IRC log of owl on 2008-11-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:52:23 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:52:23 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:52:30 [pfps]
Zakim, this will be owlwg
17:52:30 [Zakim]
ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
17:52:40 [pfps]
RRSAgent, make records public
17:55:05 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
17:55:09 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
17:55:35 [msmith]
zakim, this will be owlwg
17:55:35 [Zakim]
ok, msmith; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
17:55:45 [msmith]
ScribeNick: msmith
17:55:47 [uli]
uli has joined #owl
17:55:57 [msmith]
RRSAgent, make records public
17:56:29 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
17:56:37 [Rinke]
Rinke has joined #owl
17:56:39 [Zakim]
17:56:49 [ewallace]
ewallace has joined #owl
17:56:59 [Zakim]
17:57:17 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:57:17 [Zakim]
On the phone I see msmith, IanH
17:57:18 [Zakim]
On IRC I see ewallace, Rinke, uli, IanH, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, baojie, trackbot, sandro
17:57:57 [Zakim]
17:58:01 [Rinke]
(I cannot dial in, but will try to follow as much as I can on IRC)
17:58:09 [MarkusK_]
MarkusK_ has joined #owl
17:58:51 [Zakim]
17:59:01 [uli]
zakim, ??P10 is me
17:59:01 [Zakim]
+uli; got it
17:59:05 [uli]
zakim, mute me
17:59:05 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
17:59:12 [bcuencagrau]
bcuencagrau has joined #owl
17:59:43 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
17:59:48 [Zakim]
18:00:14 [Zakim]
18:00:17 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
18:00:17 [Zakim]
On the phone I see msmith, IanH, Evan_Wallace, uli (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, ??P12
18:00:20 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, ??P12 is me
18:00:20 [Zakim]
On IRC I see bmotik, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, ewallace, Rinke, uli, IanH, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, baojie, trackbot, sandro
18:00:23 [Zakim]
+bcuencagrau; got it
18:01:10 [msmith]
ianh: regrets from Ivan, Alan
18:01:15 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
18:01:15 [Zakim]
On the phone I see msmith, IanH, Evan_Wallace, uli (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau
18:01:17 [Zakim]
On IRC I see bmotik, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, ewallace, Rinke, uli, IanH, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, baojie, trackbot, sandro
18:01:21 [Zakim]
18:01:24 [Zakim]
18:01:30 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??P13 is me#
18:01:30 [Zakim]
+me#; got it
18:01:30 [msmith]
Topic: Admin
18:01:37 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
18:01:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see msmith, IanH, Evan_Wallace, uli (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau, me#, Sandro
18:01:37 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??P13 is me
18:01:40 [Zakim]
On IRC I see bmotik, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, ewallace, Rinke, uli, IanH, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, baojie, trackbot, sandro
18:01:41 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:01:43 [Zakim]
I already had ??P13 as me#, bmotik
18:01:44 [Zakim]
sorry, bmotik, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
18:01:54 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
18:02:00 [msmith]
ianh: no agenda ammendments
18:02:02 [uli]
last week's minutes look fine
18:02:02 [bmotik]
Zakim, me# is bmotik
18:02:02 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
18:02:03 [Zakim]
18:02:07 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:02:07 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:02:12 [pfps]
last week's minutes look acceptable
18:02:15 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, mute me
18:02:15 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted
18:02:17 [uli]
18:02:24 [msmith]
PROPOSED accept minutes of 2008-11-12 telecon at
18:02:25 [IanH]
PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (12 November)
18:02:32 [IanH]
18:02:35 [uli]
18:02:38 [Zhe]
18:02:41 [msmith]
18:02:44 [pfps]
18:02:48 [Rinke]
18:02:50 [msmith]
RESOLVED accept minutes of 2008-11-12 telecon at
18:03:04 [pfps]
F2F4 day 2 minutes are now OK (after Alan's cleanup)
18:03:10 [msmith]
PROPOSED accept minutes of F2F4 Day 2 at
18:03:12 [Zakim]
18:03:14 [IanH]
18:03:19 [uli]
18:03:19 [msmith]
18:03:21 [pfps]
18:03:25 [baojie]
18:03:26 [bcuencagrau]
18:03:26 [msmith]
RESOLVED accept minutes of F2F4 Day 2 at
18:03:51 [msmith]
subtopic: pending review actions
18:03:56 [Zakim]
18:04:01 [pfps]
I think that the actions are OK (and some were OK last week)
18:04:07 [msmith]
ACTION-238 closed
18:04:08 [msmith]
ACTION-242 closed
18:04:08 [msmith]
ACTION-244 closed
18:04:08 [msmith]
ACTION-246 closed
18:04:08 [trackbot]
ACTION-238 Implement the resolutions from the 4F2F closed
18:04:08 [trackbot]
ACTION-242 Will make a proposal regarding naming alignment between the functional syntax and RDF syntax based on the summary from closed
18:04:09 [trackbot]
ACTION-244 Come up with an analysis of whether OWL 2 should include XMLLiteral closed
18:04:13 [trackbot]
ACTION-246 Convert review comments to editors notes (except rinke's) closed
18:04:25 [IanH]
18:04:29 [msmith]
topic: reviewing and publishing
18:05:06 [msmith]
ianh: dec 1 was tentative deadline for last call publishing. we are now getting close
18:05:10 [IanH]
18:05:22 [msmith]
... last call checklist has been completed (excepting items already on agenda)
18:05:22 [sandro]
q+ sotd
18:05:27 [msmith]
... any questions?
