IRC log of owl on 2008-09-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:45:50 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:45:50 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:46:26 [IanH]
IanH has changed the topic to:
16:46:50 [IanH]
Zakim, this will be owlwg
16:46:50 [Zakim]
ok, IanH; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 14 minutes
16:47:03 [IanH]
RRSAgent, make records public
16:55:24 [uli]
uli has joined #owl
16:56:15 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
16:58:07 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
16:58:12 [Zakim]
16:58:15 [Zakim]
16:58:39 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
16:59:24 [Zakim]
+ +0190827aaaa
16:59:28 [MartinD]
zakim, aaaa is me
16:59:28 [Zakim]
+MartinD; got it
16:59:32 [Zakim]
16:59:35 [MartinD]
zakim, mute me
16:59:35 [Zakim]
MartinD should now be muted
16:59:40 [uli]
zakim, ??P4 is me
16:59:40 [Zakim]
+uli; got it
16:59:44 [uli]
zakim, mute me
16:59:44 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
16:59:55 [uli]
scribenick uli
16:59:56 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl
17:00:04 [bcuencagrau]
bcuencagrau has joined #owl
17:00:36 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #owl
17:00:39 [uli]
scribenick: uli
17:00:44 [Zakim]
17:00:57 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:00:57 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, MartinD (muted), uli (muted), IanH
17:01:00 [Zakim]
On IRC I see JeffP, bcuencagrau, sandro, pfps, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, bmotik, MartinD, ewallace, trackbot
17:01:06 [Zakim]
17:01:10 [uli]
ScribeNick: uli
17:01:15 [ivan]
ivan has joined #owl
17:01:40 [Zakim]
17:01:44 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, ??P13 is me
17:01:44 [Zakim]
+bcuencagrau; got it
17:02:01 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:02:01 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, MartinD (muted), uli (muted), IanH, Sandro, bcuencagrau
17:02:03 [Zakim]
On IRC I see ivan, JeffP, bcuencagrau, sandro, pfps, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, bmotik, MartinD, ewallace, trackbot
17:02:05 [Zakim]
17:02:16 [Zakim]
17:02:16 [JeffP]
zakim, StuartTaylor is me
17:02:17 [Zakim]
+JeffP; got it
17:02:22 [bmotik]
Zakim. ??P15 is me
17:02:26 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??P15 is me
17:02:26 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
17:02:32 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:02:32 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:02:34 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:02:34 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, MartinD (muted), uli (muted), IanH, Sandro, bcuencagrau, JeffP, bmotik (muted)
17:02:36 [Zakim]
On IRC I see ivan, JeffP, bcuencagrau, sandro, pfps, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, bmotik, MartinD, ewallace, trackbot
17:02:59 [ivan]
zakim, code?
17:02:59 [Zakim]
the conference code is 69594 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), ivan
17:02:59 [uli]
17:03:04 [baojie]
baojie has joined #owl
17:03:07 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
17:03:29 [uli]
Topic: Agenda Amendments
17:03:34 [uli]
17:03:44 [Zakim]
17:03:48 [uli]
Topic: Previous minutes
17:03:50 [ivan]
zakim, Danny is ivan
17:03:50 [Zakim]
+ivan; got it
17:03:51 [Zakim]
17:03:54 [pfps]
minutes look fine to me
17:04:18 [uli]
IanH: minutes accepted
17:04:22 [Zakim]
17:04:27 [Zhe]
zakim, mute me
17:04:27 [Zakim]
Zhe should now be muted
17:04:33 [uli]
Topic: Pending actions
17:04:43 [pfps]
17:04:55 [IanH]
17:04:59 [IanH]
ack pfps
17:05:35 [uli]
pfps: action 182 and 183 have emty bodies
17:05:41 [IanH]
17:05:44 [uli]
17:05:58 [uli]
IanH: something should be done
17:05:59 [baojie]
17:06:11 [uli]
pfps: or we say now that they are done
17:06:37 [uli]
IanH: we agree that action 182 and 183 are done, even though their bodies are empty
17:06:48 [IanH]
17:06:58 [IanH]
ack baojie
17:07:09 [uli]
baojie: there is an incomplete version on the wiki
17:07:35 [uli]
IanH: asks for a pointer to this version
17:07:42 [IanH]
17:07:42 [pfps]
17:08:03 [uli]
I will run down the corridor and remind bijan
17:08:32 [baojie]
A incomplete pdf of Quick Reference Guide:
17:08:40 [baojie]
17:08:47 [uli]
17:08:57 [uli]
i think so
17:09:13 [uli]
IanH: action 150
17:09:22 [IanH]
17:09:28 [pfps]
17:09:34 [uli]
baojie: we have come to a conclusion, so it should be done
17:09:52 [baojie]
17:10:02 [uli]
...we changed the ?? specification
17:10:42 [uli]
IanH: can you come forward with a proposal re. internationalized string?
17:10:44 [bmotik]
17:10:50 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:10:50 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
17:10:58 [IanH]
17:11:07 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:11:18 [uli]
bmotik: I think there is a draft with the basics
17:11:24 [baojie]
preliminary spec:
17:11:45 [m_schnei]
m_schnei has joined #owl
17:11:56 [pfps]
what is the status of the wiki page, and what should happen to it?
17:12:01 [uli]
IanH: who take care of looking at this spec and see how we modify ours?
17:12:06 [IanH]
17:12:15 [bmotik]
17:12:17 [uli]
ACTION: bmotik to modify OWL spec accordingly
17:12:17 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - bmotik
17:12:25 [Zakim]
17:12:28 [bmotik]
ACTION: bmotik2 to modify OWL spec accordingly
17:12:28 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-206 - Modify OWL spec accordingly [on Boris Motik - due 2008-09-10].
17:12:36 [m_schnei]
zakim, ??P21 is me
17:12:36 [Zakim]
+m_schnei; got it
17:12:40 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:12:40 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:12:41 [bmotik]
17:12:43 [IanH]
17:12:45 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, mute me
17:12:45 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:12:53 [uli]
pfps: it would be odd if, in our spec, we would point to a wiki page
17:13:16 [uli]
sandro: we could publsih the (content of) wiki as a working draft
17:13:32 [uli]
IanH: as a RIF or as an OWL publication?
17:13:34 [ivan]
can be a joined
17:13:35 [IanH]
17:13:41 [sandro]
sandro: I think it's OKAY as long we're only making the reference from a WD (pre-LC). Maybe we should make it a WD?
17:13:42 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:13:43 [ivan]
17:14:17 [IanH]
17:14:19 [IanH]
ack ivan
17:14:28 [uli]
bmotik: we make the draft a WD and then reference it
17:14:54 [IanH]
17:15:04 [uli]
ivan: I had a look at this and it looks as if its publication shouldn't cause any problems.
17:15:18 [uli]
ivan: we can even have a joint RIF/OWL publication
17:15:44 [bparsia]
bparsia has joined #owl
17:16:04 [uli]
ACTION: sandro to take this publication plan forward
17:16:04 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-207 - Take this publication plan forward [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-09-10].
17:16:21 [uli]
(I chose sandro already - he said 'yes' first)
17:16:26 [uli]
wellcome, ivan
17:16:35 [Zakim]
17:16:46 [bparsia]
zakim, ??p22 is me
17:16:46 [Zakim]
+bparsia; got it
17:16:50 [bparsia]
zakim, mute me
17:16:50 [Zakim]
bparsia should now be muted
17:16:57 [msmith]
17:17:02 [IanH]
17:17:03 [uli]
IanH: action 192 re. UNA and OWL QL has been done as seen in an email
17:17:07 [IanH]
ack msmith
17:17:14 [uli]
msmith: yes, we can close that one
17:17:29 [pfps]
The consensus should result in a discussion / resolution agenda item for next week.
17:17:44 [IanH]
17:17:54 [uli]
IanH: action 202 must wait for next week, as must 172
17:18:09 [uli]
IanH: I will chase Achille re. 172
17:18:13 [bparsia]
I've had no action joy this week
17:18:32 [uli]
IanH: action 168 has been on for some time
17:18:37 [IanH]
17:18:41 [bparsia]
zakim, unmute me
17:18:41 [Zakim]
bparsia should no longer be muted
17:18:59 [uli]
17:19:05 [IanH]
17:19:20 [bparsia]
zakim, mute me
17:19:20 [Zakim]
bparsia should now be muted
17:19:24 [IanH]
17:19:25 [uli]
zakim, unmute me
17:19:25 [Zakim]
uli should no longer be muted
17:19:29 [IanH]
ack uli
17:20:07 [bparsia]
works for me!
17:20:23 [bparsia]
zakim, unmute me
17:20:23 [Zakim]
bparsia should no longer be muted
17:20:27 [IanH]
17:20:38 [uli]
bparsia: have done some testing, am waiting for Robert
17:21:01 [uli]
uli: perhaps we should see whether there is some w3c official route and not bother Robert
17:21:23 [uli]
bparsia: there are some easy problems, e.g., diagrams not alt-ed correctly
17:21:33 [IanH]
17:21:49 [uli]
sandro: doesn't know of official w3c 'route'
17:22:15 [uli]
bparsia: we could do a proper accessibility audit
17:22:32 [uli]
IanH: so action 168 remains on you?
17:22:46 [bparsia]
zakim, mute me
17:22:46 [Zakim]
bparsia should now be muted
17:22:52 [uli]
bparsia: couldn't we move it to a general "to-do" list?
17:22:56 [uli]
IanH: ok, will do
17:22:58 [bparsia]
17:23:01 [IanH]
17:23:14 [bparsia]
works for me
17:23:15 [uli]
IanH: action 170 is mooted by events
17:23:33 [IanH]
17:23:34 [uli]
IanH: action 174?
17:23:37 [bparsia]
zakim, unmute me
17:23:37 [Zakim]
bparsia should no longer be muted
17:23:52 [bparsia]
zakim, mute me
17:23:52 [Zakim]
bparsia should now be muted
17:23:53 [uli]
bparsia: actually yes, bit also might be mooted shortly
17:23:58 [bparsia]
17:24:08 [uli]
IanH: ok, so we move it by 1 week
17:24:17 [uli]
Topic: Reviewing
17:24:26 [uli]
IanH: I saw already some reviews
17:24:32 [m_schnei]
yes, thanks for the reviews so far!
17:24:37 [uli]
...anybody else?
17:24:40 [pfps]
perhaps the review page could be updated as reviews come in?
17:24:47 [uli] are due on september 8, in 5 days
17:24:52 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:24:52 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:24:57 [IanH]
17:25:00 [bmotik]
I just muted me
17:25:04 [uli]
zakim, mute me
17:25:04 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
17:25:08 [bmotik]
17:25:45 [uli]
IanH: a slight problem with the profiles document, other docs should be able to be reviewed by september 8
17:25:58 [pfps]
17:26:11 [IanH]
17:26:16 [uli]
IanH: the SKOS people have their SKOS reference out for last call
17:26:34 [uli]
pfps: I have already produced a review for the SKOS semantics document
17:26:48 [uli]
IanH: and this is different from the reference?
17:26:49 [m_schnei]
only the SKOS ref is in LC
17:26:58 [ivan]
17:27:02 [ivan]
SKOS Reference
17:27:14 [IanH]
17:27:15 [uli]
pfps: forget - I meant powder!
17:27:19 [IanH]
ack pfps
17:27:38 [m_schnei]
17:27:42 [uli]
IanH: so, volunteers to review LC draft for SKOS reference?
17:27:42 [pfps]
17:27:43 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
17:27:43 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:28:15 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:28:15 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:28:18 [uli]
m_schnei: I started to do a personal look-through, but only with OWL full glasses on, and would prefer to keep it that way
17:28:23 [JeffP]
I could try
17:28:23 [ivan]
17:28:25 [ivan]
17:28:26 [uli]
IanH: anybody else?
17:28:40 [IanH]
ack m_schnei
17:28:43 [m_schnei]
17:28:51 [IanH]
ack ivan
17:28:56 [uli]
ivan: the major issue is related to the annotation discussion -- where are we with ours?
17:29:08 [IanH]
17:29:14 [m_schnei]
but does skos refer to owl 2 at all?
17:29:43 [uli]
Ivan: all the rest isn't really complicated, but we should check on issues around annotations
17:30:07 [uli]
IanH: ok, I will send emails around to likely suspects
17:30:15 [uli]
IanH: F2F4
17:30:18 [m_schnei]
true, skos:related and skos:broaderTransitive are intended to be disjoint properties
17:30:30 [uli]
Topic: F2F4
17:30:49 [uli]
IanH: you need to book early if you want to profit from special rate
17:31:17 [m_schnei]
i found a hotel for about 70EUR in the neighbourhood :)
17:31:29 [uli]
sandro: 'special rate' is insane, I suggest to look around in the neighbourhood
17:31:47 [uli]
IanH: or you can look around on the internet?
17:32:11 [uli]
sandro: but then you don't contribute to the meeting room rates
17:32:38 [IanH]
17:32:40 [uli]
IanH: and don't forget to register to TPAC
17:32:49 [sandro]
s/insane/shockling high, esp in US$/
17:33:06 [uli]
sandro, we can remove all the above
17:33:32 [uli]
17:33:33 [bparsia]
Perhaps a link to tpac from the f2f4 page?
17:33:35 [sandro]
17:33:39 [ivan]
there is a link on the wiki page, too
17:34:07 [uli]
Topic: Issues
17:34:54 [uli]
Ian: Issue 131, 141 and 130 seem to be related, a bit more to discuss on 130.
17:34:56 [IanH]
17:35:10 [m_schnei]
17:35:14 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
17:35:14 [Zakim]
m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
17:35:16 [uli]
...but with the drafts we have in the wiki, perhaps we can resolve 131 and 141
17:35:54 [uli]
m_schnei: I am perfectly happy with proposal for 116
17:36:11 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:36:11 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:36:24 [uli]
IanH: any other opinions?
17:36:38 [Zhe]
17:36:42 [IanH]
17:36:44 [m_schnei]
17:36:45 [Zhe]
zakim, unmute me
17:36:45 [Zakim]
Zhe should no longer be muted
17:36:52 [uli]
IanH: I have discussed this earlier with Alan, and he seems ok
17:37:02 [uli]
i can't hear you, Zhe
17:37:29 [IanH]
17:37:36 [IanH]
ack zhe
17:37:37 [Zhe]
I thought we are waiting for RPI's response on unification idea
17:37:48 [uli]
Zhe: I didn't follow this discussion closely
17:38:00 [Zhe]
17:38:37 [bparsia]
+1 to move forward and let people react
17:38:38 [uli]
IanH: I have discussed these with Jim, and seems to be fine and he will review the document anyway.
17:38:39 [JeffP]
17:38:53 [uli]
sorry, Zhe, baojie, I couldn't tell who was talking
17:39:04 [Zhe]
17:39:14 [baojie]
Uli: was me
17:39:59 [sandro]
from my notes "Alan: Close issue-131 by saying we're happy with the current structure of Profiles. There's one semantics for OWL RL, which the OWL Full semantics...."
17:40:22 [uli]
PROPOSED: resolve issue 131 and 116 as per Ian's email
17:40:35 [bmotik]
17:40:40 [bcuencagrau]
17:40:41 [bparsia]
17:40:46 [sandro]
Sandro: we're still haggling about conformance, which is no longer connected here.
17:40:56 [uli]
thanks, sandro
17:41:13 [m_schnei]
+1 (FZI)
17:41:33 [pfps]
+1 (ALU)
17:41:35 [msmith]
17:41:49 [uli]
we could be more precise saying "under 1 in Ian's email"
17:41:57 [sandro]
+1 (with us being clear that CONFORMANCE is not addressed here)
17:42:01 [IanH]
17:42:04 [Zhe]
17:42:06 [uli]
17:42:16 [baojie]
17:42:16 [ivan]
17:42:22 [MartinD]
17:42:28 [uli]
RESOLVED: resolve issue 131 and 116 as per Ian's email
17:42:28 [JeffP]
17:43:09 [uli]
s/and 116/
17:43:21 [IanH]
17:43:24 [uli]
IanH: can we have a similar resolution wrt 116?
17:43:53 [uli]
PROPOSED: resolve issue 116 as per Ian's email
17:44:01 [pfps]
17:44:02 [bmotik]
17:44:09 [sandro]
17:44:11 [sandro]
17:44:29 [JeffP]
17:44:35 [ivan]
this just makes the point that we really really resolved it
17:44:53 [uli]
IanH: rules generating literals in subject position
17:45:06 [IanH]
17:45:10 [IanH]
17:45:12 [uli]
IanH: issue 141
17:45:13 [Zhe]
17:45:24 [IanH]
ack zhe
17:45:28 [uli]
IanH: this is already made clear in the document
17:45:57 [ivan]
not predicate but subject position
17:46:08 [uli]
Zhe: just to make sure: if this "literal in subject position" happens, what do we do?
17:46:42 [uli]
IanH: the rule sets works on a generalization of triples
17:46:46 [IanH]
17:47:09 [uli]
Zhe: what is the best approach to avoid generation of "illegal rfd triples"?
17:47:32 [JeffP]
They are triples but not RDF triples
17:47:39 [uli]
IanH: we already say in the spec that these are "generalized" triples, so this is ok
17:47:53 [uli]
...and you won't see these since you can't ask for them
17:48:03 [ivan]
17:48:05 [uli]
Zhe: I see - so I guess it's fine
17:48:11 [IanH]
17:48:13 [ivan]
17:48:14 [IanH]
ack ivan
17:48:19 [uli]
ivan: editorial
17:48:28 [pfps]
As far as the basic conformance is concerned, there is no way to tell if the system is generating these generalized triples.
17:48:50 [uli]
...the above is a note regarding the same problem which could be added to the document
17:49:08 [m_schnei]
one implication is that you get with generalized triples every entailment which you got before (without)
17:49:12 [IanH]
17:49:44 [uli]
PROPOSED: resolve issue 141 as per Peter's email
17:49:46 [pfps]
+1, surprise :-)
17:49:46 [JeffP]
17:49:48 [bmotik]
17:49:48 [bijan]
17:49:49 [bcuencagrau]
17:49:50 [uli]
17:49:52 [IanH]
17:49:54 [MartinD]
17:49:54 [m_schnei]
+1 (FZI)
17:49:58 [ivan]
17:50:03 [Zhe]
17:50:06 [msmith]
17:50:34 [sandro]
17:50:38 [baojie]
17:51:03 [uli]
RESOLVED: resolve issue 141 as per Peter's email
17:51:22 [IanH]
17:51:33 [IanH]
17:51:35 [uli]
IanH: for issue 130, we have a proposal
17:51:39 [IanH]
17:51:49 [sandro]
17:51:53 [IanH]
17:52:05 [uli]
IanH: so, can we resolve it like this next week?
17:52:06 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:52:06 [Zakim]
bmotik was already muted, bmotik
17:52:52 [uli]
sandro: I still see the issue that Michael raised, and I would like a simple solution to this
17:52:56 [IanH]
17:52:59 [uli]
sandro, which problem is this?
17:53:04 [m_schnei]
17:53:08 [sandro]
ack sandro
17:53:45 [IanH]
ack sandro
17:54:04 [uli]
IanH: perhaps sandro has overlooked the precise meaning of this, i.e., that reasoners cannot flip flop between answers
17:54:28 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
17:54:28 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:54:29 [uli]
sandro: perhaps the problem isn't so bad
17:54:32 [IanH]
17:54:38 [IanH]
ack m_schnei
17:54:47 [uli]
m_schnei: all I wanted with my remark was to explicate this
17:54:51 [sandro]
17:54:54 [uli]
m_schnei, what?
17:55:12 [sandro]
m_schnei: I just wanted it documented
17:55:32 [IanH]
17:55:37 [m_schnei]
m_schnei: I want to clarify that I just want to have this conformance behaviour made explicit, I do *not* deny this
17:55:59 [uli]
IanH: we should say that, all conformant systems should always agree on their answer
17:56:17 [uli]
sandro: what about negative entailments?
17:56:32 [uli] we need another reasoner for this?
17:56:37 [IanH]
17:56:53 [IanH]
17:57:15 [IanH]
17:57:26 [m_schnei]
you cannot always say from "false" that the converse is true, in particular not under OWA
17:57:36 [IanH]
17:57:39 [uli]
sandro: oracle wasn't interested in negative/theorem 1 checks
17:57:50 [sandro]
Sandro: Are people going to implement the theorem-1 check?
17:57:53 [uli]
Zhe: flexibility for user is a good thing
17:58:30 [uli]
Zhe: it will be difficult to tell which rules are bottleneck, so theorem 1 check could be useful
17:58:51 [IanH]
17:58:57 [uli]
Zhe: I don't know yet what exactly we will implement, but we may implement it
17:59:28 [bijan]
17:59:28 [uli]
IanH: for the test, should we strengthen 'may' to 'should'?
17:59:34 [IanH]
17:59:37 [ivan]
17:59:58 [sandro]
ack ivan
18:00:18 [IanH]
18:00:27 [bijan]
I'll call at MUST
18:00:33 [uli]
ivan: I would prefer 'may' since otherwise the implementor load is too high
18:01:04 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:01:04 [Zakim]
sorry, bijan, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
18:01:14 [ivan]
18:01:16 [bparsia]
18:01:17 [uli]
sandro: we shouldn't allow reasoners to say 'false' unless it's really false
18:01:19 [IanH]
18:01:36 [bparsia]
zakim, unmute me
18:01:36 [Zakim]
bparsia should no longer be muted
18:01:39 [m_schnei]
zhe, even if you only implement a /partial/ /forward/ chainer, then you have an implicit entailment checker: just look in the resulting inference graph and only say "yes", if some entailment is in, and say "no" otherwise
18:01:39 [uli] that part 'must' and otherwise, use 'unknown'
18:01:42 [bparsia]
+1 to sandro's must proposal
18:02:03 [sandro]
sandro: How about you MUST do theorem-1 checking before returning FALSE, BUT you can return UNKNOWN if you don't want to do that checking.
18:02:27 [bparsia]
zakim, mute me
18:02:27 [Zakim]
bparsia should now be muted
18:02:38 [uli]
bparsia: I like sandro's suggestion - having this check available will enhance interoperability, and the 'unknown' option is a good compromise
18:02:57 [IanH]
18:03:03 [ivan]
ack bparsia
18:03:12 [IanH]
ack ivan
18:03:16 [uli]
IanH: but if we change to "must", then we must explain what implementors could do who wouldn't want to implement the test
18:03:42 [sandro]
sandro: absolutely -- we need text here which makes sense to people without thinking it all through at this level.
18:03:54 [IanH]
18:03:57 [IanH]
18:04:03 [uli]
ivan: from Zhe's presentation in Manchester, how would the 'must' work with this?
18:04:04 [Zhe]
18:04:35 [uli]
IanH: tricky since we talk about entailments, but we are also interested in queries
18:04:36 [IanH]
18:04:44 [IanH]
ack zhe
18:04:52 [uli] a false is then a 'no, it's really not in the query'
18:04:55 [sandro]
Ian: in real life, people do query answering. so the "false" is kind of like not answering the query.
18:05:22 [uli]
Zhe: I would prefer 'may' since 'should' or 'must' would be a burden
18:05:41 [uli]
IanH: but sandro's proposal also allow you to return 'unknown'
18:06:08 [uli]
...and this gives us more honesty: 'false' really means false!
18:06:14 [IanH]
18:06:15 [bparsia]
18:06:28 [bparsia]
(to answer this)
18:06:32 [bparsia]
zakim, unmute me
18:06:32 [Zakim]
bparsia was not muted, bparsia
18:06:36 [IanH]
18:06:36 [uli]
Zhe: but in a forward chaining system, where could be return such an 'unknown'?
18:06:39 [IanH]
ack bparsia
18:06:48 [sandro]
ack bparsia
18:07:14 [uli]
bparsia: on load time, or in the query
18:07:15 [IanH]
18:07:39 [uli]
sandro: so, user asks query 'q', and didn't get a certain result
18:08:07 [uli]
...does this mean that rules couldn't find this result or that it shouldn't be in answer?
18:08:10 [IanH]
18:08:14 [m_schnei]
18:08:26 [uli]
Zhe: but how would 'unknown' be helpful there?
18:08:27 [IanH]
18:09:07 [sandro]
sandro: on query results, systems should include a flag saying whether complete reasoning was done or not. that's the equivalent of this false/unknown thing in the conformance definition.
18:09:09 [uli]
bparsia: with SPARQL owl, i looked at racerPro and Sher, and there it is important as well to have a mechanism to indicate to the user how complete you are
18:09:24 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:09:24 [Zakim]
m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
18:09:24 [IanH]
18:09:29 [bparsia]
zakim, mute me
18:09:29 [Zakim]
bparsia should now be muted
18:09:34 [IanH]
ack m_schnei
18:09:38 [IanH]
18:10:05 [uli]
m_schnei, I can't understand you
18:10:52 [sandro]
m_schnei: you have to at least implement the full ruleset, and have it not FOL entailed, before you can return FALSE
18:10:55 [uli]
heavy breathing
18:11:14 [sandro]
(I have a response to m_schnei, but .... maybe I'll save it.)
18:11:45 [IanH]
18:11:51 [uli]
IanH: using 'unknown' would be a mechanism to indicate to the user that the results to a query may be partial
18:12:06 [uli]
Zhe: i don't see the additional valie
18:12:10 [uli]
18:12:26 [bparsia]
18:12:31 [IanH]
18:12:33 [uli]
IanH: it prevents implementors from having unsound systems and calling them conformant
18:12:34 [m_schnei]
m_schnei: you are only allowed to say "False", if the entailment does not exist w.r.t. the /complete/ ruleset. so the NULL reasoner is not allowed. An implementer MAY go beyond the whole ruleset, up to the complete full semantics
18:13:03 [bparsia]
zakim, unmute me
18:13:03 [Zakim]
bparsia should no longer be muted
18:13:17 [uli]
sandro: I would like to have a flag that distinguishes complete from incomplete reasoners
18:13:40 [uli]
sandro: but can any OWL RL rule implementation ever be conformant?
18:13:53 [m_schnei]
the /ruleset/ is the lower bound of RL conformance
18:13:58 [IanH]
18:14:08 [uli]
IanH: sure - they are *sound*, we only talk about non-entailments, cases where things are *not* returned
18:14:16 [IanH]
18:14:19 [IanH]
ack bparsia
18:14:25 [uli]
sandro: and then you could use theorem 1 to find complete cases
18:14:31 [m_schnei]
btw, if the ruleset entails something, then you can savely say "True", because then OWL Full would produce the same entailment
18:14:49 [sandro]
ian: Theorem 1 gives you the completeness guarantee -- it says that if the ontology looks like this, complete-rule-reasoning is complete-ontology-reasoning.
18:15:08 [uli]
bparsia: users from bioontology really value complete reasoning, and so we should be able to signal this
18:15:35 [ivan]
18:15:37 [bparsia]
zakim, mute me
18:15:37 [Zakim]
bparsia should now be muted
18:15:39 [IanH]
18:15:41 [uli]
IanH: let's take the discussion on-line, implement the suggested modifications and discuss next week
18:15:57 [sandro]
q+ to ask if query answering should be covered in Conformance
18:16:07 [sandro]
q- ivan
18:16:12 [uli]
ivan: i would still like to see the consequences for an implementation being written down
18:16:27 [IanH]
18:16:32 [IanH]
ack sandro
18:16:32 [Zakim]
sandro, you wanted to ask if query answering should be covered in Conformance
18:16:47 [Zhe]
18:17:01 [uli]
sandro: let's write it down - but where do we write about query answering? In the conformance document?
18:17:04 [IanH]
ack zhe
18:17:21 [bparsia]
I'd be open to flagging it as "depeding on implementor feedback"
18:17:33 [bparsia]
I'd rather have the stronger and weaken, then do the weaker and then strengthen
18:18:02 [uli]
IanH: the tricky bit is the dependency between profiles and conformance
18:18:04 [bparsia]
zakim, unmute me
18:18:04 [Zakim]
bparsia should no longer be muted
18:18:10 [IanH]
18:18:28 [uli]
...we can't review profiles before we fixed conformance
18:18:53 [bparsia]
zakim, mute me
18:18:53 [Zakim]
bparsia should now be muted
18:19:03 [uli]
bparsia: why don't we make conformance really strict (so that poking holes in it is easier) and then review them together
18:19:07 [IanH]
18:19:16 [uli]
sandro: who updates the draft?
18:19:38 [uli]
ACTION: IanH to update the conformance document with 'unkown'
18:19:38 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - IanH
18:20:12 [IanH]
18:20:29 [bparsia]
zakim, unmute me
18:20:29 [Zakim]
bparsia should no longer be muted
18:20:31 [m_schnei]
I already saw the distinct "ox" namespace in the POWDER semantics ;-)
18:21:07 [uli]
Topic: Issue 109
18:21:22 [IanH]
18:21:36 [uli]
bparsia: it would be good to not have to change namespaces
18:22:11 [IanH]
18:22:22 [uli]
sandro: can we have a pointer to this
18:22:26 [bparsia]
zakim, mute me
18:22:26 [Zakim]
bparsia should now be muted
18:22:59 [bmotik]
18:23:01 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:23:01 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:23:03 [uli]
Topic: issue 138
18:23:06 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:23:28 [ivan]
18:23:29 [msmith]
18:23:29 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:23:30 [IanH]
18:23:30 [uli]
bmotik: let's use owl:datetime since the datatype is different from the xsd one
18:23:31 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:23:32 [bparsia]
+1 to boris
18:23:58 [uli]
ivan: [procedural] didn't we want to ask xsd people about that?
18:24:23 [uli]
IanH: didn't sandro want to edit this message from peter?
18:24:36 [pfps]
Sandro sent a message, but didn't ask for any action.
18:24:53 [pfps]
I'm willing to edit the document, I guess.
18:25:07 [pfps]
18:25:16 [IanH]
18:25:19 [uli]
IanH: I observe confusion -- pfps, can you edit the mail and send it?
18:25:25 [uli] make it more punchy?
18:25:27 [ivan]
ack ivan
18:25:39 [uli]
sandro: it should say more clearly what they should do.
18:25:42 [msmith]
18:25:52 [IanH]
18:26:08 [IanH]
18:26:09 [uli]
IanH: would their answer have any influence of what we do about datetime namespace
18:26:13 [IanH]
ack msmith
18:26:49 [uli]
msmith: bmotik convinced me that xsd and owl datetime are really different, so perhaps we don't need to waste time by asking them?
18:26:52 [bparsia]
18:26:52 [IanH]
18:27:01 [bmotik]
It already is owl:dateTime.
18:27:02 [IanH]
18:27:05 [pfps]
18:27:07 [uli]
IanH: so msmith suggest to just go ahead with owl:datetime?
18:27:17 [bmotik]
I used owl:dateTime in anticipation of this discussion. There is an editorial comment about it.
18:27:24 [pfps]
OK by me
18:27:30 [uli]
ivan: we should keep the issue open, but use owl:datetime
18:27:40 [bmotik]
18:27:43 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:27:43 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:27:44 [IanH]
18:27:49 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:27:49 [sandro]
ack bmotik
18:28:04 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:28:04 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:28:21 [pfps]
18:28:23 [uli]
bmotik: we already use owl:datetime, so we can't do anything else on this now
18:28:33 [uli]
IanH; AOB?
18:28:33 [Zhe]
18:28:41 [IanH]
18:28:47 [IanH]
ack Zhe
18:28:54 [uli]
Zhe: i want to open an issue about base triples?
18:29:16 [uli]
IanH: you raised it, and it is now open, and we can discuss this next week
18:29:24 [uli]
IanH: AOB?
18:29:28 [JeffP]
thanks, bye
18:29:32 [Zakim]
18:29:33 [Zhe]
18:29:33 [uli]
meeting is closed, thanks
18:29:33 [Zakim]
18:29:35 [IanH]
18:29:36 [Zakim]
18:29:37 [Zakim]
18:29:37 [Zakim]
18:29:37 [msmith]
msmith has left #owl
18:29:38 [Zakim]
18:29:39 [Zakim]
18:29:40 [Zakim]
18:29:41 [Zakim]
18:29:41 [Zakim]
18:29:41 [sandro]
thanks, Ian. :-)
18:29:43 [Zakim]
18:29:49 [Zakim]
18:29:51 [Zakim]
18:29:57 [MartinD]
MartinD has left #OWL
18:30:04 [uli]
sandro, ivan, can you please invoke the magic command?
18:30:18 [sandro]
Ian is good at it these days.
18:30:32 [uli]
Ian, could you please invoke the magic command?
18:30:55 [uli]
could somebody... please...?
18:31:06 [IanH]
I did it already
18:31:10 [IanH]
at the beginning
18:31:16 [uli]
ah, thanks!
18:31:35 [IanH]
If you look at the scribe conventions page you will see what you have to do next :-)
18:31:59 [IanH]
Let me know if you need help.
18:32:03 [uli]
oups - didn't know it moved there
18:32:31 [IanH]
It tells you how to convert the chat log into minutes using Sandro's new software tool
18:33:20 [IanH]
The magic command that I issues was to make the chat log public
18:34:21 [uli]
Wrong Credential
18:34:21 [uli]
...the irc log says: "Sorry, a password is required"
18:34:37 [uli]
and "Sorry, Insufficient Access Privileges"
18:59:40 [ivan]
ivan has left #owl
18:59:53 [Zakim]
18:59:55 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
18:59:56 [Zakim]
Attendees were msmith, Peter_Patel-Schneider, +0190827aaaa, MartinD, uli, IanH, Sandro, bcuencagrau, JeffP, bmotik, ivan, baojie, Zhe, m_schnei, bparsia
19:00:48 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
19:00:48 [RRSAgent]
19:01:05 [sandro]
Sorry, Uli. Back now. Still stuck?
19:33:44 [IanH]
I sorted it.
19:34:26 [IanH]
And sent Uli an email.
19:50:20 [sandro]
20:31:19 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl
21:00:03 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
21:07:39 [alanr]
alanr has left #owl
21:09:17 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl