IRC log of owl on 2008-10-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:53:59 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:53:59 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/10/15-owl-irc
16:54:07 [bmotik]
rrsagent. make log public
16:54:11 [baojie]
baojie has joined #owl
16:54:14 [bmotik]
rrsagent, make log public
16:54:55 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
16:54:59 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
16:54:59 [Zakim]
sorry, bijan, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
16:55:02 [Zakim]
+??P7
16:55:07 [bijan]
zakim, ??p7 is me
16:55:07 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
16:55:12 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
16:55:12 [Zakim]
sorry, bijan, muting is not permitted when only one person is present
16:55:16 [bijan]
Grr
16:56:16 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
16:56:16 [Zakim]
+Peter_Patel-Schneider
16:56:18 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
16:56:18 [Zakim]
sorry, pfps, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
16:56:23 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
16:56:23 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
16:56:33 [Zakim]
+ +39.047.101.aaaa
16:57:00 [calvanese]
zakim, aaaa is me
16:57:00 [Zakim]
+calvanese; got it
16:57:01 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
16:57:02 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bijan (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, calvanese
16:57:04 [Zakim]
On IRC I see IanH, baojie, RRSAgent, Zakim, bmotik, bijan, pfps, calvanese, clu, sandro, trackbot
16:57:13 [Zakim]
-calvanese
16:57:56 [uli]
uli has joined #owl
16:58:01 [Zakim]
+IanH
16:58:07 [Zakim]
+calvanese
16:58:59 [IanH]
ScribeNick: calvanese
16:59:00 [ivan]
ivan has joined #owl
16:59:35 [uli]
hm, dialling in seems to be difficult today
16:59:47 [Zakim]
+baojie
17:00:00 [Zakim]
+??P16
17:00:04 [Zakim]
+??P17
17:00:05 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??P16 is me
17:00:06 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
17:00:12 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:00:13 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
17:00:16 [Zakim]
+Ivan
17:00:18 [Zakim]
-bmotik
17:00:27 [uli]
zakim, ??P17 is me
17:00:28 [Zakim]
+uli; got it
17:00:30 [ivan]
zakim, mute me
17:00:30 [Zakim]
Ivan should now be muted
17:00:38 [Zakim]
+??P16
17:00:42 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??P16 is me
17:00:42 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
17:00:46 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:00:46 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:00:48 [uli]
zakim, mute me
17:00:48 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
17:01:11 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:01:11 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bijan (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, IanH, calvanese, baojie, uli (muted), Ivan (muted), bmotik (muted)
17:01:13 [Zakim]
On IRC I see ivan, uli, IanH, baojie, RRSAgent, Zakim, bmotik, bijan, pfps, calvanese, clu, sandro, trackbot
17:01:14 [Ratnesh]
Ratnesh has joined #owl
17:01:32 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
17:01:33 [calvanese]
Topic: Admin
17:01:40 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:01:40 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bijan (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, IanH, calvanese, baojie, uli (muted), Ivan (muted), bmotik (muted)
17:01:42 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Zhe, Ratnesh, ivan, uli, IanH, baojie, RRSAgent, Zakim, bmotik, bijan, pfps, calvanese, clu, sandro, trackbot
17:01:43 [Zakim]
+Zhe
17:01:43 [MarkusK_]
MarkusK_ has joined #owl
17:01:49 [calvanese]
IanH: roll call
17:01:55 [pfps]
q+
17:01:59 [IanH]
q?
17:02:00 [calvanese]
IanH: agenda amendments?
17:02:09 [Zhe]
zakim, mute me
17:02:09 [Zakim]
Zhe should now be muted
17:02:15 [bijan]
+2
17:02:27 [IanH]
q?
17:02:36 [IanH]
ack ??p17
17:02:38 [uli]
q-
17:02:38 [pfps]
q-
17:02:40 [Zakim]
+??P20
17:02:43 [Zakim]
+??P24
17:02:45 [uli]
56
17:02:51 [Zakim]
-??P24
17:02:52 [Ratnesh]
Zakim, ??P20 is me
17:02:53 [Zakim]
+Ratnesh; got it
17:03:00 [pfps]
pfps: propose to put issue-56 into "under consideration for resolution" section
17:03:02 [calvanese]
pfps: pfps move issue 56 under consideration for resolution
17:03:09 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
17:03:13 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
17:03:18 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
17:03:21 [calvanese]
IanH: moved
17:03:24 [Zakim]
+ +49.421.218.6.aabb
17:03:28 [Zakim]
+??P28
17:03:34 [calvanese]
Ianh: no other amendments
17:03:37 [pfps]
minutes are OK
17:03:37 [uli]
yes
17:03:40 [clu]
zakim, aabb is me
17:03:40 [Zakim]
+clu; got it
17:03:40 [uli]
look fine
17:03:40 [calvanese]
IanH: previous minutes?