18:05:35 [IanH]
18:05:43 [sandro]
18:05:44 [IanH]
ack sandro
18:05:52 [IanH]
ack sotd
18:06:04 [msmith]
sandro: we should start on text describing status of documents
18:06:08 [pfps]
18:06:17 [msmith]
... it should include changes from previous publish
18:06:25 [msmith]
... and some context for new documents
18:06:31 [msmith]
ianh: is this in each document?
18:06:51 [IanH]
18:06:54 [msmith]
sandro: people should use the wiki link (provided above) and it will be put in the doc during publishing
18:07:07 [msmith]
ianh: changes wrt last draft?
18:07:10 [IanH]
ack pfps
18:07:17 [msmith]
sandro: yes, last published working draft
18:07:37 [msmith]
pfps: we have a problem with location of features document
18:07:49 [msmith]
sandro: yes, but it doesn't matter for publication
18:08:10 [msmith]
ianh: yes, and all non-correct locations being redirected (or some other resolution)
18:08:19 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
18:08:19 [Zakim]
On the phone I see msmith, IanH, Evan_Wallace, uli (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Sandro, Zhe, baojie, MarkusK_
18:08:27 [msmith]
sandro: we need an action for this. we discussed it before and nothing happened
18:08:45 [msmith]
ianh: i can take an action. we also said requirements should occur in the name somewhere
18:09:13 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
18:09:16 [msmith]
... I remember "requirements and new features"
18:09:46 [sandro]
ACTION: ian consult with editors on title and clean up wiki location of requirement document
18:09:46 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-248 - Consult with editors on title and clean up wiki location of requirement document [on Ian Horrocks - due 2008-11-26].
18:09:57 [pfps]
18:10:22 [msmith]
ianh: on Round 4 page, this is an action on each editor to handle their documents?
18:10:27 [IanH]
18:10:29 [bmotik]
I'll handle the documents I've been editing, no prolem.
18:10:33 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
18:10:41 [Zakim]
18:10:48 [Achille]
Zakim, IBM is me
18:10:48 [Zakim]
+Achille; got it
18:10:49 [msmith]
... should we create actions explicitly? I will do so after the telecon (to avoid the time required now)
18:11:34 [sandro]
action: ian make sure SOTD text on gets filled in
18:11:34 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-249 - Make sure SOTD text on gets filled in [on Ian Horrocks - due 2008-11-26].
18:11:53 [IanH]
18:12:11 [msmith]
subtopic: Other considerations
18:12:16 [sandro]
18:12:16 [trackbot]
ISSUE-145 -- RESOLVED: Which serializations should have mime types and file extensions (and what should they be) -- CLOSED
18:12:16 [trackbot]
18:12:21 [msmith]
subsubtopic: ISSUE-145
18:12:32 [IanH]
18:12:37 [pfps]
18:12:39 [msmith]
ianh: I understand this to be resolved. Sandro considers himself the contact to IETF
18:13:03 [sandro]
action: sandro send mime-type registrations in to IETF when we do last-call publications
18:13:03 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-250 - Send mime-type registrations in to IETF when we do last-call publications [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-11-26].
18:13:31 [IanH]
18:13:43 [sandro]
Zakim, who is on the call?
18:13:43 [Zakim]
On the phone I see msmith, IanH, Evan_Wallace, uli (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Sandro, Zhe, baojie, MarkusK_, Achille
18:13:43 [msmith]
subsubtopic: Check with XML Schema WG on name of dateTime ...
18:13:46 [IanH]
18:13:59 [msmith]
ianh: pfps has been point man with XML Schema WG
18:14:27 [msmith]
pfps: I just sent a message to someone in that WG, asking for pointer to final resolution.
18:14:39 [msmith]
... I will ask about publication schedule
18:15:02 [msmith]
ianh: assuming no satisfactory answer on publication or datatype name. what's the plan?
18:15:15 [msmith]
... can we make the name of the datatype "at risk" or something?
18:15:15 [IanH]
18:15:22 [msmith]
sandro: I think we can do that
18:15:32 [msmith]
ianh: "subject to change", etc.
18:15:51 [IanH]
18:15:53 [msmith]
sandro: in general we want at risk to be binary (options are A or B), not be open ended
18:16:02 [msmith]
pfps: we can do that for the datatype name
18:16:07 [IanH]
18:16:17 [bmotik]
It already says that
18:16:31 [bmotik]
It's not.
18:16:34 [bmotik]
18:16:36 [msmith]
ianh: someone needs to make sure it is binary in document
18:16:42 [msmith]
sandro: is it marked at risk?
18:16:49 [bmotik]
18:16:53 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:16:53 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:16:54 [IanH]
18:16:58 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:16:58 [msmith]
ianh: a couple other things are marked at risk
18:17:19 [msmith]
bmotik: is there a style for at risk? it's marked with an editor's note. is that sufficient
18:17:36 [msmith]
sandro: take a look at the RIF BLD for a template
18:17:52 [msmith]
bmotik: // reading from spec //
18:18:07 [msmith]
sandro: we should more formally call out "at risk"
18:18:25 [msmith]
... in the status of the document section
18:18:54 [pfps]
I made the change that the fallback is owl:dateTime
18:19:03 [msmith]
ianh: we should explicitly say something about the outcome if the risked scenario comes to pass
18:19:11 [IanH]
18:19:19 [msmith]
... take this offline
18:19:22 [IanH]
18:19:39 [pfps]
18:19:41 [msmith]
bmotik: several other editorial notes are present. E.g., bug related to xs:decimal
18:19:43 [IanH]
18:20:12 [IanH]
18:20:13 [msmith]
ianh: I suggest saying something more or less the same.
18:20:16 [IanH]
ack pfps
18:20:23 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:20:23 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:20:29 [msmith]
pfps: XML Schema WG has fixed this, they haven't published the fix
18:20:45 [msmith]
... I will ask for a pointer so that we can reuse their wording
18:21:27 [msmith]
sandro: procedural threat - we can't normatively reference less mature specifications
18:21:51 [msmith]
ianh: this is the point of the next item. can we point to XML Schema 1.1
18:22:07 [msmith]
sandro: we can for last call and CR, but not for PR and Rec
18:22:37 [pfps]
18:22:37 [msmith]
... this could require a different URI for the property if the XML Schema WG can't move fast enough
18:22:43 [IanH]
18:22:48 [IanH]
ack pfps
18:22:49 [msmith]
... this is bone-headed and we look for a workaround
18:23:07 [msmith]
pfps: we could squat on xsd:our-datetime if we know what it is
18:23:18 [IanH]
18:23:48 [msmith]
... for decimal, they will be changing the minimal implementation text. we will copy it. if it changes, its ugly but we don't expect that to happen
18:23:54 [IanH]
18:24:23 [msmith]
subsubtopic: freezing features
18:24:38 [IanH]
18:24:44 [msmith]
ianh: we have to decide that we're not going to introduce or change features at this point
18:24:55 [msmith]
... or we won't be able to keep our schedule
18:25:00 [msmith]
... any objections to this?
18:25:08 [msmith]
... when are we going to freeze the documents?
18:25:09 [pfps]
no objection from me
18:25:14 [uli]
freeze, yes
18:25:45 [msmith]
sandro: any changes need to have more review. so, hopefully no more review
18:26:24 [msmith]
... there isn't a formal requirement to freeze for publishing. I make a snapshot (probably in the next few days)
18:26:31 [IanH]
18:26:42 [msmith]
... I don't have a sense of the state editor's believe the documents to be in
18:26:58 [msmith]
ianh: I was expecting to say something like "by the end of this week"
18:27:17 [msmith]
... then sandro can snapshot and we have one week for typos, etc.
18:27:30 [msmith]
sandro: ok, any changes after that require chair approval
18:27:37 [pfps]
fine by me
18:27:39 [bmotik]
18:27:39 [bcuencagrau]
18:27:39 [msmith]
ianh: editors, is this ok?
18:27:41 [MarkusK_]
18:27:47 [msmith]
18:28:02 [msmith]
ianh: person that might object is mschnei
18:28:20 [msmith]
... I will contact him after the telecon to confirm his consent
18:28:38 [msmith]
sandro: the one doc we're not republishing is primer. do we want to say something about that?
18:29:01 [msmith]
... text that suggests we intend to update and publish it in the future.
18:29:04 [pfps]
that sounds good to me
18:29:15 [IanH]
18:29:23 [msmith]
sandro: Do I understand that correctly?
18:29:45 [msmith]
.. maybe we put such text in the ref card status of document, since the docs are related
18:30:09 [msmith]
topic: Issues
18:30:33 [IanH]
18:30:40 [msmith]
subtopic: ISSUE-87
18:30:58 [schneid]
schneid has joined #owl
18:30:59 [IanH]
18:31:02 [uli]
18:31:04 [bmotik]
18:31:11 [msmith]
ianh: I understood from minutes this was handled last week
18:31:27 [msmith]
PROPOSED resolve ISSUE-87 as in terms at
18:31:48 [pfps]
wrong section
18:31:52 [sandro]
if you put the colon after "proposed" then it gets nicely formatted.
