IRC log of owl on 2008-11-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:49:12 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:49:12 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/11/12-owl-irc
17:49:21 [pfps]
Zakim, this is owlwg
17:49:21 [Zakim]
pfps, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be owlwg".
17:49:28 [pfps]
Zakim, this will be owlwg
17:49:28 [Zakim]
ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes
17:49:39 [pfps]
RRSagent, make records public
17:54:57 [schneid]
schneid has joined #owl
17:55:22 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
17:55:29 [Zakim]
+Peter_Patel-Schneider
17:57:33 [MarkusK_]
MarkusK_ has joined #owl
17:58:01 [ivan]
ivan has joined #owl
17:58:06 [Zakim]
+??P7
17:58:16 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:58:16 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
17:58:18 [Zakim]
+Ivan
17:58:34 [uli]
uli has joined #owl
17:58:35 [ivan]
zakim, drop me
17:58:35 [Zakim]
Ivan is being disconnected
17:58:37 [Zakim]
-Ivan
17:59:01 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:59:01 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
17:59:03 [Zakim]
+Ivan
17:59:07 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.276.aaaa
17:59:13 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
17:59:29 [josb]
josb has joined #owl
17:59:38 [alanr_]
alanr_ has joined #owl
17:59:39 [Zakim]
+josb
17:59:41 [Zakim]
+??P11
17:59:44 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??P11 is me
17:59:44 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
17:59:47 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:59:47 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:00:54 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.452.aabb
18:01:11 [baojie]
baojie has joined #owl
18:01:13 [Zakim]
+??P14
18:01:17 [alanr_]
zakim, aabb is me
18:01:17 [Zakim]
+alanr_; got it
18:01:21 [uli]
zakim, ??P14 is me
18:01:21 [Zakim]
+uli; got it
18:01:23 [alanr_]
zakim, who is here?
18:01:23 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, +1.518.276.aaaa, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli
18:01:25 [Zakim]
On IRC I see baojie, alanr_, josb, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, clu, alanr, sandro, trackbot
18:01:25 [uli]
zakim, mute me
18:01:25 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
18:01:34 [baojie]
Zakim, aaaa is me
18:01:34 [Zakim]
+baojie; got it
18:02:19 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
18:02:42 [Zakim]
+Sandro
18:02:53 [Zakim]
+Zhe
18:03:00 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
18:03:00 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe
18:03:42 [Zakim]
+ +0494212186aacc
18:03:56 [clu]
zakim, aacc is me
18:03:56 [Zakim]
+clu; got it
18:04:00 [clu]
zakim, mute me
18:04:00 [Zakim]
clu should now be muted
18:04:16 [bcuencagrau]
bcuencagrau has joined #owl
18:04:20 [Zakim]
+wonsuk
18:04:33 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
18:04:39 [alanr_]
zakim, who is here?
18:04:39 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe, clu (muted), wonsuk
18:04:41 [Zakim]
On IRC I see msmith, bcuencagrau, Zhe, baojie, alanr_, josb, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, clu, sandro, trackbot
18:04:50 [schneid]
zakim, wonsuk is me
18:04:59 [Zakim]
+schneid; got it
18:05:03 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
18:05:10 [Zakim]
+??P20
18:05:15 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, ??P20 is me
18:05:19 [alanr_]
zakim, who is here
18:05:22 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
18:05:25 [alanr_]
zakim, who is here?
18:05:30 [Zakim]
+bcuencagrau; got it
18:05:31 [Rinke]
Rinke has joined #owl
18:05:34 [Zakim]
alanr_, you need to end that query with '?'
18:05:36 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, mute me
18:05:40 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe, clu (muted), schneid (muted), bcuencagrau
18:05:51 [MarkusK_]
Scribe: MarkusK_
18:05:53 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted
18:05:57 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Rinke, msmith, bcuencagrau, Zhe, baojie, alanr_, josb, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, clu, sandro, trackbot
18:06:05 [uli]
Alan, you are very quiet
18:06:07 [Rinke]
ScribeNick: MarkusK_
18:06:09 [Zakim]
+msmith
18:06:23 [MarkusK_]
Alan: Last minute agenda extension regarding question on XML literals
18:06:28 [MarkusK_]
Previous minutes
18:06:40 [alanr_]
zakim is slow
18:06:52 [Zakim]
+Tom
18:06:54 [alanr_]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-11-05
18:06:57 [Rinke]
zakim, Tom is me
18:06:57 [Zakim]
+Rinke; got it
18:07:05 [msmith]
last week's minutes looked ok to me
18:07:36 [MarkusK_]
Alan: I did mechanical cleanup on F2F4 2nd day minutes
18:07:42 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
18:07:57 [MarkusK_]
Alan: Contents should be in better shape now
18:08:19 [MarkusK_]
Aöan: Anyone looked at last week's minutes?
