IRC log of owl on 2008-08-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:00:34 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:00:34 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/08/27-owl-irc
17:00:45 [Zakim]: +Sandro
17:00:47 [bmotik]: rrsagent, make log publis
17:00:52 [bmotik]: rrsagent, make log public
17:00:59 [bmotik]: Zakim, mute me
17:00:59 [Zakim]: bmotik should now be muted
17:01:03 [Zakim]: + +1.603.897.aaaa
17:01:08 [IanH]: zakim, who is here?
17:01:08 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Ian_Horrocks, Ivan, bmotik (muted), m_schnei (muted), Sandro, +1.603.897.aaaa
17:01:10 [Zakim]: On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zhe, MarkusK, ewallace, m_schnei, ivan, uli, IanH, Carsten, Zakim, bmotik, sandro, trackbot
17:01:15 [Zhe]: zakim, +1.603.897.aaaa is me
17:01:15 [Zakim]: +Zhe; got it
17:01:20 [Zhe]: zakim, mute me
17:01:32 [IanH]: zakim, Ian_Horrocks is IanH
17:01:41 [Zakim]: Zhe should now be muted
17:01:49 [Zakim]: +IanH; got it
17:01:51 [IanH]: zakim, who is here?
17:01:53 [Zakim]: +??P2
17:02:05 [Zakim]: On the phone I see IanH, Ivan, bmotik (muted), m_schnei (muted), Sandro, Zhe (muted), ??P2
17:02:07 [JeffP]: JeffP has joined #owl
17:02:09 [Zakim]: +??P4
17:02:15 [Zakim]: On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zhe, MarkusK, ewallace, m_schnei, ivan, uli, IanH, Carsten, Zakim, bmotik, sandro, trackbot
17:02:24 [IanH]: zakim, who is here?
17:02:30 [Zakim]: On the phone I see IanH, Ivan, bmotik (muted), m_schnei (muted), Sandro, Zhe (muted), MarkusK, ??P4
17:02:38 [Zakim]: On IRC I see JeffP, RRSAgent, Zhe, MarkusK, ewallace, m_schnei, ivan, uli, IanH, Carsten, Zakim, bmotik, sandro, trackbot
17:02:45 [Zakim]: +??P11
17:02:56 [uli]: zakim, ??P11 is me
17:02:59 [Zakim]: +uli; got it
17:03:18 [bcuencagrau]: bcuencagrau has joined #owl
17:03:31 [Zakim]: -??P4
17:03:36 [uli]: nooo
17:03:36 [Zhe]: I got kicked out?
17:03:45 [uli]: I got kicked out!
17:03:58 [Zhe]: I am still in
17:04:05 [uli]: oups - we didn't..
17:04:09 [Zakim]: +??P4
17:04:15 [bcuencagrau]: Zakim, ??P4 is me
17:04:15 [Zakim]: +bcuencagrau; got it
17:04:16 [uli]: zakim, mute me
17:04:16 [Zakim]: uli should now be muted
17:04:20 [bcuencagrau]: Zakim, mute me
17:04:20 [Zakim]: bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:04:28 [uli]: no
17:04:30 [IanH]: zakim, who is here?
17:04:30 [Zakim]: On the phone I see IanH, Ivan, bmotik (muted), m_schnei (muted), Sandro, Zhe (muted), MarkusK, uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted)
17:04:33 [Zakim]: On IRC I see bcuencagrau, JeffP, RRSAgent, Zhe, MarkusK, ewallace, m_schnei, ivan, uli, IanH, Carsten, Zakim, bmotik, sandro, trackbot
17:04:33 [uli]: no
17:04:35 [Zhe]: i am in
17:04:41 [Zakim]: +??P13
17:04:46 [baojie]: baojie has joined #owl
17:05:08 [sandro]: sandro has joined #owl
17:05:13 [IanH]: zakim, ??P13 is Peter
17:05:13 [Zakim]: +Peter; got it
17:05:13 [Achille]: Achille has joined #owl
17:05:31 [IanH]: zakim, who is here?
