17:49:12 RRSAgent has joined #owl 17:49:12 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/11/12-owl-irc 17:49:21 Zakim, this is owlwg 17:49:21 pfps, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be owlwg". 17:49:28 Zakim, this will be owlwg 17:49:28 ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes 17:49:39 RRSagent, make records public 17:54:57 schneid has joined #owl 17:55:22 SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started 17:55:29 +Peter_Patel-Schneider 17:57:33 MarkusK_ has joined #owl 17:58:01 ivan has joined #owl 17:58:06 +??P7 17:58:16 zakim, dial ivan-voip 17:58:16 ok, ivan; the call is being made 17:58:18 +Ivan 17:58:34 uli has joined #owl 17:58:35 zakim, drop me 17:58:35 Ivan is being disconnected 17:58:37 -Ivan 17:59:01 zakim, dial ivan-voip 17:59:01 ok, ivan; the call is being made 17:59:03 +Ivan 17:59:07 + +1.518.276.aaaa 17:59:13 bmotik has joined #owl 17:59:29 josb has joined #owl 17:59:38 alanr_ has joined #owl 17:59:39 +josb 17:59:41 +??P11 17:59:44 Zakim, ??P11 is me 17:59:44 +bmotik; got it 17:59:47 Zakim, mute me 17:59:47 bmotik should now be muted 18:00:54 + +1.617.452.aabb 18:01:11 baojie has joined #owl 18:01:13 +??P14 18:01:17 zakim, aabb is me 18:01:17 +alanr_; got it 18:01:21 zakim, ??P14 is me 18:01:21 +uli; got it 18:01:23 zakim, who is here? 18:01:23 On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, +1.518.276.aaaa, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli 18:01:25 On IRC I see baojie, alanr_, josb, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, clu, alanr, sandro, trackbot 18:01:25 zakim, mute me 18:01:25 uli should now be muted 18:01:34 Zakim, aaaa is me 18:01:34 +baojie; got it 18:02:19 Zhe has joined #owl 18:02:42 +Sandro 18:02:53 +Zhe 18:03:00 zakim, who is on the call? 18:03:00 On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe 18:03:42 + +0494212186aacc 18:03:56 zakim, aacc is me 18:03:56 +clu; got it 18:04:00 zakim, mute me 18:04:00 clu should now be muted 18:04:16 bcuencagrau has joined #owl 18:04:20 +wonsuk 18:04:33 msmith has joined #owl 18:04:39 zakim, who is here? 18:04:39 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 On IRC I see msmith, bcuencagrau, Zhe, baojie, alanr_, josb, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, clu, sandro, trackbot 18:04:50 zakim, wonsuk is me 18:04:59 +schneid; got it 18:05:03 zakim, mute me 18:05:10 +??P20 18:05:15 Zakim, ??P20 is me 18:05:19 zakim, who is here 18:05:22 schneid should now be muted 18:05:25 zakim, who is here? 18:05:30 +bcuencagrau; got it 18:05:31 Rinke has joined #owl 18:05:34 alanr_, you need to end that query with '?' 18:05:36 Zakim, mute me 18:05:40 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 Scribe: MarkusK_ 18:05:53 bcuencagrau should now be muted 18:05:57 On IRC I see Rinke, msmith, bcuencagrau, Zhe, baojie, alanr_, josb, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, clu, sandro, trackbot 18:06:05 Alan, you are very quiet 18:06:07 ScribeNick: MarkusK_ 18:06:09 +msmith 18:06:23 Alan: Last minute agenda extension regarding question on XML literals 18:06:28 Previous minutes 18:06:40 zakim is slow 18:06:52 +Tom 18:06:54 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-11-05 18:06:57 zakim, Tom is me 18:06:57 +Rinke; got it 18:07:05 last week's minutes looked ok to me 18:07:36 Alan: I did mechanical cleanup on F2F4 2nd day minutes 18:07:42 pfps has joined #owl 18:07:57 Alan: Contents should be in better shape now 18:08:19 Aöan: Anyone looked at last week's minutes? 