18:08:27 [MarkusK_]
Pfps: Yes, they appear to be ok
18:08:38 [MarkusK_]
s /Aöan/Alan/
18:08:46 [uli]
something is causing static noise
18:09:01 [MarkusK_]
Proposed: Accept minutes of Nov 5 Telco
18:09:22 [MarkusK_]
Accepted: Accept minutes of Nov 5 Telco
18:09:36 [pfps]
I haven't had a chance to look at the F2F4 minutes since yesterday
18:09:37 [Zakim]
+[IBM]
18:09:53 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
18:09:58 [Achille]
Zakim, IBM is me
18:09:58 [Zakim]
+Achille; got it
18:10:10 [MarkusK_]
Action item status
18:10:10 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - item
18:10:22 [msmith]
I updated the action, it was actually done by markus k
18:10:36 [MarkusK_]
Action 243 completed
18:10:36 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - 243
18:10:59 [sandro]
action-243 closed
18:10:59 [trackbot]
ACTION-243 Edit test section of test & conf to include two links and explanatory text closed
18:11:00 [MarkusK_]
Alan: I completed Action 242
18:11:19 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
18:11:19 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe, clu (muted), schneid (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), msmith,
18:11:22 [Zakim]
... Rinke, Achille
18:11:31 [MarkusK_]
Alan: Jos de Bruijn is joining OWL WG
18:11:38 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #owl
18:12:11 [josb]
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB#Primitive_Datatypes
18:12:13 [MarkusK_]
... to look at issues related to datatypes, esp. regarding RIF-OWL compatibility
18:12:24 [JeffP]
{JeffP am only available on IRC)
18:12:28 [MarkusK_]
Jos: We have a certain set of required datatypes in RIF
18:12:47 [MarkusK_]
... these are required, but you are free to implement further datatypes
18:13:03 [MarkusK_]
... the conformance conditions of RIF require that only the required datatypes are implemented
18:13:19 [MarkusK_]
... but conformance can be parameterized to include further datatypes
18:13:30 [sandro]
ID, IDREF, ENTITY
18:13:39 [MarkusK_]
... now OWL requires much more datatypes than RIF, so the extended conformance conditions would apply
18:14:01 [bmotik]
+q
18:14:10 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:14:10 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:14:15 [MarkusK_]
... I was surprised to see certain datatypes being incuded in OWL
18:14:18 [alanr_]
ack bmotik
18:14:31 [MarkusK_]
... since they were partly discouraged by WebOnt
18:14:34 [msmith]
Where in the RIF documents is the description of conformance?
18:14:37 [MarkusK_]
Boris: I can try to explain
18:14:58 [MarkusK_]
... The datatypes ID, IDREF, ENTITY essentially are just restricted types of strings
18:15:07 [MarkusK_]
... they have no relation to documents or anything
18:15:19 [MarkusK_]
... so things are done like in XML Schema
18:15:35 [schneid]
RDF Semantics document tells people they should not use xsd:ENTITY and such: <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#DTYPEINTERP>
18:15:42 [MarkusK_]
... and those particular special forms of strings should not cause problems
18:15:46 [sandro]
boris: We understand ID, IDREF, and ENTITY to just be subtypes of string with a restricted syntax. This is how they are done in XML Schema. They are just strings with additional restrictions.
18:15:53 [MarkusK_]
... since they are not relatvie to a document
18:16:00 [josb]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#ENTITY
18:16:10 [MarkusK_]
Jos: I think at least ENTITY seems to point to a document (link pasted)
18:16:32 [MarkusK_]
Boris: (reads from linked text)
18:16:34 [pfps]
q+
18:16:38 [msmith]
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#ENTITY
18:16:40 [MarkusK_]
... indeed, it mentions a document
18:16:50 [MarkusK_]
... I had not noticed this; this was not the intention in OWL
18:16:52 [alanr_]
says same thing in 1.1
18:17:00 [pfps]
the 1.1 document appears to be incoherent
18:17:01 [MarkusK_]
... I will check version 1.1 of the spec
18:17:27 [Zakim]
-uli
18:17:32 [MarkusK_]
Jos: The intended interpretation is that entities need to be distinguished when taking the union of two documents
18:17:41 [MarkusK_]
Boris: this was not intended in OWL
18:17:52 [Zakim]
+??P14
18:18:00 [uli]
zakim, ??P14 is me
18:18:00 [Zakim]
+uli; got it
18:18:03 [MarkusK_]
... anything beyond simple strings would be out of scope
18:18:10 [uli]
zakim, mute me
18:18:10 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
18:18:26 [sandro]
q?
18:18:31 [MarkusK_]
Jos: Why was this a concern for WebOnt and RDF but not for OWL?
18:18:38 [josb]
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#DTYPEINTERP
18:19:21 [MarkusK_]
Jos: this link is relevant to the discussion of ENTITIY
18:19:22 [pfps]
q+ to ask why we are doing this sort of thing at a teleconference
18:19:32 [msmith]
rdf-mt says, "xsd:QName and xsd:ENTITY require an enclosing XML document context"
18:19:40 [MarkusK_]
... Both RDF and OWL discourage the use of this type, pointing to this section
18:19:42 [alanr_]
ack pfps
18:19:42 [Zakim]
pfps, you wanted to ask why we are doing this sort of thing at a teleconference
18:19:59 [josb]
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/syntax.html#owl_built_in_datatypes
18:20:05 [schneid]
+1 to PFPS
18:20:13 [MarkusK_]
Pfps: Should this be during the current telco? We are not sufficiently prepared.
18:20:22 [MarkusK_]
... Let us take this to Email.
18:20:37 [schneid]
I just stumbled over the RDFS paragraph a few days ago, not related to this discussion
18:20:38 [MarkusK_]
Sandro: It seemed to be an urgent issue that needed some discussion
18:20:56 [schneid]
q+
18:20:58 [pfps]
I'm perfectly happy to junk them
18:21:00 [uli]
I would think that this would be too rushed
18:21:01 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
18:21:01 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
18:21:01 [MarkusK_]
Alan: Should we simply remove the problematic types then?
