mute me

13:51:42 [Zakim]

bparsia should now be muted

13:51:50 [Achille]

... in swoogle I found a couple of these datatypes, but I need to investigate further

13:52:08 [m_schnei]

+1 to Carsten (I think...)

13:52:33 [bparsia]

<owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="MediaData16">

13:52:33 [bparsia]

<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#InlineMediaType"/>

13:52:33 [bparsia]

<rdfs:range rdf:resource="&xsd;hexBinary"/>

13:52:34 [bparsia]

</owl:DatatypeProperty>

13:52:34 [Achille]

boris: i think it is not difficult to implement these types. All you need is to find the number of element in a given range

13:52:34 [bparsia]

<owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="MediaData64">

13:52:34 [bparsia]

<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#InlineMediaType"/>

13:52:36 [bparsia]

<rdfs:range rdf:resource="&xsd;base64Binary"/>

13:52:38 [bparsia]

</owl:DatatypeProperty>

13:52:43 [sandro]

q?

13:52:49 [Achille]

boris: it is almost identical to string

13:52:58 [uli]

...this finiteness could still cause performance problems, but i guess having a warning about this could suffice?

13:52:59 [bparsia]

I'm ok in forcing implementmation if it's relatively trivial

13:53:07 [IanH]

q?

13:53:32 [Achille]

alanr: what concern from Carsten, but everybody else seems to agree to support them

13:53:48 [Achille]

Carsten: Seems bad to *force* implementors to have datatypes like base64bin

13:53:49 [bparsia]

+1 to boris

13:54:00 [Carsten]

My proposal was to make the exotic stuff optional

13:54:25 [Achille]

boris: the implementation overhead is almost identical for string. So if we have string, we can also have binary datatype

13:54:25 [IanH]

q?

13:54:31 [alanr]

optional = incompatible

13:55:02 [Carsten]

q+

13:55:10 [Carsten]

zakim, unmute me

13:55:10 [Zakim]

Carsten should no longer be muted

13:55:12 [IanH]

q?

13:55:14 [Achille]

ianh: we have decided to avoid optional datatype

13:55:14 [alanr]

carsten, this is easy stuff

13:55:34 [Achille]

carsten: I do not care so much about whether this is optional

13:55:49 [Achille]

... it seems to me that these types are of limited use

13:56:20 [Achille]

... i am not sure that the only important point is the ability to count elements in a range

13:56:42 [Carsten]

zakim, mute me

13:56:42 [Zakim]

Carsten should now be muted

13:56:46 [m_schnei]

Carsten, I think this is a moot discussion

13:56:55 [Achille]

... for completeness we may have to also check that a range does not contain a given element

13:57:13 [IanH]

q?

13:57:20 [Carsten]

q-

13:57:20 [Achille]

boris: you can easily map all the float to integer

13:57:21 [IanH]

ack Carsten

13:57:27 [Carsten]

zakim, mute me

13:57:27 [Zakim]

Carsten should now be muted

13:57:49 [Carsten]

ok, thanks for the explanation, I have to admit that it is not easy to follow the discussion remotely

13:57:53 [Achille]

boris: the complexity is not worse than for integer

13:57:54 [IanH]

q?

13:58:00 [Carsten]

an email summing up would be nice, indeed

13:58:13 [Achille]

... i can send u code to get the next float and the number of float in a range

13:58:14 [bparsia]

See: http://www.cygnus-software.com/papers/comparingfloats/comparingfloats.htm

13:58:26 [Achille]

... I have redrew my objection

13:58:34 [bparsia]

In particular: http://www.cygnus-software.com/papers/comparingfloats/Comparing%20floating%20point%20numbers.htm#_Toc135149455

13:58:37 [Achille]

ianh: we are don't with numeric

13:59:54 [bparsia]

There's a standard one for iSO

14:00:00 [Achille]

ianh: yesterday , we agree to support xsd:dateTime with timezone

14:00:17 [bparsia]

As a point of interest, ISO 8601 fixes a reference calendar date to the Gregorian calendar of 1875-05-20 as the date the Convention du Mètre was signed in Paris

14:00:31 [Achille]

pfps: datetime is dense so all the problem wih counting

14:02:13 [m_schnei]

evan: do we support leap seconds?

14:02:25 [IanH]

q?

14:02:37 [m_schnei]

pfps: if we don't do arithmetics, it doesn't matter, since the ordering isn't hurt by leaps

14:03:35 [Achille]

ianh: xsd:dateTime facet: length, minLength,maxLength

14:04:31 [IanH]

q?

14:05:23 [IanH]

q?

14:05:36 [Achille]

alanr: why not just create a new datatype owl:dateTime?

14:05:46 [Achille]

... which will require timezone

14:06:21 [bparsia]

+1 to xsd:datetime

14:06:37 [uli]

+178 to xsd:datetime

14:06:46 [bparsia]

I would call it a conformance thing

14:07:38 [uli]

...I very much like Ian's suggestion about the 'may repair al gusto'!

14:07:48 [Achille]

ianh: we have already decided to let application do they own repair

14:07:56 [IanH]

q?

14:08:42 [IanH]

q?

14:09:03 [Achille]

boris: xsd makes an error here by saying that it is isomorphic to the timeline

14:09:08 [bparsia]

-1000 to tuple model

14:09:32 [Achille]

ianh: let's not reconsider our decision made yesterday about mandating timezone

14:09:54 [IanH]

q?

14:09:57 [bparsia]

Btw, both generating and consuming tools can offer corrections and repairs

14:10:16 [bparsia]

q+

14:10:24 [bparsia]

q-

14:10:39 [Achille]

m_schnei: in practice, it is not a pb because any application that accept non-timezone has to come up with some strategy to deal with them

14:10:45 [IanH]

q?

14:11:16 [Achille]

ianh: that is precisely the point we cannot mandate any behavior to all apps

14:11:37 [m_schnei]

sandro: we should talk to the XSD 1.1 WG what we think is wrong with non-timezoned dateTimeS

14:11:42 [Achille]

sandro: we should make a formal comment to XSD 1.1 working group

14:12:07 [Achille]

pfps: I'll send them a forml comment

14:12:14 [sandro]

ACTION: pfps to draft a comment on XML Schema Datatypes 1.1 draft

14:12:14 [trackbot]

Sorry, couldn't find user - pfps

14:12:27 [sandro]

ACTION: peter to draft a comment on XML Schema Datatypes 1.1 draft

14:12:27 [trackbot]

Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - peter

14:12:27 [trackbot]

Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ppatelsc, phaase)

14:12:39 [sandro]

ACTION: ppatelsc to draft a comment on XML Schema Datatypes 1.1 draft

14:12:39 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-176 - Draft a comment on XML Schema Datatypes 1.1 draft [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2008-08-05].

14:12:41 [Achille]

ianh: internally we require timezone, but let applications do the right repair

14:13:42 [bparsia]

I would also suggest that we document different repairs. Whether on the owl wg wiki or the owled one

14:13:53 [IanH]

q?

14:14:51 [IanH]

q?

14:15:12 [Achille]

Achille has joined #owl

14:15:24 [Zhe]

Zhe has joined #owl

14:15:48 [ekw]

straw poll: should we use XSD dateTime, or our own dateTime datatype

14:16:01 [baojie]

baojie has joined #owl

14:16:27 [uli]

...too general/complex isn't bad?

14:16:49 [IanH]

q?

14:17:02 [Achille]

pfps: the comparison bt datetime with and w/o timezone is not feasable in our specification

14:17:03 [ekw]

straw poll: should we use XSD dateTime with a requirement for timezone component in text of spec

14:17:06 [bmotik]

STRAWPOLL: Should we use owl:dateTime instead of xsd:dateTime (+1 = owl:dateTime, -1 = xsd:dateTime)

14:17:19 [Achille]

+1

14:17:23 [baojie]

+1

14:17:26 [msmith]

-1

14:17:27 [bmotik]

0

14:17:34 [Zhe]

0

14:17:37 [bparsia]

-1 to xsd:dateTime

14:17:40 [bparsia]

er

14:17:44 [bparsia]

-1 to owl:dateTime

14:17:47 [pha]

+1

14:17:52 [sandro]

Alan: to be clear, we'll still accept xsd:dateTime on input

14:17:57 [ekw]

using boris' poll

14:17:59 [ekw]

-1

14:18:03 [sandro]

-0

14:18:33 [bparsia]

zakim, unmute me

14:18:33 [Zakim]

bparsia should no longer be muted

14:18:37 [alanr]

+1

14:18:38 [pfps]

0 (+/- 1)

14:18:44 [Achille]

bijan:yes I want xsd:dateTime

14:19:06 [Achille]

ianh: we almost have a split decision

14:20:13 [IanH]

q?

14:20:24 [bparsia]

Not just doable, but acceptible

14:20:28 [Achille]

alanr: we have agreed on xsd:dateTime with required timeZone

14:20:35 [bparsia]

I don't find, e.g., an interval to be a user-sensible default

14:20:53 [m_schnei]

-1

14:21:32 [Achille]

alanr: in other case we tried to keep xsd semantics

14:21:43 [Achille]

s/other case/ other cases/

14:21:47 [baojie]

will owl:dateTime require a timezone?

14:21:55 [Achille]

yes

14:22:26 [IanH]

q?

14:22:57 [Achille]

ekw: I am not comfortable by XSD 1.1 new semantics on dateTime

14:23:33 [bparsia]

I would prefer that we calledit xsd:dateTime and said that we add additional restrictions (the way implemetnation might only support 64 bit integers)

14:23:36 [Achille]

ianh: we defeer the issue of xsd:dateTime vs owl:dateTime for the next meeting

14:25:23 [Achille]

all the details on the decision made w.r.t datatype are posted at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0433.html

14:25:40 [Achille]

s/decision/decisions

14:25:50 [sandro]

PROPOSED: We'll handle the datatypes named in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0433.html as described in that message. This closes ISSUE-126.

14:25:57 [bmotik]

+1 Oxford

14:26:02 [IanH]

q?

14:26:04 [alanr]

+1 Science Commons

14:26:10 [sandro]

+1 W3C

14:26:12 [Achille]

+1 IBM

14:26:13 [pha]

+1 (FZI)

14:26:15 [baojie]

+1 RPI

14:26:17 [msmith]

+1 C&P

14:26:18 [ekw]

+1 NIST

14:26:29 [Zhe]

+1 ORACLE

14:26:32 [uli]

+1 manchester

14:26:43 [sandro]

RESOLVED: We'll handle the datatypes named in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0433.html as described in that message. This closes ISSUE-126.

14:27:48 [Achille]

ianh: we agreed yesterday to make issue 132 an editorial issue

14:27:59 [Achille]

s/ianh/boris

14:28:17 [Achille]

topic: N-ary datatype

14:28:30 [Achille]

ianh: a proposal is on the wiki

14:28:55 [bparsia]

q+

14:29:00 [bparsia]

q-

14:29:03 [Achille]

ianh: there is compromise to make it optional,

14:29:23 [IanH]

q?

14:29:27 [Achille]

... if you decide to support it we specify exactly how it should be implemented

14:29:37 [bparsia]

q+

14:29:55 [Achille]

alanr: there are interop issues here

14:30:07 [bparsia]

?

14:30:33 [bparsia]

Hey!

14:30:37 [bparsia]

zakim, unmute me

14:30:37 [Zakim]

bparsia was not muted, bparsia

14:30:55 [IanH]

q?

14:30:58 [Achille]

alanr: when you use that aspect of the spec it is unlikely that you will be portable

14:31:00 [IanH]

ack bparsia

14:31:03 [alanr]

maybe

14:31:08 [alanr]

not clear

14:31:48 [IanH]

q?

14:32:08 [msmith]

+1 to bijan. There can be OWL DL conformance and OWL Nary datatype conformance as separate things

14:32:08 [alanr]

I never use racer because of nominals

14:32:15 [Achille]

bijan: i don't see why this is a pb. it is hard to me to imagine that someone using an equation would not be aware that he is doing something hard for implementation

14:32:23 [alanr]

consider it not to support OWL

14:32:29 [bparsia]

zakim, mute me

14:32:29 [Zakim]

bparsia should now be muted

14:32:41 [Achille]

... this is just one of many things that tools will not support

14:32:53 [bparsia]

That'll be ture

14:33:06 [bparsia]

And it won't include linear

14:33:07 [Achille]

alanr: I'm still concern about interoperability

14:33:13 [bparsia]

q+

14:33:25 [bparsia]

zakim, unmute me

14:33:25 [Zakim]

bparsia should no longer be muted

14:33:54 [IanH]

q?

14:33:55 [Achille]

msmith: this goes to the conformance discussion

14:34:10 [m_schnei]

m_schnei: thinks that typical name for this is "a standard extension"

14:34:12 [Achille]

... we will have similar conformance isssue with profile.

14:34:13 [IanH]

ack bparsia

14:34:23 [bparsia]

that was a separate q!

14:34:25 [bparsia]

q+

14:34:29 [Achille]

... it is just another facet of this problem of conformance

14:34:37 [IanH]

ack bparisa

14:34:41 [IanH]

q?

14:34:42 [jar]

jar has joined #owl

14:34:46 [IanH]

ack bparsia

14:35:01 [Achille]

bijan: i really don't understand why putting it in a different document that solve the problem

14:35:48 [Achille]

bijan: species validation will help you understand whether you stand w.r.t. portability

14:36:01 [IanH]

q?

14:36:01 [bparsia]

expressive checking in general

14:36:13 [bparsia]

If you have nominals, you can't use KAON2

14:36:51 [IanH]

q?

14:36:53 [bparsia]

What's the question?

14:37:15 [Achille]

ianh: will there be a specific proposal about N-ary ?

14:37:36 [uli]

yes, I do

14:37:49 [Achille]

bijan: it will be an extensibility point

14:38:05 [Achille]

... we will have a specific proposal

14:38:15 [Achille]

... in a separate spec

14:38:33 [bparsia]

We expect at least 2 interoperable implementations

14:38:35 [IanH]

q?

14:38:40 [bparsia]

q+

14:38:45 [Achille]

alanr: I'm concern with predictability

14:38:48 [bparsia]

q-

14:39:13 [bparsia]

I would be happy to have linear inequations in the main spec

14:39:19 [IanH]

q?

14:39:25 [uli]

me to

14:39:44 [uli]

me too (to linear unequations)

14:39:49 [Achille]

ianh: what is missing is whether the proposal will be acceptable and what is the boundary bt the main spec and the separate proposal?

14:40:07 [IanH]

q?

14:40:16 [Achille]

boris: I do not want any N-ary in the core spec

14:40:38 [Carsten]

inequalities give you integer programming?? How??

14:41:06 [Achille]

ianh: boris thinks that boundary should be as the spec stands now w/o N-ary

14:41:17 [sandro]

zakim, who is on the phone?

14:41:18 [Zakim]

On the phone I see uli (muted), Meeting_Room, bparsia, Carsten (muted)

14:41:29 [Achille]

m_schnei: i have no clue about what will be possible for implementator to do

14:41:30 [bmotik]

Perhaps not the full programming. My main problem is that I haven't seen an *exact* pointer to the literature what it is that I need to do to implement it.

14:41:54 [Achille]

... how hard is N-ary ?

14:41:56 [IanH]

q?

14:42:01 [bmotik]

Some people promissed it, but I haven't seen any actual pointers to literature.

14:42:11 [bmotik]

s/promissed/promised

14:42:19 [bparsia]

No one is advocating for crap specing

14:42:21 [Achille]

alanr: I'd like each extension to be as good and precise as in the current spec

14:42:26 [bparsia]

q+

14:42:30 [IanH]

q?

14:43:13 [Achille]

bparsia: yes of course, it will be as precise as the current spec

14:43:16 [uli]

...and otherwise we won't accept it - this is easy!

14:43:22 [alanr]

good

14:43:41 [bparsia]

zakim, mute me

14:43:41 [Zakim]

bparsia should now be muted

14:43:42 [IanH]

q?

14:43:43 [Achille]

bparsia: I want to force a CR period and force implementations

14:43:46 [bparsia]

q-

14:44:15 [IanH]

q?

14:44:19 [Achille]

m_schnei: where should be the boundary?

14:44:31 [Achille]

s/m_schnei/ianh

14:44:53 [IanH]

q?

14:45:04 [bparsia]

q+

14:45:05 [Achille]

boris: I am still waiting for a pointer to concrete implementation

14:45:10 [bparsia]

ack me

14:45:14 [Achille]

... of N-ary

14:45:16 [IanH]

q?

14:45:22 [Achille]

bparsia: this is reasonable

14:45:57 [Achille]

... a lot of users pushed for linear equation , we should decide about the boundary later

14:45:59 [bparsia]

zakim, mute me

14:45:59 [Zakim]

bparsia should now be muted

14:46:50 [Achille]

ianh: do we agree about the separe N-ary document outside the main spec doc? we will have to decide later where the boundaryt

14:47:06 [Achille]

s/separe/ separate/

14:47:12 [bparsia]

+1

14:47:13 [msmith]

+1

14:47:14 [uli]

+1

14:47:18 [baojie]

+1

14:47:29 [Achille]

STROLLPOLL: do we agree about the separe N-ary document outside the main spec doc?

14:47:35 [pha]

+1

14:47:37 [bmotik]

+1

14:47:38 [bparsia]

+1

14:47:40 [pfps]

+1

14:47:41 [Achille]

+1

14:47:42 [ekw]

+1

14:47:42 [Zhe]

+1

14:47:43 [Carsten]

0

14:47:44 [m_schnei]

+1 (like the idea of n-aries *in principle*)

14:47:45 [alanr]

0

14:47:52 [uli]

+1

14:48:31 [bparsia]

Is there a preferred wiki location?

14:48:35 [Achille]

s/STROLLPOLL/STRAWPOLL

14:48:37 [ekw]

breaking now

14:48:44 [alanr]

can you call it "functions" instead of n-ary?

14:48:50 [alanr]

people understand former

14:48:51 [Zakim]

-Carsten

14:48:54 [bparsia]

They aren't funcitons

14:48:57 [bparsia]

Data predicates?

14:48:57 [Zakim]

-uli

14:49:12 [alanr]

maybe - let's brainstorm. n-ary is definitely confusing

14:49:21 [bparsia]

zakim, unmute me

14:49:21 [Zakim]

bparsia should no longer be muted

14:49:23 [Achille]

s/separe/separate/

14:49:32 [jar]

quantitative constraints?

14:50:09 [jar]

data constraints?

14:51:01 [bparsia]

zakim, mute me

14:51:01 [Zakim]

bparsia should now be muted

14:57:31 [Zhe]

Zhe has joined #owl

15:15:50 [cgi-irc]

cgi-irc has joined #owl

15:16:12 [uli]

+1 to 'data predicates' (instead of n-ary -- though it might take a while to get used to)

15:16:16 [msmith]

scribenick: msmith

15:16:46 [Zakim]

+??P68

15:16:51 [msmith]

ianh: on nary, I understand that a second doc describing nary data types will be produce to same quality as main spec

15:17:04 [msmith]

... on completion wel will consider moving some into main spec

15:17:29 [msmith]

... based on use cases, implementation support, and specification of "how" to implement (boris' concern)

15:17:30 [Zakim]

+??P69

15:17:43 [uli]

zakim, ??P69 is me

15:17:43 [Zakim]

+uli; got it

15:17:45 [msmith]

ekw: "how" is not in spec, correct?

15:17:46 [cgi-irc]

christine

15:17:49 [msmith]

ianh: correct

15:17:58 [bparsia]

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Linear_%28In%29Equations_in_OWL

15:18:08 [IanH]

q?

15:18:16 [msmith]

ianh: everyone agrees.

15:18:17 [baojie]

baojie has joined #owl

15:18:19 [uli]

zakim, mute me

15:18:19 [Zakim]

uli should now be muted

15:19:03 [bparsia]

zakim, mute me

15:19:03 [Zakim]

bparsia was already muted, bparsia

15:19:07 [vipul]

vipul has joined #owl

15:19:07 [msmith]

topic: owl full

15:19:16 [msmith]

ianh: revisit "axiomatic triples" from yesterday

15:20:06 [msmith]

... there is a proposal to resolve ISSUE-116, by saying OWL-R should includes rules for axiomatic triples

15:20:27 [dlm]

dlm has joined #owl

15:20:32 [msmith]

m_schnei: we must separate triples from RDFS and those from OWLR

15:20:39 [IanH]

q?

15:20:59 [msmith]

... I think the whole issue was about the "additional" stuff (not the RDFS axiomatic triples)

15:21:26 [Zakim]

+dlm

15:21:49 [IanH]

q?

15:22:26 [msmith]

alanr: we intend to try to accommodate such axiomatic triples, if you produce them

15:22:51 [msmith]

ianh: axiomatic triples are the RDFS guys, I suggest making a new issue that says m_schnei wants to extend the ruleset

15:23:09 [msmith]

m_schnei: fine with me. I will talk with Ivan, I believe this was his intention

15:23:24 [msmith]

... this other set of axiomatic triples must be in anyway

15:24:13 [msmith]

alanr: there is a proposal that OWL-R is an extension of RDFS, but in order to be true, it must match where?

15:24:32 [msmith]

ianh: proposal that we extend ruleset with axiomatic triples with RDFS

15:24:55 [msmith]

... that is what I understand from this issue

15:25:26 [msmith]

... lets resolve this ISSUE-116 based on this understanding, then open another issue with more clear difference in interpretation

15:25:38 [msmith]

m_schnei: example from issue tracker

15:26:16 [cgi-irc]

40#

15:26:37 [IanH]

q?

15:26:52 [msmith]

pfps: is triple from example true or false in OWL-R

15:27:39 [IanH]

q?

15:27:44 [msmith]

m_schnei: no, because rdf:Property isn't in OWL-R DL

15:28:26 [msmith]

pfps: you're saying its true in OWL 1.0 full semantics?

15:28:30 [msmith]

m_schnei: yes

15:28:40 [msmith]

pfps: in OWL 1.0 DL?

15:28:49 [msmith]

m_schnei: no, rdf:Property isn't there

15:28:59 [msmith]

pfps: if you do the reverse mapping?

15:29:03 [msmith]

... I believe so

15:29:15 [IanH]

?

15:29:18 [IanH]

q?

15:29:21 [msmith]

pfps: therefore it is in OWL-R, therefore we don't need another change

15:29:42 [msmith]

alanr: then is the rule implementation sufficient?

15:29:49 [msmith]

... that sounds like the question?

15:31:02 [IanH]

q?

15:31:14 [msmith]

m_schnei: if we make OWL-R rules "catch-up" with the semantics of the DL part....(sidetracked)

15:32:03 [msmith]

action schnei to clarify what ISSUE-116 is about, considering splitting to clarify

15:32:03 [trackbot]

Sorry, couldn't find user - schnei

15:32:14 [IanH]

q?

15:32:52 [bmotik]

ACTION: bmotik2 to Enact the resolution of ISSUE-126 (datatype system) in the spec

15:32:52 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-177 - Enact the resolution of ISSUE-126 (datatype system) in the spec [on Boris Motik - due 2008-08-05].

15:32:52 [msmith]

action schneider to clarify what ISSUE-116 is about, considering splitting to clarify

15:32:52 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-178 - Clarify what ISSUE-116 is about, considering splitting to clarify [on Michael Schneider - due 2008-08-05].

15:33:07 [IanH]

q?

15:33:44 [IanH]

zakim, who is here?

15:33:44 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Meeting_Room, bparsia (muted), ??P68, uli (muted), dlm

15:33:46 [Zakim]

On IRC I see dlm, vipul, baojie, cgi-irc, Zhe, jar, Achille, m_schnei, bmotik, ekw, Mirek, pfps, alanr, msmith, pha, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, bparsia, uli, ewallace, Carsten, sandro,

15:33:48 [Zakim]

... trackbot

15:34:02 [msmith]

scribe note previous topic was OWL-R issue

15:34:09 [msmith]

topic: OWL Full

15:34:30 [cgi-irc]

christine is on

15:34:33 [cgi-irc]

christine is on

15:34:44 [alanr]

zakim, cgi-irc is Christine

15:34:44 [Zakim]

sorry, alanr, I do not recognize a party named 'cgi-irc'

15:34:48 [uli]

zakim, ??P69 is christine

15:34:48 [Zakim]

I already had ??P69 as uli, uli

15:34:56 [uli]

zakim, ??P68 is christine

15:34:56 [Zakim]

+christine; got it

15:35:15 [msmith]

m_schnei: current state - the semantics are within a wiki page

15:35:23 [Elisa]

Elisa has joined #owl

15:35:25 [msmith]

.... I have started building an editor's draft

15:35:46 [msmith]

... design principle to be close to existing OWL Full draft with minor changes

15:36:15 [IanH]

Looking at: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF_Semantics

15:36:20 [msmith]

... mostly many tables that say "if you have something on left, you get thing on right"

15:36:41 [msmith]

... current state is not all tables are complete

15:36:48 [msmith]

... but this is a matter of transfer

15:36:55 [sandro]

m_schnei seems to be projecting http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/FullDraft

15:37:09 [msmith]

... 2 issues

15:37:17 [msmith]

... 1: imports in OWL Full

15:37:28 [Zakim]

+Elisa_Kendall

15:37:29 [msmith]

ianh: what's the issue with imports?

15:37:51 [msmith]

... I thought it was logically clear

15:38:04 [msmith]

m_schnei: there are a few things from OWL 1 Full that are not good

15:38:18 [msmith]

... e.g., reference to RDF/XML document directly

15:38:34 [msmith]

... I'd prefer something closer to model theoretic semantics

15:39:13 [msmith]

... 2: if URI in owl:import some ontology ... produces a bnode

15:39:43 [msmith]

ianh: can't we just do same as previous imports discussion

15:40:00 [msmith]

m_schnei: no, because triple are triples in OWL Full

15:40:09 [msmith]

pfps: I don't see any issue to fix

15:40:35 [msmith]

pfps: gathering is not part of imports

15:40:36 [IanH]

q?

15:40:44 [msmith]

m_schnei: yes, that's what I'd like

15:41:05 [msmith]

... original definition had way too much about processing, etc.

15:41:17 [msmith]

ianh: so you want something cleaner than OWL 1 spec

15:41:21 [msmith]

... excellent!

15:41:35 [msmith]

alanr: we all agree, yes. so recorded

15:42:02 [msmith]

scribe note, previous 2: was 1a:

15:42:32 [msmith]

schnei: 2: there will be some deviation from OWL 1 full regarding relationship between Full and DL

15:42:47 [IanH]

q?

15:42:47 [msmith]

... this is yet to be written

15:43:19 [msmith]

alanr: this will not block first public working draft

15:43:31 [msmith]

m_schnei: it will be done in 3 weeks

15:43:33 [IanH]

q?

15:43:39 [msmith]

alanr: would we prefer to freeze it now

15:43:50 [msmith]

... for review time

15:44:01 [bparsia]

Why do we need a review?

15:44:04 [msmith]

ianh: who are the reviewers? pfps you are volunteered

15:45:08 [msmith]

pfps: if i get by aug 20, i can comment by end of that week

15:45:20 [msmith]

alanr: to be clear, pfps will be hurdle to publish

15:45:28 [sandro]

trackbot, reload

15:45:49 [msmith]

pfps: if by aug 19th, will be done by aug 22

15:45:59 [bparsia]

review notes!

15:46:03 [msmith]

alanr: target will be editor notes or issues?

15:46:08 [bparsia]

Not editors notes

15:46:30 [msmith]

pfps: I will just fix some things

15:46:42 [msmith]

... reviewer notes for other things

15:47:00 [bparsia]

{{Review|~~~~ }}

15:47:30 [msmith]

m_schnei: I'd like a non-OWL familiar reviewer

15:47:54 [msmith]

s/non-OWL/non-OWL Full details/

15:48:04 [msmith]

zhe: I will review on same timespan as pfps

15:48:26 [IanH]

q?

15:48:45 [msmith]

m_schnei: just look, no particular focus areas

15:50:00 [IanH]

q?

15:50:08 [msmith]

alanr: is this a vote to publish under some conditions

15:50:15 [msmith]

ianh: defer that a sec

15:50:16 [msmith]

ianh: several outstanding owl full issues

15:50:26 [msmith]

... e.g., ISSUE-119

15:50:33 [msmith]

... is that still a problem

15:51:02 [msmith]

m_schnei: this is closed if we're ok with previously stated deviation from OWL 1

15:51:23 [msmith]

ianh: part of review is to check that ISSUE-119 is resolved

15:51:36 [IanH]

q?

15:51:51 [msmith]

alanr: it has been suggested that new semantics are provably coherent. are they?

15:52:11 [msmith]

m_schnei: there's a good chance. not aiming to do that in time of this wg

15:52:43 [msmith]

ianh: vote to delegate publish decision to reviewers?

15:52:57 [msmith]

alanr: name should be OWL Full Semantics

15:54:45 [msmith]

alanr: I like "semantics of owl full" and "semantics of owl dl"

15:55:04 [msmith]

ianh: we just need some tag for reference

15:55:12 [jar]

"owl rdf"?

15:55:27 [m_schnei]

I have changed the name of the Editior's Draft from "RDF Semantics" to "Full Semantics"

15:55:39 [msmith]

... I prefer some variant of Michael's initial name, something including RDF

15:55:43 [m_schnei]

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Full_Semantics

15:55:50 [msmith]

ianh: RDF compatible semantics

15:56:02 [uli]

-1 (to rdf since it would imply that the other is incompatible)

15:56:21 [uli]

..as in incompatible in a strong sense

15:56:34 [IanH]

q?

15:56:36 [msmith]

sandro: +1 to uli

15:56:39 [alanr]

ok

15:56:47 [uli]

'rdf-based semantics'

15:57:01 [msmith]

ianh: +1 to uli

15:57:02 [sandro]

+1 RDF-Based Semantics

15:57:19 [bmotik]

+1

15:57:39 [IanH]

q?

15:57:48 [ekw]

we wanted short names

15:58:32 [msmith]

m_schnei: what's new is the new features of OWL

15:58:54 [msmith]

msmith: I don't think what's new should be repeated across docs

15:59:16 [msmith]

ianh: we mean what's new with OWL Full semantics, e.g., this thing about comprehension principles

15:59:58 [sandro]

PROPOSED: Publish http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF-Based_Semantics as a First Public Working Draft around Sept 1, after some more editorial changes, pending review and approval from PFPS and Zhe.

15:59:59 [msmith]

... the previous "sledge-hammer" approach made it problematic to establish consistency

16:00:15 [IanH]

q?

16:00:21 [bmotik]

+1 Oxford

16:00:25 [pfps]

+1 Bell Labs

16:00:29 [alanr]

+1

16:00:35 [Zhe]

+1ORACLE

16:00:35 [baojie]

0

16:00:38 [sandro]

+1 W3C

16:00:45 [m_schnei]

+1 (FZI)

16:00:47 [msmith]

+1

16:00:54 [Achille]

+1 IBM

16:01:40 [sandro]

ACTION: Jie to review RDF-Based Semantics. Document to be frozen Aug 19, review by Aug 22.

16:01:40 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-179 - Review RDF-Based Semantics. Document to be frozen Aug 19, review by Aug 22. [on Jie Bao - due 2008-08-05].

16:01:50 [uli]

+1 manchester

16:02:02 [sandro]

ACTION: pfps to review RDF-Based Semantics. Document to be frozen Aug 19, review by Aug 22.

16:02:02 [trackbot]

Sorry, couldn't find user - pfps

16:02:03 [ekw]

+1 NIST

16:02:09 [sandro]

ACTION: peter to review RDF-Based Semantics. Document to be frozen Aug 19, review by Aug 22.

16:02:10 [trackbot]

Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - peter

16:02:10 [trackbot]

Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ppatelsc, phaase)

16:02:18 [Elisa]

+1 Sandpiper

16:02:20 [sandro]

ACTION: ppatelsc to review RDF-Based Semantics. Document to be frozen Aug 19, review by Aug 22.

16:02:20 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-180 - Review RDF-Based Semantics. Document to be frozen Aug 19, review by Aug 22. [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2008-08-05].

16:02:25 [sandro]

ACTION: zhe to review RDF-Based Semantics. Document to be frozen Aug 19, review by Aug 22.

16:02:25 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-181 - Review RDF-Based Semantics. Document to be frozen Aug 19, review by Aug 22. [on Zhe Wu - due 2008-08-05].

16:02:37 [sandro]

RESOLVED: Publish http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF-Based_Semantics as a First Public Working Draft around Sept 1, after some more editorial changes, pending review and approval from PFPS and Zhe.

