16:52:21 RRSAgent has joined #owl 16:52:21 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/08/06-owl-irc 16:52:42 IanH has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.08.06/Agenda 16:52:55 Zakim, this will be owlwg 16:52:55 ok, IanH; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 8 minutes 16:53:23 RRSAgent, make records public 16:55:18 bcuencagrau has joined #owl 16:56:07 ratnesh has joined #owl 16:56:26 SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started 16:56:33 +Peter_Patel-Schneider 16:56:45 +??P13 16:57:11 Zakim, ??P13 is me 16:57:11 +bcuencagrau; got it 16:57:46 MarkusK has joined #owl 16:58:37 ScribeNick: bcuencagrau 16:58:47 Zakim, mute me 16:58:47 bcuencagrau should now be muted 16:59:29 +??P20 16:59:38 Zakim, ??P20 is me 16:59:46 +ratnesh; got it 16:59:50 +Ian_Horrocks 17:00:13 +??P0 17:01:13 msmith has joined #owl 17:01:16 Achille has joined #owl 17:01:28 I should have said not too many important people here yet ;-) 17:01:44 + +1.202.408.aaaa 17:02:00 +[IBM] 17:02:25 Zakim, ibm is Achille 17:02:25 +Achille; got it 17:02:26 zakim [IBM] is Achille 17:02:35 +??P4 17:02:39 zakim, +??P4 is me 17:02:39 sorry, Rinke, I do not recognize a party named '+??P4' 17:02:54 Zakim, ??P4 is me 17:02:54 +Rinke; got it 17:02:57 zakim, mute me 17:02:57 Rinke should now be muted 17:03:02 Zhe has joined #owl 17:03:15 Ianh: start with administration issues 17:03:30 looks fine to me 17:03:30 + +1.603.897.aabb 17:03:37 IanH: Approval of minutes from last week 17:03:40 look fine to me as well 17:03:42 zakim, +1.603.897.aabb is me 17:03:42 +Zhe; got it 17:03:51 zakim, unmute me 17:03:51 Zhe was not muted, Zhe 17:03:51 IanH: minutes from last week approved 17:03:56 look OK 17:03:58 they look ok 17:04:01 IanH: What about F2F minutes? 17:04:04 +1 for the f2f 17:04:06 zakim, mute me 17:04:06 Zhe should now be muted 17:04:11 IanH: Minutes approved 17:04:20 + +1.518.276.aacc 17:04:24 JeffP has joined #owl 17:04:34 IanH: Action items 17:04:46 IanH: First action is due to Boris 17:04:52 IanH: Boris is not here 17:05:08 IanH: Pass over this one 17:05:18 zakim, who is here? 17:05:18 On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), ratnesh, Ian_Horrocks, MarkusK, msmith, Achille, Rinke (muted), Zhe (muted), +1.518.276.aacc 17:05:21 On IRC I see JeffP, Zhe, Achille, msmith, MarkusK, ratnesh, bcuencagrau, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, baojie, pfps, Rinke, sandro, trackbot 17:05:35 IanH: Sandro is on vacation, so we pass over the second issue 17:05:37 Sandro did his action 17:05:40 +qreul 17:05:44 Boris says "2008-07-29 15:35:08: This action seems moot to me given the discussion about annotations that we had at the 3F2F. [Boris Motik]" in the notes of Action-171 17:05:48 IanH: Jie completed his action 17:05:49 zakim, qreul is me 17:05:49 +JeffP; got it 17:05:59 IanH: Sandro also did his action 17:06:33 m_schnei has joined #owl 17:06:34 pfps: issues with datatypes 17:06:43 requirement *with* timezone 17:06:57 pfps: in particular how day and time should work 17:07:03 +??P15 17:07:15 zakim, ??P15 is me 17:07:15 +m_schnei; got it 17:07:20 pfps: XML Schema datatypes have a strange notion of identity 17:07:20 zakim, mute me 17:07:20 m_schnei should now be muted 17:07:24 ewallace has joined #owl 17:07:43 IanH: I do not see the problem. We are just saying that we are not considering time without time zones 17:07:51 IanH: applications could still do otherwise 17:08:12 pfps: I guess this would solve the problem 17:08:15 +Evan_Wallace 17:08:37 IanH: We should still comment that XML Schema allowing for time without time zone is strange 17:09:09 the problem is really that a missing timezone is a *value* not something missing 17:09:20 IanH: suggest that peter sends his comments on behalf of the working group 17:09:40 IanH: we should decide that next week 17:09:50 IanH: due and overdue actions 17:09:53 zakim, who is here? 17:09:53 On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), ratnesh, Ian_Horrocks, MarkusK, msmith, Achille, Rinke (muted), Zhe (muted), +1.518.276.aacc, JeffP, m_schnei 17:09:56 ... (muted), Evan_Wallace 17:09:57 q? 17:09:57 IanH: First one from Diego 17:09:58 On IRC I see ewallace, m_schnei, JeffP, Zhe, Achille, msmith, MarkusK, ratnesh, bcuencagrau, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, baojie, pfps, Rinke, sandro, trackbot 17:10:35 zakim, aacc is baojie 17:10:35 +baojie; got it 17:10:50 IanH: Diego is not here 17:10:58 IanH: Jie also had an action 17:11:13 baoJie: this is in progress 17:11:20 baoJie: maybe next week 17:11:43 IanH: let's push it forward two weeks 17:12:02 IanH: Bijan had another issue, but he is not on the call 17:12:17 IanH: Alan's action is done 17:12:28 IanH: Action 168, Bijan is not on the call 17:12:37 zakim, unmute me 17:12:37 m_schnei should no longer be muted 17:12:55 IanH: Next two ones are also assigned to people who are not in the call 17:13:08 IanH: next is due to michael schneider 17:13:28 IanH: this action will be pushed for a week 17:13:29 zakim, mute me 17:13:29 m_schnei should now be muted 17:13:41 IanH: done with admin stuff 17:13:41 is alan's action done? where is the email exchange? 17:14:00 q? 17:14:00 IanH: We should summarize the discussions from the F2F 17:14:06 yes 17:14:28 IanH: Alan is on holiday, but he did contact Deb and got a response 17:14:29 if we haven't seen the exchange, then the action isn't done 17:15:13 IanH: Summary of the outcomes from the F2F 17:15:48 IanH: First thing. Datatypes 17:16:07 IanH: we agreed on resolving on going with the email that Boris sent 17:16:29 IanH: we decided to have float and double as having discreat points 17:16:42 IanH: It turns out it is not difficult to implement 17:16:56 ianH: We postponed the issue with rationals and n-ary 17:17:13 IanH: we discussed about day and time and agree to align with XML Schema 17:17:20 q? 17:17:25 IanH: anyone disagreeing? 17:17:31 +1 for ianh summary 17:17:40 +1 to summary 17:17:41 +1 happy 17:17:43 +1 17:17:45 +1 17:17:52 IanH: people are happy 17:18:15 IanH: Second, structural equivalence of literals based on syntactic form 17:18:41 IanH: We do not consider if they are semantically equivalent 17:18:59 ianH: then, annotations. This is postponed pending on details about rich annotations 17:19:09 IanH: Still a lot to say about that 17:19:36 IanH: profiles. We got the proposal to resolve 17:19:49 ianH: Unification of OWL R flavour 17:19:57 IanH: no unanimous approval 17:20:23 IanH: OWL Full 17:20:55 IanH: we can signal OWL Full sometimes without having an explicit annotation 17:20:59 q? 17:21:04 I think it's really hacky 17:21:11 IanH: Example 17:21:30 IanH: agreed that it is Hacky but it avoids some problem 17:21:31 ... but it's a *neat* hack (at least so far as RDF goes) 17:21:31 owl:intendedProfile 17:21:34 q+ 17:21:38 zakim, unmute me 17:21:38 Rinke should no longer be muted 17:21:41 zakim, unmute me 17:21:41 m_schnei should no longer be muted 17:21:49 zakim, mute me 17:21:49 Rinke should now be muted 17:21:50 q? 17:22:02 ack m_schnei 17:22:04 Michael, i cannot hear you 17:22:14 Zakim, unmute me 17:22:14 bcuencagrau should no longer be muted 17:22:47 no better 17:22:54 Zakim, mute me 17:22:54 bcuencagrau should now be muted 17:23:51 m_schnei: I do not think that the olution has a practical value 17:23:56 +1 to m_schnei. if an ontology is otherwise syntactically DL its difficult to understand why someone would express a full intent 17:24:02 q? 17:24:07 q+ 17:24:08 m_schnei: people writing an OWL Full ontology would never write such a triple 17:24:21 q? 17:24:28 IanH: we should put this a s a suggestion, rather than as a requirement 17:24:32 zakim, mute me 17:24:32 m_schnei should now be muted 17:24:51 It doesn't hurt to suggest it, if people care. 17:24:51 pfps: people will hardly ever do it 17:25:17 alternative would be, DL authors write NegativePropertyAssertion(sameAs sameAs sameAs) ;-) 17:25:22 IanH: we can resolve the issue by putting this as a suggestion 17:25:33 IanH: everyone happy? 17:25:34 +1 17:25:35 +1 17:25:35 +1 to Ians suggestions 17:25:37 +1 17:25:47 +1 17:25:47 +1 17:25:53 +1 to suggestion 17:25:56 0 17:26:14 Strawpoll: Resolve issue by suggesting this triple be added by any users who want to *insist* on being an OWL Full ontology 17:26:16 +1 to strawpoll 17:26:19 (but we could even opt to say nothing about it at all) 17:26:21 +1 17:26:22 +1 17:26:23 +1, noting that this might be used in the test suite as well 17:26:24 +1 17:26:25 +1 17:26:28 + 17:26:28 +1 17:27:04 and NegativePropertyAssertion(sameAs sameAs sameAs) isn't really syntactically DL :) 17:27:11 IanH: now we can respond to Sandro, who raised the issue 17:27:23 +1 17:28:00 IanH: I will come up with a proposal to resolve thi issue 17:28:10 IanH: this is all about profiles 17:28:19 IanH: We also discussed n-ary 17:28:37 IanH: Bijan should provide a more flashed-out specification 17:28:51 ianH: Then, we should decide what part of it should go in the spec 17:29:03 q? 17:29:08 q- 17:29:26 +1 for the summary 17:29:53 IanH: OWL Full. Michael has come up with a draft of the OWL Full semantics 17:30:06 IanH: the doc will be reviewed by the end of August 17:30:14 q? 17:30:17 Full editor's draft (work in progress) 17:30:43 IanH: There was a MOF metamodel presented at the F2F 17:31:08 IanH: it is basically similar to what we have in the syntax document, but using the formal MOF syntax 17:31:31 IanH: The main advantage is that it is good to have it in MOF syntax and use MOF tools# 17:31:46 IanH: Lots of emails about thia 17:32:08 IanH: some people are confused about the relation between this syntax and other syntaxes 17:32:12 q? 17:32:22 IanH: we can probably briefly discuss this 17:32:31 and conrad bock of NIST 17:33:08 IanH: Michael, are you happy about this issue? 17:33:12 Michael? 17:33:23 IanH: seems that Michael is gone 17:33:57 Ewallace: i did not work on the metamodel, but I helped raising the issue 17:34:09 ewallace: I thought Conrad would come today 17:34:15 Zhe1 has joined #owl 17:34:25 IanH: User-faced docs 17:34:41 IanH: not much to say about them because they are at an early stage 17:34:57 ian, at F2F3 we have settled to say "mike" for msmith, and "michael" for m_schnei :) 17:35:22 q? 17:35:29 IanH: They are going to come back with a doc by early september 17:35:40 IanH: the requirements doc is in better shape 17:35:51 Most of the work on the req's doc is to slim it down. 17:36:01 IanH: quite long, the authors are trying to make it shorter and compact 17:36:12 IanH: anything to add? 17:36:28 :-) 17:36:31 IanH: Test cases 17:36:34 In agreement 17:36:50 IanH: Some progress has benn made 17:36:56 right, the wiki will be ready soon, W3C says 17:37:04 ianH: in a couple of weeks there should be more test cases into the wiki 17:37:17 q? 17:37:18 Encourage anyone that wants to create a test case to look at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/GuideToTestTemplate 17:37:22 IanH: we should include tests for the profiles 17:37:28 IanH: any comments? 17:37:46 msmith: people can already create test cases 17:38:20 IanH: Manchester syntax? 17:38:41 ianH: we agreed for it not to be rec. track, but possibly as a note 17:38:52 IanH: Alan raised some concerns 17:38:58 the document is at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/ManchesterSyntax 17:39:39 IanH: Last thing: publication schedule 17:39:49 IanH: we are currently behind schedule 17:40:06 IanH: We should really move on and finalize some of the docs 17:40:19 IanH: We should be getting them towards Last Call 17:40:29 IanH: This should happen by the next F2F 17:40:47 IanH: now the documents should be reviewed 17:41:30 IanH: We agreed that the core docs have changed quite a lot 17:41:37 q+ 17:41:42 zakim, unmute me 17:41:42 m_schnei should no longer be muted 17:41:43 ianH: We could probably publish them again by September 17:41:45 q? 17:41:47 I thought that we had agreed to publish the whole core. 17:41:51 ack m_schnei 17:42:04 Zakim, unmute me 17:42:04 bcuencagrau should no longer be muted 17:42:04 ... precisely because of Michael's argument. 17:42:16 Zakim, mute me 17:42:16 bcuencagrau should now be muted 17:42:51 m_schnei: there was an argument to publish them all together because they depend on each other 17:42:59 q? 17:43:06 m_schnei: they should be ready simultaneously 17:43:15 zakim, mute me 17:43:15 m_schnei should now be muted 17:43:44 q+ 17:43:49 IanH: So, we decided to publish the new versions of the Working Drafts in September 17:44:00 ianH: We are now looking for reviewers 17:44:05 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Reviewing 17:44:19 m_schnei: the documents should be published simultanuously, since they are dependent on each other. 17:44:59 m_schnei: if you change e.g. the functional syntax, then the RDF mapping, the DL semantics, the XML syntax, and perhaps the primer has to be changed too 17:45:03 IanH: The RDF-based semantics is the only doc. for which we have 3 reviewers 17:45:14 I guess I could review the XML Serialization 17:45:16 IanH: the other docs need reviewing 17:45:27 yup 17:45:31 I could review the profile doc 17:45:31 I will have a look at the Semantics 17:45:44 Profile and serialization 17:45:54 yes, model theoretic 17:46:09 XML serialization 17:46:19 Achille: I will review XML Serialization 17:46:33 IanH: We need someone else to review the Syntax 17:46:53 It's a big document 17:47:09 IanH: We could split the doc 17:47:18 IanH: I will send another email around 17:47:42 IanH; This is all about F2F 17:47:46 IanH: now, the issues 17:47:54 q? 17:48:02 IanH: Issue 108, we have a proposal to resolve 17:48:35 msmith: We would like to get the profiles doc published but there are some issues to address 17:48:47 msmith: one of them being the unification of OWL R 17:49:32 ok. then I agree 17:49:36 IanH: I have pointed out the ideal situation 17:49:57 IanH: We should resolve the critical issues in the following couple of weeks 17:50:08 IanH: one of them is the issue of profiles names 17:50:43 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profile_Names 17:50:45 IanH: It seems that the least controversial way is to use a simple two letter naming scheme 17:50:53 And Ian's email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0453.html 17:51:45 The proposal is on the table, second row 17:51:57 Why not OWL 2 FL? 17:52:32 q+ 17:52:35 IanH: Jim Hendler complained about changing the name of OWL Full 17:52:35 1- 17:52:37 q- 17:52:38 zakim, unmute me 17:52:38 m_schnei should no longer be muted 17:52:41 q? 17:52:55 ack m_schnei 17:53:05 zakim, mute me 17:53:05 m_schnei should now be muted 17:53:05 m_schnei: this means that we only need to name the profiles 17:53:05 m_schnei: this means that we only need to name the profiles 17:53:25 IanH: We should just use the three middle columns 17:53:48 m_schnei: we don't have to talk about OWL Full, since the issue is only about names for the *profiles* 17:54:43 PROPOSAL: Resolve Issue-108 by using profile names from row 3 or table at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profile_Names; OWL DL and OWL Full are unchanged. 17:54:53 +1 17:54:54 +1 17:54:54 +1 17:54:54 +1 17:54:55 +1 17:54:56 +1 17:54:56 +1 17:54:58 +1 17:54:59 +1 to finally resolve this xxxxxx issue as EL/QL/RL 17:55:07 +1 (notes revision of wiki page is 2008-07-29T20:17:27) 17:55:37 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profile_Names 17:55:49 +1 17:55:50 sorry: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Profile_Names&oldid=10193 17:56:08 RESOLVED: Resolve Issue-108 by using profile names from row 3 or table at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profile_Names (to wit, OWL EL, OWL QL, OWL RL); OWL DL and OWL Full are unchanged. 17:56:16 +1 17:56:19 +1 17:56:34 IanH: issue resolved 17:56:49 q+ 17:56:52 IanH: I skip over 133. Diego is not here 17:56:54 q? 17:57:14 msmith: We may keep on postponing this issue 17:57:28 +1 to msmith 17:57:32 IanH: Next week we will resolve it with or without Diego 17:57:45 IanH: Italians do not work in August 17:57:58 one is better than two 17:57:59 q+ 17:58:03 zakim, unmute me 17:58:03 m_schnei should no longer be muted 17:58:12 q- 17:58:14 ack m_schnei 17:58:18 zakim, mute me 17:58:18 m_schnei should now be muted 17:58:36 q+ 17:58:42 q? 17:58:42 IanH: The next issue has Ivan as a protagonist and he is not here 17:58:46 ack pfps 17:59:13 pfps: This issue should be resolved ASAP 17:59:29 is anything else depending on this name? 17:59:32 IanH: This issue is mostly a matter of taste 17:59:45 Issue 130: new one 17:59:53 except, probably, the GRDDL issue 18:00:16 IanH: what and where are we going to say about conformance warnings? 18:00:23 pointer? 18:00:52 http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#conformance 18:00:59 http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#conformance 18:01:07 q? 18:01:33 q+ 18:01:35 I need more time to think 18:01:46 q? 18:02:13 pfps: I think what we did in OWL 1 is reasonable 18:02:17 IanH: I agree 18:02:40 q+ 18:02:40 IanH: We take as a starting point the OWL 1 doc 18:02:43 +1 to using the OWL 1 wording as the model for the OWL 2 stuff 18:03:06 pfps: What about the Quick |Reference Doc? 18:03:11 q? 18:03:15 ack pfps 18:03:19 ack msmith 18:03:41 msmith: the doc only talks about syntax checkers and consistency checkers 18:04:11 IanH: Thi is true. Some of the profiles are more targeted towards query answering 18:04:28 IanH: But we could take this text as a starting point 18:04:38 Not really 18:04:54 q? 18:05:05 +q 18:05:14 Could we spread it out? syntax conformance in syntax. semantic conformance in semantics, etc. 18:05:22 IanH: nobody really noticed this 18:05:23 q? 18:05:26 that sounds good actually 18:05:32 q+ 18:05:41 referring to msmith's suggestion 18:05:44 Zakim, unmute me 18:05:44 bcuencagrau should no longer be muted 18:05:51 msmith: "Could we spread it out? syntax conformance in syntax. semantic conformance in semantics, etc." 18:06:07 bcuencagrau: what about the profiles doc? 18:06:10 IanH: maybe 18:06:24 +1 profile 18:06:25 q? 18:06:30 -q 18:06:38 ack bcuencagrau 18:06:40 Zakim, mute me 18:06:40 bcuencagrau should now be muted 18:06:41 q? 18:06:46 ack msmith 18:06:49 msmith: we could split it 18:07:00 +1 to MSmith suggestion 18:07:09 msmith: sntactic conformance in the syntax doc, etc 18:07:20 q? 18:07:32 +1 to split 18:07:36 IanH: Seems reasonable to split it up into docs 18:07:48 IanH: We could move on to 104 18:08:12 q+ 18:08:16 IanH: this has been here for a while 18:08:24 zakim, unmute me 18:08:24 m_schnei should no longer be muted 18:08:28 q? 18:08:30 -Evan_Wallace 18:08:35 q? 18:08:41 ack m_schnei 18:09:04 m_schnei: in the OWL 1 spec there was a list of URIs which was disallowed 18:09:38 q? 18:09:57 mschnei: For example, should we allowed for rdf:List? 18:09:59 q? 18:10:38 m_schnei: The other issue is the use of reification vocabulary 18:10:56 q? 18:11:08 zakim, mute me 18:11:08 m_schnei should now be muted 18:11:32 q? 18:11:35 IanH: I do not see the point for using the reification vocabulary. There could be an argument for the List vocabulary 18:11:37 this is simply a (slight?) backwards compatibility issue 18:12:05 zakim, unmute me 18:12:05 m_schnei should no longer be muted 18:12:15 IanH: It seems that we may be ready to resolve the issue 18:12:40 +1 to break this compatability 18:12:48 zakim, mute me 18:12:48 m_schnei should now be muted 18:13:19 IanH: We propose to close this issue but acknowledging that there is a backwards compatibility issue 18:13:56 zakim, unmute me 18:13:56 m_schnei should no longer be muted 18:15:00 zakim, unmute me 18:15:00 m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei 18:15:10 IanH: possibly resolve by taking no action 18:15:18 STRAWPOLL: Resolve ISSUE-104 by taking no action 18:15:23 +1 to no action and thus break compatability 18:15:28 +1 18:15:29 actually, there *is* disallowed vocabulary in the Functional Spec by listing different namespaces 18:15:30 +! 18:15:32 +1 18:15:34 +1 18:15:35 +1 18:15:37 +1 18:15:37 +1 18:15:44 +1 18:15:45 +1 18:15:46 +1 18:16:38 IanH: We should skip 118 18:16:49 +1 18:17:07 IanH: Issue 129 is related to the previous one 18:17:33 q? 18:17:35 no change means disallow list vocabulary 18:17:44 IanH: if we used List vocabulary in OWL 2 DL, this would be in conflict with our proposal 18:17:55 IanH: in issue 104 18:17:58 m_schnei: disallowing xsd: as a whole is not different from disallowing rdfs: because the Functional spec explicitly allows the annotation properties from RDFS (kind of overwriting disallowing the whole namespace) 18:18:10 q? 18:18:15 IanH: Therefore our proposal for resolving 129 implies a proposal to resolve 104 18:18:17 q+ 18:18:23 q? 18:18:24 zakim, unmute me 18:18:25 m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei 18:18:25 out damned list :-) 18:18:50 zakim, mute me 18:18:50 m_schnei should now be muted 18:19:06 IanH: it is not a very active issue 18:19:08 I believe this issue lost some steam when object/data property punning left 18:19:21 yes, msmith is right 18:19:23 IanH: Strawpoll on this one 18:19:28 there's a thread starting at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008May/0164.html 18:19:30 STRAWPOLL: Resolve ISSUE-129 by taking no action 18:19:59 +1 18:20:06 +1 18:20:09 +1 18:20:13 +1 18:20:13 +1 18:20:14 +1 18:20:20 +1 to letting lists dangle 18:20:20 +1 18:20:23 +1 18:20:29 0 not 100% clear 18:20:31 (rdf lists don't add much) 18:20:34 +1 18:21:27 q+ 18:21:32 +1 18:21:40 q- 18:21:46 q? 18:22:07 IanH: We are done!! 18:22:16 IanH: additional business? 18:22:20 q? 18:22:23 jie, use of the rdf:List vocabulary was already disallowed in OWL 1 DL, so nothing changes here 18:22:32 we *could* knock of rich annotations :-) 18:22:36 IanH: no additional business 18:22:47 bye 18:22:47 thanks. 18:22:48 thanks, bye! 18:22:49 Zakim, unmute me 18:22:49 bcuencagrau should no longer be muted 18:22:51 -msmith 18:22:52 -Achille 18:22:52 -Zhe 18:22:52 bye 18:22:53 -ratnesh 18:22:53 -JeffP 18:22:54 bye 18:22:54 -baojie 18:22:54 -MarkusK 18:22:55 msmith has left #owl 18:22:59 -Rinke 18:23:07 -Peter_Patel-Schneider 18:23:12 -m_schnei 18:23:20 -Ian_Horrocks 18:23:25 -bcuencagrau 18:23:26 SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended 18:23:28 Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau, ratnesh, Ian_Horrocks, MarkusK, +1.202.408.aaaa, msmith, Achille, Rinke, Zhe, +1.518.276.aacc, JeffP, m_schnei, Evan_Wallace, 18:23:30 ... baojie