18:21:11 [MarkusK_]
... Or is anybody interested in having them?
18:21:25 [msmith]
I think junking them is ok, but suggest that proposal go to the list and be resolved next week.
18:21:28 [MarkusK_]
Schneid: I am not comfortable having those types.
18:21:33 [uli]
+1 to Mike
18:21:37 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
18:21:37 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
18:21:48 [ivan]
+1
18:21:49 [uli]
yes
18:21:50 [JeffP]
+1 to Mike
18:21:55 [MarkusK_]
Alan: then we can discuss this over email and schedule a proposal for next week.
18:22:14 [MarkusK_]
Jos: XMLLiteral is a datatype not included in OWL 2, but required in RDF
18:22:16 [pfps]
q+
18:22:23 [pfps]
q+ on a point of order
18:22:25 [bmotik]
q+
18:22:27 [MarkusK_]
... in OWL 1 it was built-in
18:22:32 [alanr_]
ack schneid
18:22:40 [MarkusK_]
... Is it a mistake that it is not in OWL 2?
18:22:48 [schneid]
schneid: I would feel uncomfortable with keeping these datatypes in, because RDFS semantics says SHOULD NOT be used, while RDF-based Semantics would have it in its datatype map
18:23:04 [MarkusK_]
Pfps: A link in the agenda is not accessible without a login.
18:23:12 [MarkusK_]
Sandro: Sorry, I will fix this.
18:23:32 [MarkusK_]
Pfps: What good can we do with this discussion now? I am clueless.
18:23:42 [MarkusK_]
.. More preparation would be useful.
18:23:54 [ivan]
ack pfps
18:23:54 [Zakim]
pfps, you wanted to comment on a point of order
18:24:07 [MarkusK_]
Sandro: OK, but maybe Jos can still bring forward what the issue is, and then we can possibly move on.
18:24:10 [msmith]
+1 to adding XMLLiteral if we can.
18:24:15 [ivan]
XMLLiteral is not an xsd datatype
18:24:39 [MarkusK_]
Boris: The only normative types in OWL 1.0 are strings and integers; I overlooked the XMLLiteral type
18:24:41 [schneid]
XMLLiteral is in the RDF namespace
18:24:53 [schneid]
q+
18:24:58 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
18:24:58 [Zakim]
schneid was not muted, schneid
18:24:58 [ivan]
XMLLiteral is (the only) datatype defined in RDF
18:24:59 [alanr_]
ack bmotik
18:25:06 [bmotik]
ACTION: bmotik2 to Come up with an analysis of whether OWL 2 should include XMLLiteral
18:25:06 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-244 - Come up with an analysis of whether OWL 2 should include XMLLiteral [on Boris Motik - due 2008-11-19].
18:25:07 [josb]
I would expect an answer to my public comment to be an outcome of the action
18:25:10 [MarkusK_]
Alan: We should come up with a proposal whether or not to include XMLLiteral in OWL 2
18:25:34 [josb]
rdf:XMLLiteral spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-XMLLiteral
18:25:38 [MarkusK_]
Schneid: XMLLiteral is mandatory in RDF and thus it is mandatory for the RDF-based semantics
18:25:45 [alanr_]
q?
18:25:49 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
18:25:49 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
18:25:50 [alanr_]
acm schneid
18:25:52 [ivan]
q?
18:25:54 [alanr_]
ack schneid
18:26:01 [MarkusK_]
...I do not see why it is required for DL datatype maps though
18:26:01 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:26:01 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:26:16 [MarkusK_]
... XMLLiteral is already covered for OWL 2 Full.
18:26:29 [bmotik]
-q
18:26:35 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:26:35 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:26:38 [MarkusK_]
All: Thanks to Jos for attending, bye
18:26:43 [Zakim]
-josb
18:26:48 [JeffP]
bye
18:27:09 [sandro]
boris: my parts of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Last_Call_Check_List to be done by the end of the week
18:27:29 [MarkusK_]
Alan: I also noticed a link at the end where the full grammar should be
18:27:32 [schneid]
Ivan, several of the RDF semantic conditions are about rdf:XMLLiteral
18:27:35 [MarkusK_]
Boris: I can fix this too
18:27:57 [MarkusK_]
Alan: Some remaining changes seems to be more than editorial
18:28:16 [MarkusK_]
Boris: Yes, the original reviewers should be asked to look over it again after I finish.
18:28:16 [schneid]
rdf:XMLLiteral in RDF Semantics: <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#RDFINTERP>
18:28:23 [MarkusK_]
... I will send a pointer by email
18:28:27 [alanr_]
q?
18:28:35 [MarkusK_]
Sandor: I will provide a color-coded diff then.
18:28:45 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:28:45 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:29:02 [MarkusK_]
Topic: Mime types
18:29:11 [sandro]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Oct/0164.html
18:29:28 [sandro]
q?
18:29:29 [MarkusK_]
Peter's email suggested mime types for functional and Manchester syntax
18:29:42 [MarkusK_]
Alan: there are still question marks for XML syntax
18:29:57 [sandro]
q+
18:30:14 [MarkusK_]
... Do we still need to specify file extensions?
18:30:24 [MarkusK_]
Pfps: I assume that file extensions should be specified.
18:30:43 [MarkusK_]
... A three-character extension might be good
18:31:13 [alanr_]
oxl
18:31:16 [alanr_]
xml
18:31:20 [MarkusK_]
... It should be possible to find un-occupied 3-char extensions
18:31:31 [MarkusK_]
... I propose oxl or just xml for XML syntax
18:31:51 [MarkusK_]
Sandro: I think it could be xml, but I need to check
18:32:11 [MarkusK_]
For RDF/XML the extension is rdf.
18:32:29 [MarkusK_]
Alan: So the choice is between oxl and xml?
18:32:29 [alanr_]
owx
18:32:31 [sandro]
.xml or .oxl (.owx)
18:32:33 [MarkusK_]
Pfps: Yes
18:32:40 [MarkusK_]
Sandro: owx is another option
18:33:06 [MarkusK_]
Action: Sandro to check if it would be recommendable to use xml as file extension for XML syntax files.
18:33:06 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-245 - Check if it would be recommendable to use xml as file extension for XML syntax files. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-11-19].
18:33:09 [ivan]
good point
18:33:27 [MarkusK_]
Alan: Using xml might cause confusion with some tools, e.g. Protege
18:33:58 [MarkusK_]
Sandro: Also web servers might like to have a separate extension for serving the right mime type
18:34:14 [MarkusK_]
Alan: Then we should probably not consider xml
18:34:14 [sandro]
action-245 closed
18:34:14 [trackbot]
ACTION-245 Check if it would be recommendable to use xml as file extension for XML syntax files. closed
18:34:24 [MarkusK_]
Pfps: ok
18:34:26 [Rinke]
oxl = OMEGA Product Suite File
18:34:27 [ivan]
toss a coing
18:34:29 [MarkusK_]
Sandro: ok
18:34:31 [sandro]
owx
18:34:45 [MarkusK_]
Alan: So the choice is between owc and oxl
18:34:50 [MarkusK_]
s /owc/owx/
18:35:10 [msmith]
does mime registration limit us to 3 characters?
18:35:22 [sandro]
No, but some people prefer it.
18:35:37 [Rinke]
... and some filesystems do as well
18:35:43 [MarkusK_]
Alan: There appears to be a file type for oxl but none for owx
18:35:54 [MarkusK_]
... which might suport the latter.
18:35:57 [JeffP]
xol?
18:36:02 [MarkusK_]
... Peter, do you like owx?
18:36:04 [ivan]
owx it is!
18:36:07 [MarkusK_]
Pfps: I don't care.
18:36:17 [Zhe]
owx is not bad
18:36:32 [MarkusK_]
Alan: Ok, then let us use owx
18:36:48 [MarkusK_]
Pfps: I will edit all relevant documents to mirror this choice
18:37:02 [ivan]
:-)
18:37:16 [MarkusK_]
Sandro: Could we fix who will contact ITS (?) for registering the mime types?
18:37:34 [sandro]
s/ITS/IETF/
18:38:13 [sandro]
q?
18:38:15 [sandro]
q-
18:38:30 [MarkusK_]
Topic: Proposals to publish FPWDs
18:38:41 [MarkusK_]
Sandro takes over chairing
18:39:09 [MarkusK_]
Alan: The action was to have a smaller group of people to work-out a proposal
18:39:52 [MarkusK_]
... It might be good to have another week for a coherent proposal.
18:39:59 [pfps]
q+
18:40:08 [sandro]
ack pfps
18:40:18 [MarkusK_]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/AligningSyntaxKeywords
18:40:27 [ivan]
q+
18:40:56 [MarkusK_]
(Current Topic: Alignment of functional syntax keywords and RDF syntax URIs)
18:41:07 [alanr_]
q+
18:41:13 [alanr_]
ack ivan
18:41:17 [MarkusK_]
Ivan: One option for solving the dealock would be to not do any change.
18:41:41 [pfps]
there are a couple of suggestions that don't seem to have much, if any, pushback
18:42:09 [bmotik]
I'm afraid that the only noncontentious thing is ExistsSelf
18:42:26 [sandro]
STRAWPOLL: Should we put effort into aligning the functional syntax and RDF names?
18:42:29 [bmotik]
-1
18:42:32 [ivan]
+1
18:42:32 [bcuencagrau]
-1
18:42:32 [alanr_]
+1
18:42:35 [sandro]
+1
18:42:38 [pfps]
-1
18:42:44 [MarkusK_]
0
18:42:44 [schneid]
-0
18:42:44 [msmith]
0
18:42:45 [JeffP]
0
18:42:48 [uli]
-0
18:42:51 [Zhe]
+1 consistency is always a good thing
18:42:53 [Rinke]
+0.5
18:42:59 [Achille]
0
18:43:28 [sandro]
baojie? opinion?
18:43:33 [schneid]
consequently, one could then also ask for aligning the Manchester Syntax...
18:43:43 [Rinke]
I don't really think differences in singular vs plural form are a problem
18:43:44 [pfps]
there are various different kinds of consistency that could be aimed for here. The current status is for a particular kind of consistency.
18:43:51 [bmotik]
+q
18:43:58 [ivan]
ack alanr_
18:44:02 [sandro]
q?
18:44:05 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:44:05 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:44:05 [sandro]
ack bmotik
18:44:09 [MarkusK_]
Sandro: If there was no effort involved, would there be objections changing the names=
18:44:24 [MarkusK_]
Boris: I voted with -1.