18:08:27 Pfps: Yes, they appear to be ok 18:08:38 s /Aöan/Alan/ 18:08:46 something is causing static noise 18:09:01 Proposed: Accept minutes of Nov 5 Telco 18:09:22 Accepted: Accept minutes of Nov 5 Telco 18:09:36 I haven't had a chance to look at the F2F4 minutes since yesterday 18:09:37 +[IBM] 18:09:53 Achille has joined #owl 18:09:58 Zakim, IBM is me 18:09:58 +Achille; got it 18:10:10 Action item status 18:10:10 Sorry, couldn't find user - item 18:10:22 I updated the action, it was actually done by markus k 18:10:36 Action 243 completed 18:10:36 Sorry, couldn't find user - 243 18:10:59 action-243 closed 18:10:59 ACTION-243 Edit test section of test & conf to include two links and explanatory text closed 18:11:00 Alan: I completed Action 242 18:11:19 zakim, who is on the call? 18:11:19 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 ... Rinke, Achille 18:11:31 Alan: Jos de Bruijn is joining OWL WG 18:11:38 JeffP has joined #owl 18:12:11 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB#Primitive_Datatypes 18:12:13 ... to look at issues related to datatypes, esp. regarding RIF-OWL compatibility 18:12:24 {JeffP am only available on IRC) 18:12:28 Jos: We have a certain set of required datatypes in RIF 18:12:47 ... these are required, but you are free to implement further datatypes 18:13:03 ... the conformance conditions of RIF require that only the required datatypes are implemented 18:13:19 ... but conformance can be parameterized to include further datatypes 18:13:30 ID, IDREF, ENTITY 18:13:39 ... now OWL requires much more datatypes than RIF, so the extended conformance conditions would apply 18:14:01 +q 18:14:10 Zakim, unmute me 18:14:10 bmotik should no longer be muted 18:14:15 ... I was surprised to see certain datatypes being incuded in OWL 18:14:18 ack bmotik 18:14:31 ... since they were partly discouraged by WebOnt 18:14:34 Where in the RIF documents is the description of conformance? 18:14:37 Boris: I can try to explain 18:14:58 ... The datatypes ID, IDREF, ENTITY essentially are just restricted types of strings 18:15:07 ... they have no relation to documents or anything 18:15:19 ... so things are done like in XML Schema 18:15:35 RDF Semantics document tells people they should not use xsd:ENTITY and such: 18:15:42 ... and those particular special forms of strings should not cause problems 18:15:46 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 ... since they are not relatvie to a document 18:16:00 http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#ENTITY 18:16:10 Jos: I think at least ENTITY seems to point to a document (link pasted) 18:16:32 Boris: (reads from linked text) 18:16:34 q+ 18:16:38 http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#ENTITY 18:16:40 ... indeed, it mentions a document 18:16:50 ... I had not noticed this; this was not the intention in OWL 18:16:52 says same thing in 1.1 18:17:00 the 1.1 document appears to be incoherent 18:17:01 ... I will check version 1.1 of the spec 18:17:27 -uli 18:17:32 Jos: The intended interpretation is that entities need to be distinguished when taking the union of two documents 18:17:41 Boris: this was not intended in OWL 18:17:52 +??P14 18:18:00 zakim, ??P14 is me 18:18:00 +uli; got it 18:18:03 ... anything beyond simple strings would be out of scope 18:18:10 zakim, mute me 18:18:10 uli should now be muted 18:18:26 q? 18:18:31 Jos: Why was this a concern for WebOnt and RDF but not for OWL? 18:18:38 http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#DTYPEINTERP 18:19:21 Jos: this link is relevant to the discussion of ENTITIY 18:19:22 q+ to ask why we are doing this sort of thing at a teleconference 18:19:32 rdf-mt says, "xsd:QName and xsd:ENTITY require an enclosing XML document context" 18:19:40 ... Both RDF and OWL discourage the use of this type, pointing to this section 18:19:42 ack pfps 18:19:42 pfps, you wanted to ask why we are doing this sort of thing at a teleconference 18:19:59 http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/syntax.html#owl_built_in_datatypes 18:20:05 +1 to PFPS 18:20:13 Pfps: Should this be during the current telco? We are not sufficiently prepared. 18:20:22 ... Let us take this to Email. 18:20:37 I just stumbled over the RDFS paragraph a few days ago, not related to this discussion 18:20:38 Sandro: It seemed to be an urgent issue that needed some discussion 18:20:56 q+ 18:20:58 I'm perfectly happy to junk them 18:21:00 I would think that this would be too rushed 18:21:01 zakim, unmute me 18:21:01 schneid should no longer be muted 18:21:01 Alan: Should we simply remove the problematic types then? 18:21:11 ... Or is anybody interested in having them? 18:21:25 I think junking them is ok, but suggest that proposal go to the list and be resolved next week. 18:21:28 Schneid: I am not comfortable having those types. 18:21:33 +1 to Mike 18:21:37 zakim, mute me 18:21:37 schneid should now be muted 18:21:48 +1 18:21:49 yes 18:21:50 +1 to Mike 18:21:55 Alan: then we can discuss this over email and schedule a proposal for next week. 18:22:14 Jos: XMLLiteral is a datatype not included in OWL 2, but required in RDF 18:22:16 q+ 18:22:23 q+ on a point of order 18:22:25 q+ 18:22:27 ... in OWL 1 it was built-in 18:22:32 ack schneid 18:22:40 ... Is it a mistake that it is not in OWL 2? 18:22:48 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 Pfps: A link in the agenda is not accessible without a login. 18:23:12 Sandro: Sorry, I will fix this. 18:23:32 Pfps: What good can we do with this discussion now? I am clueless. 18:23:42 .. More preparation would be useful. 18:23:54 ack pfps 18:23:54 pfps, you wanted to comment on a point of order 18:24:07 Sandro: OK, but maybe Jos can still bring forward what the issue is, and then we can possibly move on. 18:24:10 +1 to adding XMLLiteral if we can. 18:24:15 XMLLiteral is not an xsd datatype 18:24:39 Boris: The only normative types in OWL 1.0 are strings and integers; I overlooked the XMLLiteral type 18:24:41 XMLLiteral is in the RDF namespace 18:24:53 q+ 18:24:58 zakim, unmute me 18:24:58 schneid was not muted, schneid 18:24:58 XMLLiteral is (the only) datatype defined in RDF 18:24:59 ack bmotik 18:25:06 ACTION: bmotik2 to Come up with an analysis of whether OWL 2 should include XMLLiteral 18:25:06 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 I would expect an answer to my public comment to be an outcome of the action 18:25:10 Alan: We should come up with a proposal whether or not to include XMLLiteral in OWL 2 18:25:34 rdf:XMLLiteral spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-XMLLiteral 18:25:38 Schneid: XMLLiteral is mandatory in RDF and thus it is mandatory for the RDF-based semantics 18:25:45 q? 18:25:49 zakim, mute me 18:25:49 schneid should now be muted 18:25:50 acm schneid 18:25:52 q? 18:25:54 ack schneid 18:26:01 ...I do not see why it is required for DL datatype maps though 18:26:01 Zakim, mute me 18:26:01 bmotik should now be muted 18:26:16 ... XMLLiteral is already covered for OWL 2 Full. 18:26:29 -q 18:26:35 Zakim, unmute me 18:26:35 bmotik should no longer be muted 18:26:38 All: Thanks to Jos for attending, bye 18:26:43 -josb 18:26:48 bye 18:27:09 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 Alan: I also noticed a link at the end where the full grammar should be 18:27:32 Ivan, several of the RDF semantic conditions are about rdf:XMLLiteral 18:27:35 Boris: I can fix this too 18:27:57 Alan: Some remaining changes seems to be more than editorial 18:28:16 Boris: Yes, the original reviewers should be asked to look over it again after I finish. 18:28:16 rdf:XMLLiteral in RDF Semantics: 18:28:23 ... I will send a pointer by email 18:28:27 q? 18:28:35 Sandor: I will provide a color-coded diff then. 18:28:45 Zakim, mute me 18:28:45 bmotik should now be muted 18:29:02 Topic: Mime types 18:29:11 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Oct/0164.html 18:29:28 q? 18:29:29 Peter's email suggested mime types for functional and Manchester syntax 18:29:42 Alan: there are still question marks for XML syntax 18:29:57 q+ 18:30:14 ... Do we still need to specify file extensions? 18:30:24 Pfps: I assume that file extensions should be specified. 18:30:43 ... A three-character extension might be good 18:31:13 oxl 18:31:16 xml 18:31:20 ... It should be possible to find un-occupied 3-char extensions 18:31:31 ... I propose oxl or just xml for XML syntax 18:31:51 Sandro: I think it could be xml, but I need to check 18:32:11 For RDF/XML the extension is rdf. 18:32:29 Alan: So the choice is between oxl and xml? 18:32:29 owx 18:32:31 .xml or .oxl (.owx) 18:32:33 Pfps: Yes 18:32:40 Sandro: owx is another option 18:33:06 Action: Sandro to check if it would be recommendable to use xml as file extension for XML syntax files. 18:33:06 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 good point 18:33:27 Alan: Using xml might cause confusion with some tools, e.g. Protege 18:33:58 Sandro: Also web servers might like to have a separate extension for serving the right mime type 18:34:14 Alan: Then we should probably not consider xml 18:34:14 action-245 closed 18:34:14 ACTION-245 Check if it would be recommendable to use xml as file extension for XML syntax files. closed 18:34:24 Pfps: ok 18:34:26 oxl = OMEGA Product Suite File 18:34:27 toss a coing 18:34:29 Sandro: ok 18:34:31 owx 18:34:45 Alan: So the choice is between owc and oxl 18:34:50 s /owc/owx/ 18:35:10 does mime registration limit us to 3 characters? 18:35:22 No, but some people prefer it. 18:35:37 ... and some filesystems do as well 18:35:43 Alan: There appears to be a file type for oxl but none for owx 18:35:54 ... which might suport the latter. 18:35:57 xol? 18:36:02 ... Peter, do you like owx? 18:36:04 owx it is! 18:36:07 Pfps: I don't care. 18:36:17 owx is not bad 18:36:32 Alan: Ok, then let us use owx 18:36:48 Pfps: I will edit all relevant documents to mirror this choice 18:37:02 :-) 18:37:16 Sandro: Could we fix who will contact ITS (?) for registering the mime types? 18:37:34 s/ITS/IETF/ 18:38:13 q? 18:38:15 q- 18:38:30 Topic: Proposals to publish FPWDs 18:38:41 Sandro takes over chairing 18:39:09 Alan: The action was to have a smaller group of people to work-out a proposal 18:39:52 ... It might be good to have another week for a coherent proposal. 18:39:59 q+ 18:40:08 ack pfps 18:40:18 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/AligningSyntaxKeywords 18:40:27 q+ 18:40:56 (Current Topic: Alignment of functional syntax keywords and RDF syntax URIs) 18:41:07 q+ 18:41:13 ack ivan 18:41:17 Ivan: One option for solving the dealock would be to not do any change. 18:41:41 there are a couple of suggestions that don't seem to have much, if any, pushback 18:42:09 I'm afraid that the only noncontentious thing is ExistsSelf 18:42:26 STRAWPOLL: Should we put effort into aligning the functional syntax and RDF names? 18:42:29 -1 18:42:32 +1 18:42:32 -1 18:42:32 +1 18:42:35 +1 18:42:38 -1 18:42:44 0 18:42:44 -0 18:42:44 0 18:42:45 0 18:42:48 -0 18:42:51 +1 consistency is always a good thing 18:42:53 +0.5 18:42:59 0 18:43:28 baojie? opinion? 18:43:33 consequently, one could then also ask for aligning the Manchester Syntax... 18:43:43 I don't really think differences in singular vs plural form are a problem 18:43:44 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 +q 18:43:58 ack alanr_ 18:44:02 q? 18:44:05 Zakim, unmute me 18:44:05 bmotik should no longer be muted 18:44:05 ack bmotik 18:44:09 Sandro: If there was no effort involved, would there be objections changing the names= 18:44:24 Boris: I voted with -1. 18:44:34 sorry, was off for a few minutes, I would vote +1 18:44:37 .. in an ideal world, it would be great to have that alignment 18:44:46 q+ 18:44:56 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 ... but in practice, forcing an alignment would make the functional syntax ugly 18:45:29 boris: If we were designing two syntax from scratch, then sure, align them. 18:45:34 ... for instance, we do have singular names in RDF where we have n-ary constructs in functional-style syntax 18:45:40 boris: but since we can't change RDF, let's not make functional ugly. 18:45:41 q? 18:45:43 +q 18:45:45 ack alanr_ 18:45:46 Zakim, mute me 18:45:46 bmotik should now be muted 18:46:01 ... given that we cannot change RDF, I believe that the alignment is not practical 18:46:23 alan: let's accept plurality issues, but try to solve the other? 18:46:30 Alan: Maybe one could focus on alignments that are less problematic than the plurals/singulars 18:46:38 q+ 18:46:57 ack bcuencagrau 18:46:57 Zakim, unmute me 18:46:59 ... there are other issues that could possibly be changed with less effort 18:47:00 bcuencagrau was not muted, bcuencagrau 18:47:13 ... I will suggest this in an email 18:47:24 q+ to mention the OWL XML schema 18:47:27 Bernardo: Do you then only suggest to change some names? 18:47:52 q? 18:47:53 q+ 18:47:54 ... I agree with Boris. We have a nice and well developed functional syntax now 18:48:06 ack ivan 18:48:12 Zakim, mute me 18:48:12 bcuencagrau should now be muted 18:48:19 ... it had been developed for quite some time, and I would not like to implement major changes there now. 18:48:44 Ivan: I also see that the complete alignment appears to be unrealistic. 18:49:10 ... We only arrived at consensus in a few cases, while most of the namings remained disputed. 18:49:19 +q 18:49:25 +q 18:49:48 ... Still there is a problem in understanding OWL 2 for people coming to OWL from the RDF world 18:50:23 ... 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 ack msmith 18:50:27 msmith, you wanted to mention the OWL XML schema 18:50:51 ... 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 +1 to msmith 18:51:08 of course, every change in the FS would need to be followed by OWL/XML 18:51:09 ack alanr_ 18:51:11 MikeSmith: Note that the functional syntax is also aligned with the OWL XML syntax 18:51:17 Zakim, unmute me 18:51:17 bcuencagrau should no longer be muted 18:51:23 ... Any change in the names would thus also affect the XML syntax. 18:52:06 Sandro: Many people may arrive at OWL as an extension of RDF 18:52:25 q? 18:52:25 ... and those peple should be supported. 18:52:29 ack bcuencagrau 18:52:48 ... An editorial improvement could be to (scribe did not get this, sorry) 18:53:01 q+ 18:53:05 q- 18:53:10 alan: We could xref the function syntax to the rdf vocab, as an editorial fix. 18:53:13 Zakim, unmute me 18:53:13