18:32:04 [msmith]
PROPOSED close ISSUE-87 by adding rational datatype but marking it as at risk, pending implementation experience
18:32:27 [Zakim]
18:32:33 [schneid]
zakim, ??P1 is me
18:32:33 [Zakim]
+schneid; got it
18:32:37 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
18:32:37 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
18:32:46 [msmith]
PROPOSED: close ISSUE-87 by adding rational datatype but marking it as at risk, pending implementation experience
18:32:52 [ewallace]
+1 (NIST)
18:32:57 [pfps]
+1 (ALU)
18:32:59 [MarkusK_]
+1 (FZI)
18:33:00 [uli]
+1 (Man)
18:33:00 [Achille]
+1 (IBM)
18:33:04 [msmith]
18:33:05 [baojie]
+1 (RPI)
18:33:07 [bmotik]
+1 (Oxfrd)
18:33:08 [bcuencagrau]
18:33:10 [Rinke]
+1 (UvA)
18:33:11 [sandro]
+1 (W3C)
18:33:13 [bmotik]
18:33:24 [msmith]
RESOLVED: close ISSUE-87 by adding rational datatype but marking it as at risk, pending implementation experience
18:33:31 [Zhe]
18:33:57 [msmith]
ianh: mschnei is present now, revert to publishing discussion
18:34:18 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
18:34:18 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
18:34:23 [msmith]
... we agreed to freeze docs by end of week, modulo minor errors being fixed. can you live with that?
18:34:45 [msmith]
schneid: I've just started some changes. Sunday?
18:35:09 [msmith]
ianh: we need to freeze fairly soon. Can you accept Sunday?
18:35:34 [msmith]
schneid: yes, since RDF semantics is just second draft
18:35:44 [msmith]
... I can branch the doc and make larger changes on branch
18:35:49 [IanH]
18:35:59 [msmith]
ianh: reluctant to suggest a branch given problems with rqmts doc
18:36:10 [msmith]
schneid: ok, I will focus on the smaller changes
18:36:24 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
18:36:24 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
18:36:51 [msmith]
ianh: back to issues
18:36:56 [IanH]
18:37:09 [IanH]
18:37:18 [msmith]
PROPOSED: remove xsd:ENTITY, xsd:ID, and xsd:IDREF datatypes as in
18:37:23 [Achille]
+1 (IBM)
18:37:27 [sandro]
+1 (W3C)
18:37:29 [MarkusK_]
+1 (FZI)
18:37:30 [msmith]
+1 (C&P)
18:37:35 [bmotik]
+1 (Oxford)
18:37:36 [pfps]
+1 (ALU)
18:37:37 [uli]
+1 (Man)
18:37:45 [Zhe]
18:37:45 [ewallace]
+1 (NIST)
18:37:55 [Rinke]
+1 (Uva)
18:37:58 [msmith]
RESOLVED: remove xsd:ENTITY, xsd:ID, and xsd:IDREF datatypes as in
18:37:59 [baojie]
+1 (RPI)
18:38:19 [msmith]
ianh: last issue, proposal to simplify structure of annotations
18:38:41 [IanH]
18:38:46 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:38:46 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:38:50 [IanH]
18:39:05 [msmith]
bmotik: several aspects to this change
18:39:30 [msmith]
... first, introduce one class AnnotationValue to avoid AnnotationByIndividual AnnotationByLiteral ...
18:39:40 [msmith]
then unify the syntax
18:40:22 [IanH]
18:40:35 [alanr]
q: wondering about alternatives to "URI"
18:40:35 [msmith]
... second, currently you can have several annotation values per axiom. this is complex. I propose to require separate axioms for multiple annotations
18:40:51 [IanH]
18:40:56 [msmith]
ianh: this wouldn't change the RDF?
18:40:59 [pfps]
sounds good to me
18:41:10 [msmith]
bmotik: correct, but it would make things more round-trippable
18:41:23 [uli]
sounds fine to me too
18:41:35 [alanr]
18:41:41 [alanr]
only on IRC
18:41:48 [msmith]
ack alanr
18:41:49 [IanH]
alan - go ahead
18:41:56 [pfps]
18:42:03 [alanr]
Sent mail re: using "URI" in annotations
18:42:14 [bmotik]
I saw this e-mail, but I didn't understand it.
18:42:14 [ewallace]
18:42:17 [alanr]
and mentioned at f2f
18:42:40 [IanH]
Looks like a positive change to me. I'm still uncomfortable with the
18:42:40 [IanH]
URI as name for "entities which we may have different 'views' of".
18:42:41 [IanH]
Perhaps there is some variant of URI (that uses the term "view" in it)
18:42:41 [IanH]
that better expresses that it is something identified that we are
18:42:41 [alanr]
We aren't annotating a URI, which is a syntactic element, we are annotating a resource, but without specifying a view
18:42:41 [IanH]
talking about, rather than the identifier of that thing. i.e. in
18:42:41 [IanH]
productions about properties, we use ObjectProperty := URI, not
18:42:43 [IanH]
ObjectPropertyURI := URI
18:42:45 [IanH]
possibilities: AnyView, AllViews, SomeView, Entity, Resource...
18:42:50 [alanr]
18:42:54 [bmotik]
18:42:57 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:42:57 [Zakim]
bmotik was not muted, bmotik
18:42:59 [alanr]
Resource is most clear
18:43:03 [pfps]
... but they are ... (wait for it) ... URIs (or at least IRIs)
18:43:11 [alanr]
so is a property, then
18:43:25 [msmith]
bmotik: I didn't understand this question.
18:43:39 [pfps]
oooh, good point
18:43:54 [alanr]
We have several views currently
18:43:54 [msmith]
sandro: I believe he's saying that we're not talking about the URI, we're talking about the thing denoted by the URI
18:44:00 [alanr]
18:44:11 [alanr]
But we don't have a specific view
18:44:19 [alanr]
"view" is the language used by Boris
18:44:31 [alanr]
This annotation is to all the "views"
18:44:32 [msmith]
sandro: I think alanr is saying that using URI in the syntax is likely to mislead and that alternative names for the productions could be helpful
18:44:38 [alanr]
18:44:48 [alanr]
sorry - this is hard over text
18:44:52 [msmith]
bmotik: entity is already used in the structural spec
18:45:04 [IanH]
18:45:10 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:45:11 [pfps]
the non-terminals could be "Resource" instead of "URI", a la RDF
18:45:16 [alanr]
18:45:50 [pfps]
no just for these things that are on the "URI"
18:45:56 [pfps]
18:45:58 [msmith]
ianh: we're talking just about the proposal here.
18:46:05 [IanH]
18:46:07 [IanH]
ack pfps
18:46:23 [msmith]
pfps: the only change would be for non-terminals ... are there any ... no
18:46:35 [msmith]
ianh: I don't see any non-terminals with URI in them
18:46:50 [IanH]
Alan: we don't see any productions with URI in them anymore.
18:46:53 [msmith]
pfps: URI annotation is gone, so changing URI annotation to Resource annotation isn't helpful
18:46:58 [IanH]
So we can't understand your point.
18:47:17 [IanH]
18:47:17 [alanr]
Will review and get back on email.
18:47:18 [alanr]
18:47:32 [IanH]
But we need to resolve it now.
18:47:42 [uli]
18:47:45 [alanr]
18:47:48 [IanH]
We have agreed to finalise documents by end of this week.
18:48:15 [alanr]
looking now
18:48:24 [uli]
18:48:30 [IanH]
18:48:33 [msmith]
ianh: given alan is basically in favor...
18:48:43 [uli]
18:48:53 [msmith]
sandro: we should make the decision, alan can decide to amend the decision
18:48:58 [msmith]
PROPOSED: simplify structure of annotations as per
18:49:00 [sandro]
18:49:10 [sandro]
18:49:11 [alanr]
e.g. AnnotationPropertyRange := 'PropertyRange' '(' axiomAnnotations AnnotationProperty URI ')'
18:49:17 [uli]
18:49:34 [MarkusK_]
18:49:36 [bmotik]
18:49:39 [bcuencagrau]
18:49:40 [schneid]
18:49:41 [pfps]
18:49:42 [Zhe]
18:49:42 [Achille]
18:49:42 [baojie]
18:49:47 [msmith]
18:49:51 [ewallace]
18:50:05 [msmith]
RESOLVED: simplify structure of annotations as per
18:50:22 [msmith]
ianh: we will talk to alan offline. to better understand his point
18:50:31 [sandro]
(Alan, if you're not happy with this resolution, we can consider some ammendment.)
18:50:49 [alanr]
18:50:57 [msmith]
subsubtopic: Deprecation
18:51:17 [IanH]
18:51:19 [msmith]
ianh: after investigation, the deprecation problem seems to have gone away
18:51:32 [uli]
i agree
18:51:33 [msmith]
... does anyone have something to say?
18:51:41 [msmith]
... no, ok. we move on.
18:51:42 [IanH]
18:51:50 [bmotik]
18:51:51 [alanr]
yes, I am happy enough with current situation now.
18:51:53 [IanH]
18:51:54 [msmith]
subsubtopic: rdf:XMLLiteral
18:51:58 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:52:11 [msmith]
bmotik: it is not necessarily difficult conceptually
18:52:32 [alanr]
there is a possible connection with POWDER which refers to XML Literal
18:52:37 [msmith]
... it contains a design flaw - lexical space requires normalization
18:52:41 [sandro]
yeah, wtf were the RDF Core folks thinking? :-(
18:52:44 [msmith]
18:52:56 [alanr]
18:53:06 [msmith]
... it would be more useful if canonical form were for value space
18:53:22 [msmith]
18:53:32 [IanH]
ack msmith
18:54:23 [bmotik]
18:54:31 [IanH]
18:54:50 [baojie]
18:54:59 [pfps]
18:55:02 [schneid]
18:55:03 [IanH]
18:55:17 [msmith]
msmith: I believe OWL 2 should support it. It is useful and can be supported. I think the canonicalization issue is for easy comparison
18:55:29 [msmith]
ianh: what's the current state? it was in OWL 1 but isn't in OWL 2?
18:56:08 [msmith]
bmotik: OWL 1 was contradictory. one spec (RDF?) said it is included. another spec (semantics) said only string & integer
18:56:25 [msmith]
... we should probably make an estimation if this would make people object.
18:56:32 [IanH]
18:56:38 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:56:44 [msmith]
... if there's a non-zero probability of this, then what's one more datatype
18:57:02 [IanH]
18:57:09 [IanH]
ack baojie
18:57:29 [baojie]
* owl:DataRange (alternative rdfs:Datatype)
18:57:29 [baojie]
* owl:distinctMembers (alternative owl:members)
18:57:35 [msmith]
baojie: I believe we have suggested replacing rdfs:Datatype with owl:DataRange
18:57:49 [msmith]
... this is a different issue
18:58:05 [msmith]
ianh: no, we're now on rdf:XMLLiteral
18:58:08 [IanH]
18:58:17 [msmith]
... but I didn't understand the point on deprecation
18:58:30 [msmith]
baojie: do we have a list of terms that will be deprecated?
18:58:34 [IanH]
18:58:41 [schneid]
we only deprecate owl:DataRange at the moment
18:58:49 [IanH]
18:58:56 [msmith]
ianh: it was suggested we do a backwards compatibility audit. is that what you mean?
18:58:59 [msmith]
baojie: yes.
18:59:36 [msmith]
pfps: on OWL 1 built-in datatypes. It means if you implement it, you should implement in accordance with the spec
18:59:45 [msmith]
... it doesn't require implementation
18:59:55 [bmotik]
18:59:58 [msmith]
ianh: so, for conformance it wasn't obligatory to support it
19:00:04 [IanH]
ack pfps
19:00:05 [msmith]
pfps: yes.
19:00:13 [IanH]
19:00:15 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
19:00:15 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
19:00:22 [IanH]
ack schneid
19:00:33 [schneid]
19:01:00 [msmith]
schneid: re OWL 1 S&AS, I agree with pfps comments
19:01:31 [msmith]
... but its unclear if it is MUST or not.
19:01:46 [IanH]
19:01:58 [msmith]
... but I think it wasn't really in OWL 1, and isn't required in OWL 2
19:02:15 [IanH]
19:02:18 [msmith]
ianh: I think it wasn't required in OWL 1, and isn't required in OWL 2
19:02:30 [msmith]
bmotik: I think this depends on last call
19:02:31 [msmith]
19:02:35 [schneid]
my email regarding rdf:XMLLiteral:
19:02:49 [IanH]
19:02:54 [IanH]
ack bmotik
19:03:13 [msmith]
... this is an easier datatype to implement. to msmith, why does lexical state assume document is normalized?
19:03:57 [schneid]
one can even create RDFS-inconsistent documents with non-canonicalized literals :)
19:04:00 [msmith]
ianh: I suggest tabling the discussion of sensibility of datatype
19:04:13 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
19:04:13 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
19:04:15 [pfps]
19:04:23 [IanH]
19:05:15 [msmith]
msmith: can we say if implemented, it should be implemented in accordance with...
19:05:24 [pfps]
+1 to putting this in conformance
19:05:30 [msmith]
ianh: it could be said in the conformance document.
19:05:32 [bmotik]
19:05:38 [msmith]
19:05:39 [IanH]
19:05:44 [IanH]
ack msmith
19:05:48 [IanH]
ack bmotik
19:06:07 [msmith]
bmotik: why don't we add to Syntax
19:06:23 [IanH]
19:06:28 [msmith]
ianh: that would make it mandatory, not optional
19:06:35 [msmith]
bmotik: are there many that use it
19:06:47 [uli]
i have seen a couple
19:06:50 [schneid]
really? I have never seen it anywhere
19:06:54 [alanr]
I think there are people who use it. IIRC I've seen it in BioPAX files
19:06:58 [alanr]
am looking
19:07:11 [schneid]
19:07:17 [msmith]
bmotik: I proposed adding 4.7 to syntax, adding rdf:XMLLiteral
19:07:36 [msmith]
ianh: I'd like to make it at risk, because we have little implementation experience
19:07:41 [bmotik]
+1 to at risk
19:07:42 [IanH]
19:07:44 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
19:07:44 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
19:07:49 [IanH]
ack schneid
19:08:05 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
19:08:05 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
19:08:09 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
19:08:09 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
19:09:00 [msmith]
schneid: I don't like rdf:XMLLiteral because it is covered in the RDF semantics by several conditions. we would need to avoid conflicting with other specifications
19:09:09 [IanH]
19:09:37 [christine]
christine has joined #owl
19:09:47 [msmith]
ianh: wasn't this exactly the same problem in OWL 1
19:09:57 [IanH]
19:10:24 [msmith]
schneid: I believe it was only a suggestion in OWL 1, not mandatory
19:10:38 [bmotik]
19:10:45 [IanH]
19:10:46 [msmith]
ianh: but a semantics was specified. if supported, it had a specific semantics.
19:10:48 [IanH]
ack bmotik
19:10:50 [Zakim]
19:11:02 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
19:11:02 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
19:11:24 [msmith]
bmotik: rdf mt, section 3.1 suggests this is not a standard datatype. I'm not sure I understand how this impacts things.
19:11:26 [schneid]
+1 to boris
19:11:33 [christine]
zakim, +??P0 is christine
19:11:33 [Zakim]
sorry, christine, I do not recognize a party named '+??P0'
19:11:46 [IanH]
19:11:47 [msmith]
... and it may change RDF interpretations
19:12:01 [uli]
zakim, ??P0 is christine
19:12:01 [Zakim]
+christine; got it
19:12:11 [pfps]
19:12:16 [IanH]
19:12:17 [msmith]
bmotik: maybe we shouldn't say anything
19:12:19 [IanH]
ack pfps
19:12:29 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
19:12:29 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
19:12:42 [msmith]
pfps: bad news. at end of WebOnt, XMLLiteral was made mandatory
19:12:51 [msmith]
... see S&AS C5
19:13:15 [schneid]
we're back at RDF Semantics :)
19:13:25 [msmith]
19:14:01 [msmith]
sandro: maybe way to procede is to do it at risk and solicit more feedback
19:14:07 [uli]
...I will check what kind of "literal" I remember seeing
19:14:56 [msmith]
ianh: I'd like it to be at risk, with default being take it out
19:15:05 [msmith]
sandro: I think we can do that
19:15:19 [schneid]
peter, an RDF compatible datatype map has rdf:XMLLiteral in, anyway, with or without being explicit :)
19:16:03 [IanH]
PROPOSED: XML-Literal datatype is added to OWL 2 datatype map but marked at risk of being removed if there turn out to be implementation or semantic problems.
19:16:09 [bmotik]
19:16:12 [bcuencagrau]
19:16:17 [pfps]
19:16:18 [uli]
19:16:20 [ewallace]
19:16:21 [Achille]
19:16:22 [msmith]
19:16:22 [MarkusK_]
19:16:24 [Zhe]
19:16:24 [sandro]
19:16:26 [baojie]
19:16:27 [schneid]
19:16:33 [alanr]
BioPAX doesn't use XML Literal - it uses a string that is documented to be in XML format
19:16:40 [alanr]
19:17:06 [schneid]
no, not an objection
19:17:11 [IanH]
19:17:38 [alanr]
like most it was probably arbitrary
19:17:46 [IanH]
RESOLVED: XML-Literal datatype is added to OWL 2 datatype map but marked at risk of being removed if there turn out to be implementation or semantic problems.
19:18:00 [sandro]
yeah, alan, that's the patterns I see in most RDF.
19:18:13 [schneid]
19:18:13 [bmotik]
ACTION: bmotik2 to Update the spec to include rdf:XMLLiteral and fix the annotations as proposed
19:18:13 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-251 - Update the spec to include rdf:XMLLiteral and fix the annotations as proposed [on Boris Motik - due 2008-11-26].
19:18:37 [IanH]
19:18:55 [IanH]
19:19:00 [bmotik]
19:19:01 [msmith]
subtopic: alignment of syntaxes
19:19:06 [IanH]
19:19:09 [pfps]
19:19:16 [bmotik]
ZAkim, unmtue me
19:19:16 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'unmtue me', bmotik
19:19:17 [msmith]
ianh: it seems that few of the proposed changes had universal agreement
19:19:19 [IanH]
ack bmotik
19:19:20 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
19:19:20 [Zakim]
bmotik was not muted, bmotik
19:20:04 [IanH]
ack pfps
19:20:15 [msmith]
bmotik: reiterating... I think we are serving two communities with different expectations. conforming one syntax to another is not nice. I think we can unify ExistsSelf and leave it at that
19:20:24 [alanr]
19:20:25 [msmith]
pfps: I agree with bmotik
19:20:33 [IanH]
19:20:40 [msmith]
ianh: alan and ivan aren't present, this is tricky to discuss
19:20:42 [alanr]
I think the sentiment was that it was too hard to agree
19:20:59 [uli]
whose sentiment?
19:21:01 [alanr]
However I don't agree with the idea that we serve 2 communities therefore things should be different
19:21:08 [schneid]
19:21:08 [IanH]
OK, so Boris's proposal is only to change ExistsSelf
19:21:08 [alanr]
Ivan, Myself - principal instigators
19:21:18 [alanr]
Does't matter
19:21:19 [IanH]
Would you be OK with this
19:21:29 [uli]
Alan, I think it's rather we serve 2 communities therefore things may not be unifiable
19:21:38 [alanr]
I will say -1 without objection
19:21:42 [alanr]
19:21:45 [pfps]
many of the proposed changes change things from the OWL 1 abstract syntax, which seems to be rather less than optimal
19:21:50 [alanr]
I think our job is to bring together communities
19:22:00 [IanH]
(Let's not get into the philosophy of who we serve.)
19:22:02 [alanr]
Names appeal to small segment
19:22:13 [alanr]
And seem to Boris taste rather to any standard
19:22:16 [uli]
sure - but we don't want to loose them through this bringing together business
19:22:39 [alanr]
DL standard is logical notation
19:22:47 [alanr]
Add a syntax for that if desired
19:22:56 [uli]
19:23:02 [uli]
for what?
19:23:04 [bmotik]
19:23:06 [alanr]
But i (personally) see no reason to differ as we do now
19:23:07 [IanH]
You mean you want *another* syntax?
19:23:22 [bmotik]
19:23:26 [alanr]
I don't care. I'm objecting to the argument that the functional syntax is standard to some community
19:23:30 [alanr]
19:23:33 [IanH]
ack alanr
19:23:35 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
19:23:35 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
19:23:39 [IanH]
ack schneid
19:23:48 [bmotik]
19:23:58 [uli]
19:24:00 [msmith]
schneid: if we change existself I favor changing the RDF side
19:24:29 [msmith]
... so that it is consistent with other Restrictions in rdf
19:24:35 [IanH]
19:24:45 [alanr]
I think SOTD should solicit input and list the disagreement as one we couldn't agree on
19:25:04 [IanH]
ack bmotik
19:25:08 [msmith]
... something like deprecation [ a owl:Restriction ; owl:onProperty :p ; owl:existSelf "true"^^xsd:boolean ]
19:25:14 [IanH]
19:25:23 [msmith]
bmotik: I wanted to propose something like :hasSelf
19:25:29 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
19:25:29 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
19:25:47 [IanH]
19:25:56 [IanH]
19:25:56 [uli]
ack /me
19:25:59 [IanH]
ack uli
19:26:53 [IanH]
19:27:02 [msmith]
uli: disagree with Alan regarding the functional syntax. It is a different syntax because it doesn't have the restrictions of RDF
19:27:08 [IanH]
19:27:21 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
19:27:21 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
19:27:39 [uli]
zakim, mute me
19:27:39 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
19:27:54 [msmith]
schneid: hasSelf, existSelf, doesn't matter much. I have more concern about similarity to other restrictions
19:28:09 [IanH]
19:28:16 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
19:28:16 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
19:28:16 [msmith]
ianh: other opinions on RDF form of existself?
19:28:37 [bmotik]
HasSelf is more symmetric
19:28:45 [bmotik]
with the rest of the FS
19:28:53 [msmith]
... I have preference to keeping one of the ones we have rather than pick a new one
19:29:19 [uli]
will this be the only choice?
19:29:30 [uli]
zakim, unmute me
19:29:30 [Zakim]
uli should no longer be muted
19:29:31 [msmith]
ianh: I understand proposal to be to change both FS and RDFSyntax to be HasSelf. then change nothing else
19:29:58 [uli]
zakim, mute me
19:29:58 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
19:30:00 [msmith]
uli: in the sense that one could use either current RDF or FS for self restriction
19:30:25 [IanH]
PROPOSED: Use HasSelf for self-restriction in both RDF and functions; don't change anything else.
19:30:32 [bmotik]
19:30:37 [schneid]
19:30:38 [pfps]
19:30:40 [bcuencagrau]
19:30:43 [ewallace]
19:30:44 [msmith]
19:30:46 [MarkusK_]
19:30:46 [Achille]
19:30:46 [alanr]
-1 (but not formally objecting)
19:30:53 [baojie]
19:31:11 [uli]
19:31:16 [IanH]
RESOLVED: Use HasSelf for self-restriction in both RDF and functions; don't change anything else.
19:31:17 [msmith]
ianh: last chance to speak on this...
19:32:00 [Zakim]
19:32:01 [Zakim]
19:32:02 [Zakim]
19:32:04 [msmith]
ianh: End of Agenda. We're out of time. No additional business. Thanks. Next week we'll be frozen and ready to roll out docs.
19:32:04 [Zakim]
19:32:05 [Zakim]
19:32:06 [Zakim]
19:32:06 [Zakim]
19:32:07 [Zakim]
19:32:08 [Zakim]
19:32:10 [Zakim]
19:32:13 [Zakim]
19:32:14 [Zakim]
19:32:16 [Zakim]
19:32:20 [uli]
19:32:22 [uli]
uli has left #owl
19:32:36 [Zakim]
19:32:37 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
19:32:38 [Zakim]
Attendees were msmith, IanH, Evan_Wallace, uli, Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau, Sandro, bmotik, Zhe, baojie, MarkusK_, Achille, schneid, christine