17:05:31 [Zakim]: On the phone I see IanH, Ivan, bmotik (muted), m_schnei (muted), Sandro, Zhe (muted), MarkusK, uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), Peter
17:05:33 [Zakim]: On IRC I see Achille, sandro, baojie, bcuencagrau, JeffP, RRSAgent, Zhe, MarkusK, ewallace, m_schnei, ivan, uli, IanH, Carsten, Zakim, bmotik, trackbot
17:05:39 [Zakim]: + +1.518.276.aabb
17:05:48 [baojie]: Zakim, aabb is baojie
17:05:48 [Zakim]: +baojie; got it
17:06:01 [Zakim]: +JeffP
17:06:08 [uli]: Bijan is
17:06:16 [uli]: will be soon
17:06:18 [bparsia]: bparsia has joined #owl
17:06:26 [uli]: zakim, unmute me
17:06:26 [Zakim]: uli should no longer be muted
17:06:40 [msmith]: msmith has joined #owl
17:06:42 [Zakim]: +[IBM]
17:06:48 [Achille]: Zakim,
17:06:48 [Zakim]: I don't understand '', Achille
17:06:51 [ivan]: scribenick: uli
17:06:53 [Zakim]: +??P21
17:06:58 [Achille]: Zakim, IBM is me
17:06:58 [Zakim]: +Achille; got it
17:07:01 [bparsia]: zakim, ??P21 is me
17:07:01 [Zakim]: +bparsia; got it
17:07:07 [IanH]: zakim, who is here?
17:07:07 [Zakim]: On the phone I see IanH, Ivan, bmotik (muted), m_schnei (muted), Sandro, Zhe (muted), MarkusK, uli, bcuencagrau (muted), Peter, baojie, JeffP, Achille, bparsia
17:07:11 [Zakim]: On IRC I see msmith, bparsia, Achille, sandro, baojie, bcuencagrau, JeffP, RRSAgent, Zhe, MarkusK, ewallace, m_schnei, ivan, uli, IanH, Carsten, Zakim, bmotik, trackbot
17:07:11 [bparsia]: Sorry! was in fugue state
17:07:17 [ivan]: scribenick: bparsia
17:07:21 [msmith]: msmith has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.08.27/Agenda
17:07:28 [bparsia]: zakim, mute me
17:07:28 [Zakim]: bparsia should now be muted
17:07:29 [Zakim]: + +1.202.408.aacc
17:07:35 [ivan]: scribe: Bijan
17:07:39 [IanH]: zakim, who is here?
17:07:39 [Zakim]: On the phone I see IanH, Ivan, bmotik (muted), m_schnei (muted), Sandro, Zhe (muted), MarkusK, uli, bcuencagrau (muted), Peter, baojie, JeffP, Achille, bparsia (muted),
17:07:40 [Carsten]: Zakim UK doesn't let me in :(
17:07:42 [Zakim]: ... +1.202.408.aacc
17:07:43 [Zakim]: On IRC I see msmith, bparsia, Achille, sandro, baojie, bcuencagrau, JeffP, RRSAgent, Zhe, MarkusK, ewallace, m_schnei, ivan, uli, IanH, Carsten, Zakim, bmotik, trackbot
17:08:02 [bmotik]: Carsten, call France
17:08:13 [uli]: +33.4.89.06.34.99
17:08:24 [bparsia]: Topic: Admin -- Roll call and agenda amendments
17:08:31 [bparsia]: No amendments
17:08:43 [bparsia]: Topic: Minutes approval
17:09:08 [IanH]: PROPOSED: accept 13th August minutes
17:09:11 [IanH]: +1
17:09:11 [uli]: +1
17:09:12 [msmith]: +1
17:09:13 [baojie]: +1
17:09:13 [bparsia]: +1
17:09:18 [bcuencagrau]: +1
17:09:23 [Zakim]: +Evan_Wallace
17:09:23 [uli]: zakim, mute me
17:09:24 [Zakim]: uli should now be muted
17:09:26 [IanH]: RESOLVED: accept 13th August minutes
17:09:44 [bparsia]: PROPOSED: accept 20th August minutes
17:10:09 [IanH]: +1
17:10:10 [bparsia]: +1
17:10:11 [uli]: +1
17:10:12 [Carsten]: Zakim UK gives me a busy signal after entering the passcode, and Zakim France says that the key is not valid (both do that repeatedly) sigh.
17:10:14 [sandro]: +1
17:10:31 [bparsia]: RESOLVED: accept 20th August minutes
17:10:40 [bparsia]: Topic: Action Item status
17:10:44 [sandro]: Carsten, can you try to US number, or is that not practical?
17:11:05 [Zakim]: +??P0
17:11:11 [Carsten]: zakim, p0 is me
17:11:11 [Zakim]: sorry, Carsten, I do not recognize a party named 'p0'
17:11:15 [bparsia]: IanH: Long list of pending review action. I've reviewd. Let's accept them.
17:11:17 [Carsten]: zakim, ??p0 is me
17:11:17 [Zakim]: +Carsten; got it
17:11:23 [Carsten]: aaaaahhhh
17:11:25 [bparsia]: IanH: They are done.
17:11:29 [Carsten]: zakim, mute me
17:11:29 [Zakim]: Carsten should now be muted
17:11:38 [bparsia]: zakim, unmute me
17:11:38 [Zakim]: bparsia should no longer be muted
17:12:14 [bparsia]: ACTION 168: postponed for 2 weeks
17:12:14 [trackbot]: Sorry, couldn't find user - 168
17:13:06 [bparsia]: Bijan: actiosn 168, 170, and 174 postpone for 2, 1, and 1 weeks respectively
17:13:32 [bparsia]: JieBao: 150 needs another week
17:13:41 [bmotik]: Shouldn't we close ACTION-150? After all, the discussion with RIF has been initiated.
17:14:24 [bparsia]: IanH: Action 192 is a bit stalled due to Italian hols. Postponed a week.
17:14:35 [m_schnei]: zakim, unmute me
17:14:35 [Zakim]: m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:14:59 [bparsia]: IanH: 181 was delayed to due Michael illness, but seems done now?
17:15:19 [bparsia]: m_schnei: I think I can finish tomorrow. Will send email.
17:15:44 [bparsia]: IanH: Peter said he wouldn't be able to review in a timely manner due to vacation...Peter?
17:16:10 [bparsia]: pfps: I can two it in two weeks from today if its ready by the end of this week
17:16:20 [m_schnei]: zakim, mute me
17:16:20 [Zakim]: m_schnei should now be muted
17:16:59 [bparsia]: IanH: all core documents (except Profiles) are in good shape and I sent notification to the reviewerss
17:17:08 [msmith]: I'm able to meet schedule
17:17:08 [bparsia]: ...Are reviewers able to meet the schedule.
17:17:11 [bparsia]: I'm fine
17:17:11 [uli]: sure
17:17:17 [Achille]: sure
17:17:19 [MarkusK]: sure
17:17:55 [bparsia]: IanH: Reviewing seems in good shape.
17:18:09 [bparsia]: IanH: 202 postponed
17:18:15 [bparsia]: Topic: Issues
17:18:28 [bparsia]: Topic: Proposal to Resolve
17:18:39 [bmotik]: ZAkim, unmute me
17:18:39 [Zakim]: bmotik should no longer be muted
17:18:42 [bparsia]: Topic: Proposal to resolve Issue 118
17:19:07 [bparsia]: bmotik: We align bnodes exactly with RDF and impose syntactic restrictions (i.e., tree like patterns only)
17:19:10 [bmotik]: Zakim, mute me
17:19:10 [Zakim]: bmotik should now be muted
17:19:23 [bparsia]: q+
17:19:31 [IanH]: q?
17:19:35 [IanH]: ack bparsia
17:19:42 [bmotik]: bparsia: I accept it is a workable solution, I don't think it is the best one
17:19:46 [ivan]: bijan: I accept it as a workable, I am not sure it is best solution, let us see what comes from last call
17:20:11 [ivan]: q+
17:20:16 [IanH]: q?
17:20:19 [IanH]: ack ivan
17:21:30 [bparsia]: PROPOSED: resolve Issue 118 (anonymous individual semantics), per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0188.html
17:21:35 [ivan]: +1
17:21:36 [bmotik]: +1
17:21:38 [IanH]: +1
17:21:40 [ewallace]: +1
17:21:41 [bcuencagrau]: +1
17:21:41 [MarkusK]: +1
17:21:42 [Zhe]: +1
17:21:42 [bparsia]: +0.1
17:21:42 [uli]: +1
17:21:46 [baojie]: +1
17:21:50 [msmith]: +1
17:21:50 [Carsten]: +1
17:22:08 [bparsia]: RESOLVED: resolve Issue 118 (anonymous individual semantics), per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0188.html
17:22:25 [bmotik]: ACTION to bmotik: Implement ISSUE-118
17:22:25 [trackbot]: Sorry, couldn't find user - to
17:22:33 [bmotik]: ACTION bmotik: to Implement ISSUE-118
17:22:33 [trackbot]: Sorry, couldn't find user - bmotik
17:22:37 [bmotik]: ACTION bmotik2: to Implement ISSUE-118
17:22:38 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-203 - Implement ISSUE-118 [on Boris Motik - due 2008-09-03].
17:23:06 [bparsia]: Topic: Proposal to resolve Issue 139
17:23:22 [bparsia]: q+
17:23:34 [IanH]: q?
17:24:36 [ivan]: q+
17:24:41 [ivan]: ack bparsia
17:24:43 [sandro]: to get it off the issue list
17:24:45 [uli]: perhaps the benefit would be for the authors to know that they are not working in vain?
17:25:13 [bparsia]: bparsia: Why do a predecision when we won't be publish it as a note until after the core language is done
17:25:20 [sandro]: q+
17:25:29 [ivan]: ack ivan
17:25:43 [bparsia]: ivan: We need to do some wg level publication but it's just a working draft, not saying anything about its terminal status
17:25:45 [IanH]: ack sandro
17:26:10 [bparsia]: sandro: People reviewing a working draft deserve to know whether something is rec track or not
17:27:33 [IanH]: q?
17:29:08 [bparsia]: sandro: I don't care if we say that it *is not* a rec track or it's not clear, but we should be indicate
17:29:10 [IanH]: q?
17:30:11 [bparsia]: [some discussion involving the scribe, but mostly scribe confusion so not critical]
17:30:15 [sandro]: PROPOSED: Authors are encouraged are prepare a WD on Manchester Syntax, which the WG expects to publish. At some point in the future we will figure out if this is REC-track or not.
17:30:23 [bparsia]: +1
17:30:28 [ivan]: +1
17:30:28 [IanH]: +1
17:30:29 [uli]: +1
17:30:31 [baojie]: +1
17:30:31 [sandro]: +1
17:30:33 [msmith]: +1
17:30:33 [MarkusK]: +1
17:30:34 [Zhe]: +1
17:30:39 [uli]: ivan, sure!
17:30:41 [ewallace]: +1
17:30:50 [Carsten]: +1
17:30:50 [bcuencagrau]: +1
17:30:55 [bparsia]: RESOLVED: Authors are encouraged are prepare a WD on Manchester Syntax, which the WG expects to publish. At some point in the future we will figure out if this is REC-track or not.
17:31:13 [sandro]: that closes issue-139
17:31:51 [bparsia]: Topic: Other Issue discussion
17:31:52 [ewallace]: flights can't be reflexive?
17:32:30 [bparsia]: IanH: 130 and 131 deal with the profile document
17:32:42 [Zakim]: -Peter
17:32:43 [bparsia]: Topic: 130 and 131
17:33:15 [IanH]: q?
17:33:17 [bparsia]: IanH: Alan and Sandro and I decided to produce a draft of profile and conformance as a basis of discussion for unification
17:33:31 [IanH]: q?
17:33:41 [IanH]: q?
17:33:41 [bparsia]: I have and I think it's a good move.
17:33:46 [ivan]: q+
17:33:47 [Zhe]: zakim, unmute me
17:33:47 [Zakim]: Zhe should no longer be muted
17:33:49 [Zhe]: q+
17:33:50 [uli]: yes, me too
17:34:03 [m_schnei]: I did not find the time yet to read the new texts
17:34:05 [IanH]: ack ivan
17:34:42 [uli]: ...this is not possible?
17:35:09 [bparsia]: ivan: Checking my understanding --- what happens when you get a graph that doesn't match the syntax but the rules are happy to run with them and michael's example
17:35:32 [bparsia]: ...the conformance are silent on both these cases?
17:36:46 [bparsia]: IanH: no, for Case 1 it certainly does. If you have a graph outside the syntactic subset, if the rule set finds an entailment then it's valid, but if it doesn't, you don't know if it's a non-entailment. If a system generates all the entailments the rule system does then it is conforment
17:36:52 [IanH]: q?
17:37:46 [bparsia]: ivan: Editorial point -- [[which the scribe didn't catch]] Is it possible to give a more precise description of what the rules do.
17:37:58 [bparsia]: ...e.g., document everything the rules do and do not do.
17:38:24 [sandro]: Test Cases!
17:38:28 [bparsia]: IanH: I'm not sure what you want....you mean examples? But I don't see how useful that is.
17:38:32 [uli]: good idea, Sandro
17:38:36 [IanH]: q?
17:38:42 [IanH]: ack Zhe
17:39:29 [bparsia]: Zhe: I read the conformance carefully and update profiles. I think Ian has done a great job. Conformance is defined in such a way so a vendor using the rule set can claim conformance. Yay! And they can add additional rules! Double yay! Ian is my oxfordian hero!
17:39:39 [sandro]: q+ to make minor editorial suggestion re "An OWL 2 RL entailment checker MAY report a warning unless..."
17:39:48 [bparsia]: ...that's everything oracle wants.
17:40:09 [bparsia]: IanH: so you're happy with the unification as described
17:40:22 [IanH]: q?
17:40:28 [bparsia]: Zhe: yes.
17:40:34 [bparsia]: IanH: boris helped a lot too.
17:40:38 [msmith]: +100 to Sandro
17:40:47 [bparsia]: Zhe: Then I deeply admire his Oxfordian grace as well.
17:41:11 [Zhe]: :)
17:41:22 [ivan]: q+
17:41:26 [sandro]: ack sandro
17:41:26 [Zakim]: sandro, you wanted to make minor editorial suggestion re "An OWL 2 RL entailment checker MAY report a warning unless..."
17:41:28 [ivan]: ack sandro
17:41:52 [IanH]: q?
17:42:01 [IanH]: ack ivan
17:42:21 [bparsia]: ivan: I'm very happy with what you guys did. Unification now. Unification tomorrow. Unification FOREVER!
17:42:30 [sandro]: sandro: change to something like "An OWL 2 RL entailment checker MAY warn the user about any of these situations: (1) ... (2) .... (3) .... "
17:42:41 [sandro]: Isn't there some big meeting in Denver about unification?
17:42:43 [m_schnei]: not yet, yes!
17:43:18 [JeffP]: OK
17:43:27 [bparsia]: IanH: If everyone is happy, we can propose a resolution for next time...how do people feel
17:43:30 [bparsia]: I love it!
17:43:35 [bparsia]: Super love it!
17:44:14 [IanH]: q?
17:44:19 [bparsia]: sandro: Has RPI had a chance to look at it? Jie?
17:44:48 [bparsia]: Jie: not sure
17:44:57 [bparsia]: sandro: we're curious about Jim.
17:45:05 [bparsia]: Jie: I'll talk with jim to clarify.
17:45:29 [IanH]: q?
17:45:33 [msmith]: I will look at aligning the test doc to this
17:45:35 [bparsia]: ivan: More editorialness
17:45:44 [bparsia]: ...which document will have the conformance
17:45:55 [bparsia]: IanH: In the test document as with OWL 1.
17:46:24 [bparsia]: ivan: That's not such a great idea. Test document isn't a very public place. Let's make it more public and acceptable. But where, I don't know.
17:46:28 [sandro]: +1 ivan Conformance is kind of misplaced being in Test Cases
17:46:33 [bparsia]: q+
17:46:36 [ewallace]: I used the test document from OWL 1 and I'm not an implementer
17:46:54 [m_schnei]: but the testcases document looks the "least wrong" document to me
17:46:59 [bparsia]: IanH: It's not clear where to put it without splitting nup
17:47:03 [IanH]: q?
17:47:04 [ivan]: q+
17:47:10 [sandro]: Sandro: what about in Profiles?
17:47:14 [IanH]: ack bparsia
17:47:37 [MarkusK]: +1 to bijan's proposal
17:47:38 [sandro]: Bijan: How about calling the document "OWL 2 Conformance" which includes this stuff plus test cases
17:47:42 [ewallace]: +1 to calling test, conformance
17:47:45 [IanH]: q?
17:47:49 [IanH]: ack ivan
17:48:15 [bparsia]: ivan: I like Bijan's proposal. he's great! But I also want to put it in the semantics document?
17:48:23 [bparsia]: IanH: But *which* semantics document
17:48:28 [bparsia]: ivan: You win
17:48:43 [IanH]: q?
17:49:36 [IanH]: q?
17:50:01 [sandro]: Sandro: It might make sense to keep the test cases out of any printable document.
17:50:38 [bparsia]: Topic: 116 Axiomatic triples
17:50:39 [IanH]: q?
17:50:44 [bparsia]: Kill them!
17:50:56 [bparsia]: q+
17:51:03 [Zhe]: q+
17:51:08 [IanH]: q?
17:51:14 [IanH]: ack bparsia
17:51:34 [sandro]: Ian: You don't have to have them to be conformant, but you can add them if you want and still be conformant.
17:51:58 [sandro]: Bijan: So far, people have had to sort through to figure out which rules make sense to have, in practice.
17:52:09 [IanH]: q?
17:52:32 [ivan]: q+
17:52:37 [ivan]: ack Zhe
17:53:14 [bparsia]: Zhe: Now that conformance rocks, I agree with Bijan. We have all the rules, even the dumb ones, in RDFS, but we tell users to turn them off!
17:53:15 [IanH]: q?
17:53:19 [m_schnei]: q+
17:53:36 [IanH]: q?
17:53:39 [bparsia]: IanH: If we include them, then you *have* add them to be conformant!
17:53:43 [ivan]: ack ivan
17:54:07 [m_schnei]: and one for Simple Entailment
17:54:12 [m_schnei]: and one for D entailment
17:54:17 [IanH]: q?
17:54:18 [bparsia]: ivan: The issue (as I've raised it) is imprecise, because we have two RDF rulesets (one for RDF and one for RDFS and one for Simple Entailment)
17:54:59 [bparsia]: ...So I'm inclined to agree with Zhe [and BIJAN!] that these should be optional. Editorially, we should say something about these extra ones e.g., in the Primer.
17:55:21 [m_schnei]: zakim, unmute me
17:55:21 [Zakim]: m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:55:21 [bparsia]: IanH: It'd be better to have opt-in rather than opt-out
17:55:22 [IanH]: q?
17:55:30 [IanH]: ack m_schnei
17:55:56 [bparsia]: q+
17:56:10 [bparsia]: m_schnei: I agree we shouldn't make them part of the spec (for the above reasons) but there may be people who want this.
17:56:13 [ivan]: informational annex?
17:56:19 [bparsia]: ...And we should tell them.
17:56:41 [IanH]: q?
17:56:50 [ivan]: ack bparsia
17:56:59 [m_schnei]: zakim, mute me
17:56:59 [Zakim]: m_schnei should now be muted
17:58:05 [ivan]: q+
17:58:07 [bparsia]: bparsia: I'm against a note, but some discussion is ok
17:58:15 [ivan]: ack ivan
17:58:17 [IanH]: ack ivan
17:58:26 [bparsia]: IanH: but it'd be ok to have a little discussion including implementation costs.
17:58:28 [sandro]: Ian: It would be okay to have a statement like "here are some extra rules you might want, but they have drawbacks", right?
17:58:36 [IanH]: q?
17:58:39 [Zhe]: +1 to ivan
17:58:42 [bparsia]: ivan: Don't even include the rules. Just point them to the RDF sematntics document
17:59:05 [IanH]: q?
17:59:29 [sandro]: +1 to having these extra rules in an appendix or something
17:59:32 [bparsia]: "Please note, the current rule set do not include *all* the rules necessary for RDF, or RDFS enatilment (see RDF semantics). The rules not included generally are not very useful and complicate the implementation unduely."
18:00:15 [m_schnei]: please no suggestions in the technical documents
18:00:46 [IanH]: q?
18:01:41 [bparsia]: ivan: we should wait until the rest of the document finalized first.
18:01:46 [uli]: +1 to Ian
18:01:49 [msmith]: it seems very odd to make a note to ourselves but not put that note in the document
18:02:05 [sandro]: uli, not that when you do that as you did, with "/me" your nice words don't end up in the minutes.
18:02:07 [bparsia]: IanH: isn't this orthogonal to the unification? Shouldn't we proceed.
18:02:10 [sandro]: s/not/Note/
18:02:24 [bmotik]: The Profiles document is not that far away from being finished
18:02:30 [uli]: thanks, Sandro
18:02:45 [bmotik]: We could easily add this remark at the end of the rules section
18:03:07 [bparsia]: I prefer concrete examples
18:03:11 [bmotik]: I can send an e-mail proposing resolution and then we can vote next week
18:03:44 [bmotik]: Zakim, unmute me
18:03:44 [Zakim]: bmotik should no longer be muted
18:04:30 [IanH]: q?
18:04:32 [bmotik]: Zakim, mute me
18:04:32 [Zakim]: bmotik should now be muted
18:04:41 [bparsia]: IanH: We'll make changes to the draft and then discuss and resolve the issues at once.
18:05:15 [bmotik]: ACTION bmotik2: to Insert some text into the Profiles document regarding axiomatic triples
18:05:16 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-204 - Insert some text into the Profiles document regarding axiomatic triples [on Boris Motik - due 2008-09-03].
18:05:32 [IanH]: q?
18:05:34 [bparsia]: Topic: 141 Rouge Literals
18:06:21 [m_schnei]: +1 to generalized RDF graphs
18:06:22 [sandro]: +1 it's okay since these are just instances of t/3 predicate
18:06:22 [IanH]: q?
18:06:25 [ivan]: q+
18:06:25 [bparsia]: IanH: Peter says that it's not a problem since we need a slight generaliation of triples
18:06:33 [bparsia]: ...appears in the rif document
18:06:38 [bparsia]: and the SPARQL document.
18:06:41 [Zhe]: q+
18:06:49 [IanH]: q?
18:06:51 [Carsten]: Have to leave, sorry.
18:06:59 [ivan]: ack ivan
18:07:03 [Zakim]: -Carsten
18:07:04 [bparsia]: ivan: RIF says that they act on generalize graphs/triples
18:07:18 [bparsia]: IanH: Yeah, that's basically what the T predicate does.
18:07:19 [IanH]: ack Zhe
18:07:39 [bparsia]: Zhe: Does this mean that implementors must filter out illegal triples.
18:07:59 [bparsia]: q+ to talk about sparql
18:08:09 [IanH]: q?
18:08:21 [bparsia]: IanH: conformance only talks about ground triples so the rouge ones never get in
18:08:33 [bmotik]: No
18:08:35 [bmotik]: q+
18:08:37 [bparsia]: ...If they return the rouge triples they might be unsound for owl full?
18:08:51 [ivan]: ack bparsia
18:08:51 [Zakim]: bparsia, you wanted to talk about sparql
18:09:38 [ivan]: q+
18:09:51 [sandro]: s/rouge/rogue/
18:10:26 [bmotik]: Zakim, unmute me
18:10:26 [Zakim]: bmotik should no longer be muted
18:10:52 [bparsia]: bparsia: You might have to filter (or might not) to conform with SPARQL...further investigation further.
18:11:27 [bparsia]: bmotik: I don't think you'd *want* to filter them. They aren't unsound, but the question is how to *represent* the consequence in RDF, but they are *definitely* consequences.
18:11:38 [IanH]: q?
18:11:41 [bmotik]: Zakim, mute me
18:11:41 [Zakim]: bmotik should now be muted
18:11:43 [ivan]: ack bmotik
18:11:53 [bparsia]: more from bparsia: The problem is construct vs. select, potentially
18:11:55 [bmotik]: Zakim, mute me
18:11:55 [Zakim]: bmotik should now be muted
18:12:15 [bparsia]: IanH: My conclusion is that this isn't a problem with our spec.
18:12:25 [IanH]: q?
18:12:28 [IanH]: ack ivan
18:12:58 [bparsia]: ivan: To muddy the water: There's another illegal triple: blank node as properties, can those come up?
18:13:45 [bparsia]: IanH: Even that isn't an issue for our spec since we don't say what to return.
18:14:00 [bparsia]: q+
18:14:20 [IanH]: q?
18:14:23 [ivan]: ack bparsia
18:14:56 [m_schnei]: _:p inverse q . x q y --> y _:p x
18:15:35 [IanH]: q?
18:15:40 [bmotik]: Note that our spec doesn't say anything about what triples you should return to answers of queries
18:15:55 [uli]: sounds fine to me
18:16:01 [bparsia]: bparsia: I yield to IanH awesomeness
18:16:19 [IanH]: q?
18:16:36 [bparsia]: IanH: Everyone comfy? ivan?
18:16:41 [bparsia]: ivan: Yes.
18:16:51 [bparsia]: IanH: We'll aim for a resolution in the next week or so.
18:16:58 [bparsia]: Topic: 109 namespaces
18:17:01 [bparsia]: q+
18:17:13 [IanH]: ack bparsia
18:17:49 [sandro]: Bijan: There are local names common to the XML syntax and the RDF serialization. I forget which ones. So there would be qnames where if you concat'd both parts you'd get something else with the same URI.
18:18:12 [IanH]: q?
18:18:14 [ivan]: q+
18:18:18 [IanH]: q?
18:18:19 [ivan]: ack ivan
18:18:22 [IanH]: ack ivan
18:18:34 [bparsia]: ivan: I disagree but I have no new evidence.
18:18:35 [m_schnei]: there was no discussion on this at F2F§
18:18:49 [m_schnei]: s/F2F§/F2F3/
18:19:03 [bparsia]: ...It'd be repeating the mistake of RDF.
18:19:15 [IanH]: q?
18:19:42 [IanH]: q?
18:21:48 [bparsia]: Sandro: I'm with Ivan on borderline objecting
18:21:59 [bparsia]: bparsia: bparsia: I'd probably object
18:22:25 [bparsia]: IanH: Could you (sandro) check with the w3c.
18:22:35 [IanH]: q?
18:23:54 [IanH]: q?
18:24:11 [bparsia]: bparsia: Do actual users matter more?
18:24:27 [bparsia]: sandro: There is a tag finding saying it's ok and I'd have trouble objecting in light of that.
18:24:58 [IanH]: q?
18:24:59 [ivan]: q+
18:25:05 [bparsia]: sandro: And I get Bijan's point that the users of the XML syntax are critical here.
18:25:11 [IanH]: ack ivan
18:25:50 [bparsia]: ivan: I don't fully agree with sandro, but I am extrapolating from the RDF/XML experience when people have had confusion.
18:26:06 [bparsia]: q+
18:26:12 [IanH]: q?
18:26:20 [ivan]: ack bparsia
18:26:24 [m_schnei]: rdf:ID, rdf:about, ...
18:27:10 [sandro]: Bijan: Ivan, in my experience, that's not a prevalent error -- most people understand the situation okay. Is it big in your judgement?
18:27:31 [IanH]: q?
18:27:39 [bparsia]: ivan: I see it as a problem for learning.
18:27:42 [sandro]: ivan: I have seen it a lot. It's a learning problem. They do understand it eventually.
18:28:03 [sandro]: Bijan: So it's ease-of-learning vs ease-of-use.
18:28:25 [m_schnei]: funny is "rdf:resource" and "rdfs:Resource" :-)
18:28:32 [uli]: throw a dice?
18:29:02 [sandro]: http://www.flip-coin.com/
18:29:11 [uli]: can we have Bijan and Ivan discuss during this week and then report back?
18:29:17 [Zakim]: -Evan_Wallace
18:29:21 [JeffP]: thanks, bye
18:29:22 [Zakim]: -msmith
18:29:22 [Zhe]: bye
18:29:23 [Zakim]: -bcuencagrau
18:29:23 [Zakim]: -Ivan
18:29:24 [MarkusK]: bye
18:29:25 [Zakim]: -bmotik
18:29:25 [Zakim]: -Achille
18:29:28 [uli]: bye
18:29:29 [Zakim]: -JeffP
18:29:30 [Zakim]: -Zhe
18:29:32 [bparsia]: How about uli and sandro :)_
18:29:32 [Zakim]: -MarkusK
18:29:36 [sandro]: :-)
18:29:39 [Zakim]: -uli
18:29:43 [Zakim]: -Sandro
18:29:44 [Zakim]: -m_schnei
18:29:45 [Zakim]: -bparsia
18:29:46 [Zakim]: -IanH
18:29:47 [sandro]: flip-coin.com said "same ns".
18:29:56 [bparsia]: YAY!
18:30:14 [sandro]: (but I should still check with some of my co-workers. :-( )
18:30:18 [bmotik]: bmotik has left #owl
18:30:32 [msmith]: msmith has left #owl
18:32:56 [sandro]: bparsia, do you want to use "http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#">http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" as the XML namespace, or "http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl" ?
18:40:02 [uli]: uli has left #owl
18:50:09 [bparsia]: The former I think
18:50:22 [bparsia]: I want to have *one* declaration for owl in my xml file
18:50:47 [bparsia]: Btw, I think there's a radical difference between OWL/XML and RDF/XML that yeild a difference in confusingness
18:50:50 [bparsia]: Consider:
18:51:41 [bparsia]: <rdf:Description rdf:about="#foo"><rdf:type rdf:resource="#bar"/><dc:title>AIEEE</dc:title></rdf:Description>
18:52:01 [bparsia]: The reason this is confusing is that element and attribute names serve two *completely* different purposes
18:52:14 [bparsia]: 1) To identifed elements and attributes in the syntax (e.g., rdf:about)
18:52:29 [bparsia]: 2) To abbreviate uris in the graph (e.g., rdf:type and dc:title)
18:52:44 [bparsia]: THIS is what's confusing and, I would argue, would be confusing if we had rdfx
18:52:54 [bparsia]: In the XML syntax we have none of this problem
18:53:07 [bparsia]: names of classes and properties are NEVER derived from element and attribute names
18:53:15 [bparsia]: THus we don't have the same opportunities for confusion
18:53:21 [bparsia]: Thus I should win :)
19:35:00 [Zakim]: disconnecting the lone participant, baojie, in SW_OWL()1:00PM
19:35:02 [Zakim]: SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
19:35:03 [Zakim]: Attendees were Ivan, bmotik, m_schnei, Sandro, Zhe, IanH, MarkusK, uli, bcuencagrau, Peter, +1.518.276.aabb, baojie, JeffP, Achille, bparsia, +1.202.408.aacc, msmith, Evan_Wallace,
19:35:06 [Zakim]: ... Carsten
20:32:12 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #owl
22:18:52 [alanr]: alanr has joined #owl
22:54:46 [alanr]: alanr has joined #owl
22:55:33 [alanr_]: alanr_ has joined #owl