IRC log of owl on 2008-09-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:57:52 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:57:52 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:57:58 [Rinke]
zakim, this will be owl
16:57:58 [Zakim]
ok, Rinke, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM already started
16:58:15 [Rinke]
zakim, this is owl
16:58:15 [Zakim]
Rinke, this was already SW_OWL()1:00PM
16:58:16 [Zakim]
ok, Rinke; that matches SW_OWL()1:00PM
16:58:26 [Zakim]
+ +49.351.463.3.aaaa
16:58:30 [Rinke]
rrsagent, make records public
16:58:40 [clu]
zakim, +aaaa is me
16:58:40 [Zakim]
sorry, clu, I do not recognize a party named '+aaaa'
16:58:47 [clu]
zakim, aaaa is me
16:58:47 [Zakim]
+clu; got it
16:59:18 [clu]
Rinke, do you know how to make me scribe? (your chatting with zakim looked so professional that I though you might :)
16:59:21 [Zakim]
+ +31.20.525.aabb
16:59:25 [Rinke]
zakim, aabb is me
16:59:25 [Zakim]
+Rinke; got it
16:59:30 [clu]
16:59:34 [Rinke]
scribenick: clu
16:59:35 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
16:59:49 [Rinke]
zakim, mute me
16:59:49 [Zakim]
Rinke should now be muted
17:00:35 [alanr]
alanr has changed the topic to:
17:00:53 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
17:00:58 [Rinke]
zakim, unmute me
17:00:58 [Zakim]
Rinke should no longer be muted
17:01:06 [Zakim]
17:01:16 [Zakim]
17:01:20 [bmotik]
ZAkim, ??P11 is me
17:01:20 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
17:01:24 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:01:25 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:01:35 [Rinke]
ScribeNick: Carsten
17:01:36 [Carsten]
scribenick: Carsten
17:01:38 [Carsten]
17:01:51 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
17:01:52 [Carsten]
zakim, unmute me
17:01:52 [Zakim]
sorry, Carsten, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:02:27 [Zakim]
17:02:41 [Carsten]
zakim, mute me
17:02:41 [Zakim]
sorry, Carsten, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:02:45 [Carsten]
zakim, bugger off
17:02:45 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.408.aacc
17:02:46 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'bugger off', Carsten
17:02:52 [pha]
zakim, ??P12 is me
17:02:52 [Zakim]
+pha; got it
17:03:00 [Carsten]
zakim, clu is carsten
17:03:00 [Zakim]
+carsten; got it
17:03:04 [Carsten]
zakim, mute me
17:03:04 [Zakim]
carsten should now be muted
17:03:04 [pha]
zakim, mute me
17:03:05 [Zakim]
pha should now be muted
17:03:16 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.276.aadd
17:03:22 [Zakim]
- +1.518.276.aadd
17:03:54 [Zakim]
17:03:59 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #owl
17:04:12 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.276.aaee
17:04:24 [baojie]
Zakim, aaee is baojie
17:04:24 [Zakim]
+baojie; got it
17:04:43 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
17:05:01 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
17:05:01 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, carsten (muted), Rinke, Alan_Ruttenberg, bmotik (muted), pha (muted), msmith, [IBM], baojie
17:05:03 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Achille, JeffP, msmith, bmotik, alanr, RRSAgent, Zakim, baojie, pfps, Rinke, pha, Carsten, sandro, trackbot
17:05:20 [pfps]
17:05:23 [Zakim]
+ +0122427aaff
17:05:26 [alanr]
ack pfps
17:05:29 [JeffP]
zakim, aaff is me
17:05:29 [Zakim]
+JeffP; got it
17:05:33 [Carsten]
alan: agenda amendments?
17:05:50 [Achille]
Zakim, IBM is me
17:05:50 [Zakim]
+Achille; got it
17:05:54 [Carsten]
pfps: discuss Manchester syntax next steps along with other next steps
17:07:01 [alanr]
17:07:36 [Rinke]
the minutes look like they have not been edited at all
17:07:40 [Zakim]
17:08:39 [Rinke]
they are draft minutes
17:09:09 [Rinke]
17:09:51 [Carsten]
can someone scribe assist? The complaint was about *what*?
17:11:00 [msmith]
17:11:15 [Carsten]
Alan: Minutes not accepted, have to be completed and will be reviewed again next week
17:11:21 [Carsten]
Action Item Status
17:11:21 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Item
17:12:17 [msmith]
action smith to edit previous minutes to reflect michael sch's complaint
17:12:18 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-214 - Edit previous minutes to reflect michael sch's complaint [on Michael Smith - due 2008-10-01].
17:12:28 [Carsten]
Alan: Actions 211, 205, 213, 212, 210, 209 completed
17:13:13 [Carsten]
Action 188 completed
17:13:13 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - 188
17:14:12 [Carsten]
Reviewing: all requested reviews were received
17:14:30 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl
17:14:42 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #owl
17:15:15 [Zakim]
17:15:15 [Carsten]
Alan: still not very many participants for next F2F, please try to participate
17:15:18 [cgolbrei]
cgolbrei has joined #owl
17:15:38 [Carsten]
Proposal to publish working drafts
17:16:06 [Zakim]
17:16:30 [alanr]
17:17:35 [Rinke]
q+ to ask why
17:17:38 [pfps]
as far as I could tell almost all of Jim's comments are minor, and many are editorial
17:17:47 [Carsten]
alan: are the comments of the reviewers of profile document of a kind that allows us to publish soon, say within a week?
17:17:47 [alanr]
ack rinke
17:17:47 [Zakim]
Rinke, you wanted to ask why
17:18:14 [pfps]
alan, please answer Rinke's question
17:18:16 [bmotik]
17:18:29 [alanr]
17:18:32 [alanr]
ack bmotik
17:18:36 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:18:36 [Zakim]
bmotik was not muted, bmotik
17:18:40 [Carsten]
alan: should be up to the editors
17:19:03 [Rinke]
17:19:14 [Carsten]
boris: will go through them this weekend and address them; there seems nothing special about them.
17:20:04 [baojie]
17:20:07 [Carsten]
as an editor of the profiles document, I agree with Boris and Rinke.
17:20:17 [sandro]
q+ to ask about process/timing here
17:20:25 [Carsten]
Boris: when will the actual documents be generated for publication
17:20:36 [JeffP]
Jie is in the queue too
17:20:42 [alanr]
ack Jie
17:20:48 [alanr]
ack baojie
17:20:51 [sandro]
17:20:52 [alanr]
ack sandro
17:21:04 [Carsten]
Jie: Jim's review is mostly editorial, can be easily addressed
17:21:26 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:21:26 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:21:29 [Zakim]
17:21:33 [Carsten]
Ian's is definitely mainly editoral, just read it
17:22:09 [Carsten]
Jeff: regarding my review, it may also be helpful if Boris goes through it and responds
17:22:27 [Zakim]
17:22:35 [cgolbrei]
17:22:46 [bmotik]
17:23:08 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:23:08 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
17:23:09 [alanr]
ack bmotik
17:23:12 [Carsten]
Jeff: how to draw the line between comments that have to be addressed before publication and those that don't
17:23:32 [Rinke]
zakim, ??P0 is christine
17:23:32 [Zakim]
+christine; got it
17:24:01 [Carsten]
boris: no showstopper in any of the reviews. I'll respond.
17:24:03 [Rinke]
zakim, christine is cgolbrei
17:24:03 [Zakim]
+cgolbrei; got it
17:24:12 [JeffP]
17:24:17 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:24:17 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:24:19 [alanr]
ack JeffP
17:25:54 [bmotik]
17:26:12 [Carsten]
Alan: since Jeff seems uncomfortable, please process his review first
17:26:19 [alanr]
17:26:40 [Carsten]
Alan: Reviews of tests and conformance
17:27:42 [Carsten]
mike: my review doesn't need to be processed before publication
17:27:55 [pfps]
17:28:13 [Carsten]
s/my review/the reviews/
17:29:33 [alanr]
ack pfps
17:29:53 [pfps]
I don't see any show-stoppers in Michael's review (but he should be able to speak for himself)
17:30:32 [Carsten]
sandro: awkward to manage to publish in a few week rather than next week with the other documents
17:31:28 [Carsten]
alan: will contact Ian and Michael and produce a version until Sunday that people can look at on Monday
17:31:39 [pfps]
I'm fine with publishing
17:32:46 [Carsten]
discussion of "unknown"
17:33:09 [Carsten]
alan: distinguish minimally conforming vs conforming
17:33:15 [alanr]
versus "complete"
17:33:22 [Carsten]
pfps: first is trivial, second close to impossible
17:33:50 [Carsten]
pfps: minimally conforming can return unknown, but should not; conforming must not return unknown
17:34:12 [Carsten]
alan: how can anything be conforming with OWL Full?
17:35:05 [Carsten]
17:35:33 [sandro]
Peter: it's perfectly okay for an OWL Full reasoner to return Unknown -- there are various times it's fine, like it's been 5 days, or it's hit a known incompleteness, etc.
17:36:02 [alanr]
17:36:04 [Carsten]
zakim, unmute me
17:36:04 [Zakim]
carsten should no longer be muted
17:36:38 [Carsten]
sandro: how do distinguish in the marketplace a trivial from a "hard working" reasoner trying to avoid unknown?
17:36:57 [Carsten]
pfps: you could have an OWL Full reasoner complete for OWL DL
17:36:59 [Carsten]
17:37:20 [alanr]
= bade
17:37:21 [Carsten]
17:37:24 [alanr]
= v. bad
17:37:58 [Carsten]
pfps: difficult to distinguish different degrees of completeness
17:38:35 [sandro]
Sandro: It's sounds like there's no way -- in the OWL-Full-By-Itself market -- to use Conformance to segment the market, to have different classes of power of Reasoners
17:39:08 [Carsten]
pfps: message of recursion theory that the boundary is messy
17:39:12 [pfps]
some rationales for should not are in the email I sent out, for OWL Full there can be others, including known incompleteness (actually it would be possible for an OWL 2 DL tool to return unknown and say that it just doesn't implement everything)
17:40:30 [Carsten]
pfps: too many possibilities, often unreasonable assumptions
17:40:56 [alanr]
ack Carsten
17:41:31 [sandro]
Sandro: What I'm hearing, and sounds right to me: OWL Full is left without useful distinctions inside it, because all the useful distinctions have been pulled out as other profiles.
17:41:34 [pfps]
my initial response (minimally conforming) was a reducto ad absurdum
17:42:02 [Carsten]
sandro: if as soon as something is complete we pull it out as a profile, owl full will necessarily remain in a not-very-useful condition
17:43:01 [Carsten]
sandro: I suggest to take out "should not" and use another phrasing
17:43:07 [Carsten]
zakim, mute me
17:43:07 [Zakim]
carsten should now be muted
17:43:47 [pfps]
this could be a *addition* instead of a *replacement*
17:43:49 [Carsten]
sandro: owl full reasoner may be distinguished by the number of cases for which they return unknown; better reasoners will return unknown very rarely
17:43:59 [sandro]
Replacein "It SHOULD NOT return Unknown." with "We expect OWL Full reasoners to be characterized and distriinguished in the market by which situations they can handle without returning unknown."
17:44:53 [sandro]
Sandro: This isn't a blocker; it's just editorial.
17:45:19 [Carsten]
alan: anybody wants to fight for removing "should not"?
17:46:34 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Publish OWL 2 Profiles and Test+Conformance as WDs, with editorial changes, subject to approval by Michael Schneider, Peter, and Alan.
17:47:37 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Publish OWL 2 Profiles with Boris' editorial changes, and Test+Conformance as WDs, with editorial changes subject to approval by Michael Schneider, Peter, and Alan.
17:47:51 [pfps]
+1 to publish Profiles and T&C as suggested
17:47:53 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Publish OWL 2 Profiles as WD with Boris' editorial changes, and Test+Conformance as PFWD, with editorial changes subject to approval by Michael Schneider, Peter, and Alan.
17:48:01 [bmotik]
+1 (Oxford)
17:48:03 [Carsten]
17:48:04 [pfps]
+1 to publish Profiles and T&C as suggested (ALU)
17:48:05 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Publish OWL 2 Profiles as WD with Boris' editorial changes, and Test+Conformance as FPWD, with editorial changes subject to approval by Michael Schneider, Peter, and Alan.
17:48:10 [Achille]
+1 (IBM)
17:48:11 [msmith]
+1 (C&P)
17:48:12 [sandro]
+1 (W3C)
17:48:15 [Rinke]
+1 (Amsterdam)
17:48:16 [Carsten]
+1 to all four proposals
17:48:21 [alanr]
+1 (sciencecommons)
17:48:33 [JeffP]
-0 (need to check the changes)
17:49:03 [Elisa]
+1 Sandpiper
17:49:15 [baojie]
+1 (RPI)
17:49:30 [cgolbrei]
+1 (versailles)
17:49:34 [dlm]
dlm has joined #owl
17:49:36 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Publish OWL 2 Profiles as WD with Boris' editorial changes, and Test+Conformance as FPWD, with editorial changes subject to approval by Michael Schneider, Peter, and Alan.
17:50:53 [Carsten]
sandro: need to know more details; when to publish
17:50:55 [bmotik]
I'll do stuff over the weekend.
17:50:59 [bmotik]
As much as I can do
17:51:11 [bmotik]
It's all yours on Monday.
17:51:14 [JeffP]
The resolution does not seem to match precisely what Alan said
17:51:37 [Carsten]
sandro: last minute scrambling on monday, publish on tuesday
17:51:46 [sandro]
Alan: Editors and Constributors will need to be updated, too.
17:52:43 [Carsten]
alan: editor order will be in order of how much was done; contributors alphabetically
17:53:03 [pfps]
as I hope I had indicated earlier, I am uneasy about this assignment of editorship
17:54:11 [Carsten]
pfps: alternative is negotiation with the involved people
17:54:37 [Carsten]
alan: we will contact people if anything is unclear, there will be a chance to object
17:55:32 [sandro]
17:55:50 [Rinke]
q+ to say something about the number of votes
17:56:00 [sandro]
winner on survey is: LATE ADDITION: "Standard First Order Semantics" and "RDF-Based Semantics"
17:56:18 [alanr]
ack Rinke
17:56:18 [Zakim]
Rinke, you wanted to say something about the number of votes
17:56:40 [Carsten]
rinke: number of votes casts on different proposals differ
17:56:47 [JeffP]
some of them are negative votes
17:57:30 [sandro]
NOT clear winner: "Direct Semantics" and "RDF-Based Semantics" -- also has strong showing.
17:58:00 [alanr]
1 = Direct Semantics
17:58:24 [alanr]
2= Standard First Order Semantics
17:58:28 [sandro]
PROPOSED: 1="Direct Semantics" 2 ="Standard First-Order Semantics" . Pick one.
17:58:43 [bmotik]
2 (Oxford)
17:58:45 [pfps]
1 (ALU) - I picked "one" :-)
17:58:46 [Rinke]
1 (Amsterdam)
17:58:52 [JeffP]
1 (Aberdeen)
17:58:52 [Achille]
2 (IBM)
17:58:56 [baojie]
1 (RPI)
17:58:59 [Elisa]
1 (Sandpiper)
17:59:13 [alanr]
0 (sciencecommons)
17:59:22 [sandro]
0 (W3C)
17:59:33 [pfps]
(which option is "0"?)
17:59:34 [sandro]
winner - Direct Semantics
17:59:36 [bmotik]
17:59:38 [sandro]
0 == abstain
17:59:40 [bmotik]
Zakim unmute me
17:59:45 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:59:45 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
17:59:46 [alanr]
ack bmotik
17:59:47 [msmith]
1 (C&P)
17:59:55 [sandro]
RESOLVED: "Direct Semantics" and "RDF-Based Semantics"
18:00:05 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:00:05 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:00:23 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:00:23 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:01:33 [Carsten]
Status reports: Other documents
18:01:34 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:01:34 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:02:44 [Carsten]
jie: made some reorganizations addressing Uli's concerned; added some new terms; still incomplete
18:02:57 [Carsten]
(Quick reference guide status update)
18:03:10 [Carsten]
Requirements document
18:03:12 [Rinke]
18:03:32 [sandro]
sandro has changed the topic to:
18:04:32 [Carsten]
Christine: we need to complete some subsections in section 5, some other questions need to be decided, most pressing to know if there is agreement with the structure
18:06:45 [Carsten]
christine: missing mainly implementation stuff and features still under discussion
18:07:49 [Carsten]
elisa: can look at it, ask Evan to also do that
18:08:05 [cgolbrei]
evan knows it
18:08:28 [Carsten]
alan: more (informal) reviews would be good. anyone?
18:09:35 [Carsten]
Manchester Syntax
18:10:37 [Carsten]
alan: document looks in good formal shape, but I suggest a change:
18:10:52 [Carsten]
didn't get it
18:12:12 [Carsten]
display labels instead of URIs unless label empty
18:12:22 [Carsten]
or ambiguou
18:12:23 [Carsten]
18:12:25 [Carsten]
18:12:28 [Rinke]
display label where?
18:13:49 [alanr]
18:16:51 [pfps]
18:16:55 [alanr]
ack pfps
18:17:56 [Carsten]
pfps: I have prepared the document for review; we should know assign reviewers so that, after the reviews, a public working draft can be published. I am disappointed that this didn't happen.
18:18:09 [msmith]
18:18:14 [alanr]
ack msmith
18:18:48 [Carsten]
msmith: there are benefits other than accessibility
18:18:50 [sandro]
18:19:20 [Carsten]
sandro: let's publish as soon as we can; I don't see any reason not to publish
18:19:28 [Carsten]
sandro: put an issue in there and move on
18:19:52 [pfps]
I wasn't asking for a decision to publish - I was only asking for assignment of reviewers.
18:19:56 [Carsten]
alan: any volunteers for reviews?
18:19:57 [Rinke]
when would the review be due?
18:20:20 [pfps]
The "usual" timing is two or three weeks.
18:20:20 [Rinke]
I am willing to review
18:20:28 [Rinke]
that sounds reasonable
18:20:30 [msmith]
I will review. due Oct 8?
18:20:37 [cgolbrei]
i am too
18:20:56 [Rinke]
think so
18:20:57 [msmith]
action smith to review manchester syntax doc by oct 8
18:20:58 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-215 - Review manchester syntax doc by oct 8 [on Michael Smith - due 2008-10-01].
18:21:09 [Rinke]
action hoekstra to review manchester syntax doc by oct 8
18:21:10 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-216 - Review manchester syntax doc by oct 8 [on Rinke Hoekstra - due 2008-10-01].
18:21:35 [Carsten]
18:21:42 [Carsten]
18:22:20 [alanr]
18:22:25 [alanr]
ack sandro
18:22:49 [Carsten]
no comments
18:23:16 [pfps]
18:23:27 [Carsten]
sandro: what was response from xml schema WG
18:23:33 [Carsten]
pfps: thanks for sending in a comment
18:23:56 [msmith]
18:24:29 [pfps]
18:24:39 [alanr]
18:24:44 [msmith]
18:26:09 [alanr]
18:27:17 [bmotik]
18:27:20 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:27:20 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:27:22 [alanr]
ack bmotik
18:27:30 [Carsten]
18:27:42 [pfps]
18:27:58 [alanr]
ack pfps
18:28:02 [Carsten]
boris: If we include the base triple, we don't know when an axiom has an annotation and when not, etc. It's so much cleaner the way it is now.
18:28:26 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:28:26 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:28:27 [Carsten]
boris: easier to parse, what do you do if you only find the reified triples?
18:28:45 [dlm]
dlm has left #owl
18:28:57 [Carsten]
pfps: this asks to make a technical change to our system in response to a misconception by somebody else
18:29:03 [bmotik]
18:29:13 [Carsten]
alan: there are different views on how OWL is used
18:29:39 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:29:39 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:30:07 [pfps]
rdf users are free to also have the base triple if they so desire
18:30:21 [sandro]
18:30:23 [Carsten]
boris: nobody said that the RDF user has to retract the existing triple; there is just some redundancy
18:30:34 [pfps]
this doesn't even change the DL status of the ontology
18:30:41 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:30:42 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:30:54 [JeffP]
thanks, bye
18:30:56 [Zakim]
18:30:57 [Rinke]
thanks, bye
18:30:58 [sandro]
Short answer to Boris:
18:30:58 [Zakim]
18:30:59 [Zakim]
18:30:59 [Zakim]
18:31:01 [Zakim]
18:31:02 [msmith]
msmith has left #owl
18:31:02 [Carsten]
zakim, unmute me
18:31:03 [Zakim]
carsten should no longer be muted
18:31:05 [Zakim]
18:31:11 [Zakim]
18:31:12 [Zakim]
18:31:14 [Zakim]
18:31:58 [Zakim]
18:31:59 [sandro]
Short answer to Boris: it's about the RDF user and the OWL user interacting....
18:32:01 [Zakim]
18:32:02 [Zakim]
18:32:25 [Zakim]
18:32:26 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
18:32:27 [Zakim]
Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, +49.351.463.3.aaaa, +31.20.525.aabb, Rinke, Alan_Ruttenberg, bmotik, +1.202.408.aacc, pha, msmith, carsten, +1.518.276.aadd, +1.518.276.aaee,
18:32:29 [Zakim]
... baojie, +0122427aaff, JeffP, Achille, Sandro, Elisa_Kendall, cgolbrei
18:56:17 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
18:56:17 [RRSAgent]
20:51:03 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl
22:58:31 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl