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
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:
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]
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
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
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]
13:06:41 [uli]
zakim, mute me
13:06:41 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
13:10:03 [Zakim]
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]
13:11:48 [bparsia]
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
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]
13:16:38 [uli]
13:16:43 [IanH]
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]
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
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]
13:24:55 [Achille]
m_schnei: -0 also denotes 0
13:25:12 [IanH]
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]
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]
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]
13:28:10 [Achille]
ianh: we should discuss that later
13:28:30 [IanH]
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]
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]
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]
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]
13:35:26 [Achille]
alanr: is it useful to have xsd:decimal as a type?
13:35:46 [bparsia]
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]
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]
13:36:52 [IanH]
13:36:53 [bparsia]
zakim, unmute me
13:36:54 [Zakim]
bparsia should no longer be muted
13:36:59 [IanH]
13:36:59 [bparsia]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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
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]
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]
13:49:59 [Achille]
m_schnei: why not everything from xsd?
13:50:21 [bparsia]
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]
13:50:30 [Carsten]
Seems bad to *force* implementors to have datatypes like base64bin
13:50:44 [sandro]
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]
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]
13:52:43 [sandro]
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]
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]
13:54:31 [alanr]
optional = incompatible
13:55:02 [Carsten]
13:55:10 [Carsten]
zakim, unmute me
13:55:10 [Zakim]
Carsten should no longer be muted
13:55:12 [IanH]
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]
13:57:20 [Carsten]
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]
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]
13:58:26 [Achille]
... I have redrew my objection
13:58:34 [bparsia]
In particular:
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]
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]
14:05:23 [IanH]
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]
14:08:42 [IanH]
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]
14:09:57 [bparsia]
Btw, both generating and consuming tools can offer corrections and repairs
14:10:16 [bparsia]
14:10:24 [bparsia]
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]
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]
14:14:51 [IanH]
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]
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]
14:17:23 [baojie]
14:17:26 [msmith]
14:17:27 [bmotik]
14:17:34 [Zhe]
14:17:37 [bparsia]
-1 to xsd:dateTime
14:17:40 [bparsia]
14:17:44 [bparsia]
-1 to owl:dateTime
14:17:47 [pha]
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]
14:18:03 [sandro]
14:18:33 [bparsia]
zakim, unmute me
14:18:33 [Zakim]
bparsia should no longer be muted
14:18:37 [alanr]
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]
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]
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]
14:22:26 [IanH]
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
14:25:40 [Achille]
14:25:50 [sandro]
PROPOSED: We'll handle the datatypes named in as described in that message. This closes ISSUE-126.
14:25:57 [bmotik]
+1 Oxford
14:26:02 [IanH]
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]
14:26:29 [Zhe]
14:26:32 [uli]
+1 manchester
14:26:43 [sandro]
RESOLVED: We'll handle the datatypes named in 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]
14:28:17 [Achille]
topic: N-ary datatype
14:28:30 [Achille]
ianh: a proposal is on the wiki
14:28:55 [bparsia]
14:29:00 [bparsia]
14:29:03 [Achille]
ianh: there is compromise to make it optional,
14:29:23 [IanH]
14:29:27 [Achille]
... if you decide to support it we specify exactly how it should be implemented
14:29:37 [bparsia]
14:29:55 [Achille]
alanr: there are interop issues here
14:30:07 [bparsia]
14:30:33 [bparsia]
14:30:37 [bparsia]
zakim, unmute me
14:30:37 [Zakim]
bparsia was not muted, bparsia
14:30:55 [IanH]
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]
14:31:08 [alanr]
not clear
14:31:48 [IanH]
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]
14:33:25 [bparsia]
zakim, unmute me
14:33:25 [Zakim]
bparsia should no longer be muted
14:33:54 [IanH]
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]
14:34:29 [Achille]
... it is just another facet of this problem of conformance
14:34:37 [IanH]
ack bparisa
14:34:41 [IanH]
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]
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]
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]
14:38:40 [bparsia]
14:38:45 [Achille]
alanr: I'm concern with predictability
14:38:48 [bparsia]
14:39:13 [bparsia]
I would be happy to have linear inequations in the main spec
14:39:19 [IanH]
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]
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]
14:42:01 [bmotik]
Some people promissed it, but I haven't seen any actual pointers to literature.
14:42:11 [bmotik]
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]
14:42:30 [IanH]
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]
14:43:41 [bparsia]
zakim, mute me
14:43:41 [Zakim]
bparsia should now be muted
14:43:42 [IanH]
14:43:43 [Achille]
bparsia: I want to force a CR period and force implementations
14:43:46 [bparsia]
14:44:15 [IanH]
14:44:19 [Achille]
m_schnei: where should be the boundary?
14:44:31 [Achille]
14:44:53 [IanH]
14:45:04 [bparsia]
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]
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]
14:47:13 [msmith]
14:47:14 [uli]
14:47:18 [baojie]
14:47:29 [Achille]
STROLLPOLL: do we agree about the separe N-ary document outside the main spec doc?
14:47:35 [pha]
14:47:37 [bmotik]
14:47:38 [bparsia]
14:47:40 [pfps]
14:47:41 [Achille]
14:47:42 [ekw]
14:47:42 [Zhe]
14:47:43 [Carsten]
14:47:44 [m_schnei]
+1 (like the idea of n-aries *in principle*)
14:47:45 [alanr]
14:47:52 [uli]
14:48:31 [bparsia]
Is there a preferred wiki location?
14:48:35 [Achille]
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]
14:48:54 [bparsia]
They aren't funcitons
14:48:57 [bparsia]
Data predicates?
14:48:57 [Zakim]
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]
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]
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]
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]
15:17:49 [msmith]
ianh: correct
15:17:58 [bparsia]
15:18:08 [IanH]
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]
15:20:59 [msmith]
... I think the whole issue was about the "additional" stuff (not the RDFS axiomatic triples)
15:21:26 [Zakim]
15:21:49 [IanH]
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]
15:26:37 [IanH]
15:26:52 [msmith]
pfps: is triple from example true or false in OWL-R
15:27:39 [IanH]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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:
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
15:37:09 [msmith]
... 2 issues
15:37:17 [msmith]
... 1: imports in OWL Full
15:37:28 [Zakim]
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]
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]
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]
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]
15:48:45 [msmith]
m_schnei: just look, no particular focus areas
15:50:00 [IanH]
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]
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]
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] in incompatible in a strong sense
15:56:34 [IanH]
15:56:36 [msmith]
sandro: +1 to uli
15:56:39 [alanr]
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]
15:57:39 [IanH]
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 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]
16:00:21 [bmotik]
+1 Oxford
16:00:25 [pfps]
+1 Bell Labs
16:00:29 [alanr]
16:00:35 [Zhe]
16:00:35 [baojie]
16:00:38 [sandro]
+1 W3C
16:00:45 [m_schnei]
+1 (FZI)
16:00:47 [msmith]
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]
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 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]
16:06:46 [IanH]
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]
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]
16:09:43 [msmith]
bmotik: example of confusion in OWL 1 - lack of rqmt that about disjoint entities
16:09:50 [IanH]
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]
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]
16:12:03 [msmith]
vipul: this is using metaclass from UML?
16:12:08 [IanH]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
16:18:22 [msmith]
... simpler things would be captured
16:18:26 [IanH]
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]
16:19:29 [msmith]
ianh: not really different than current diagrams, just with an XML representation
16:19:46 [IanH]
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]
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]
16:21:55 [IanH]
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]
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]
16:22:59 [msmith]
... its a possibility
16:23:15 [msmith]
pfps: can you produce relaxng instead?
16:23:21 [IanH]
16:23:25 [msmith]
pha: I'll look
16:24:13 [IanH]
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]
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]
16:26:46 [IanH]
16:27:08 [bparsia]
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]
16:27:36 [IanH]
ack bparsia
16:27:44 [Zakim]
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]
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]
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]
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]
16:30:19 [msmith]
alanr: diagrams are noise, I look at documents and frammar
16:30:24 [IanH]
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]
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]
16:32:48 [msmith]
... this is separate from MOF metamodel to the extent that it competes for limited resources
16:33:03 [IanH]
16:33:19 [msmith]
bmotik: diagrams are in spec now (as normative)
16:33:47 [msmith]
... diagrams specify normative structure
16:33:56 [IanH]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
16:41:15 [bparsia]
16:41:18 [msmith]
... and if necessary, the structural syntax would be subordinate
16:41:27 [IanH]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
16:48:18 [msmith]
pfps: what work
16:48:31 [IanH]
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]
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]
16:51:36 [IanH]
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]
16:53:04 [ekw]
Process check: what is the new agenda?
16:53:12 [IanH]
16:53:52 [IanH]
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]
16:59:21 [ekw]
we will re-convene in an hour, 1st topic will be Quickstart
16:59:43 [Zakim]
17:01:26 [Zakim]
17:09:53 [Zakim]
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]
17:58:54 [Zakim]
18:00:10 [Zakim]
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]
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]
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
18:09:29 [pha]
... will need to point/link to the other documents, need tags in those
18:09:53 [alanr]
18:10:33 [bparsia]
18:11:05 [dlm]
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:
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]
18:14:21 [pha]
elisa: a lot of work, this approach is easier to start
18:14:28 [alanr]
18:14:30 [IanH]
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]
18:15:52 [alanr]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
18:31:41 [ekw]
18:31:55 [Zakim]
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]
18:36:18 [pha]
vipul: there does not need to be a choice
18:36:18 [bparsia]
18:36:22 [Zakim]
18:36:50 [pha]
... goal is to provide a motivation
18:37:06 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.608.aabb
18:37:12 [baojie]
18:37:22 [IanH]
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]
18:39:30 [alanr]
18:39:41 [pha]
... not sure how helpful it is to have all these details
18:39:43 [vipul]
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]
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]
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]
18:41:43 [cgolbrei]
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]
18:42:59 [alanr]
A description of the goals and requirements that have motivated the design of OWL 1.1.
18:43:00 [bparsia]
18:43:01 [bparsia]
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]
18:43:09 [alanr]
18:43:27 [alanr]
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]
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]
18:48:44 [IanH]
18:49:10 [alanr]
not sure I see overlap
18:49:16 [alanr]
mostly because primer is tight
18:49:16 [cgolbrei]
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]
18:52:27 [msmith]
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]
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]
18:54:58 [pha]
cgoldbrei: cannot make it 5 pager
18:55:37 [bparsia]
Section 5 would be ok
18:55:41 [bparsia]
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]
18:57:27 [pha]
alan: some use cases not specific enough
18:57:36 [alanr]
18:57:39 [alanr]
ack vipul
18:58:09 [pha]
vipul: useful to have use cases across domains
18:58:15 [cgolbrei]
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]
19:00:26 [pha]
bijan: give some understanding of the kind of motivations for features, not so specific to domains
19:00:35 [IanH]
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]
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]
19:03:00 [alanr]
19:03:02 [bparsia]
I'm already a bit late (
19:03:07 [Zakim]
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]
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]
19:23:48 [IanH]
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]
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]
19:43:32 [pha]
pha: in the original ontology you only have atomic annotations
19:43:57 [pfps]
19:44:14 [pha]
boris: our proposal does not touch the syntax
20:05:38 [ekw]
ekw has joined #owl
20:08:51 [sandro]
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]
20:19:20 [IanH]
+ Profiles (First Public Working Draft published 11 April 2008)
20:19:20 [IanH]
20:19:21 [IanH]
+ Primer (First Public Working Draft published 11 April 2008)
20:19:22 [IanH]
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]
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]
20:19:38 [IanH]
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]
20:20:53 [baojie]
whether to publish a new version of the structure spec
20:21:18 [baojie]
20:21:23 [IanH]
20:21:48 [baojie]
... or the mapping document
20:22:10 [baojie]
20:22:31 [baojie]
may publish in a few weeks a new working draft
20:22:44 [IanH]
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]
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]
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]
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]
20:44:56 [baojie]
Ian: OWL Full Semantics
20:45:11 [baojie]
... on Zhen, Peter, Mschnei to review
20:45:28 [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]
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]
21:07:03 [baojie]
Ian: should avoid vague issue
21:08:03 [sandro]
list of open issues:
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
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]
21:17:44 [baojie]
... AlanR: imports are important
21:18:31 [baojie]
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]
21:20:22 [baojie]
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]
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]
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
21:32:33 [msmith]
For examples, see
21:32:36 [msmith]
21:33:22 [sandro]
21:34:22 [sandro]
See also
21:34:32 [baojie]
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 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:
21:37:23 [baojie]
Ian: is it realist to ask fore review?
21:37:30 [baojie]
Msmith: no
21:37:38 [baojie]
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]
21:41:04 [baojie]
zhe: who used Machester syntax
21:41:15 [baojie]
Alan: proetge, TComposer
21:41:22 [alanr]
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]
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]
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 (OWL 2 DL, OWL 2 EL, OWL 2 QL, OWL 2 RL, OWL 2 XL)
21:59:09 [pfps]
21:59:23 [sandro]
21:59:26 [alanr]
21:59:28 [Zhe]
21:59:32 [IanH]
21:59:33 [sandro]
achille +1
21:59:34 [baojie]
21:59:36 [m_schnei]
22:00:29 [sandro]
Ian: agreement here. put on agenda for next week.
22:00:55 [sandro]
22:01:20 [m_schnei]
22:04:50 [Zakim]
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