16:02:54 [msmith]

ianh: topic done, thank you m_schnei

16:03:58 [msmith]

topic: MOF

16:04:24 [msmith]

pha: (presenting slides)

16:05:19 [msmith]

slides will go to list or wiki soon

16:05:29 [uli]

I didn't crumble!

16:05:47 [uli]

thanks, Mike

16:05:48 [IanH]

Boris will emial slides to the list

16:06:28 [IanH]

q?

16:06:46 [IanH]

s/emial/email/

16:07:00 [msmith]

vipul: as visual syntax UML is useful, but it comes with its own semantics. can you provide guidance

16:07:19 [IanH]

q?

16:07:45 [msmith]

pha: uml is used on different levels. I'm saying only as visual syntax. having diagram in UML doesn't specify semantics, impact OWL semantics

16:08:08 [IanH]

q?

16:09:43 [msmith]

bmotik: example of confusion in OWL 1 - lack of rqmt that about disjoint entities

16:09:50 [IanH]

q?

16:09:58 [msmith]

... example, what it means to declare an entity

16:10:25 [msmith]

ekw: so structural syntax is what clarifies, not the metamodel

16:10:36 [IanH]

q?

16:10:39 [msmith]

bmotik: this bumps up the precision to the next level

16:11:07 [bparsia]

Matthew Horridge (OWL API author) really valued the current diagrams.

16:11:19 [IanH]

q?

16:12:03 [msmith]

vipul: this is using metaclass from UML?

16:12:08 [IanH]

q?

16:12:18 [msmith]

pha: we're using MOF, a constrained form of UML

16:12:23 [msmith]

ekw: +1 to pha

16:13:23 [IanH]

q?

16:13:36 [msmith]

ianh: proposal is to claim consistency and provide MOF

16:13:45 [bparsia]

q+ to ask about incorporating the MOF into the structural spec

16:14:13 [msmith]

bmotik: I would switch to same tool as pha to be certain consistency is maintained

16:14:13 [IanH]

q?

16:14:34 [IanH]

I do see you Bijan

16:14:57 [bparsia]

I want to wait until he's done anyway

16:14:59 [bparsia]

No worries

16:15:10 [bparsia]

ack me

16:15:11 [Zakim]

bparsia, you wanted to ask about incorporating the MOF into the structural spec

16:15:22 [IanH]

q?

16:15:48 [msmith]

bijan: I like a lot of what I hear. particularly machine processable definition of non-structural restrictions

16:16:02 [msmith]

... do I understand that the machine readable for would be in the structural spec

16:16:02 [bparsia]

zakim, mute me

16:16:02 [Zakim]

bparsia should now be muted

16:16:07 [msmith]

bmotik: yes

16:16:10 [bparsia]

?

16:16:21 [msmith]

ianh: only change to structual spec would be diagrams

16:16:24 [bparsia]

+1 to appendix

16:16:28 [IanH]

q?

16:16:47 [msmith]

... where machine readable model goes is another issue

16:16:58 [msmith]

alanr: this is a single ontology or imports closure?

16:17:12 [msmith]

bmotik: neither, this is a description of the structural of all ontologies

16:17:17 [IanH]

q?

16:17:23 [bparsia]

This could help with teh accessibility of the diagrams

16:17:37 [msmith]

alanr: you mentioned something about integrity constraints on declarations, this is only in imports closure

16:17:54 [msmith]

bmotik: so far this hasn't been specified, we'd have to see if it was possible with OCL

16:18:10 [msmith]

... same with non-structural constraints

16:18:15 [IanH]

q?

16:18:22 [msmith]

... simpler things would be captured

16:18:26 [IanH]

q?

16:18:47 [msmith]

ekw: its a model of OWL, the language

16:18:56 [msmith]

alanr: of the syntax of the language?

16:19:00 [msmith]

bmotik: yes

16:19:25 [IanH]

q?

16:19:29 [msmith]

ianh: not really different than current diagrams, just with an XML representation

16:19:46 [IanH]

q?

16:19:47 [msmith]

ekw: not quite, its all of those diagrams in a package, modeled, with additional constraints

16:20:01 [msmith]

alanr: it would be great to have a machine readable normative version of OWL language

16:20:24 [IanH]

q?

16:20:25 [msmith]

... I'm concerned we'll have several things like this. structural syntax, rdf doc, xml doc, etc.

16:20:38 [Elisa]

There are also additional tools we can use to validate the abstract syntax, and some rules we can apply for naming of things in an abstract syntax, etc. that hopefully would have a positive impact on the language itself

16:20:49 [msmith]

... I'd like something to leverage this to check the consistency of all these bits

16:21:10 [msmith]

... absent that, I worry that this additional work that uses limited resources

16:21:29 [IanH]

q?

16:21:55 [IanH]

q?

16:21:58 [msmith]

vipul: i think its a good idea.

16:22:06 [msmith]

bmotik: i don't think it requires a lot of resources

16:22:18 [IanH]

q?

16:22:24 [msmith]

... because pha already did it and the diagrams match

16:22:38 [msmith]

... one could generate an XML syntax from it

16:22:56 [IanH]

q?

16:22:59 [msmith]

... its a possibility

16:23:15 [msmith]

pfps: can you produce relaxng instead?

16:23:21 [IanH]

q?

16:23:25 [msmith]

pha: I'll look

16:24:13 [IanH]

q?

16:24:22 [msmith]

bmotik: if you have MOF metamodel of one language and another, you write transformation between the two

16:24:29 [IanH]

q?

16:24:42 [msmith]

alanr: relaxng might not have a MOF metamodel

16:24:46 [bparsia]

I wrote a script to go from fucntioanl script to relax-ng

16:24:51 [ekw]

The transformation language that Boris mentioned is called MOF Queries, Views and Transformation (QVT)

16:25:00 [Elisa]

this is one of the primary reasons why we developed the ODM metamodels for OWL 1 in the first place, fyi

16:25:36 [msmith]

ianh: I think alan likes MOF as normative, all others as non-normative

16:25:43 [msmith]

... any reason to be non-normative

16:25:51 [msmith]

bmotik: can you post xml schema to wiki

16:25:57 [msmith]

pha: yes

16:25:59 [IanH]

q?

16:26:46 [IanH]

q?

16:27:08 [bparsia]

q+

16:27:12 [msmith]

msmith: this would make the burden for review higher

16:27:24 [Elisa]

IBM RSA does have a publication capability so that you can publish an html version that can be "walked", with all of the model elements being alive

16:27:25 [bparsia]

zakim, unmute me

16:27:25 [Zakim]

bparsia should no longer be muted

16:27:26 [msmith]

bmotik: you would have to install IBM rational architect

16:27:30 [msmith]

pha: or other free tools

16:27:30 [IanH]

q?

16:27:36 [IanH]

ack bparsia

16:27:44 [Zakim]

-christine

16:28:00 [Elisa]

There is no need, in other words, for everyone to have IBM RSA in order to examine the MOF implementation

16:28:13 [alanr]

http://www.tucs.fi/publications/attachment.php?fname=TR606.pdf

16:28:24 [alanr]

In this paper, we study the relation between

16:28:25 [alanr]

context-free (Backus-Naur Form) grammars and Meta Object Facility metamodels

16:28:25 [alanr]

and identify when and how we can convert a grammar to a metamodel and a meta-

16:28:25 [alanr]

model to a grammar. An example of this mapping for a subset of Java is shown

16:28:38 [msmith]

bparsia: even if we have other constraints in MOF, not all constraints will be there.

16:28:46 [IanH]

q?

16:28:53 [msmith]

... and down-translation to other syntaxes will probably lose some restrictions

16:29:00 [ekw]

It constraints are expressed as OCL in the MOF model then there would be some extra review burden

16:29:07 [msmith]

bmotik: some things are easier written in english

16:29:09 [ekw]

s/It/If/

16:29:17 [msmith]

alanr: but comparison is work

16:30:05 [msmith]

bmotik: review would be only slightly more than now

16:30:14 [IanH]

q?

16:30:19 [msmith]

alanr: diagrams are noise, I look at documents and frammar

16:30:24 [IanH]

q?

16:30:35 [bparsia]

zakim, mute me

16:30:35 [Zakim]

bparsia should now be muted

16:31:05 [bparsia]

I don't mind a normative appendix which is: the MOF + a list of addtional constraints in english

16:31:17 [msmith]

msmith: what is normative, the MOF or the structural spec document?

16:31:27 [bparsia]

As I understand it, the diagrams are normative

16:31:40 [IanH]

q?

16:31:42 [msmith]

ekw: this doesn't change things because the diagrams are in the normative structural spec

16:32:01 [msmith]

alanr: we must say if/when there is an error which document is normative

16:32:19 [msmith]

... I assume the winner will be the text

16:32:27 [IanH]

q?

16:32:48 [msmith]

... this is separate from MOF metamodel to the extent that it competes for limited resources

16:33:03 [IanH]

q?

16:33:19 [msmith]

bmotik: diagrams are in spec now (as normative)

16:33:47 [msmith]

... diagrams specify normative structure

16:33:56 [IanH]

q?

16:34:06 [msmith]

... functional style spec is different because we wanted it to be

16:34:27 [msmith]

pfps: any document has duplication, why try to remove this type of duplication

16:34:35 [Elisa]

what we did for common logic, to assist in addressing this, was to include the ebnf on every diagram in the ODM

16:34:45 [msmith]

alanr: that the diagrams and the syntax are different is of concern

16:34:56 [Elisa]

we were able to show a 1-1 correspondence between the ebnf and the MOF metamodel

16:35:10 [msmith]

m_schnei: diagrams and bnf are complementary

16:36:02 [msmith]

... a 1:1 between a MOF and bnf is a surprise to me

16:36:04 [msmith]

ianh: me too

16:36:16 [ekw]

elisa - do you mean the different representations in the CL spec were isomorphic?

16:36:23 [sandro]

(This must be a constrained form of BNF, eg where Order Never Matters.)

16:36:24 [msmith]

bmotik: you want MOF precisely so you can avoid ordering issues

16:36:36 [bparsia]

Abstract syntax

16:36:38 [bparsia]

Not concrete syntax

16:36:45 [msmith]

alanr: but syntax is about order

16:37:01 [Elisa]

yes, but also we were able to be very precise because the language was simple, and order was less important aside from parameters for certain expressions

16:37:06 [msmith]

sandro: RIF went down the unified mgmt path, but abandoned it as too much work

16:37:36 [uli]

q+

16:37:42 [msmith]

... this is a parallelizable problem, someone can be responsible for making the MOF track

16:37:54 [msmith]

ianh: we already have the MOF model, informally and as diagrams

16:38:14 [IanH]

q?

16:38:31 [bparsia]

That's my understanding

16:38:40 [uli]

zakim, ack me

16:38:40 [Zakim]

unmuting uli

16:38:42 [Zakim]

I see no one on the speaker queue

16:38:48 [IanH]

q?

16:38:51 [bparsia]

Not "automatically", but Matthew has much praised the diagrams

16:38:59 [alanr]

I am so on your side!

16:39:02 [msmith]

... the only change is a serialization that can be used directly, not just as diagrams

16:39:03 [alanr]

I want them to be normative

16:39:05 [Elisa]

one can actually generate the api automatically from the MOF model, in fact

16:39:15 [ekw]

So there is a benefit to goal with the burden

16:39:26 [msmith]

uli: many people have found MOF to be very useful

16:39:37 [msmith]

alanr: I agree with Uli

16:39:44 [msmith]

ianh: what about normativity?

16:39:46 [IanH]

q?

16:39:55 [uli]

zakim, mute me

16:39:55 [Zakim]

uli should now be muted

16:40:16 [Elisa]

in order to standardize the mof metamodel, there is actually more work that would need to be done to document the contents properly, validate it, etc., fyi

16:40:28 [msmith]

bmotik: I would like spec to say something like structure is described in these diagrams, which matches this MOF, plus some additional constraints

16:40:34 [msmith]

... that's the normative part

16:40:56 [msmith]

... the structural syntax would have a translation from the MOF

16:40:59 [IanH]

q?

16:41:15 [bparsia]

q+

16:41:18 [msmith]

... and if necessary, the structural syntax would be subordinate

16:41:27 [IanH]

q?

16:41:33 [bparsia]

ack me

16:41:51 [msmith]

alanr: I would say document is normative

16:42:07 [Elisa]

there are conventions at OMG for documenting these things, including the model files as part of the normative specification, and so forth, which you would want to provide if you were to go this route...

16:42:41 [msmith]

alanr: the normative description would be XML description of MOF metamodel plus additional restrictions that can't be expressed in that model, then provide a syntax for providing text from the model

16:42:44 [IanH]

q?

16:42:57 [Elisa]

we could entertain working together with the OMG ontology PSIG, since Evan and I co-chair that group, to support this, but I'm not sure we can support the publication timeline

16:43:05 [msmith]

bmotik: you can make diagrams normative, because MOF has a standard visual syntax

16:43:21 [alanr]

diagrams *could* be normative. I just don't want them to be.

16:43:40 [msmith]

... regarding generation, I don't think you can generate the functional syntax because it is slightly different (e.g., not fully typed)

16:43:50 [bparsia]

How about replacing the functional syntax with xml syntax?

16:43:55 [msmith]

... normative part is translation

16:44:04 [bparsia]

One fewer syntax, closer alignment, more W3Cy

16:44:17 [Elisa]

the XMI may be more verbose than you would want ...

16:44:30 [IanH]

q?

16:44:35 [msmith]

... say something like and ontology can be serialized in functional syntax and back to structural form without and structural changes

16:45:04 [msmith]

alanr: we agree on utility, we need to think about presentation to users

16:45:24 [alanr]

is there a way to annotate these models?

16:45:46 [msmith]

elisa: there is more documentation that goes with metamodel and needs to be very precise

16:45:46 [IanH]

q?

16:45:55 [msmith]

... text has very specific form and is normative

16:45:55 [uli]

zakim, mute me

16:45:55 [Zakim]

uli was already muted, uli

16:46:07 [msmith]

... in addition to XMI, etc.

16:46:20 [alanr]

would seem that the MOF specification + MOF Metamodel would be sufficient for us

16:46:52 [msmith]

... what Elisa, Evan have suggested to pha is that much of this additional work happen at OMG, so that it doesn't need to fit in W3 timeline

16:47:09 [alanr]

but there should be a clear advantage to having the work be part of our WG

16:47:14 [alanr]

versus OMG work

16:47:40 [IanH]

q?

16:48:07 [msmith]

... synchronization not an issue. I caution that there is much additional work that needs to be done to make it as useful as you'd like

16:48:14 [msmith]

s/you'd/we'd/

16:48:18 [msmith]

pfps: what work

16:48:31 [IanH]

q?

16:48:47 [msmith]

elisa: documentation, naming, validity, etc.

16:49:07 [msmith]

pfps: that's not work for us, that's work for OMG

16:49:24 [IanH]

q?

16:49:36 [msmith]

... if you want to add a bunch of additional information we don't need, that's something different

16:50:09 [msmith]

alanr: everyone sleep on this issue

16:50:16 [msmith]

... we will revisit it

16:50:41 [msmith]

topic: structural consistency of literal

16:50:47 [msmith]

s/literal/literals/

16:51:36 [IanH]

q?

16:51:44 [msmith]

bmotik: suggestion is to keep it as with rest of language. structurally equivalent if parts are equivalent. in this case parts are lexical form and datatype

16:52:19 [msmith]

... e.g., if you 2.0^^xsd:float you shouldn't change it to 2^^xsd:integer

16:52:29 [msmith]

alanr: I don't want anything to change what I give it

16:52:36 [IanH]

q?

16:53:04 [ekw]

Process check: what is the new agenda?

16:53:12 [IanH]

q?

16:53:52 [IanH]

q?

16:54:08 [msmith]

bmotik: a tool may choose to replace a constant with an alternative constant for the same interpretation

16:54:15 [msmith]

ianh: this surprises me

16:54:21 [bparsia]

RDF doesn't require this

16:54:54 [msmith]

msmith: example of structural changes allowed by current spec

16:54:55 [bparsia]

Indeed, having some normalization permitted is generally cited as desirable

16:55:47 [msmith]

bmotik: this is to address whether it is a rqmt that tools don't change e.g., 2.3100 to 2.31

16:55:54 [msmith]

alanr: That should be a rqmt

16:56:00 [bparsia]

I oppose this requriement

16:56:25 [msmith]

bmotik: structural equivalence should be based on text and datatype

16:56:28 [alanr]

then say what structure equivalent is and handle all the cases.

16:56:36 [msmith]

.... e.g., 2.0 is different from 2

16:56:45 [bmotik]

bmotik has joined #owl

16:57:00 [bparsia]

The requirement to preserve lexical forms is very tool, audience, and circumstance dependant

16:57:17 [bparsia]

(I often like it, but it's really not universal.)

16:57:31 [msmith]

alanr: we define structural equivalence and that is all. we have no change. so recorded

16:57:34 [dlm]

\so on logistics, what time should we call back in?

16:57:34 [uli]

...and I wouldn't be able to draw a line between 'structural equivalence' and 'semantics equivalence'

16:57:43 [msmith]

break for lunch now

16:57:52 [sandro]

Topic: Lunch

16:58:00 [uli]

bye for now

16:58:10 [bparsia]

zakim, mute me

16:58:10 [Zakim]

bparsia should now be muted

16:58:11 [Zakim]

-uli

16:59:21 [ekw]

we will re-convene in an hour, 1st topic will be Quickstart

16:59:43 [Zakim]

-Elisa_Kendall

17:01:26 [Zakim]

-dlm

17:09:53 [Zakim]

-bparsia

17:18:48 [ekw]

ekw has joined #owl

17:24:36 [Zhe]

Zhe has joined #owl

17:28:59 [ekw]

ekw has joined #owl

17:47:55 [bparsia]

13:00 - 14:00 Lunch

17:47:56 [bparsia]

14:50 - 15:45

17:48:58 [jar]

jar has joined #owl

17:57:12 [m_schnei]

m_schnei has joined #owl

17:57:58 [Zakim]

+Elisa_Kendall

17:58:54 [Zakim]

+dlm

18:00:10 [Zakim]

+??P3

18:00:18 [bparsia]

zakim, ??p3 is me

18:00:18 [Zakim]

+bparsia; got it

18:01:27 [bparsia]

zakim, mute me

18:01:27 [Zakim]

bparsia should now be muted

18:02:27 [ekw]

ekw has joined #owl

18:03:54 [IanH]

ack bparsia

18:03:54 [bparsia]

zakim, unmute me

18:03:54 [alanr]

bijan?

18:03:57 [Zakim]

bparsia was not muted, bparsia

18:04:24 [bparsia]

zakim, mute me

18:04:24 [Zakim]

bparsia should now be muted

18:04:32 [bparsia]

zakim, unmute me

18:04:32 [Zakim]

bparsia should no longer be muted

18:04:36 [IanH]

scribenik: pha

18:04:59 [pha]

topic: quick reference

18:05:19 [bparsia]

zakim, mute me

18:05:19 [Zakim]

bparsia should now be muted

18:05:24 [IanH]

ScribeNick: pha

18:05:50 [IanH]

zakim, who is here?

18:05:50 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Meeting_Room, Elisa_Kendall, dlm, bparsia (muted)

18:05:51 [Zakim]

On IRC I see ekw, m_schnei, jar, Zhe, bmotik, Elisa, dlm, vipul, baojie, Achille, Mirek, pfps, alanr, msmith, pha, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, bparsia, ewallace, Carsten, sandro,

18:05:54 [Zakim]

... trackbot

18:06:19 [alanr]

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Quick_Reference_Guide

18:07:03 [pha]

elisa: snapshot to show where are headed

18:07:48 [bparsia]

Syntax is the right place to link

18:07:48 [pha]

... section 3: 4 column approach, additional column with example

18:08:08 [pha]

... trying to get a sense whether this is the right approach

18:08:51 [dlm]

the plan is also to have a printable version somewhat along the lines of http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/_file_directory_/resources/94.pdf

18:09:29 [pha]

... will need to point/link to the other documents, need tags in those

18:09:53 [alanr]

q?

18:10:33 [bparsia]

q+

18:11:05 [dlm]

http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s2

18:11:32 [bparsia]

zakim, unmute me

18:11:32 [Zakim]

bparsia should no longer be muted

18:11:36 [alanr]

ack bparsia

18:11:55 [pha]

bijan: fewer headers, more compact

18:12:35 [pha]

... link to structural specification for examples

18:12:45 [bparsia]

zakim, mute me

18:12:45 [Zakim]

bparsia should now be muted

18:13:04 [pha]

pfps: seems to be very extensive, not compact

18:13:17 [bparsia]

My understanding is that it *is* something like this: http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/_file_directory_/resources/94.pdf

18:13:34 [bparsia]

+1 to peter and alan

18:13:38 [pha]

alan: ultimate format is reference card, pay attention to that

18:13:38 [bparsia]

CSS could do it

18:14:14 [bparsia]

q+

18:14:21 [pha]

elisa: a lot of work, this approach is easier to start

18:14:28 [alanr]

q?

18:14:30 [IanH]

q?

18:15:06 [bparsia]

zakim, unmute me

18:15:06 [Zakim]

bparsia should no longer be muted

18:15:11 [alanr]

ack bparsia

18:15:45 [pha]

bijan: there is not a lot of room on quick reference card, should not be lighter version of struct. spec

18:15:46 [alanr]

q?

18:15:52 [alanr]

q?

18:16:20 [pha]

elisa: some of it due to lack of wiki knowledge

18:16:41 [pha]

... thought should be similar to overview document

18:17:07 [bparsia]

zakim, mute me

18:17:07 [Zakim]

bparsia should now be muted

18:17:49 [pha]

pfps: if it is not a reference card, you failed

18:19:02 [pha]

alan: stay away from wiki, use whatever and write it there, with the ultimate format in mind

18:19:16 [cgolbrei]

cgolbrei has joined #owl

18:20:22 [pha]

alan: when could you have pdf file?

18:20:22 [Zakim]

+??P4

18:21:10 [pha]

... do we need all three syntaxes?

18:21:41 [pha]

elisa: does not work for me, can try to find somebody

18:21:58 [pha]

... end of august more realistic

18:22:55 [pha]

elisa: september 3rd earliest to produce pdf

18:23:05 [pha]

dlm: ok, realistic

18:23:55 [pha]

alan: get it out in first week of september, then review, working draft second week of september

18:24:32 [bparsia]

We can move it to owled

18:24:37 [bparsia]

or otherwise capture it

18:25:03 [pha]

evan: make it not rec track?

18:25:18 [bparsia]

q+

18:25:22 [pha]

alan: has not been decided yet

18:25:22 [bparsia]

zakim, unmute me

18:25:22 [Zakim]

bparsia should no longer be muted

18:26:13 [pha]

ian: probably not in the set of documents for last call at next F2F

18:26:38 [dlm]

potential cut - annotation properties (suggestion from alan)

18:26:42 [dlm]

+q

18:26:43 [pfps]

I've been viewing the document and one problem that I see is that the formatting is very bad - it changes significantly as the width of the display changes.

18:27:06 [bparsia]

q-

18:27:23 [cgolbrei]

cgolbrei has joined #owl

18:27:25 [pha]

alan: if all the content would be in pdf in beginning of september, reviews positive, then it might fit

18:27:38 [alanr]

ack dlm

18:28:20 [pha]

dlm: if we cut the content, then time is less an issue

18:28:27 [pha]

... might be realistic

18:28:51 [pha]

alan: will try to get it into working draft quickly

18:29:30 [sandro]

Alan: We're expecting a reasonably complete PDF in the first week of September.

18:30:06 [pha]

action: elisa to produce pdf document first week of september

18:30:06 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-182 - to produce pdf document first week of september [on Elisa Kendall - due 2008-08-05].

18:30:13 [pha]

action: dlm to produce pdf document first week of september

18:30:13 [trackbot]

Sorry, couldn't find user - dlm

18:30:14 [IanH]

zakim, who is here?

18:30:14 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Meeting_Room, Elisa_Kendall, dlm, bparsia, ??P4

18:30:15 [Zakim]

On IRC I see cgolbrei, ekw, jar, Zhe, bmotik, Elisa, dlm, vipul, baojie, Achille, Mirek, pfps, alanr, msmith, pha, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, bparsia, ewallace, Carsten, sandro,

18:30:18 [Zakim]

... trackbot

18:30:35 [IanH]

zakim, ??P4 is cgolbrei

18:30:35 [Zakim]

+cgolbrei; got it

18:30:46 [Zakim]

-Elisa_Kendall

18:31:08 [pha]

action: deborah to produce pdf document first week of september

18:31:08 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-183 - Produce pdf document first week of september [on Deborah McGuinness - due 2008-08-05].

18:31:18 [Zakim]

-cgolbrei

18:31:41 [ekw]

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/draft/ED-owl2-requirements-20080722/

18:31:55 [Zakim]

+??P1

18:32:01 [pha]

Topic: requirements

18:32:23 [IanH]

zakim, ??P1 is cgolbrei

18:32:23 [Zakim]

+cgolbrei; got it

18:33:51 [pha]

alan: there are two versions, frozen and subsequent

18:34:35 [pha]

evan: this is an evolved version

18:35:27 [pha]

... which way to organize requirements? use case? language feature?

18:35:37 [alanr]

q?

18:36:18 [pha]

vipul: there does not need to be a choice

18:36:18 [bparsia]

q+

18:36:22 [Zakim]

-dlm

18:36:50 [pha]

... goal is to provide a motivation

18:37:06 [Zakim]

+ +1.518.608.aabb

18:37:12 [baojie]

q+

18:37:22 [IanH]

q?

18:37:26 [pha]

... What applications is OWL useful for?

18:37:43 [dlm]

+1518608aabb is dlm

18:37:47 [IanH]

zakim, who is here?

18:37:47 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Meeting_Room, bparsia, cgolbrei, +1.518.608.aabb

18:37:48 [Zakim]

On IRC I see cgolbrei, ekw, jar, Zhe, bmotik, dlm, vipul, baojie, Achille, Mirek, pfps, alanr, msmith, pha, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, bparsia, ewallace, Carsten, sandro, trackbot

18:38:00 [pha]

evan: new section 2 would be domain, applications, stake holders

18:38:07 [IanH]

Who is calling in from 518.608?

18:38:19 [pha]

... then use cases, requirements, features

18:38:22 [bparsia]

ack me

18:38:24 [alanr]

ack bijan

18:38:56 [IanH]

zakim, who is here?

18:38:56 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Meeting_Room, bparsia, cgolbrei, +1.518.608.aabb

18:38:57 [Zakim]

On IRC I see cgolbrei, ekw, jar, Zhe, bmotik, dlm, vipul, baojie, Achille, Mirek, pfps, alanr, msmith, pha, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, bparsia, ewallace, Carsten, sandro, trackbot

18:39:08 [pha]

bijan: getting large and complicated, hoping for something closer to OWL 1 overview

18:39:11 [IanH]

zakim, aabb is dlm

18:39:11 [Zakim]

+dlm; got it

18:39:14 [cgolbrei]

+q

18:39:30 [alanr]

q+

18:39:41 [pha]

... not sure how helpful it is to have all these details

18:39:43 [vipul]

q+

18:39:46 [alanr]

ack baojie

18:40:03 [bparsia]

It's 33 pages by my printer :(

18:40:18 [pha]

jie: is there usecase for scalability?

18:40:19 [cgolbrei]

version 2 shorter

18:40:45 [bparsia]

What?

18:40:52 [pha]

evan: hoping to get input for usecases

18:40:57 [bparsia]

Usecase for all the profiles?

18:41:09 [pha]

... in particular for OWL R, DL Lite

18:41:21 [bparsia]

-1 to the web applications point

18:41:32 [bparsia]

q+

18:41:33 [vipul]

Agree with shortening Version 2 by moving use cases to Section 3

18:41:35 [pha]

alan: jie should be on requirements WG

18:41:41 [bparsia]

q-

18:41:43 [cgolbrei]

+q

18:41:59 [pha]

alan: charter talks about requirements

18:42:09 [bparsia]

q+ to dig in his heels against the blow up of scope of this document

18:42:12 [pha]

evan: no, requirements and use cases

18:42:24 [bparsia]

Link for version 2?

18:42:59 [alanr]

Requirements:

18:42:59 [alanr]

A description of the goals and requirements that have motivated the design of OWL 1.1.

18:43:00 [bparsia]

Charter:

18:43:01 [bparsia]

Requirements:

18:43:01 [bparsia]

A description of the goals and requirements that have motivated the design of OWL 1.1.

18:43:03 [vipul]

I meant Section 2

18:43:07 [alanr]

jinx

18:43:09 [alanr]

:)

18:43:27 [alanr]

q?

18:43:37 [sandro]

ack cgolbrei

18:43:40 [sandro]

ack alanr

18:44:15 [pha]

alan: more historical perspective: why did we introduce new features

18:45:26 [cgolbrei]

history not very helpful for user

18:45:26 [baojie]

Summarize my question, more use cases for 1) web applications 2) scalability

18:45:51 [alanr]

christine, but our charter says what we wanted to accomplish

18:45:58 [pha]

vipul: secton 2 can be shortened, use case moved to section 3

18:46:04 [alanr]

it should do at least that

18:46:11 [pha]

... need to talk about applications, stake holders

18:46:37 [cgolbrei]

better understand motivations + UCs = kind of example/guidelines for use

18:46:53 [pha]

... missing things like semantic email

18:47:22 [alanr]

q?

18:47:28 [alanr]

ack vipul

18:47:29 [pha]

... applications that already use OWL 2 should be in scope

18:47:52 [alanr]

back bparsia

18:47:52 [bparsia]

ack me

18:47:52 [Zakim]

bparsia, you wanted to dig in his heels against the blow up of scope of this document

18:48:10 [pha]

bijan: should be at most 5 pages

18:48:38 [vipul]

q+

18:48:44 [IanH]

q?

18:49:10 [alanr]

not sure I see overlap

18:49:16 [alanr]

mostly because primer is tight

18:49:16 [cgolbrei]

+q

18:49:19 [pha]

... overlap in documents (e.g. primer) should be minimized

18:50:06 [Zhe]

...

18:50:08 [pha]

alan: if we increase scope, it should be done deliberately

18:50:08 [cgolbrei]

primer is general not OWL2 specific features

18:50:22 [IanH]

From charter: A description of the goals and requirements that have motivated the design of OWL 1.1.

18:50:53 [pha]

evan: do not have a shared vision

18:51:19 [bparsia]

What document are we discussing?

18:51:19 [baojie]

baojie has joined #owl

18:52:05 [bparsia]

Where was evan reading from?

18:52:14 [pha]

ian: current overview sounds right

18:52:16 [pha]

alan: agree

18:52:25 [alanr]

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/draft/ED-owl2-requirements-20080722/

18:52:27 [msmith]

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/draft/ED-owl2-requirements-20080722/#Overview

18:53:18 [bparsia]

So 5 pages is doable?

18:53:20 [bparsia]

Seems like

18:53:33 [pha]

alan: rationales only for new features

18:53:57 [alanr]

q?

18:54:03 [cgolbrei]

UCs + rationlae + new fetures will become more !

18:54:23 [alanr]

ack vipul

18:54:25 [bparsia]

I'm not worried about repetition but, e.g., section 2

18:54:35 [alanr]

ack cgolbrei

18:54:54 [vipul]

q+

18:54:58 [pha]

cgoldbrei: cannot make it 5 pager

18:55:37 [bparsia]

Section 5 would be ok

18:55:41 [bparsia]

q+

18:56:12 [pha]

ian: do we need all the use cases for the features?

18:56:29 [pha]

... can we skim down to most important ones?

18:57:15 [cgolbrei]

yes

18:57:27 [pha]

alan: some use cases not specific enough

18:57:36 [alanr]

q?

18:57:39 [alanr]

ack vipul

18:58:09 [pha]

vipul: useful to have use cases across domains

18:58:15 [cgolbrei]

+q

18:59:04 [bparsia]

zakim, unmute me

18:59:04 [Zakim]

bparsia was not muted, bparsia

18:59:19 [pha]

... have to identify use cases and stakeholders

18:59:50 [alanr]

ack bparsia

19:00:02 [vipul]

q+

19:00:26 [pha]

bijan: give some understanding of the kind of motivations for features, not so specific to domains

19:00:35 [IanH]

q?

19:00:41 [alanr]

ack cgolbrei

19:00:42 [bparsia]

zakim, mute me

19:00:43 [Zakim]

bparsia should now be muted

19:02:49 [alanr]

annotations!

19:02:53 [alanr]

:(

19:02:54 [pha]

evan: understand the feedback that we need to make document smaller, have an idea of where to do that

19:02:57 [bparsia]

Sorry I can't

19:02:59 [alanr]

k

19:03:00 [alanr]

bye

19:03:02 [bparsia]

I'm already a bit late (

19:03:07 [Zakim]

-bparsia

19:03:35 [IanH]

zakim, who is here?

19:03:35 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Meeting_Room, cgolbrei, dlm

19:03:36 [Zakim]

On IRC I see baojie, cgolbrei, ekw, jar, Zhe, bmotik, dlm, vipul, Achille, Mirek, pfps, alanr, msmith, pha, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, bparsia, ewallace, Carsten, sandro, trackbot

19:03:58 [pha]

vipul: still disagreement - are use cases in scope or not?

19:04:22 [cgolbrei]

UCR doc usually does have at least some

19:05:14 [bparsia]

Not quite gone but strongly against use cases....our charter don't require them and I don't think they are all that helpful for our requriemetns document except as illustrations

19:05:38 [pha]

ian: use cases are in scope

19:07:13 [pha]

alan: you need to know who the users are, but not necessarily to document that

19:08:45 [m_schnei]

m_schnei has joined #owl

19:08:57 [cgolbrei]

cannot listen

19:10:06 [pha]

alan: vipul, evan, christine and jie to update requirements document considering the discussed scope (shorter, tighter) within four weeks

19:11:01 [pha]

alan: put placeholders for language profiles that do not yet have a name

19:12:06 [pha]

Topic: Annotations

19:12:35 [Zakim]

-cgolbrei

19:13:31 [pha]

boris: annotations right now do not have semantics, but you do want to reason over them

19:13:41 [pha]

... proposal is similar to that of alan

19:14:26 [pha]

... have a transformation of the original ontology to a new ontology in which annotations become logical information

19:15:18 [pha]

... semantics of annotations described in separate ontology

19:22:11 [pha]

... conceptually the same as proposal in AAAI'08 paper on metalevel information

19:23:42 [Zakim]

-dlm

19:23:48 [IanH]

q?

19:24:08 [IanH]

ack vipul

19:25:46 [pha]

alan: how can one relate axioms in the two ontologies?

19:26:13 [pha]

boris: leave it up to tools

19:27:30 [afokoue]

afokoue has joined #owl

19:28:19 [dlm]

\me sorry i am going to have to drop off but if i can leave the request for whatever proposal we go with to consider that at least applications need to annotate annotations - some of my science applications have observer logs that we need to encode and annotate

19:29:03 [afokoue]

Zakim, Achille is afokoue

19:29:03 [Zakim]

sorry, afokoue, I do not recognize a party named 'Achille'

19:29:26 [pha]

zhe: like it better than two file approach

19:29:32 [IanH]

q?

19:31:22 [pha]

zhe: transformation is additional burden on implementors

19:31:48 [pha]

zhe: prefer to not spec it at all

19:32:21 [pha]

... ok if it does not affect conformance

19:33:02 [afokoue]

Zakim, rename Achille to afokoue

19:33:02 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'rename Achille to afokoue', afokoue

19:38:20 [pha]

michael: how expressive is it?

19:39:46 [Achille]

Achille has joined #owl

19:42:32 [ekw]

Peter and Boris paper mentioned in this discussion

19:42:45 [ekw]

http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/people/boris.motik/pubs/dhmgh08-metalevel-information.pd

19:43:32 [pha]

pha: in the original ontology you only have atomic annotations

19:43:57 [pfps]

http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/people/boris.motik/pubs/dhmgh08-metalevel-information.pdf

19:44:14 [pha]

boris: our proposal does not touch the syntax

20:05:38 [ekw]

ekw has joined #owl

20:08:51 [sandro]

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Test_Case_Format

20:08:51 [ekw]

ekw has joined #owl

20:18:45 [sandro]

scribe: jie

20:19:19 [IanH]

o Current working drafts

20:19:19 [IanH]

+ Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax (First Public Working Draft published 11 April 2008)

20:19:20 [IanH]

REPUBLISH?

20:19:20 [IanH]

+ Profiles (First Public Working Draft published 11 April 2008)

20:19:20 [IanH]

NEEDS WORK TO MAKE IT MORE ACCESSIBLE

20:19:21 [IanH]

+ Primer (First Public Working Draft published 11 April 2008)

20:19:22 [IanH]

NEEDS WORK / NEW BLOOD?

20:19:24 [IanH]

o Yet to be published

20:19:26 [IanH]

+ Test Cases

20:19:28 [IanH]

o Should we publish?

20:19:30 [IanH]

+ Manchester Syntax

20:19:32 [IanH]

WHAT IF ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT? (NOTE?)

20:19:34 [IanH]

o Recap and further discussion of choices we need to make, actions, and schedule before Last Call

20:19:36 [IanH]

ALL CLEAR?

20:19:38 [IanH]

PROFILE NAMES?

20:19:40 [IanH]

ISSUE-130: Conformance, warnings, errors

20:19:40 [trackbot]

ISSUE-130 ACCEPTED: Conformance, warnings, errors notes added

20:19:42 [IanH]

Entity annotations status

20:19:44 [IanH]

* Other Outstanding Issues

20:19:46 [IanH]

o Issue 104 OWL 1.1 DL does not have a disallowed vocabulary

20:19:48 [IanH]

o Issue 56 Specify standard "repairs" for moving select RDF documents to OWL?

20:19:50 [IanH]

o Issue 129 Desirable to have rdf:list vocabulary available for use in modeling in OWL 2

20:19:51 [baojie]

Ian: starts the last session

20:19:59 [baojie]

agenda

20:20:53 [baojie]

whether to publish a new version of the structure spec

20:21:18 [baojie]

s/structure/strucutural

20:21:23 [IanH]

q?

20:21:48 [baojie]

... or the mapping document

20:22:10 [baojie]

Mschnei

20:22:31 [baojie]

may publish in a few weeks a new working draft

20:22:44 [IanH]

q?

20:23:48 [baojie]

Ian: republish the structural spec in 3-4 weeks

20:24:30 [baojie]

... possibly with user facing documents

20:24:45 [baojie]

... full semantics, mapping

20:25:23 [baojie]

MSmith: XML Serialization is not ready, major changes

20:27:05 [baojie]

... (think again) may publish

20:29:05 [msmith]

msmith: (correction) xml serialization should be published again, because it has changed in a way that is relevant to users

20:29:08 [baojie]

Ian: Profiles?

20:29:23 [baojie]

... depends on OWL-R unificiation

20:29:39 [baojie]

... which still has a lot of debate

20:29:52 [baojie]

... not ready to publish

20:29:57 [IanH]

q?

20:30:08 [msmith]

ian, I think that the outstanding DL-Lite issue is also worth waiting on

20:30:08 [IanH]

zakim, who is here?

20:30:08 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Meeting_Room

20:30:09 [Zakim]

On IRC I see ekw, Achille, m_schnei, baojie, cgolbrei, jar, Zhe, bmotik, dlm, Mirek, pfps, alanr, msmith, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, ewallace, Carsten, sandro, trackbot

20:30:26 [m_schnei]

m_schnei: if there is a change to the functional syntax, then there will also be changes in the DL semantics and the RDF mapping (and possibly also the OWL/XML syntax)

20:31:38 [baojie]

Peter: need clean up with namespace

20:31:58 [baojie]

... whether to reuse owl namespace

20:32:38 [baojie]

Ian: Primer?

20:33:20 [baojie]

.. not changed much

20:33:45 [baojie]

psps: to push Bijan

20:33:48 [m_schnei]

pfps: Primer is probably out of date

20:34:05 [baojie]

... i will go over primer

20:34:18 [baojie]

... to make sure it reflect the state of the art

20:34:30 [baojie]

s/reflect/reflects

20:35:36 [baojie]

baojie: Turtle syntax may also need to be considered

20:36:23 [baojie]

Ian: potential publication schedule

20:36:39 [baojie]

Peter: need Bijan to edit the Primer

20:36:42 [m_schnei]

ian: if rpi wants Turtle in the primer, than probably Jie can work on it?

20:37:23 [baojie]

baojie: inline review comments need to be addressed

20:39:48 [baojie]

psps: editor need to make it clear how their edits address the comments

20:40:19 [baojie]

s/psps/pfps

20:40:49 [baojie]

Ian: Hope to publish all documents in 4 weeks

20:41:20 [baojie]

... review due in 3 weeks

20:42:07 [baojie]

... Aug 22

20:43:37 [baojie]

... Date to publish RDF (semantics)?

20:43:56 [sandro]

Sandro: If any of Michael's editor's comments rise to the level of Issue, then he should talk to Chairs to get them raised as real Issues.

20:44:01 [baojie]

Alan: I have RDF mapping comments need to be addressed

20:44:21 [baojie]

s/Alan/AlanR

20:44:56 [baojie]

Ian: OWL Full Semantics

20:45:11 [baojie]

... on Zhen, Peter, Mschnei to review

20:45:28 [Zhe]

s/Zhen/Zhe

20:46:31 [m_schnei]

m_schnei: Full: after review on 22th, Michael will address as much as possible of the reviewer's points over the weekend, and add editor's notes to these points, which are too hard in that short time

20:46:32 [baojie]

Ian: Structural Spec, Semantics, Mapping to RDF Graph

20:46:40 [sandro]

Ian: republish Syntax, Semantics, and Mapping-to-RDF-Grapsh, in time with RDF-Based Semantics

20:47:57 [baojie]

... who is going review those documents?

20:48:35 [sandro]

deadline for reviews -- Aug 19

20:50:04 [baojie]

mschenei: I volunteer for the DL semantics

20:51:08 [baojie]

Sandro: documents need to be aligned

20:51:24 [m_schnei]

m_schnei: the OWL Full Semantics has three references: old OWL 1 Full, RDF Semantics, and a *generic

20:51:45 [m_schnei]

... reference to the Semantics document, which doesn't (much) talk about content

20:53:36 [baojie]

AlanR: if we can publish on the 3rd week of august,

20:54:04 [sandro]

s/august/september/

20:54:20 [baojie]

... Sept 15

20:54:52 [Zhe]

Zhe has joined #owl

20:55:04 [sandro]

Alan: maybe publish the two Semantics documents in August, as previously discussed....

20:55:58 [m_schnei]

m_schnei: correction: actually, Full document will depend on DL document, because there will be a section about a strong semantic relationship between these two semantics --> needed to have synced publishing

20:56:37 [baojie]

Ian: how about get everything done on owl full semantics, and put it off the shelf for now

20:57:01 [baojie]

... stick to the schedule to OWL Full

20:57:11 [sandro]

Ian: Okay, let's finish the review process on RDF-Based Semantics, being done on Aug 25, but don't publish it until the others are also ready to publish.

20:57:19 [baojie]

but not publish it

20:57:19 [sandro]

Ian: (hearing no objection)

20:57:35 [sandro]

Ian: And then publish everything on 15 September.

20:58:09 [baojie]

... structural spec: how work need?

20:58:17 [baojie]

Boris: not much

20:58:34 [baojie]

Ian: Semantics:

20:58:51 [baojie]

MSchnei: me

20:59:11 [baojie]

Ian: need to get back on 8 sept

20:59:53 [baojie]

Ian: Syntax on msmith

20:59:58 [baojie]

Ian: Profile on me

21:00:13 [baojie]

AlanR: RPI review?

21:00:33 [baojie]

baojie: RDF semantics on me

21:02:24 [baojie]

... and with Turtle syntax on primer, which will make me busy

21:02:39 [baojie]

... I'm not sure if deb will be available

21:03:04 [baojie]

AlanR: Mapping on me

21:04:30 [baojie]

Ian: Jie, could you check if RPI can take another review (Profile, Structural Spec) ?

21:04:49 [baojie]

Pfps: only half of the WG is active

21:05:24 [baojie]

Ian: need to send to the whole WG ; if you care, better look now

21:05:49 [baojie]

Sandro: we have about 30 actions open

21:06:07 [baojie]

s/actions/issues

21:07:03 [baojie]

Ian: should avoid vague issue

21:08:03 [sandro]

list of open issues: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/open

21:08:07 [msmith]

action msmith to review syntax document

21:08:07 [trackbot]

Sorry, couldn't find user - msmith

21:08:20 [msmith]

action michaelsm to review syntax document

21:08:20 [trackbot]

Sorry, couldn't find user - michaelsm

21:08:32 [pfps]

ACTION: pfps to review full semantics between 19 and 22 August

21:08:32 [trackbot]

Sorry, couldn't find user - pfps

21:08:49 [msmith]

‬action michael to review syntax document

21:08:56 [pfps]

ACTION: Patel-Schneider to review full semantics between 19 and 22 August

21:08:56 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-184 - Review full semantics between 19 and 22 August [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2008-08-05].

21:10:11 [msmith]

action michael to review syntax document

21:10:11 [trackbot]

Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - michael

21:10:11 [trackbot]

Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. msmith9, mschneid, msintek)

21:10:13 [m_schnei]

ACTION: m_schnei to review DL semantics between 19 and 22 August

21:10:13 [trackbot]

Sorry, couldn't find user - m_schnei

21:10:24 [m_schnei]

ACTION: Michael Schneider to review DL semantics between 19 and 22 August

21:10:24 [trackbot]

Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Michael

21:10:24 [trackbot]

Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. msmith9, mschneid, msintek)

21:10:38 [msmith]

action msmith9 to review syntax document

21:10:38 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-185 - Review syntax document [on Michael Smith - due 2008-08-05].

21:10:39 [m_schnei]

ACTION: mschneid to review DL semantics between 19 and 22 August

21:10:39 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-186 - Review DL semantics between 19 and 22 August [on Michael Schneider - due 2008-08-05].

21:10:50 [baojie]

ACTION: Jie to add turtle syntax to the Primer

21:10:50 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-187 - Add turtle syntax to the Primer [on Jie Bao - due 2008-08-05].

21:11:38 [baojie]

Action: Ian review Profiles

21:11:38 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-188 - Review Profiles [on Ian Horrocks - due 2008-08-05].

21:12:11 [baojie]

Action: Alan review RDF Mapping

21:12:11 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-189 - Review RDF Mapping [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-08-05].

21:12:43 [baojie]

Ian: move to test cases

21:13:52 [msmith]

Test document, as it now exists is at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test

21:14:46 [baojie]

Msmith: other changes on the end of the page

21:15:35 [baojie]

Sandro: have you considered importing

21:15:48 [baojie]

Msmith: no

21:15:57 [baojie]

Msmith: changes

21:16:30 [sandro]

Sandro: you're missing owl:ImportsTest, and it'll be hard to do with this approach of having the content in the wiki/test-file.

21:16:59 [baojie]

... http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test#Changes_From_WebOnt_Tests

21:17:44 [baojie]

... AlanR: imports are important

21:18:31 [baojie]

... http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/GuideToTestTemplate

21:18:50 [baojie]

this is a template to create test cases

21:19:24 [baojie]

... can be in different syntaxes

21:19:50 [baojie]

... there are examples v

21:19:53 [baojie]

... http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/User:MikeSmith#Test_Cases

21:20:22 [baojie]

e.g., http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/TestCase:Datatype-Primitive-Disjointness-001

21:21:04 [IanH]

Action: Ian Send email to WG about review responsibilities for forthcoming working drafts

21:21:04 [baojie]

each example has categories

21:21:04 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-190 - Send email to WG about review responsibilities for forthcoming working drafts [on Ian Horrocks - due 2008-08-05].

21:21:40 [baojie]

... will use a semantic wiki to edit

21:23:05 [baojie]

need time to go over webont example to reflect OWL 2 changes

21:23:53 [IanH]

Action: Jie to solicit RPI reviews of key documents

21:23:53 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-191 - Solicit RPI reviews of key documents [on Jie Bao - due 2008-08-05].

21:24:00 [baojie]

Msmith: input one syntax, other syntaxes will be populated

21:24:48 [baojie]

Alan: we need test case for RDF maping

21:24:56 [baojie]

s/maping/mapping

21:26:13 [baojie]

Alan: normative syntaxes will go to test

21:27:28 [baojie]

Mschnei: there are different test cases

21:28:39 [m_schnei]

m_schnei: I think AlanR has several kinds of tests in mind:

21:29:17 [m_schnei]

m_schnei: first, negative inverse-mapping tests, where certain RDF graphs are rejected, because they are not DL, or one of the fragments

21:29:43 [m_schnei]

m_schnei: second, if an RDF graph is accepted, then is the resulting FS is as expected

21:30:08 [baojie]

Sandro: it is not practical to check (all syntaxes correctness?)

21:30:28 [m_schnei]

m_schnei: concern: perhaps in some cases inverse mapping not completely derterministic (is this right for the reverse mapping?)

21:31:23 [baojie]

Alan: need a new category: syntax checking test

21:31:32 [sandro]

Sandro: Alan wants an owl:SyntaxConverstionTest

21:31:49 [IanH]

q?

21:32:33 [baojie]

Ian: if we need proformance test case?

21:32:33 [msmith]

Test cases can be created by creating a new wiki page, using the TestCase: prefix in the page name and copying and pasting from http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/GuideToTestTemplate

21:32:33 [msmith]

For examples, see http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/User:MikeSmith#Test_Cases

21:32:36 [msmith]

bye

21:33:22 [sandro]

http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#conformance

21:34:22 [sandro]

See also http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#Conformance_Clauses

21:34:32 [baojie]

s/proformance/conformance

21:35:08 [baojie]

Mschnei: look at the old owl test case, there is OWL full test cases

21:35:50 [baojie]

Ian: do we have schedule for test case publication?

21:36:10 [sandro]

m_schnei, there are 41 OWL Full Entailments tests and 7 OWL Full Inconsistency tests (and 2 import ones).

21:36:10 [baojie]

Msmith: not now

21:36:37 [m_schnei]

thanks, sandro, that's a lot... to review :-)

21:36:38 [sandro]

m_schnei, see http://www.w3.org/2003/08/owl-systems/test-results-out for one easy view on them.

21:36:46 [baojie]

... once we have them in semantic wiki

21:36:59 [baojie]

.. in 2-3 weeks

21:37:13 [sandro]

m_schnei, more specifically: http://www.w3.org/2003/08/owl-systems/test-results-out#table_1_Approved%20Full

21:37:23 [baojie]

Ian: is it realist to ask fore review?

21:37:30 [baojie]

Msmith: no

21:37:38 [baojie]

s/fore/for

21:39:02 [baojie]

Ian: what is left?

21:39:14 [baojie]

... 20 minutes more

21:39:41 [baojie]

... barin storming

21:40:03 [baojie]

... Manchester syntax

21:40:29 [baojie]

Alan: the part on instance is not ready

21:40:42 [m_schnei]

ian: idea is to publish Manchester Syntax as a Note, not a Rec

21:40:48 [IanH]

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/ManchesterSyntax

21:41:04 [baojie]

zhe: who used Machester syntax

21:41:15 [baojie]

Alan: proetge, TComposer

21:41:22 [alanr]

lsw

21:41:38 [baojie]

...topbraid composer

21:42:59 [baojie]

sandro: we can't decide to publish it to be note by us

21:43:03 [m_schnei]

m_schnei: are we actually free to decide to *not* publish Manchester as a note, given the fact that we use it in a Rec track document (the primer)?

21:43:15 [baojie]

... first as working draft

21:43:31 [m_schnei]

pfps: we might decide to publish it elsewhere (not as a Note)

21:44:10 [baojie]

Zhe: we will not use Manchester syntax

21:44:54 [baojie]

Ian: it is mainly about presentation, used in Primer

21:45:21 [baojie]

Jie: I'm neutral if it is a note

21:47:27 [baojie]

Alan: my concern is that not all of the Manchester syntax is tested

21:47:29 [sandro]

Alan: I'm concerned that not all of the Manchester Syntax is tested yet. I'll see what I can do to help make sure it is tested soon.

21:48:06 [baojie]

Ian: 15 minutes

21:48:47 [baojie]

... restaurant :)

21:49:12 [m_schnei]

Topic: Profile Names

21:49:59 [baojie]

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profile_Names

21:50:34 [baojie]

Ian: naming is quite political

21:51:49 [baojie]

Sandro: let go through proposals

21:52:38 [baojie]

Ian: Zhe, if we use OWL-SQL, are you ok with it?

21:52:44 [baojie]

Zhe: may not

21:52:49 [baojie]

... OWL-R is better

21:53:21 [baojie]

Sandro: OWL-Rule looks a rule language

21:54:21 [baojie]

Zhe: the 2-letter proposal looks ok

21:54:36 [baojie]

Ian: looks not bad to me

21:56:10 [alanr]

s/ql/sql/

21:56:31 [baojie]

Ian: DL, EL, QL, RL, XL

21:57:17 [baojie]

... looks this proposal has some attraction

21:58:41 [baojie]

... may send to the group to solve the naming issue

21:59:08 [sandro]

STRAWPOLL: Use the "Two Letter" row on http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profile_Names (OWL 2 DL, OWL 2 EL, OWL 2 QL, OWL 2 RL, OWL 2 XL)

21:59:09 [pfps]

+0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

21:59:23 [sandro]

+1

21:59:26 [alanr]

+1

21:59:28 [Zhe]

+1

21:59:32 [IanH]

+1

21:59:33 [sandro]

achille +1

21:59:34 [baojie]

+3.1415926

21:59:36 [m_schnei]

+1

22:00:29 [sandro]

Ian: agreement here. put on agenda for next week.

22:00:55 [sandro]

ADJOURN!

22:01:20 [m_schnei]

bye

22:04:50 [Zakim]

-Meeting_Room

22:04:51 [Zakim]

SW_OWL()8:00AM has ended

22:04:52 [Zakim]

Attendees were uli, Meeting_Room, bparsia, +00493514633aaaa, Carsten, dlm, christine, Elisa_Kendall, cgolbrei, +1.518.608.aabb

22:32:48 [alanr]

alanr has joined #owl

23:20:00 [Mirek]

Mirek has joined #owl

23:23:56 [IanH]

IanH has joined #owl