17:03:41 [Zakim]
+Alan_Ruttenberg
17:03:44 [clu]
zakim, mute me
17:03:45 [Zakim]
clu should now be muted
17:03:53 [Zakim]
+msmith
17:03:57 [bcuencagrau]
bcuencagrau has joined #owl
17:03:58 [calvanese]
RESOLVED: accept previous minutes
17:04:30 [calvanese]
IanH: action item status
17:04:37 [bcuencagrau]
bcuencagrau has joined #owl
17:04:50 [calvanese]
... no pending review actions
17:05:03 [calvanese]
... due and overdue actions
17:05:13 [calvanese]
... Action 189
17:05:34 [pfps]
isn't action-189 for reviewing mapping for the *previous* publication?
17:05:43 [bcuencag2]
bcuencag2 has joined #owl
17:06:04 [calvanese]
... alan: proposes to close the action
17:06:21 [Zakim]
+??P32
17:06:21 [calvanese]
RESOLVED: close action 189
17:06:28 [bcuencag2]
Zakim, ??P32 is me
17:06:28 [Zakim]
+bcuencag2; got it
17:06:32 [bcuencag2]
Zakim, mute me
17:06:32 [Zakim]
bcuencag2 should now be muted
17:06:58 [calvanese]
Ianh: action 217
17:07:25 [baojie]
Jie Bao
17:07:34 [calvanese]
baojie: continue for another week
17:07:53 [pfps]
q+
17:08:00 [IanH]
q?
17:08:04 [IanH]
ack pfps
17:08:06 [calvanese]
IanH: action amendments for agenda F2F next week?
17:08:26 [calvanese]
pfps: sent email on amendment
17:08:37 [calvanese]
... there is a disturbing asymmetry
17:08:40 [alanr]
q+
17:08:47 [IanH]
ack alanr
17:09:33 [IanH]
q?
17:09:39 [calvanese]
alanr: have a session where to discuss options
17:10:09 [ewallace]
ewallace has joined #owl
17:10:18 [calvanese]
IanH: discuss later on agenda amendment
17:10:24 [calvanese]
pfps: sounds fine
17:10:40 [calvanese]
Ianh: no other agenda amendments
17:11:06 [pfps]
q-
17:11:13 [calvanese]
... no teleconf next week because of F2F
17:11:26 [calvanese]
Topic: reviewing and publishing
17:11:43 [calvanese]
Ianh: first public draft published oct. 8
17:11:51 [uli]
thanks, Sandro and others!
17:11:52 [pfps]
hear, hear!
17:11:54 [calvanese]
... thank to all editors and contributors
17:11:56 [ivan]
clap clap clap
17:11:56 [IanH]
q?
17:12:20 [Zakim]
+Evan_Wallace
17:12:28 [calvanese]
Ianh: reviewing remaining documents
17:12:31 [IanH]
q?
17:12:50 [bijan]
q+
17:12:51 [calvanese]
alanr: my document is not fully completed. not satisfied
17:12:56 [calvanese]
... not sure how to proceed
17:12:56 [bijan]
q-
17:13:00 [bijan]
THat was my question
17:13:14 [calvanese]
Ianh: does this affect finishing the review?
17:13:14 [cgolbrei]
cgolbrei has joined #owl
17:13:26 [calvanese]
alanr: no, I'll finish the review
17:14:01 [Zakim]
+??P21
17:14:10 [calvanese]
IanH: comment that alan is not satisfied with editor's response. not sure how to proceed
17:14:17 [calvanese]
alanr: take it as issue
17:14:24 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:14:28 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bijan (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, IanH, calvanese, baojie, uli (muted), Ivan (muted), bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), Ratnesh, clu (muted), MarkusK_,
17:14:33 [Zakim]
... Alan_Ruttenberg, msmith, bcuencag2 (muted), Evan_Wallace, ??P21
17:14:38 [Zakim]
On IRC I see cgolbrei, ewallace, bcuencag2, msmith, alanr, bmotik, MarkusK_, Zhe, Ratnesh, ivan, uli, IanH, baojie, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, pfps, calvanese, clu, sandro, trackbot
17:14:40 [cgolbrei]
??P21 cgolbrei
17:14:46 [calvanese]
Ianh: alan will submit an issue on this
17:14:55 [ivan]
zakim, ??P21 is christine
17:14:55 [Zakim]
+christine; got it
17:14:55 [uli]
zakim, ??P21 is cgolbrei
17:14:56 [Zakim]
I already had ??P21 as christine, uli
17:15:02 [calvanese]
Ianh: anything to report on quick reference guide
17:15:05 [IanH]
q?
17:15:41 [calvanese]
Zhe: at meeting of task force decided to redesign the card(?)
17:15:58 [ivan]
q+
17:16:06 [ivan]
zakim, unmute me
17:16:06 [Zakim]
Ivan should no longer be muted
17:16:06 [IanH]
q?
17:16:08 [baojie]
http://tw.rpi.edu/portal/OWL_2_Reference_Card_v2
17:16:29 [IanH]
q?