18:44:34 [baojie]
sorry, was off for a few minutes, I would vote +1
18:44:37 [MarkusK_]
.. in an ideal world, it would be great to have that alignment
18:44:46 [alanr_]
q+
18:44:56 [sandro]
boris: In an ideal world, yes, we'd like the same names. But the RDF syntax takes precidence, so the function syntax would start to get very ugly.
18:45:06 [MarkusK_]
... but in practice, forcing an alignment would make the functional syntax ugly
18:45:29 [sandro]
boris: If we were designing two syntax from scratch, then sure, align them.
18:45:34 [MarkusK_]
... for instance, we do have singular names in RDF where we have n-ary constructs in functional-style syntax
18:45:40 [sandro]
boris: but since we can't change RDF, let's not make functional ugly.
18:45:41 [sandro]
q?
18:45:43 [bcuencagrau]
+q
18:45:45 [sandro]
ack alanr_
18:45:46 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:45:46 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:46:01 [MarkusK_]
... given that we cannot change RDF, I believe that the alignment is not practical
18:46:23 [sandro]
alan: let's accept plurality issues, but try to solve the other?
18:46:30 [MarkusK_]
Alan: Maybe one could focus on alignments that are less problematic than the plurals/singulars
18:46:38 [ivan]
q+
18:46:57 [sandro]
ack bcuencagrau
18:46:57 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, unmute me
18:46:59 [MarkusK_]
... there are other issues that could possibly be changed with less effort
18:47:00 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau was not muted, bcuencagrau
18:47:13 [MarkusK_]
... I will suggest this in an email
18:47:24 [msmith]
q+ to mention the OWL XML schema
18:47:27 [MarkusK_]
Bernardo: Do you then only suggest to change some names?
18:47:52 [sandro]
q?
18:47:53 [alanr_]
q+
18:47:54 [MarkusK_]
... I agree with Boris. We have a nice and well developed functional syntax now
18:48:06 [sandro]
ack ivan
18:48:12 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, mute me
18:48:12 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted
18:48:19 [MarkusK_]
... it had been developed for quite some time, and I would not like to implement major changes there now.
18:48:44 [MarkusK_]
Ivan: I also see that the complete alignment appears to be unrealistic.
18:49:10 [MarkusK_]
... We only arrived at consensus in a few cases, while most of the namings remained disputed.
18:49:19 [bcuencagrau]
+q
18:49:25 [bmotik]
+q
18:49:48 [MarkusK_]
... Still there is a problem in understanding OWL 2 for people coming to OWL from the RDF world
18:50:23 [MarkusK_]
... A possible answer of course is that people from the DL world would prefer the current namings over the RDF-compatible ones.
18:50:27 [sandro]
ack msmith
18:50:27 [Zakim]
msmith, you wanted to mention the OWL XML schema
18:50:51 [MarkusK_]
... but changing only two or three names seems to not solve the problem anyway, so we might just avoid this extra work
18:51:00 [ivan]
+1 to msmith
18:51:08 [schneid]
of course, every change in the FS would need to be followed by OWL/XML
18:51:09 [sandro]
ack alanr_
18:51:11 [MarkusK_]
MikeSmith: Note that the functional syntax is also aligned with the OWL XML syntax
18:51:17 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, unmute me
18:51:17 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should no longer be muted
18:51:23 [MarkusK_]
... Any change in the names would thus also affect the XML syntax.
18:52:06 [MarkusK_]
Sandro: Many people may arrive at OWL as an extension of RDF
18:52:25 [sandro]
q?
18:52:25 [MarkusK_]
... and those peple should be supported.
18:52:29 [sandro]
ack bcuencagrau
18:52:48 [MarkusK_]
... An editorial improvement could be to (scribe did not get this, sorry)
18:53:01 [pfps]
q+
18:53:05 [pfps]
q-
18:53:10 [sandro]
alan: We could xref the function syntax to the rdf vocab, as an editorial fix.
18:53:13 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:53:13 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:53:13 [MarkusK_]
Bernardo: One way to move forward would be to check if there are comments from the community
18:53:21 [MarkusK_]
... after publishing the documents.
18:53:33 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, mute me
18:53:33 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted
18:53:36 [MarkusK_]
... So we may want to wait for comments before starting major changes.
18:53:36 [sandro]
ack bmotik
18:53:48 [MarkusK_]
Sandro: The downside would be that this may require a second last call.
18:54:14 [sandro]
(Hey, let's have two different languages, with different names! :-)
18:54:26 [MarkusK_]
Boris: We should keep in mind that OWL is indeed serving two partially overlapping communities.
18:54:38 [sandro]
q?
18:55:09 [uli]
good points, Boris
18:55:11 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:55:11 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:55:18 [MarkusK_]
... I am not convinced that changing some names would solve the problem that those different approaches bring.
18:55:18 [alanr_]
q?
18:55:52 [MarkusK_]
... And there are various documents addressing the view of the RDF community, ncluding the Primer that shows explicitly how to translate syntactic forms.
18:56:00 [MarkusK_]
Ivan: So how should we continue?
18:56:24 [schneid]
we had pretty much a draw in the straw poll, with half of the votes being 0
18:56:34 [MarkusK_]
Sandro: This can be discussed on the mainling lists; if not enough people continue to work on this, we need to give up on the alignment
18:56:45 [MarkusK_]
Alan: I will send a mail with some suggestions for discussion
18:56:51 [MarkusK_]
Topic: Manchester syntax
18:57:08 [MarkusK_]
Pfps: Some months ago I mailed that Manchester syntax is ready for review
18:57:21 [MarkusK_]
... There have been some at least partial reviews since then.
18:57:41 [MarkusK_]
... I have addressed moth of those comments, but one major comment resulted in an issue.
18:58:09 [MarkusK_]
(Issue number?)
18:58:20 [sandro]
issue-146
18:58:23 [MarkusK_]
Sandro: Any other comments before publishing this?
18:59:11 [MarkusK_]
Alan: Some review comments are still in the document, maybe these should be turned into editor's notes
18:59:31 [MarkusK_]
Pfps: I still wait for responses from the authors of some of these comments.
19:00:25 [MarkusK_]
Alan: I guess I would like my comments turned into editors notes without open issues.
19:00:39 [MarkusK_]
... If Peter agrees with that.
19:01:18 [Rinke]
(my two remaining review comments have been addressed, as far as I'm concerned they may be removed)
19:01:23 [MarkusK_]
Pfps: For this document there appears to be disagreement between the editor and the reviewers
19:01:42 [schneid]
q+
19:01:45 [MarkusK_]
... Keeping the comments as notes will not solve the problem in the end
19:01:50 [ivan]
q+
19:02:00 [Rinke]
I don't have an alternative either
19:02:00 [MarkusK_]
Sandro: But we can ask the public for comments on open issues.
19:02:14 [Rinke]
yes
19:02:34 [MarkusK_]
Pfps: OK, I can turn the comments into editor's notes, and we can then go forward with publication
19:02:42 [schneid]
q-
19:02:57 [sandro]
ACTION: Pfps convert review comments to editors notes (except rinke's)
19:02:57 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-246 - Convert review comments to editors notes (except rinke's) [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2008-11-19].
19:03:14 [msmith]
and in test&conf
19:03:29 [ivan]
q?
19:03:33 [MarkusK_]
Sandro: Can we propose to publish?
19:03:53 [MarkusK_]
... Should publication be as soon as posible or in combination with other publications?
19:04:06 [schneid]
there's also an EdNote resulting from some open disagreement between the editor and one of the reviewers of the RDF-Based Semantics ... :)
19:04:08 [MarkusK_]
Alan: Maybe we can at least resolve now to publish.
19:04:33 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Publish ManchesterSyntax as FPWD, after Peter's just-discussed editors notes are added, in our next round of publications.
19:04:40 [bmotik]
+1 (Oxford)
19:04:45 [Rinke]
+1 (UvA)
19:04:46 [MarkusK_]
+1 (FZI)
19:04:48 [pfps]
+1 (ALU)
19:04:50 [bcuencagrau]
+1 (Oxford)
19:04:53 [Zhe]
+1 (ORACLE)
19:04:55 [ivan]
+1 (w3c)
19:04:58 [alanr_]
+1
19:04:58 [Achille]
+1 (IBM)
19:05:11 [sandro]
+1
19:05:12 [alanr_]
+1 (science commons)
19:05:19 [uli]
+1 (Man)
19:05:29 [MarkusK_]
Alan: So "next round" would mean the next time we publish; is this at Last Call?
19:05:33 [msmith]
+1 (C&P)
19:05:36 [MarkusK_]
Sandro: Yes, that would be useful.
19:05:38 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Publish ManchesterSyntax as FPWD, after Peter's just-discussed editors notes are added, in our next round of publications.
19:05:42 [baojie]
+1 (RPI)
19:05:48 [sandro]
ack ivan
19:06:16 [MarkusK_]
Ivan: There is one open issue related to the Manchester Syntax; I do not understand what it says.
19:06:31 [MarkusK_]
Sandro: This one is on the agenda, maybe we can get to this.
19:06:43 [MarkusK_]
Topic: Datarange extensions
19:07:12 [bmotik]
q+
19:07:18 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
19:07:18 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
19:07:22 [alanr_]
ack bmotik
19:07:24 [MarkusK_]
Alan: We have had some reviews, and the question now is if we can make this a publishable WG note.
19:07:45 [MarkusK_]
Boris: I think the document is good, but some of the comments need to be addressed
19:07:57 [uli]
q+
19:08:05 [MarkusK_]
... I think all reviewers agreed that this should be published as a note
19:08:05 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
19:08:05 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
19:08:09 [uli]
zakim, unmute me
19:08:09 [Zakim]
uli should no longer be muted
19:08:24 [MarkusK_]
... Some open issues remain, but I do not see why those should not be solvable.
19:08:41 [MarkusK_]
Uli: We plan to address all the reviewers' comments, but this won't happen by next week.
19:08:55 [uli]
zakim, mute me
19:08:55 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
19:09:22 [MarkusK_]
Alan: OK; so let us continue to work on this.
19:09:28 [sandro]
alan: consensus seems to be that this is moving along nicely to end up as a Note.
19:09:49 [bmotik]
Given this outcome, could we perhaps resolve ISSUE-127 now/soon?
19:10:03 [MarkusK_]
Topic: Issues
19:10:12 [sandro]
subtopic: issue-127
19:10:28 [bmotik]
+1 to close
19:10:29 [MarkusK_]
(Alan is back chairing)
19:10:33 [bmotik]
q+
19:10:42 [sandro]
ack uli
19:10:43 [alanr_]
ack uli
19:10:54 [alanr_]
ack bmotik
19:10:56 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
19:10:56 [Zakim]
bmotik was not muted, bmotik
19:11:01 [ivan]
q+
19:11:02 [uli]
zakim, mute me
19:11:02 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
19:11:16 [MarkusK_]
Boris: Does anything speak against closing Issue 127?
19:11:43 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
19:11:43 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
19:11:47 [ivan]
q-
19:11:55 [schneid]
we had /3/ proposals to close this in the last few days, AFAIR :)
19:12:07 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Close issue-127 given the work on Data Range Extension is proceeding nicely
19:12:09 [bmotik]
+1
19:12:12 [sandro]
+1
19:12:13 [alanr_]
+1
19:12:13 [msmith]
+1
19:12:13 [ivan]
+1
19:12:14 [Rinke]
+1
19:12:14 [schneid]
+1
19:12:14 [MarkusK_]
+1
19:12:14 [pfps]
+1
19:12:17 [Zhe]
+1
19:12:18 [bcuencagrau]
+1
19:12:23 [uli]
+1
19:12:24 [JeffP]
0
19:12:26 [baojie]
+1
19:12:33 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Close issue-127 given the work on Data Range Extension is proceeding nicely
19:12:56 [MarkusK_]
subtopic: Issue-87
19:12:57 [sandro]
subtopic: Issue-87
19:13:08 [MarkusK_]
(Sandro is chairing this)
19:13:50 [MarkusK_]
Alan: It is considered useful to add rational numbers as a datatype
19:14:05 [bmotik]
q+
19:14:18 [msmith]
q+
19:14:20 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
19:14:20 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
19:14:23 [sandro]
ack bmotik
19:14:31 [MarkusK_]
... the question was how this should be realized, and what conformance would require for this datatype
19:14:49 [MarkusK_]
... also it was asked if we should have a dedicated lexical representation for rationals
19:15:17 [MarkusK_]
Boris: Regarding the dedicated lexical form, I do not see any problems.
19:15:28 [alanr_]
q+ to mention finite number of floats between rationals
19:15:36 [MarkusK_]
... There might be some implementation challenges involved.
19:16:00 [MarkusK_]
... One would probably store rationals as pairs of integers
19:16:13 [msmith]
q-
19:16:21 [MarkusK_]
... We do not need arithmetics, since OWL does not include much arithmetics anyway.
19:16:43 [sandro]
ack alanr_
19:16:43 [Zakim]
alanr_, you wanted to mention finite number of floats between rationals
19:16:45 [MarkusK_]
... But comparing floats and rationals might be a slight challenge for implementors
19:16:46 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
19:16:46 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
19:16:51 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, mute me
19:16:51 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau was already muted, bcuencagrau
19:17:11 [bmotik]
q+
19:17:33 [MarkusK_]
Alan: I was also wondering about the comparison.
19:17:33 [sandro]
a?
19:17:36 [sandro]
q?
19:17:37 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
19:17:37 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
19:17:42 [sandro]
ack bmotik
19:17:52 [MarkusK_]
... Maybe we should put this in an tag it as an "at risk" features
19:17:54 [schneid]
xsd:double just specifies a finite subset of all rationals
19:18:07 [MarkusK_]
... There was also a problem relating to counting floats.
19:18:17 [alanr_]
q+
19:18:45 [sandro]
ack alanr_
19:18:46 [MarkusK_]
Boris: Yes, but the value space of rationals is dense, i.e. there are infinitely many values between each pair of distinct rational numbers
19:19:01 [MarkusK_]
... Even if there are only finitely many constants, the number of rationals is not a problem.
19:19:32 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
19:19:32 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
19:19:33 [MarkusK_]
Alan: Yes, but there might e.g. be a data range of floats bounded by rational constants
19:19:41 [msmith]
+1
19:19:46 [alanr_]
+1
19:19:58 [MarkusK_]
Sandro: This discussion probably should be continued elsewhere.
19:20:10 [sandro]
STRAWPOLL: go ahead with Rationals in OWL2, marked as At Risk until we get implementation experience
19:20:11 [ivan]
+1 (why puttint it on the agenda next week?)
19:20:14 [bmotik]
+1
19:20:17 [MarkusK_]
+1
19:20:17 [baojie]
+1
19:20:18 [uli]
+1
19:20:19 [pfps]
+1
19:20:19 [Achille]
+1
19:20:19 [Zhe]
+1
19:20:22 [schneid]
+1 (even without "at risk")
19:20:23 [alanr_]
+1
19:20:23 [bcuencagrau]
+1
19:20:24 [Rinke]
+1
19:20:29 [JeffP]
0
19:20:49 [bmotik]
Perhaps we can come up by the next week with questions that need to be answered in order to remove "at risk"
19:20:55 [MarkusK_]
Sandro: It appears to be too early to make this a full resolution, since it was not announced on the agenda.
19:21:06 [ivan]
q+
19:21:12 [sandro]
subtopic: issue-146
19:21:22 [MarkusK_]
(Sandro chairing)
19:22:16 [MarkusK_]
Sandro: We probably could let this issue sit until we have feedback on Manchester syntax
19:22:17 [sandro]
we're going to let this sit....
19:22:52 [ivan]
q-
19:22:55 [MarkusK_]
Ivan: I really do not understand Issue 146.
19:23:07 [MarkusK_]
... I would like a more detailed explanation via email.
19:23:19 [sandro]
ACTION: Alan make a detailed proposal for edits to ManchesterSyntax to address issue-146 - due Jan 15
19:23:19 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-247 - make a detailed proposal for edits to ManchesterSyntax to address issue-146 [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-01-15].
19:23:56 [sandro]
subtopic: deprecated
19:24:08 [sandro]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Nov/0076.html
19:24:18 [bmotik]
q+
19:24:21 [pfps]
q+
19:24:36 [MarkusK_]
Alan: Since we have punning, we can no longer distinguish deprecation of properties and classes
19:24:43 [Zakim]
-Rinke
19:24:45 [sandro]
ack bmotik
19:24:46 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
19:24:48 [Zakim]
bmotik was not muted, bmotik
19:24:49 [sandro]
q?
19:24:50 [MarkusK_]
... A simple way to fix this would be to have two separate deprecation markers
19:25:01 [MarkusK_]
... one for classes and one for properties.
19:25:04 [pfps]
q-
19:25:22 [sandro]
alan: two different annotation properties.
19:25:24 [MarkusK_]
Boris: So the suggestion is to have two distinct annotation properties?
19:25:29 [MarkusK_]
Alan: Yes
19:25:48 [ivan]
q+
19:25:51 [schneid]
or more: for individuals, classes, datatypes, dataproperties, objectproperties
19:25:54 [sandro]
ack ivan
19:25:56 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
19:25:56 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
19:25:57 [MarkusK_]
Boris: Isnt't it that you deprecate a URI rather than a particular use/view of it?
19:26:11 [MarkusK_]
Alan: No, my intention is to deprecate a particular view on a URI
19:26:24 [MarkusK_]
Ivan: Are there any use cases?
19:26:27 [bmotik]
+1 to ivan
19:26:37 [bmotik]
q+
19:26:41 [MarkusK_]
Alan: Yes, you could have a legacy document that contains a deprecated property.
19:27:00 [sandro]
q?
19:27:01 [MarkusK_]
... But you can no lnger tell that that use was deprecated, and not, e.g., the calss
19:27:11 [MarkusK_]
s /calss/class./
19:27:37 [MarkusK_]
Ivan: Conceptually, URIs still refer to one thing, and this is what I expect to deprecate.
19:27:46 [MarkusK_]
... Thus the deprecation refers to all uses of the URI.
19:27:54 [sandro]
q?
19:28:01 [schneid]
q+
19:28:02 [MarkusK_]
Alan: My assumption was that single uses of URIs might be deprecated.
19:28:23 [MarkusK_]
Ivan: If I am in OWL Full, I also deprecate a URI
19:28:41 [bmotik]
In OWL Full, there is no distinction between a property and a class
19:28:43 [sandro]
ack bmotik
19:28:44 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
19:28:44 [Zakim]
bmotik was not muted, bmotik
19:29:20 [MarkusK_]
Boris: The reason for having deprecated class and deprecated property in OWL 1 seems to be a side effect
19:29:40 [MarkusK_]
... but not a very thought-through design
19:29:53 [MarkusK_]
... For instance, there is no way of deprecating individuals.
19:29:56 [ivan]
???
19:30:04 [alanr_]
q?
19:30:10 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
19:30:10 [Zakim]
schneid was not muted, schneid
19:30:12 [MarkusK_]
... I do not think that this OWL 1 deprecation was actually used a lot either.
19:30:27 [MarkusK_]
... Maybe we do not require to spend more effort on this.
19:31:00 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
19:31:00 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
19:31:03 [MarkusK_]
Schneid: I can imagine a use-case where one really wants to deprecate particular uses.
19:31:07 [uli]
bye
19:31:10 [Zhe]
bye
19:31:10 [Zakim]
-bmotik
19:31:11 [sandro]
ADJOURNED
19:31:13 [Zakim]
-alanr_
19:31:14 [Zakim]
-msmith
19:31:15 [msmith]
bye
19:31:15 [Zakim]
-uli
19:31:17 [Zakim]
-Peter_Patel-Schneider
19:31:17 [Zakim]
-Zhe
19:31:17 [MarkusK_]
... But I do not expec this to be very common
19:31:18 [msmith]
msmith has left #owl
19:31:18 [Zakim]
-baojie
19:31:23 [Zakim]
-clu
19:31:24 [Zakim]
-bcuencagrau
19:31:28 [Zakim]
-Ivan
19:31:36 [ivan]
ivan has left #owl
19:31:40 [uli]
uli has left #owl
19:31:46 [Zakim]
-Achille
19:31:52 [sandro]
RRSAgent, make log public
19:31:52 [schneid]
schneid: said that it is /hard/ for him to imagine a real use case
19:32:02 [sandro]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Scribe_Conventions
19:32:17 [MarkusK_]
Bye
19:32:17 [Zakim]
-Sandro
19:32:21 [Zakim]
-MarkusK_
19:32:46 [schneid]
schneid: one could imagine that someone wants to deprecate only the class use of a URI but not the property use, but this will probably never happen in practice
19:34:17 [Zakim]
-schneid
19:34:18 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
19:34:20 [Zakim]
Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, +1.518.276.aaaa, josb, bmotik, +1.617.452.aabb, alanr_, uli, baojie, Sandro, Zhe, +0494212186aacc, clu, schneid, bcuencagrau,
19:34:23 [Zakim]
... msmith, Rinke, Achille
19:35:47 [alanr_]
alanr_ has left #owl
19:42:01 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
19:58:43 [alanr]
alanr has left #owl
21:58:03 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl