16:38:48 RRSAgent has joined #owl 16:38:48 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/17-owl-irc 16:39:06 MartinD has joined #OWL 16:39:23 JeffP has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.09.17/Agenda 16:39:49 Zakim, this will be owlwg 16:39:49 ok, JeffP; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 21 minutes 16:40:12 ScribeNick: JeffP 16:40:21 RRSAgent, make records public 16:46:16 bmotik has joined #owl 16:51:39 alanr has joined #owl 16:54:17 ivan has joined #owl 16:59:36 bcuencagrau has joined #owl 16:59:36 SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started 16:59:44 +MartinD 16:59:45 +Alan_Ruttenberg 16:59:54 zakim, mute me 16:59:54 MartinD should now be muted 16:59:54 MarkusK has joined #owl 17:00:07 zakim, dial ivan-voip 17:00:11 ok, ivan; the call is being made 17:00:13 +Ivan 17:00:15 +??P9 17:00:19 Zakim, ??P9 is me 17:00:19 +bcuencagrau; got it 17:00:19 m_schnei has joined #owl 17:00:35 + +31.20.525.aaaa 17:00:40 Zakim, aaaa is me 17:00:40 +Rinke; got it 17:00:50 uli has joined #owl 17:01:17 +??P1 17:01:38 +??P5 17:01:44 zakim, who is here? 17:01:44 On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Alan_Ruttenberg, bcuencagrau, Ivan, Rinke, MarkusK, ??P5 17:01:46 On IRC I see uli, m_schnei, MarkusK, bcuencagrau, ivan, alanr, bmotik, MartinD, RRSAgent, Zakim, JeffP, Rinke, sandro, trackbot 17:01:50 baojie has joined #owl 17:01:52 zakim, ??P5 is me 17:01:57 + +1.908.612.aabb 17:01:59 +m_schnei; got it 17:02:01 +Quentin 17:02:04 zakim, unmute me 17:02:05 +??P3 17:02:06 bmotik_ has joined #owl 17:02:09 zakim, mute me 17:02:11 Zakim, mute me 17:02:12 zakim, quentin is me 17:02:13 m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei 17:02:17 m_schnei should now be muted 17:02:18 Zakim, ??P5 is me 17:02:21 bcuencagrau should now be muted 17:02:23 +JeffP; got it 17:02:31 I already had ??P5 as m_schnei, bmotik_ 17:02:38 +Sandro 17:02:48 -??P3 17:02:54 msmith has joined #owl 17:02:55 zakim, aabb is pfps 17:02:55 +pfps; got it 17:03:02 +??P3 17:03:03 zakim, who is here? 17:03:03 On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Alan_Ruttenberg, bcuencagrau (muted), Ivan, Rinke, MarkusK, m_schnei (muted), pfps, JeffP, Sandro, ??P3 17:03:05 Zakim, ??P3 is me 17:03:07 On IRC I see msmith, bmotik_, baojie, uli, m_schnei, MarkusK, bcuencagrau, ivan, alanr, bmotik, MartinD, RRSAgent, Zakim, JeffP, Rinke, sandro, trackbot 17:03:09 +bmotik_; got it 17:03:10 Zakim, mute me 17:03:11 bmotik_ should now be muted 17:03:13 +baojie 17:03:17 Zakim, bmotik_ is bmotik 17:03:17 +bmotik; got it 17:03:23 +msmith 17:03:30 zakim, who is talking? 17:03:34 +??P15 17:03:40 Rinke, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Rinke (35%), pfps (20%), baojie (8%) 17:03:42 zakim, ??P15 is me 17:03:42 +uli; got it 17:03:46 zakim, mute me 17:03:46 uli should now be muted 17:04:03 did you hear whistling? 17:04:14 just kidding :) 17:04:20 ;) 17:04:24 zakim, mute me 17:04:24 Rinke should now be muted 17:04:32 zakim, roll call 17:04:32 I don't understand 'roll call', alanr 17:04:36 zakim, who is here? 17:04:36 On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Alan_Ruttenberg, bcuencagrau (muted), Ivan, Rinke (muted), MarkusK, m_schnei (muted), pfps, JeffP, Sandro, bmotik (muted), baojie, msmith, uli 17:04:40 ... (muted) 17:04:41 On IRC I see msmith, bmotik, baojie, uli, m_schnei, MarkusK, bcuencagrau, ivan, alanr, MartinD, RRSAgent, Zakim, JeffP, Rinke, sandro, trackbot 17:04:42 +Zhe 17:04:58 Zhe has joined #owl 17:05:11 zakim, mute me 17:05:11 Zhe should now be muted 17:05:12 bmotik_ has joined #owl 17:05:15 zakim, who is talking? 17:05:23 Topic: Admin 17:05:27 sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Alan_Ruttenberg (44%), pfps (30%), JeffP (20%), Sandro (9%) 17:05:55 could not hear much 17:06:05 yes 17:06:26 they look ok to me 17:06:27 PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (10 September) 17:06:33 zakim, who is talking? 17:06:41 +[IBM] 17:06:43 +1 17:06:44 ivan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Alan_Ruttenberg (70%), pfps (39%), Sandro (4%) 17:06:46 +1 17:06:47 +1 17:06:49 Achille has joined #owl 17:06:53 +1 17:07:04 RESOLVED: Previous Minutes (10 September) accepted 17:07:16 Topic: Action items status 17:07:39 zakim, who is muted? 17:07:39 I see MartinD, bcuencagrau, Rinke, m_schnei, bmotik, uli, Zhe muted 17:07:54 Topic: Due and overdue Actions 17:08:06 (it looks like Peter's muting didn't work.) 17:08:07 Topic: Action 172 Develop list of possible conflicts between XML Schema datatypes and OWL datatypes with valuespace reasoning / Achille Fokoue 17:08:16 Action 172 completed 17:08:16 Sorry, couldn't find user - 172 17:08:42 Action 189 Review RDF Mapping / Alan Ruttenberg completed 17:08:42 Sorry, couldn't find user - 189 17:09:18 Action 202? 17:09:18 Sorry, bad ACTION syntax 17:09:23 Topic: Reviewing 17:09:33 Zakim, IBM is me 17:09:33 +Achille; got it 17:09:44 Maybe I will go 17:09:47 +q 17:09:53 Fourth Face-to-Face (F2F) Meeting 17:10:01 q? 17:10:04 ack Achille 17:10:12 alanr: anyone in the telecon who will come but not signed up yet 17:10:29 Achille: will be able to come 17:10:32 aaah 17:11:05 Topic: Proposal to publish Public Working Drafts (15 minutes) 17:11:12 Achille: I am not sure yet if I will come, I will know for sure by the end of this week. I hope I could make it 17:11:14 too much noise! 17:11:18 zakim, mute pfps 17:11:18 pfps should now be muted 17:12:06 alanr: chairs are considering the editor lists for the drafts 17:12:24 ... will be contacting people during the week 17:13:04 ... now we need to decide whether to publish the drafts now or later? 17:13:33 alan: may be minor editorial changes before publication, editors/contributors will change before pub, title may change.... 17:13:47 sandro: will we decide the title after the re-publish? 17:14:10 q+ 17:14:20 ack JeffP 17:14:59 q= 17:15:02 Q+ 17:15:04 JeffP: do we include Profiles? 17:15:08 alanr: no 17:15:10 ack Ivan 17:15:25 echo... 17:15:28 Ivan: is that a Last Call working draft? 17:15:30 PROPOSED: Publish Syntax, DL Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics, Mapping-to-RDF, and XML-Serialization soon (eg Sept 24) (probably with Profiles), -- subject to minor editorial changes, changes to the editors/contribs/authors information, and the titles. These are ordinary WDs (and FPWD for RDF-Based Semantics). 17:16:02 zakim, who is talking? 17:16:08 too many echos 17:16:09 +1 17:16:13 sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ivan (51%) 17:16:16 +1 17:16:18 can hear, but not understand 17:16:20 zakim, mute ivan 17:16:20 Ivan should now be muted 17:16:33 +1 17:16:34 +1 17:16:35 +1 17:16:36 +1 17:16:36 +1 17:16:37 +1 17:16:38 +1 17:16:38 +1 17:16:38 +1 17:16:39 =1 17:16:42 +1 17:16:43 +1 (W3C) 17:16:49 +1 (ORACLE) 17:16:49 +1 (C&P) 17:16:49 +1 (IBM) 17:16:49 +1 (UvA) 17:16:50 +1 (FZI) 17:16:52 +1 (Oxford) 17:16:53 +1 (Manchester) 17:16:54 +1 (Oxford) 17:16:58 +1 (science commons) 17:17:00 +1 (RPI) 17:17:10 +1 (Aberdeen) 17:17:24 pfps: +1 (Alcatel-Lucent) 17:17:42 RESOLVED: Publish Syntax, DL Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics, Mapping-to-RDF, and XML-Serialization soon (eg Sept 24) (probably with Profiles), -- subject to minor editorial changes, changes to the editors/contribs/authors information, and the titles. These are ordinary WDs (and FPWD for RDF-Based Semantics). 17:18:10 Topic: Publish soon? 17:19:26 sandro: we should discuss the titles again 17:19:29 I think we should not say "model-theoretic", it's a very technical aspect 17:19:47 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0177.html 17:20:08 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0178.html reply with OWL 1 versions 17:20:44 Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics 17:20:49 RDF-Compatible Model-Theoretic Semantics 17:21:00 q+ 17:21:03 alanr: could you explain it a bit sandro? 17:21:04 zakim, mute me 17:21:04 Ivan was already muted, ivan 17:21:05 I never understood this "direct" MT semantics 17:21:30 zakim, unmute me 17:21:30 Ivan should no longer be muted 17:21:31 zak ivan 17:21:36 q? 17:21:40 ack ivan 17:21:41 sandro: ... 17:22:01 +1 to "DL-Semantics" 17:22:02 ivan: Model-Theoretic Semantics might be too complext 17:22:10 ... while DL semantics seems to be fine 17:22:24 sandro: "model-theoretic" is noise, "RDF-Compatible" is incorrect, "Direct" is kind of meaningless. 17:22:26 zakim, mute me 17:22:26 Ivan should now be muted 17:22:28 ... RDF-based semantics also ok 17:22:42 I am with Sandro 17:22:50 I am with Ivan 17:22:54 DL Semantics, RDF Based Semantics 17:22:55 Semantics of OWL DL, EL, and QL 17:22:55 Semantics of OWL Full and RL 17:23:06 +1 to ivan's proposal 17:23:11 Why don't we have one single Semantic Document??? 17:23:30 I quite like Alan's suggestion 17:23:31 Primary Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics 17:23:47 q+ 17:23:52 +1 to separate 17:23:55 ivan, could you type out your proposal? 17:23:56 ack ivan 17:23:56 alanr: having a single semantics document is also an option 17:23:56 ack ivan 17:24:06 +q 17:24:15 what is a "primary" semantics? 17:24:19 ... althought some of the editors wanted to make it separate 17:24:48 ivan: having two documents should be ok 17:24:58 ack baojie 17:25:01 Ivan, the DL semantics could equally be called "Standard FOL semantics" 17:25:11 ...rather than "DL semantics" 17:25:29 Jie: a question for Michael - 17:25:36 uli, are you saying it's not a Description Logic? 17:25:39 zakim, unmute me 17:25:39 m_schnei should no longer be muted 17:25:48 zakim, mute me 17:25:48 Ivan should now be muted 17:25:54 sandro, the semantics isn't DL specific 17:26:18 ... do the two semantics lead to the same results? 17:26:24 q? 17:26:28 q+ to explain Primary 17:26:54 ack sandro 17:26:54 sandro, you wanted to explain Primary 17:26:55 ack sandro 17:26:57 m_schnei: ... 17:27:09 zakim, mute me 17:27:09 m_schnei should now be muted 17:27:28 sandro: when I talked to Ian, I suggested Primary 17:27:49 q+ 17:27:50 ... Ian said the RDF one is really a reimplementation of the FOL one 17:27:54 actually, the DL semantics guided the /development/ of the Full Semantics 17:27:55 q+ 17:27:55 ack ivan 17:27:59 ... I agree with Ian on that 17:28:28 ivan: I don't like that, ... 17:28:35 In English, "Primary" does not mean better. 17:28:47 q+ 17:28:48 It just mean "first". Which often means it's not as good. 17:28:57 ack alanr 17:29:06 ack Rinke 17:29:06 zakim, unmute me 17:29:08 Rinke was not muted, Rinke 17:29:10 alanr: if the two semantics disagree, we need to decide what to do 17:29:46 +q 17:29:47 Rinke: why not keep things as they are 17:29:54 Zakim, unmute me 17:29:54 bcuencagrau should no longer be muted 17:30:06 Rinke: "Semantics" and "RDF-Based Semantics" 17:30:06 zakim, mute me 17:30:06 Rinke should now be muted 17:30:15 ack bcuencagrau 17:30:17 I think the stress on "model-theoretic" was that there were two kinds of semantics in DAML-OIL 17:30:32 Compromise position --- "Direct Semantics" and "RDF-Based Semantics" 17:30:32 bcuencagrau: what is wrong with the OWL 1.0 way 17:30:42 q? 17:30:56 +1 to sandro 17:30:57 sandro: how about Direct and RDF-based 17:30:58 zakim, mute me 17:30:58 m_schnei was already muted, m_schnei 17:31:03 Zakim, mute me 17:31:03 bcuencagrau should now be muted 17:31:35 alanr: shrawpoll ... 17:31:56 Model-Theoretic Semantics 17:31:56 RDF-Based Semantics 17:31:58 1 17:32:01 2 17:32:07 Semantics of OWL DL, EL, and QL 17:32:07 Semantics of OWL Full and RL 17:32:11 2) 17:32:20 s/2)/3)/ 17:32:21 First Order Semantics 17:32:26 Primary Semantics 17:32:30 Direct Semantics 17:33:16 rinke's suggestion was "semantics" and "rdf semantics", correct? i.e., no qualifier at all for the DL semantics 17:33:22 yes 17:33:30 Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics 17:33:30 * RDF-Compatible Model-Theoretic Semantics 17:33:36 yes 17:33:38 1 - Model-Theoretic Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics 17:33:38 2 - Semantics of OWL DL, EL, and QL ; Semantics of OWL Full and RL 17:33:38 3 - First Order Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics 17:33:38 4 - Primary Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics 17:33:38 5 - Direct Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics 17:33:39 6 - Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics; RDF-Compatible Model-Theoretic Semantics 17:33:40 +1 to Rinke's proposal 17:33:46 Is "DL Semantics" out ? 17:33:53 7- Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics 17:34:05 7 - DL Semantics; RDF-Based Semantics 17:34:11 + the ones you would like 17:34:18 + likes - wonts 17:34:19 sure 17:34:19 8 - Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics 17:34:50 +5,6 -2,3,4 17:35:00 +8 17:35:05 +1 +6 -4 17:35:13 I like 2, 4, 5; dislike 1, 6, 8; Favorite: 5 17:35:13 +7, -3,4,5 17:35:33 Like 5, 7,; do not like 4, 2; favourite 5 17:35:33 JeffP: +6 17:35:33 +(8,7) -(2,3) 17:35:35 uli has left #owl 17:35:36 + 6 8, -4 5 17:35:36 + 8,5 - 1,4,6 17:35:37 +3,8 -4,5,6 17:35:45 + to 1, 3, 4, 5, 6; - to 2, 7, 8 17:36:18 uli has joined #owl 17:36:23 alanr: we should review this and discuss this in mailing list, so that we will have a vote next week 17:36:32 OWL Full is first order, too, even if it doesn't look this way 17:36:37 Topic: Status reports: Other documents 17:36:39 sorry, I got thrown out - i will vote again 17:37:43 Topic: Conformance and Test Cases 17:38:12 Topic: Profiles 17:38:29 alanr: Profiles seems to be in a good shape 17:38:30 q+ 17:38:42 ack msmith 17:39:17 msmith: ... 17:39:34 alanr: could you draft something and add to the test case doc? 17:39:34 +1 to proposal 17:39:39 msmith: ok 17:39:40 action: msmith to add an editor's note to test and conformance document re: disposition of test cases 17:39:40 Sorry, couldn't find user - msmith 17:39:59 action: smith to add an editor's note to test and conformance document re: disposition of test cases 17:39:59 Created ACTION-208 - Add an editor's note to test and conformance document re: disposition of test cases [on Michael Smith - due 2008-09-24]. 17:40:20 +1000 on profiles 17:40:25 :-) 17:40:40 +1 on +1000 on profiles 17:40:50 :-) :-) 17:40:52 + 2 3 4 5 8; - 6 7 17:41:19 alanr: assuming the reviewers say yes, shall we vote next week? 17:41:34 ... some expressed that is a good idea 17:42:59 alanr: JeffP, could you submit your review by this week? 17:43:11 JeffP: will try to submit by next telecon 17:43:14 me 17:43:19 I can 17:43:31 I had already said this in the past 17:43:32 alanr: any one could review conformance? 17:43:35 I will as well 17:43:51 ... it is a short doc 17:44:14 Sure 17:44:19 ... reviewers: m_schnei, bcuencagra, msmith 17:44:22 yes 17:44:24 action: smith to review conformance, due sept-21 17:44:24 Created ACTION-209 - Review conformance, due sept-21 [on Michael Smith - due 2008-09-24]. 17:45:02 ACTION: m_schnei to review conformance, due sept-21 17:45:02 Created ACTION-210 - Review conformance, due sept-21 [on Michael Schneider - due 2008-09-24]. 17:45:46 Topic: Status reports: Other documents 17:45:57 Topic: Quick Reference Guide 17:46:18 Jie: folks are not sure about Manchester syntax 17:46:32 ... since it does not cover OWL Full ontologies 17:46:52 jie, the functional syntax does not support all owl full ontologies 17:46:57 q+ 17:47:00 ... and it is difference from the one we have (?) right now 17:47:02 nor does owlxml 17:47:11 zakim, unmute me 17:47:11 m_schnei should no longer be muted 17:47:48 ... the syntax we have right now is the RDF syntax 17:48:12 q- 17:48:16 alanr: what is the status of the RDF syntax part right now? 17:48:17 zakim, mute me 17:48:17 m_schnei should now be muted 17:48:35 Jie: the Profile part can be done in two weeks 17:48:36 q- 17:48:37 ack m_schnei 17:48:38 q? 17:48:39 q+ 17:48:45 zakim, unmute me 17:48:45 uli should no longer be muted 17:48:47 ack uli 17:49:20 uli: will we have different Quick Guide for different people? 17:50:05 every syntax which supports property assertions and bNodes in all positions perfectly supports (extended) RDF :) 17:50:24 uli: Jie, could you illustrate the differences 17:50:33 Jie: ... 17:50:41 uli: any other differences? 17:51:05 Jie: again, it cannot express OWL Full ontologies 17:52:07 Zakim, mute me 17:52:07 bcuencagrau was already muted, bcuencagrau 17:52:20 uli: this is only a quick reference, some of the detailed restrictions could be ignored in the reference 17:52:21 q+ 17:52:30 ack ivan 17:52:31 uli: ... 17:52:32 ack ivan 17:52:44 Yes, we need some M syntax guru on the M version 17:53:36 ivan: on the RDF side, it is basically syntax independent 17:53:47 zakim, mute me 17:53:47 uli should now be muted 17:53:48 ... I don't know which one more widely used 17:54:23 alanr: agree with uli that let the editors finish the RDF syntax part first 17:54:32 then discuss further 17:54:43 Topic: Requirements 17:54:55 alanr: anyone can comment on this? 17:55:15 Topic: Issues (50 minutes) - Address as many as possible during allocated time 17:55:27 # Issue 140 (Named Property Chains) per Ian's email 17:55:38 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0161.html 17:56:36 PROPOSED: Resolve Issue-140 as postponed (as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0161.html) 17:56:39 +1 17:56:41 +1 17:56:44 +1 17:56:44 +1 17:56:48 +1 17:56:48 +1 17:56:48 +1 17:56:49 +1 17:56:50 +1 17:56:52 +1 17:56:55 +1 17:56:55 1 17:57:10 pfps: +1 17:57:16 +1 17:57:22 RESOLVED: Resolve Issue-140 as postponed (as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0161.html) 17:57:35 # Issue 71 (datarange language range) per Boris's email 17:57:43 q+ 17:57:44 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0053.html 17:57:45 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0053.html 17:58:11 q- 17:58:13 PROPOSED: Close issue-71 as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0161.html 17:58:29 +1 17:58:30 We can incorporate the changes before the draft -- I'll do it over the weekend 17:58:31 +1 17:58:34 +1 17:58:36 +1 17:58:37 +1 17:58:41 that's the wrong link 17:58:43 +1 17:58:44 +1 17:58:44 +1 17:58:45 +1 17:58:51 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0053.html 17:59:03 +1 17:59:07 PROPOSED: Close issue-71 as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0053.html 17:59:08 +1 17:59:12 +1 17:59:19 +1 17:59:26 +0 (not sure I get it) 17:59:31 +1 17:59:36 pfps: +1 17:59:42 RESOLVED: Close issue-71 as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0053.html 17:59:43 ACTION: bmotik2 to Implement resolution of ISSUE-71 (before publishing the documents) 17:59:43 Created ACTION-212 - Implement resolution of ISSUE-71 (before publishing the documents) [on Boris Motik - due 2008-09-24]. 17:59:53 q+ 18:00:01 Topic: Other Issue Discussions 18:00:05 ack ivan 18:00:26 ACTION: on m_schnei to implement resolution of ISSUE-71 in RDF Based Semantics (before publishing the documents) 18:00:26 Sorry, couldn't find user - on 18:00:27 q+ 18:00:34 ACTION: m_schnei to implement resolution of ISSUE-71 in RDF Based Semantics (before publishing the documents) 18:00:34 Created ACTION-213 - Implement resolution of ISSUE-71 in RDF Based Semantics (before publishing the documents) [on Michael Schneider - due 2008-09-24]. 18:00:37 Zakim, unmute me 18:00:37 bmotik should no longer be muted 18:00:45 -Sandro 18:00:52 ivan: I prefer having the language patterns in RDF spec 18:01:31 bmotik: we could progress with datatypes 18:01:55 I will at least /repeat/ the facet in the RDF Based Semantics 18:01:58 ... I agree with you on having a separate doc and copy / paste later on 18:02:18 ivan: maybe you could add a editorial note 18:02:31 bmotic: ok 18:02:37 q+ 18:02:40 ack bmotik 18:03:07 ivan: the point is the separate doc could be reusable for other purposes 18:03:31 q+ 18:03:43 zakim, unmute me 18:03:43 m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei 18:03:44 alanr: the choices are still open 18:03:44 ack alanr 18:03:48 ack m_schnei 18:04:35 +Sandro 18:04:39 zakim, mute me 18:04:39 m_schnei should now be muted 18:04:39 zakim, mute me 18:04:43 m_schnei: seems that I will need to do something on the RDF semantics doc too 18:04:44 I just added this sentence to rdf:text: "It is currently not clear whether this document will contain a definition of facets on rdf:text." 18:05:09 I can add a note to the Syntax document as well. 18:05:12 ivan: I am fine with the note 18:05:38 I will add the text to the RDF Based Semantics: "It is currently not clear whether the OWL DL Syntax will contain a definition of facets on rdf:text." :) 18:05:39 Topic: Issue 134 Metamodel for OWL 2 18:06:13 Zakim, mute me 18:06:13 bmotik should now be muted 18:06:25 alanr: should we have metamodel in the rec or just leave it in a note 18:06:41 q+ 18:06:49 Zakim, unmute me 18:06:49 bmotik should no longer be muted 18:06:50 straw poll - worth doing work on the metamodel issue? 18:06:57 ack bmotik 18:07:06 bmotik: we already have metamodel in the spec 18:07:21 ... so I don't understand the quesetion 18:07:42 would it be more accessible, for example for visually impaired people? 18:08:01 bmotik: I doubt it 18:08:10 ... it is in an XML file 18:08:18 thanks! 18:08:38 bmotik: now it is normative 18:08:42 apart from more work, would the XML have any impact? 18:09:40 ... will replace existing diagrams with ones from PeterH 18:09:41 q+ 18:09:48 zakim, unmute me 18:09:48 uli should no longer be muted 18:09:52 ack uli 18:10:05 uli: would the XML have any impact? 18:10:13 ... or just additional work? 18:10:57 q+ 18:11:07 bmotic: people could generate metamodel transformation 18:11:14 ack ivan 18:11:15 zakim, mute me 18:11:15 uli should now be muted 18:11:20 ... so as to make the spec more useful 18:11:41 ivan: how much work is needed? 18:12:30 bmotik: need to use some software to produce the diagram 18:13:24 ivan: there is still extra costs 18:13:44 ... I prefer making it a note 18:13:55 ... my innitial reaction only 18:14:13 bmotik: two possibilities: one as Appendix in some doc 18:14:58 ... one in a separate note 18:15:18 ... it is only a diagram 18:15:33 +1 to boris 18:15:52 Achille: ok with the metamodel 18:16:03 ... but not sure note or rec 18:16:08 -Sandro 18:16:46 which 'mikel'? 18:16:52 :-) 18:17:02 +Sandro 18:17:11 zakim, unmute me 18:17:11 m_schnei should no longer be muted 18:17:45 zakim, mute me 18:17:45 m_schnei should now be muted 18:18:12 -Sandro 18:18:14 q+ 18:18:22 +Sandro 18:18:57 -Sandro 18:19:04 bmotik: we could ask PeterH to upload it to the wiki 18:19:16 ... it is an XML doc 18:19:16 +Sandro 18:19:32 there is a whitelist of allowed formats, I assume .xml is not there by default 18:19:58 alanr: any open source software that we could use? 18:20:13 bmotik:don't know, maybe 18:20:22 alanr: could you find out? 18:20:27 bmotik: sure 18:20:50 Topic: Issue 137 Table 4 in RDF mapping introduces incompatibility with OWL 1 18:20:51 -MartinD 18:20:56 MartinD has left #OWL 18:22:39 alanr: it is not clear if RDF needs a import mechanism 18:23:41 zakim, who is here? 18:23:41 On the phone I see Alan_Ruttenberg, bcuencagrau (muted), Ivan, Rinke (muted), MarkusK, m_schnei (muted), pfps (muted), JeffP, bmotik, baojie, msmith, uli (muted), Zhe (muted), 18:23:41 ... anyone want to comment? Peter still online? 18:23:44 ... Achille, Sandro 18:23:45 On IRC I see uli, Achille, bmotik, Zhe, msmith, baojie, m_schnei, MarkusK, bcuencagrau, ivan, alanr, RRSAgent, Zakim, JeffP, Rinke, sandro, trackbot 18:23:47 -Rinke 18:24:51 ivan: it would be helpful if I understand the motivation better 18:25:32 -pfps 18:26:39 alan explains the context 18:27:52 ivan: we will look into it seriously 18:28:20 ... we need more discussions 18:28:29 sandro: agree 18:29:06 -msmith 18:29:07 thanks, bye 18:29:10 -Zhe 18:29:10 bye 18:29:11 bye 18:29:14 -MarkusK 18:29:15 bye 18:29:16 -baojie 18:29:17 -bmotik 18:29:18 -Alan_Ruttenberg 18:29:19 bye 18:29:19 -Sandro 18:29:20 -m_schnei 18:29:22 -Achille 18:29:23 -uli 18:29:25 -bcuencagrau 18:29:34 -Ivan 18:29:57 RRSAgent, make records public 18:46:38 -JeffP 18:46:40 SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended 18:46:41 Attendees were MartinD, Alan_Ruttenberg, Ivan, bcuencagrau, +31.20.525.aaaa, Rinke, MarkusK, +1.908.612.aabb, m_schnei, JeffP, Sandro, pfps, baojie, bmotik, msmith, uli, Zhe, 18:46:43 ... Achille 20:36:10 Zakim has left #owl