17:16:32 [IanH]
ack ivan
17:16:36 [calvanese]
IanH: when new version of card(?) available, then new reviewing round
17:16:47 [bijan]
q+
17:17:13 [IanH]
q?
17:17:19 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:17:19 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:17:22 [calvanese]
Ianh: proposes to close reviewing actions on the card
17:17:24 [IanH]
q?
17:17:35 [calvanese]
bijan: why developed on external wiki?
17:17:53 [uli]
baojie
17:18:04 [uli]
...answered to Bijan
17:18:07 [ivan]
+1 to bijan
17:18:13 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:18:13 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:18:14 [calvanese]
... we should do all the working group work on the working group wiki
17:18:28 [calvanese]
ACTION: move reference card work on owl wiki
17:18:28 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - move
17:19:00 [calvanese]
ACTION: baojie move reference card work on owl wiki
17:19:00 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - baojie
17:19:02 [IanH]
q?
17:19:13 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:19:13 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:19:20 [baojie]
try Jie Bao?
17:19:23 [IanH]
q?
17:19:25 [pfps]
ACTION: JieBao move reference card work on owl wiki
17:19:25 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - JieBao
17:20:30 [calvanese]
IanH: can BiJan discuss this with task force
17:20:49 [calvanese]
bijan: ok
17:21:03 [calvanese]
Inah: what is the latest state with requirement?
17:21:13 [bijan]
Bijan: I was wondering if the TF has determined whether they'll use HTML for the quick reference card.
17:21:16 [uli]
Diego, this is cgolbrei
17:21:33 [calvanese]
cgolbrei: since review updated requirements to take into account comments
17:21:45 [uli]
s/Inah/IanH
17:22:20 [calvanese]
... actions till Oct. 20 to be done. by then we will have a complete version of requirements
17:22:27 [IanH]
q?
17:22:31 [bijan]
q-
17:22:31 [ewallace]
yes
17:22:35 [calvanese]
... in touch with Ivan to improve narrative of usecases
17:22:41 [IanH]
q?
17:22:44 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:22:44 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:22:51 [cgolbrei]
evan
17:22:51 [ivan]
:-)
17:22:53 [calvanese]
InaH: so good progress has been done
17:22:55 [uli]
s/Ivan/Evan
17:22:57 [bijan]
I've not reviewed the requirements in quite some time
17:22:59 [ivan]
s/ivan/evan/
17:22:59 [calvanese]
s/ivan/evan
17:23:05 [baojie]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Quick_Reference_Guide QRG is transferred to OWL Wiki
17:23:09 [calvanese]
s/ivan/evan/
17:23:15 [bijan]
I've had reservations about it...if we hit a point where you'd like my (critical) feedback, let me know
17:23:25 [calvanese]
Topic: Issues
17:24:17 [calvanese]
IanH: there are a few issues remaining that have been talked to death, but still no clear right or wrong answer
17:24:44 [IanH]
q?
17:24:49 [calvanese]
... we have just to vote with a majority on these. this is the reason for the slight change of title on this first part of the issues
17:25:01 [calvanese]
IanH: no procedural questions
17:25:14 [calvanese]
IanH: Issue 109 about namespaces
17:25:28 [IanH]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Apr/0187.html
17:25:46 [calvanese]
IanH: this email contains a reasonable summary of the issue
17:25:48 [bijan]
that's the proposal
17:26:05 [pfps]
Ian posted in one of my messages. Ivan is free to agree with it.
17:26:10 [calvanese]
ivan: this is Peter's email, not mine
17:26:20 [IanH]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jun/0031.html
17:26:33 [calvanese]
IanH: this is the one from Ivan that summarizes the discussion
17:27:05 [bijan]
Key bit:
17:27:06 [bijan]
From that point on the disagreement between Bijan and me is, I believe,
17:27:06 [bijan]
a kind of a judgement call:
17:27:06 [bijan]
- Bijan believes that introducing a _different_ URI for the purpose of
17:27:07 [bijan]
#2 is too expensive, so to say, in terms of the user community, and that
17:27:07 [bijan]
issue of this extra 'price' should have a higher priority than other
17:27:07 [calvanese]
IanH: Ivan gives a short summary of the issue
17:27:08 [bijan]
considerations
17:27:10 [bijan]
- I am concerned that mixing two very different features/roles on the
17:27:12 [bijan]
same URI is not a clear design and may be misleading (see also my remark
17:27:14 [bijan]
below), and I do not feel the 'price' referred to by Bijan to be high
17:27:16 [bijan]
enough to overrule this concern.
17:28:01 [calvanese]
Ivan: summarizes issue 109
17:28:07 [bijan]
q+
17:28:40 [IanH]
q?
17:28:44 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:28:44 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:28:46 [calvanese]
IanH: there is no new info to bring on this issue
17:29:17 [calvanese]
bijan: would like to see a pointer to another place that says that it is bad engineering practice
17:29:56 [calvanese]
... it is not just a beaty contest, since it changes how I have to write software
17:30:03 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:30:03 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:30:16 [bijan]
I've shown material effects!
17:30:28 [bijan]
Yep
17:30:31 [bijan]
Yes
17:30:35 [IanH]
q?
17:30:38 [bijan]
q-
17:30:39 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:30:40 [calvanese]
IanH: the long discussion we already had didn't seem to converge
17:30:44 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:30:44 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:31:22 [bijan]
If there's a -1 then ask if we're going to lie down in the road
17:31:47 [calvanese]
IanH: we could start with a straw poll first, and then try to find out which direction people are going
17:31:58 [alanr]
q+
17:32:02 [IanH]
q?
17:32:29 [ivan]
q+
17:32:31 [bijan]
"lie down in the road" is old w3c lingo for "make a formal objection"
17:32:33 [ivan]
ack alanr
17:32:38 [IanH]
ack alanr
17:32:58 [IanH]
ack ivan
17:33:02 [IanH]
q?
17:33:03 [pfps]
Straw Poll: same = same namespace, different = different namespace (caps for road kill)??
17:33:21 [calvanese]
ivan: whatever the outcome is, w3c does not want to use this as a formal objection.
17:33:39 [calvanese]
... we will go with the majority, and would not make a formal objection out of that
17:33:47 [bijan]
Manchester has not determined whether we'd formally object
17:34:02 [pfps]
mixed case for Manchester :-)
17:34:06 [calvanese]
IanH: straw poll
17:34:09 [ewallace]
0
17:34:12 [baojie]
0
17:34:14 [ivan]
different
17:34:14 [pfps]
same
17:34:18 [bijan]
same
17:34:40 [IanH]
STAWPOLL: ame = same namespace, different = different, 0 = don't care
17:34:50 [Zhe]
0
17:34:50 [pfps]
ame :-)
17:34:51 [bijan]
ame
17:34:52 [ewallace]
0
17:34:53 [msmith]
same
17:34:53 [ivan]
different
17:35:00 [uli]
same
17:35:03 [bmotik]
0
17:35:04 [bcuencag2]
same
17:35:04 [cgolbrei]
same
17:35:05 [alanr]
0
17:35:05 [baojie]
0
17:35:05 [MarkusK_]
same
17:35:10 [calvanese]
0
17:35:13 [clu]
0
17:35:42 [bijan]
Yes
17:36:04 [calvanese]
IanH; same is in vast majority. sandro sent email that he would vote "different"
17:36:14 [alanr]
also manchester
17:36:33 [bijan]
So are we settled?
17:36:58 [calvanese]
IanH: only W3C voting different
17:37:11 [calvanese]
IanH: let's have now a formal vote
17:37:58 [IanH]
PROPOSAL: close issue-109 by resolving to use a single namespace for everything and that that namespace is the old OWL namespace and that we use it for the XML syntax elements and attributes.
17:38:11 [bijan]
Ok by me
17:38:21 [pfps]
I believe that the above is adequate
17:38:29 [pfps]
q+
17:38:35 [IanH]
q?
17:38:40 [bijan]
Separate issue?
17:38:40 [IanH]
ack pfps
17:38:44 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:38:46 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:38:56 [calvanese]
pfps: there is a proposal for attributes having no namespace
17:39:38 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:39:38 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:39:50 [uli]
or add (pending decision about namespacing of attributes in general)
17:39:54 [IanH]
PROPOSAL: close issue-109 by resolving to use a single namespace for everything and that namespace is the old OWL namespace and that we use it for the XML syntax elements and attributes.
17:39:58 [ewallace]
0 NIST
17:39:59 [pfps]
+1 (Alcatel-Lucent)
17:40:01 [uli]
+1 (Manchester)
17:40:03 [MarkusK_]
+1 (FZI)
17:40:04 [msmith]
+1 (C&P)
17:40:05 [ivan]
-1 (W3C)
17:40:09 [bcuencag2]
0 (OX)
17:40:09 [baojie]
+1 (RPI)
17:40:09 [alanr]
0 (Science Commons)
17:40:11 [calvanese]
0 (FUB)
17:40:15 [cgolbrei]
+1 uvsq
17:40:17 [Zhe]
0 (ORACLE)
17:40:39 [IanH]
RESOLVED: close issue-109 by resolving to use a single namespace for everything and that namespace is the old OWL namespace and that we use it for the XML syntax elements and attributes.
17:40:50 [IanH]
q?
17:41:01 [IanH]
q?
17:41:07 [calvanese]
pfps: can we resolve the part on attributes now?
17:41:08 [bijan]
But I've heard no objection
17:41:11 [bijan]
Sandro is for it
17:41:18 [bijan]
All discussion is positive
17:41:34 [pfps]
let's go for it!
17:41:40 [calvanese]
IanH: have we discussed this adequately, and are we in a position to decide on it now?
17:41:44 [bijan]
And it's standard XML practice
17:41:48 [calvanese]
ivan: seems to be a nobrainer
17:41:55 [bijan]
Yes
17:42:03 [IanH]
PROPOSAL: attributes should have no namespace.
17:42:11 [bijan]
attirbutes in owl/xml
17:42:35 [IanH]
PROPOSAL: attributes in owl/xml should have no namespace.
17:42:36 [bijan]
+1
17:42:41 [ivan]
1
17:42:45 [pfps]
+1 (Alcatel-Lucent)
17:42:47 [MarkusK_]
+1 (FZI)
17:42:48 [uli]
+1
17:42:49 [Zhe]
+1 (ORACLE)
17:42:49 [alanr]
+1 (Science Commons)
17:42:50 [ewallace]
+1 (NIST)
17:42:51 [ivan]
1 (W3C)
17:42:55 [msmith]
+1 (C&P)
17:42:57 [IanH]
+1
17:42:59 [Ratnesh]
+1 (DERI)
17:43:02 [baojie]
1(RPI)
17:43:05 [bcuencag2]
+1
17:43:06 [calvanese]
+1 (FUB)
17:43:12 [cgolbrei]
+1 (UVSQ)
17:43:16 [IanH]
RESOLVED: attributes in owl/xml should have no namespace.
17:43:35 [IanH]
q?
17:43:50 [calvanese]
IanH: Issue 114 - which combinations of punning should be allowed?
17:43:58 [IanH]
q?
17:44:04 [alanr]
q+
17:44:10 [IanH]
q?
17:44:14 [IanH]
ack alanr
17:44:15 [calvanese]
... nobody seems to object to the proposal for resolution
17:44:15 [bmotik]
q+
17:44:38 [uli]
Alan, you phone line comes and goes
17:45:03 [IanH]
q?
17:45:05 [pfps]
q+
17:45:09 [calvanese]
alanr: summarizes issue 114
17:45:31 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:45:31 [Zakim]
bijan was already muted, bijan
17:45:43 [IanH]
q?
17:45:52 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:45:52 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
17:46:06 [IanH]
q?
17:46:10 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:46:33 [IanH]
q?
17:46:36 [uli]
yes
17:46:44 [uli]
yes
17:46:46 [bcuencag2]
yes
17:46:47 [calvanese]
bmotik: i think I have a good set of answers to alan's questions
17:46:51 [msmith]
yes, I can hear you both fine
17:47:09 [uli]
re-dial?
17:47:12 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:47:12 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:47:20 [bijan]
Ian can can you hear me?
17:47:38 [alanr]
ok I've got
17:47:41 [alanr]
it
17:47:42 [uli]
we still hear you
17:47:48 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:47:48 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:48:28 [calvanese]
bmotik: the rhs of annotiations would also be URIs
17:48:48 [calvanese]
... this is technical, and difficult to discuss via phone
17:49:27 [IanH]
q?
17:49:30 [calvanese]
IanH: it would be fare to postpone the discussion today, and have a discussion via email. then resolve it at the F2F
17:49:35 [pfps]
q-
17:50:23 [calvanese]
IanH: Issue 138 on name of dateTime
17:50:34 [calvanese]
pfps: summarizes issue
17:50:36 [IanH]
q?
17:50:40 [ivan]
q+
17:50:41 [msmith]
q+
17:50:49 [IanH]
ack ivan
17:51:23 [pfps]
q+
17:51:32 [calvanese]
ivan: clarify next week with the XML schema people all remaining questions
17:51:36 [IanH]
ack msmith
17:51:57 [IanH]
ack pfps
17:51:58 [calvanese]
msmith: there is still an issue with identity being different
17:52:15 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:52:15 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:52:28 [bijan]
Isnt' this just words?
17:52:40 [msmith]
q+
17:52:43 [bijan]
I.e., does it matter if we call our identity "xsd equality"?
17:52:50 [calvanese]
pfps: xml schema 1.1 identity is data structure identity. we are not using that as our semantic notion of identity. we are using equality
17:53:17 [IanH]
q?
17:53:25 [calvanese]
msmith: I will try to find out when the xml-schema people meet next week
17:53:38 [pfps]
s/msmith/ivan/
17:53:59 [bmotik]
q+ to answer this
17:54:05 [IanH]
ack msmith
17:54:12 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:54:12 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
17:54:21 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:54:21 [Zakim]
bmotik, you wanted to answer this
17:54:37 [IanH]
q?
17:55:11 [pfps]
there is explicit wording in the xsd 1.1 document saying that smushing real and double is OK
17:55:28 [msmith]
ok
17:55:31 [msmith]
I'm happier, thanks
17:55:32 [calvanese]
bmotik: we are doing here something similar to what done with numbers in general
17:55:46 [IanH]
q?
17:56:00 [calvanese]
IanH: we postpone issue 138 till we speak with the xml-schema people
17:57:16 [calvanese]
IanH: as agreed at the beginning, we are moving issue 56 forward
17:57:20 [bijan]
q+
17:57:25 [IanH]
q?
17:58:04 [calvanese]
pfps: the issue is out of scope for our working group. there are better places to discuss it
17:58:13 [IanH]
q?
17:58:16 [calvanese]
... e.g. OWLED
17:58:27 [alanr]
misunderstanding
17:58:32 [alanr]
no SHOULDs involved
17:58:35 [alanr]
WG Note
17:58:53 [bijan]
I have a meta point
17:59:01 [calvanese]
pfps: summarizes the issue, and explain what "this" is
17:59:02 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:59:02 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:59:35 [calvanese]
bparsia: I don't see that a discussion would change people's positions
17:59:40 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:59:40 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:59:40 [ivan]
an aside: Michael SperbergMcQueen will not be in Mandelieu:-( But Henry Thompson and Liam Quinn will be there
18:00:03 [bijan]
q+
18:00:07 [IanH]
q?
18:00:11 [pfps]
q+
18:01:11 [IanH]
q?
18:01:12 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:01:12 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:01:17 [IanH]
ack bijan
18:02:08 [calvanese]
pfps: owled would allow us to do the work on this outside the working group, and save resources
18:02:17 [IanH]
q?
18:02:21 [pfps]
pfps: my view of the issue is to prepare a document that specifies repairs that tools should do to move RDF documents to OWL 2 Dl
18:02:21 [IanH]
ack pfps
18:02:26 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:02:26 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:02:32 [calvanese]
s/pfps/bparsia/
18:02:50 [calvanese]
pfps: I agree with bijan
18:02:58 [msmith]
yes, bijan is the only Pellet person at the f2f
18:03:10 [IanH]
q?
18:03:35 [ivan]
q+
18:03:38 [bijan]
Manchester qua OWL Lint (CO-ODE) don't want to do it either :)
18:03:39 [IanH]
q?
18:03:50 [pfps]
i'm not interested in doing it at the F2F
18:04:00 [bijan]
Why?
18:04:04 [IanH]
q?
18:04:05 [pfps]
yes, why?
18:04:07 [IanH]
ack ivan
18:04:18 [msmith]
q+
18:04:25 [calvanese]
IanH: the question seems to be whether to discuss this in the working group or ouside, not whether to discuss this at all
18:04:27 [IanH]
q?
18:04:35 [msmith]
q-
18:04:38 [bijan]
q+
18:04:49 [IanH]
q?
18:05:10 [msmith]
+1 to Ivan. From Pellet implementer perspective, this is not high priority in WG time
18:05:20 [pfps]
+1 to Ivan
18:05:25 [bijan]
+1 to ivan
18:05:30 [IanH]
q?
18:06:01 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:06:01 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:06:04 [IanH]
q?
18:06:12 [IanH]
ack bijan
18:06:28 [alanr]
q+
18:06:32 [calvanese]
IanH: we can decide at the beginning of the f2f whether we discuss this
18:07:06 [IanH]
q?
18:07:17 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:07:17 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:07:18 [IanH]
ack alanr
18:07:34 [calvanese]
IanH: bijan, is it ok to leave deciding on that at the beginning of the f2f?
18:07:39 [pfps]
pointer please!
18:07:40 [bijan]
I have *always* objected to doing in the wg
18:07:46 [pfps]
q+
18:07:47 [bijan]
q+
18:07:49 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:07:49 [Zakim]
bijan was already muted, bijan
18:07:50 [IanH]
q?
18:07:53 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:07:53 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:08:16 [alanr]
+1
18:08:37 [IanH]
q?
18:08:44 [ewallace]
roadmap discussion, future tasks for life of OWL WG
18:09:32 [calvanese]
alanr: I would not object to rename the session at the f2f from "discussion on issue 56" to "discussion on open issues"
18:09:34 [pfps]
pfps: I don't remember a straw poll on repairs - I would like a pointer
18:09:37 [IanH]
q?
18:09:43 [IanH]
ack pfps
18:09:48 [IanH]
ack bijan
18:10:10 [alanr]
Nor did I suggest that Bijan said that
18:10:23 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:10:23 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:10:32 [IanH]
q?
18:10:42 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:10:42 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:11:00 [calvanese]
animated discssion going on between alanr, bijan
18:11:00 [IanH]
q?
18:11:13 [calvanese]
PROPOSED: amend agenda of f2f
18:11:20 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:11:20 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:12:18 [calvanese]
PROPOSED: amend agenda of f2f such that session on issue 56 is changed to "discussion on future woking group activities"
18:12:37 [calvanese]
s/PROPOSED/RESOLVED/
18:12:39 [alanr]
q+
18:12:39 [IanH]
q?
18:12:49 [ewallace]
s/woking/working
18:12:54 [IanH]
ack alanr
18:13:03 [pfps]
q+
18:13:08 [ivan]
q+
18:13:16 [IanH]
q?
18:13:20 [calvanese]
IanH: we move to issue 145
18:13:50 [calvanese]
alanr: summarizes issue 145
18:13:54 [IanH]
q?
18:14:16 [bijan]
application/xml+owl
18:14:23 [IanH]
ack pfps
18:14:35 [bijan]
what's the question?
18:14:45 [IanH]
q?
18:14:55 [calvanese]
pfps: I have nothing against having mime types for the manchester syntax etc., but I am confused why the xml syntax should have a mime type
18:14:58 [alanr]
Sandro said
18:14:59 [alanr]
The Last Call drafts for any syntax we expect to be transmitted over the
18:14:59 [alanr]
web need to include mime type registrations. For example, see the one I
18:14:59 [alanr]
did for RIF BLD:
18:15:00 [alanr]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-rif-bld-20080730/#Appendix:_RIF_Media_Type_Registration
18:15:00 [alanr]
So someone needs to draft that for the OWL XML serialization.
18:15:07 [bijan]
It's pretty easy
18:15:09 [alanr]
end of what sandro said
18:15:11 [IanH]
Question is: do we*need* a mime type for the XML syntax
18:15:14 [bijan]
but tedious
18:15:18 [calvanese]
ivan: to have a mime type we have to officially submit a request to ???
18:15:20 [IanH]
q?
18:15:26 [ivan]
s/???/IETF/
18:15:27 [IanH]
ack ivan
18:15:59 [bijan]
Example registration: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3870.txt
18:16:19 [calvanese]
ivan: the obvious serialization of owl will inherti the mime type from RDF, so this is not an issue
18:16:39 [pfps]
register early, register often :-0
18:16:46 [IanH]
q?
18:16:54 [calvanese]
IanH: is there any downside to registering mime types for the various syntaxes?
18:17:20 [pfps]
sandro :-)
18:17:57 [calvanese]
IanH: we can take this offiline
18:18:14 [calvanese]
ACTION: IanH to find a volunteer for this
18:18:14 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - IanH
18:18:16 [IanH]
q?
18:18:49 [calvanese]
IanH: move to Issue 142
18:18:54 [IanH]
q?
18:19:02 [bmotik]
q+
18:19:04 [alanr]
q+
18:19:07 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:19:07 [Zakim]
bmotik was not muted, bmotik
18:19:18 [IanH]
q?
18:19:22 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:19:24 [calvanese]
IanH: are we doing anything to prove that Theorem 1 in the profiles document is true?
18:19:49 [calvanese]
bmotik: a full proof of the theorem would require pages and pages, and would probably be useless
18:19:51 [IanH]
q?
18:20:00 [ivan]
q+
18:20:01 [calvanese]
... I can provide a proof sketch
18:20:03 [IanH]
q?
18:20:19 [IanH]
q?
18:20:23 [IanH]
ack alanr
18:20:26 [ivan]
ack alanr
18:20:37 [calvanese]
ACTION: bmotik to provide proof sketch for Theorem 1 in profiles document
18:20:37 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - bmotik
18:20:39 [bmotik]
q+
18:20:43 [pfps]
q+
18:20:46 [IanH]
q?
18:21:23 [pfps]
Alan is not reading the theorem correctly
18:21:33 [IanH]
q?
18:21:38 [ivan]
ack ivan
18:21:49 [calvanese]
IanH: I believe annotations don't belong to the theorem
18:22:02 [alanr]
let O1 and O2 be OWL 2 RL ontologies in both of which no URI is used for more than one type of entity (i.e., no URIs is used both as, say, a class and an individual), and where all axioms in O2 are assertions of the following form with a, a1, ..., an named individuals:
18:22:05 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:22:10 [alanr]
so O1 can have annotations
18:22:11 [calvanese]
ivan: does the theorem have to be proved?
18:22:20 [alanr]
and O2 can have sameas
18:23:06 [calvanese]
bmotik: agrees with Ian that we don't talk about entailments of annotations in OWL-DL
18:23:18 [pfps]
Theorem 1 does not allow annotations in the consequent!!!
18:23:57 [IanH]
q?
18:24:59 [calvanese]
pfps: alan is wrong, boris is right, since annotations cannot be in the consequent
18:25:01 [bijan]
I agree with boris and peter as well
18:25:04 [IanH]
q?
18:25:07 [bijan]
re: the theorem
18:25:09 [pfps]
q-
18:25:11 [IanH]
ack pfps
18:25:13 [IanH]
q?
18:25:14 [calvanese]
IanH: so differences in annotations do not impact on the theorem
18:25:19 [alanr]
q+
18:25:37 [calvanese]
boris: answers Ivan's question
18:25:57 [calvanese]
... it is intuitively kind of clear that this holds.
18:26:03 [bijan]
It's super ugly
18:26:19 [IanH]
q?
18:26:21 [bijan]
See the Jermey and Dave Turner "proof" about OWL Full consistency
18:26:28 [bijan]
60,000 lines of isabelle code
18:26:29 [calvanese]
... there is a transformation between derivations
18:26:46 [pfps]
so change it into a conjecture?
18:27:32 [pfps]
no
18:27:38 [calvanese]
alanr: provides his understanding of the theorem
18:27:41 [pfps]
no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no
18:27:47 [bmotik]
q+
18:27:53 [uli]
but O2 is the 'question" ontology!
18:28:06 [pfps]
we have already said how it happens
18:28:12 [IanH]
q?
18:28:14 [calvanese]
... I'm not sure how annotations are ruled out
18:28:22 [IanH]
ack alanr
18:28:43 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:28:59 [calvanese]
boris: explains that putting sameas in O2 does not make a difference
18:29:27 [IanH]
ack
18:29:30 [IanH]
q?
18:29:43 [uli]
makes sense
18:29:51 [bijan]
+1 to conjecture
18:29:52 [calvanese]
... if you put sameas in O1, this would have additional consequences, but in O2 you are not allowed to answer questions that would detect such consequences
18:29:58 [ivan]
q+
18:29:58 [uli]
makes sense if with proof sketch
18:30:01 [pfps]
q+
18:30:03 [bcuencag2]
reasonable
18:30:04 [IanH]
q?
18:30:07 [IanH]
ack ivan
18:30:17 [bijan]
q+
18:30:22 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:30:22 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:30:26 [calvanese]
IanH: PROPOSED: change theorem to conjecture
18:30:28 [IanH]
q?
18:30:35 [uli]
if we are all happy with it?
18:30:45 [pfps]
ideal solution is theorem+sketch
18:30:55 [calvanese]
alanr: this calls for comments that request a proof
18:31:06 [IanH]
ack pfps
18:31:09 [alanr]
ok. I think I understand now. Thank's Boris
18:31:15 [calvanese]
pfps: acceptable situation is theorem + proof sketch
18:31:27 [IanH]
q?
18:31:32 [IanH]
ack bijan
18:31:38 [calvanese]
bijan: why do we care?
18:31:42 [IanH]
q?
18:31:47 [pfps]
q-
18:32:30 [IanH]
q?
18:32:41 [IanH]
q?
18:32:46 [calvanese]
IanH: we need at least a sketch proof
18:32:47 [bijan]
I think it is
18:32:54 [ivan]
ewallace: we do not know
18:33:05 [IanH]
q?
18:33:22 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:33:22 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
18:33:26 [IanH]
q?
18:33:33 [Zhe]
how long will it take Boris to produce the sketch?
18:33:58 [calvanese]
bparsia: it is not hight priority to proof the theorem. we all believe that it holds. boris has better things to do
18:34:09 [Zhe]
:)
18:34:11 [calvanese]
s/proof/prove/
18:34:24 [bijan]
If that's suffices, then sure
18:34:30 [pfps]
a short sketch would be useful
18:34:51 [IanH]
q?
18:34:52 [calvanese]
bmotik: I can produce the sketch in 5 sentences. If it takes more, I agree with Bijan that it is a waste of time.
18:35:08 [calvanese]
... I try to produce the 5 lines before the f2f
18:35:20 [calvanese]
IanH: additional other business?
18:35:27 [uli]
bye
18:35:28 [Zhe]
bye
18:35:30 [Ratnesh]
bye
18:35:31 [calvanese]
... closes the discussion
18:35:31 [MarkusK_]
bye
18:35:31 [Zakim]
-Alan_Ruttenberg
18:35:32 [Zakim]
-Peter_Patel-Schneider
18:35:33 [Zakim]
-uli
18:35:34 [Zakim]
-bijan
18:35:34 [Zakim]
-msmith
18:35:34 [Zakim]
-Evan_Wallace
18:35:35 [msmith]
msmith has left #owl
18:35:35 [Zakim]
-Ratnesh
18:35:36 [Zakim]
-bcuencag2
18:35:38 [Zakim]
-Ivan
18:35:40 [Zakim]
-MarkusK_
18:35:42 [Zakim]
-baojie
18:35:44 [Zakim]
-bmotik
18:35:46 [Zakim]
-Zhe
18:35:48 [Zakim]
-clu
18:35:49 [MarkusK_]
MarkusK_ has left #owl
18:35:50 [IanH]
RRSAgent, make records public
18:35:50 [cgolbrei]
bye
18:36:16 [uli]
uli has left #owl
18:38:43 [Zakim]
-christine
18:40:10 [Zakim]
-IanH
18:40:12 [Zakim]
-calvanese
18:40:12 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
18:40:13 [Zakim]
Attendees were bijan, Peter_Patel-Schneider, +39.047.101.aaaa, calvanese, IanH, baojie, bmotik, Ivan, uli, Zhe, Ratnesh, +49.421.218.6.aabb, clu, Alan_Ruttenberg, MarkusK_, msmith,
18:40:16 [Zakim]
... bcuencag2, Evan_Wallace, christine
19:54:16 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
19:58:16 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
20:03:29 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
21:08:23 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl
21:38:55 [alanr]
alanr has left #owl