IRC log of owl on 2008-12-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:57:26 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:57:26 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/12/03-owl-irc
17:57:34 [bmotik]
rrsagent, make log public
17:59:25 [Zakim]
+IanH
17:59:32 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:59:32 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:59:37 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:59:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bmotik (muted), IanH
17:59:38 [bcuencag2]
bcuencag2 has joined #owl
17:59:39 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, bmotik, IanH, trackbot, sandro
18:00:09 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
18:00:21 [MarkusK_]
MarkusK_ has joined #owl
18:00:32 [IanH]
zakim, mute me
18:00:34 [Zakim]
+Sandro
18:00:45 [IanH]
zakim, unmute me
18:00:46 [bmotik]
You are on
18:00:50 [Zakim]
IanH should now be muted
18:00:53 [Zakim]
+??P1
18:00:55 [Zakim]
IanH should no longer be muted
18:00:57 [bcuencag2]
Zakim, ??P1 is me
18:01:04 [Zakim]
+bcuencag2; got it
18:01:10 [bcuencag2]
Zakim, mute me
18:01:21 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
18:01:21 [Zakim]
bcuencag2 should now be muted
18:01:23 [Zakim]
+??P13
18:01:32 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bmotik (muted), IanH, Sandro, bcuencag2 (muted), ??P13
18:01:42 [Zakim]
On IRC I see MarkusK_, alanr, bcuencag2, RRSAgent, Zakim, bmotik, IanH, trackbot, sandro
18:01:47 [IanH]
zakim, mute me
18:01:53 [Zakim]
IanH should now be muted
18:02:13 [IanH]
zakim, unmute me
18:02:13 [Zakim]
IanH should no longer be muted
18:02:26 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
18:02:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bmotik (muted), IanH, Sandro, bcuencag2 (muted), MarkusK_
18:02:28 [Zakim]
On IRC I see MarkusK_, alanr, bcuencag2, RRSAgent, Zakim, bmotik, IanH, trackbot, sandro
18:02:51 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
18:02:52 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #owl
18:02:59 [Zakim]
+Alan
18:03:28 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
18:03:28 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bmotik (muted), IanH (muted), Sandro, bcuencag2 (muted), MarkusK_, Alan
18:03:30 [Zakim]
On IRC I see JeffP, Achille, MarkusK_, alanr, bcuencag2, RRSAgent, Zakim, bmotik, IanH, trackbot, sandro
18:03:45 [bmotik]
OK, I forgot. No problem; I'll scribe
18:03:51 [bmotik]
scribenick bmotik
18:03:53 [Zakim]
+[IBM]
18:04:12 [Achille]
Zakim, IBM is me
18:04:12 [Zakim]
+Achille; got it
18:04:24 [IanH]
Look OK to me
18:04:30 [bmotik]
topic: Agenda amendments
18:04:34 [bmotik]
No amendments
18:04:41 [bmotik]
topic: Previous minutes
18:04:43 [bmotik]
accepted
18:04:48 [bmotik]
topic: Pending review actions
18:05:00 [Zakim]
+JeffP
18:05:18 [bmotik]
All pending review actions are OK
18:05:34 [bmotik]
topic: Due and overdue actions
18:05:44 [bmotik]
We can close ACTION-241
18:05:59 [bmotik]
alanr: ACTION-250 not done yet
18:06:09 [bmotik]
alanr: Thanks Sandro for publishing the docs
18:06:16 [bmotik]
sandro: Thanks everybody
18:06:26 [bmotik]
alanr: We now need to solicit reviews
18:06:41 [IanH]
see http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Round_4#Publicity
18:06:44 [bmotik]
alanr: Reviews are due in January
18:06:55 [bmotik]
topic: Future planning
18:07:04 [IanH]
and http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Publicity
18:07:18 [bmotik]
alanr: Everybody, but editors in particular, should monitor public-owl-comments
18:07:26 [bmotik]
alanr: We should respond as a group
18:07:46 [bmotik]
alanr: Therefore, people responding should first discuss things with the other WG members
18:08:01 [bmotik]
alanr public-owl-dev is not our official comment list
18:08:25 [bmotik]
sandro: Alan, you said that, if you are replying on some list, make sure that you say this is your personal opinion
18:08:31 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:08:31 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:08:44 [bmotik]
sandro: So, should people reply sent to public-owl-comments?
18:08:48 [bmotik]
alanr: No
18:09:05 [bmotik]
alanr: My understanding is that public-owl-comments are comments that need to be responded officially
18:09:11 [bmotik]
alanr: Every other list is just a list
18:09:31 [IanH]
zakim, unmute me
18:09:31 [Zakim]
IanH should no longer be muted
18:09:37 [IanH]
q+
18:10:09 [bmotik]
alanr: If you discuss any comment that came in from public-owl-comments on some other list, you need to put a disclaimer that this is your own opinion and not that of the WG
18:10:38 [bmotik]
alanr: If you read something on public-owl-comments, but discuss this on, say, public-owl-dev, you should put a displaimer
18:10:50 [bmotik]
ianh: We should have a formal guidline for responding
18:10:54 [sandro]
+1 everyone in WG should disclaim in any posting
18:11:23 [Zakim]
+Zhe
18:12:07 [bmotik]
ianh: If someone sends a comment to some list other than public-owl-comments, we should ask people whether they want a formal reply; if they do, we need to ask people to forward their comment to public-owl-comments
18:12:08 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
18:12:28 [bmotik]
sandro: public-owl-comments is what we have a formal obligation to reply
18:12:43 [bmotik]
sandro: It might be valuable to do that forwarding
18:13:33 [bmotik]
sandro: It is good to say "If you want a forward reply, please forward this to the public-owl-comments list. If you don't want a formal reply, do you mind if I forward this to public-owl-comments for our record"?
18:13:40 [bmotik]
topic: Plans for other documents
18:13:41 [sandro]
ACTION: sandro write wiki page on mailing-list behavior guidelines during last call
18:13:41 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-255 - Write wiki page on mailing-list behavior guidelines during last call [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-12-10].
18:14:19 [bmotik]
alanr: We should go one-by-one through other documents and ask the editors about what their plans are
18:14:39 [bmotik]
alanr: There seems to be some confusion as to what the purpose of the issue list is
18:14:55 [bmotik]
alanr: We can also discuss which of these documents should be REC track
18:14:57 [schneid]
schneid has joined #owl
18:15:01 [christine]
christine has joined #owl
18:15:16 [bmotik]
subtopic: RDF-Based Semantics
18:15:43 [bmotik]
alanr: Michael, can you please let us know what your plans are?
18:15:49 [Zakim]
+??P24
18:16:06 [alanr]
zakim, who is on the call?
18:16:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bmotik, IanH, Sandro, bcuencag2 (muted), MarkusK_, Alan, Achille, JeffP, Zhe, ??P24
18:16:21 [bmotik]
alanr: Michael doesn't seem to be on the call
18:16:30 [christine]
Zakim, ??P24 is christine
18:16:30 [Zakim]
+christine; got it
18:16:30 [alanr]
q?
18:16:38 [alanr]
ack ianh
18:16:48 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
18:16:51 [bmotik]
alanr: Does anyone have any comments about the state of the RDF-Based Semantics
18:16:57 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
18:16:57 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bmotik, IanH, Sandro, bcuencag2 (muted), MarkusK_, Alan, Achille, JeffP, Zhe, christine, [IPcaller]
18:16:59 [Zakim]
On IRC I see christine, schneid, Zhe, JeffP, Achille, MarkusK_, alanr, bcuencag2, RRSAgent, Zakim, bmotik, IanH, trackbot, sandro
18:17:04 [schneid]
zakim, [IPcaller] is me
18:17:04 [Zakim]
+schneid; got it
18:17:06 [bmotik]
subtopic: Quick Reference Guide
18:17:27 [bmotik]
alanr: Is there anyone who can something about the quick reference?
18:17:38 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
18:17:38 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
18:17:57 [bmotik]
alanr: Noone seems to be on the call
18:18:27 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
18:18:27 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
18:18:29 [bmotik]
subtopic: RDF-Based Semantics
18:18:34 [bmotik]
alanr: Micahel is now here
18:19:01 [bmotik]
scheid: I have made many minor and medium fixes
18:19:08 [bmotik]
scheid: There are only 5 significant points
18:19:12 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
18:19:26 [bmotik]
schneid: I can write these points up and send them to the list
18:19:42 [bmotik]
schneid: I believe that these points may become WG issues
18:20:18 [bmotik]
alanr: Would you mind saying why something would become an issue on the issue list?
18:20:32 [bmotik]
schneid: That should be discussed during a discussion on the list
18:20:58 [bmotik]
schneid: None of these issues are of the sort "various people have various opinions"; instead, they are rather technical
18:20:58 [Zhe1]
Zhe1 has joined #owl
18:21:06 [IanH]
q+
18:21:14 [alanr]
ack ianh
18:21:17 [bmotik]
schneid: I'll start with the list, we can have a dicsussion, and then we can decide
18:21:19 [alanr]
q?
18:21:32 [bmotik]
ianh: Do you have a schedule for delivery?
18:21:54 [bmotik]
schneid: I hope mid January is reaslistic
18:22:22 [bmotik]
schneid: In the time before Christmas I'll try to write each issue up in a form so that we can discuss them
18:23:28 [bmotik]
alanr: Would be expectation be that we publish another draft before the LC comment period ends?
18:23:38 [bmotik]
sandro: The expectation is that we won't publish before January 23
18:24:13 [bmotik]
sandro: I think it would be OK to publish the RDF-Based Semantics before the end of LC comments
18:24:37 [bmotik]
sandro: Particularly if this would get us back in sync, so that all the documents could go to CR together
18:25:24 [bmotik]
schneid: I don't expect to have the RDF-Based Semantics to have done before mid January
18:25:44 [bmotik]
schneid: It looks strange to me to publish the RDF-Based Semantics before the comment period end
18:25:45 [alanr]
q?
18:26:03 [bmotik]
schneid: End of January is my expectation
18:26:06 [IanH]
q+
18:26:19 [alanr]
ack ianh
18:26:21 [bmotik]
schneid: We could publish a LC version end of Jan
18:26:41 [bmotik]
ianh: We can't be talking about much difference anyway (mid vs. end JanuarY)
18:26:58 [bmotik]
ianh: We can work on comments as they come in
18:27:50 [bmotik]
sandro: I assume in mid February we'd publish what we have currently in LC as CR
18:28:05 [alanr]
q?
18:28:07 [bmotik]
sandro: It would be nice if we could publish the RDF-Based Semantics in sync
18:28:20 [bmotik]
sandro: It would be good to go into REC together
18:28:54 [bmotik]
schneid: We don't expect implementations of the RDF-Based Semantics, so we can make the CR phase shorter
18:28:58 [IanH]
q+
18:29:03 [bmotik]
schneid: This would allow us to sync up
18:29:22 [alanr]
ack ianh
18:30:50 [bmotik]
subtopic: New Features and Rationale
18:30:52 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
18:30:52 [Zakim]
schneid was not muted, schneid
18:30:56 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
18:30:56 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
18:30:57 [sandro]
Sandro: Okay, so we'll try to sync up RDF-Based Semantics during CR, and send them all to PR together.
18:30:58 [IanH]
Ian: in order to exit CR for OWL 1 we should already have had implementations of OWL full; these will also be implementations of OWL 2 Full.
18:31:24 [sandro]
Sandro: there may be some additional OWL 2 Full tests....
18:31:31 [bmotik]
christine: We just make sure that the document is aligned with the Syntax
18:31:39 [bmotik]
christine: I think there is no problem there
18:32:38 [bmotik]
alanr: The part of the rationale for OWL 2 is developments in the DL community
18:32:51 [bmotik]
alanr: We have some allusions to this in the Syntax document
18:33:21 [bmotik]
alanr: We could add that to the New Features and Rational document, together with some pointers to the literature
18:33:53 [bmotik]
sandro: It seems like Syntax contains some explanation that might go better into the Rationale document
18:33:56 [christine]
+q
18:34:01 [bmotik]
q+
18:34:08 [bmotik]
alanr: An example is a comment about owl:Thing
18:34:22 [bmotik]
alanr: This includes a reference to the DL literature
18:34:52 [bmotik]
christine: I haven't seen anything like this in review comments
18:35:12 [bmotik]
christine: The only comment I remember of is about global restrictions, which we might want to explain better
18:35:15 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
18:35:50 [Zakim]
+msmith
18:35:54 [alanr]
q?
18:36:10 [alanr]
ack christine
18:36:12 [bmotik]
bmotik: This comment is not part of the rationale; instead, it is just providing a different name for things we have in the spec
18:36:13 [bmotik]
-q
18:36:14 [alanr]
ack bmotik
18:36:44 [bmotik]
christine: There are just some details to be fixed
18:36:51 [bmotik]
subtopic: Manchester Syntax
18:36:56 [christine]
if any !
18:37:00 [bmotik]
alanr: Peter is not here, so let's skip this
18:37:04 [bmotik]
subtopic: Primer
18:37:14 [bmotik]
alanr: Neither Bijan nor Peter is here
18:37:19 [bmotik]
subtopic: Datarange Extension
18:37:27 [bmotik]
alanr: No Bijan, no Uli
18:37:42 [bmotik]
ianh: I'd say this is probably close to be finished
18:37:56 [bmotik]
ianh: I'd expect they'll be able to finish this in early january
18:38:21 [bmotik]
alanr: RDF mapping needs to be flushed out
18:38:44 [bmotik]
ianh: My expectation is that Bijan will be putting more time into the WG now
18:39:06 [bmotik]
topic: Coordination with RIF
18:40:13 [bmotik]
alanr: Chris Welty suggested a common document with RIF about datatypes
18:40:23 [bmotik]
alanr: We need to set up some way to coordinate between the groups
18:40:56 [bmotik]
alanr: We should have a small group of people who can meet with a small group of RIF people and work on that
18:41:10 [bmotik]
ianh: I'd like to be clearer about the expected outcome and the impact on schedule
18:41:26 [bmotik]
inah: Are we committing that we won't go any further in our schedule without getting a result on that stuff?
18:41:46 [bmotik]
ianh: We could also say that we'll do our best
18:42:08 [bmotik]
alanr: We should first find out which are the issues that might affect the schedule
18:42:14 [bmotik]
alanr: We can decide on the schedule then
18:42:22 [bmotik]
alanr: We haven't even done a triage of the issues
18:42:48 [bmotik]
alanr: We should do this soon, so that we could hit break if necessary
18:43:06 [bmotik]
ianh: I can remind you of the 4 items on Chris's list
18:43:13 [bmotik]
ianh: rdf:text, but that's taken care of
18:43:25 [bmotik]
ianh: Aligning the datatypes
18:43:37 [bmotik]
inah: Compatibility of OWL 2 RL with RIF
18:43:46 [bmotik]
inah: General OWL <-> RIF compatibility
18:44:02 [bmotik]
alanr: The ones that might affect us are datatypes and the RIF expression of OWL 2 RL
18:44:08 [bmotik]
q+
18:44:17 [alanr]
ack bmotik
18:44:29 [IanH]
bmotik: expressing OWL RL in RIF is their problem
18:44:40 [IanH]
bmotik: we are using a very simple form of rules
18:44:54 [IanH]
bmotik: we could help them, but shouldn't affect us
18:45:02 [bmotik]
alanr: We should at least respond in a cordial way
18:45:29 [IanH]
bmotik: willing to attend one meeting, but not committing to long sequence
18:45:32 [bmotik]
bmotik: I could participate in one meeting, but I'm not comitting to a longer-running task-force
18:45:44 [bmotik]
bmotik: (at least not yet)
18:45:52 [bmotik]
alanr: Zhe, do you want to participate?
18:45:58 [bmotik]
Zhe: Yes
18:46:18 [bmotik]
ianh: At least one of us, and possibly both of us should be there
18:46:45 [bmotik]
ianh: I am happy to participate to some exploratory effort, but I am not willing to commit to some longer-running WG
18:47:02 [Zhe1]
q+
18:47:24 [bmotik]
Zhe: What is the time line?
18:47:41 [bmotik]
alanr: The goal is just to meet minds and then decide how to proceed
18:47:44 [christine]
+q
18:47:50 [alanr]
ack zhe
18:48:00 [bmotik]
christine: Is it a meeting or a teleconf?
18:48:05 [bmotik]
alanr: It will eb a teleconf
18:48:07 [JeffP]
q+
18:48:12 [bmotik]
s/eb/be
18:48:14 [alanr]
ack christine
18:48:16 [bmotik]
sandro: Can you be there?
18:48:24 [bmotik]
s/sando/alanr
18:48:26 [bmotik]
sandro: Yes
18:48:37 [bmotik]
jeffp: I could offer some support on datatypes
18:49:11 [bmotik]
alanr: Are these people enough, do we need Peter?
18:49:25 [alanr]
sandro, boris, jeff, christine, ian, alan
18:49:25 [bmotik]
ianh: We don't absolutely need him, but it woul be good to have him
18:49:47 [bmotik]
sandro: I'll try coordinate things for next week
18:50:04 [sandro]
ACTION: sandro set up telecon time poll for rif/owl joint coordination one-time meeting
18:50:04 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-256 - Set up telecon time poll for rif/owl joint coordination one-time meeting [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-12-10].
18:50:22 [bmotik]
alanr: Could you please mention in the e-mail that this is an exploratory meeting, and not a longer-running task-force
18:50:31 [bmotik]
topic: Coordination with XML Schema
18:50:51 [bmotik]
inah: This is just a place-holder for Peter's on-going tasks related to XML Schema WG
18:50:58 [bmotik]
ianh: I don't think there is much outstanding here
18:51:20 [bmotik]
topic: Test Cases
18:51:35 [MarkusK_]
q+
18:51:39 [bmotik]
alanr: Sandro, it is desirable to have as many test cases as possible before CR?
18:51:41 [alanr]
ack JeffP
18:51:42 [bmotik]
sandro: yes
18:51:55 [bmotik]
msmith: There are quite a few test cases that exist
18:51:58 [IanH]
q+
18:52:06 [bmotik]
msmith: We need details about whether the repository will be
18:52:19 [alanr]
ack MarkusK_
18:52:21 [bmotik]
msmith: We need to determine which test-cases we propose
18:52:41 [bmotik]
Markus: Beside the test case we already have, we already have a platform for collecting test cases
18:53:00 [bmotik]
Markus: This should be made announced so that people can submit their tests
18:54:05 [bmotik]
sandro: Could you look into if anything needs to be done
18:54:15 [bmotik]
?
18:54:24 [MarkusK_]
Markus: some minor updates are required so the test case collection site agrees with the most recent changes in the specification
18:54:34 [bmotik]
sandro: Markus, have you read the W3C guidelines about test cases?
18:54:39 [alanr]
q?
18:54:41 [bmotik]
Markus: No, I didn't.
18:55:12 [bmotik]
Markus: We could say that whoever publishes a test case, he does it under any of the licenses
18:55:13 [christine]
sorry have to leave
18:55:20 [bmotik]
sandro: We need to think this through
18:55:31 [bmotik]
alanr: Have you got some leval cousel for W3C?
18:55:37 [bmotik]
s/leval/legal
18:55:49 [bmotik]
s/cousel/counsel
18:56:01 [sandro]
markus check with rigo@w3.org
18:56:16 [alanr]
ack ianh
18:56:20 [MarkusK_]
The current license text is http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/OWL_Test_Cases:Copyrights
18:56:44 [bmotik]
ianh: I noticed that the test case ontology contains a few names that have "URI" in their name
18:56:56 [bmotik]
inah: In the rest of the spec we've recently changed all "URI" to "IRI"
18:57:15 [bmotik]
ianh: Do the keepers of the test ontology want to change "URI" to "IRI?
18:57:16 [MarkusK_]
I am happy to change this
18:57:20 [christine]
bye
18:57:29 [bmotik]
msmith: It would be fine to change it, but is it too late to change it?
18:57:42 [bmotik]
ianh: I don't think it needs to be changed
18:58:05 [bmotik]
alanr: Editorial changes to the documents should be fine
18:58:20 [bmotik]
msmith: We should change this before we approve tests
18:58:30 [bmotik]
alanr: How do we go about adding and aproving tests?
18:58:34 [MarkusK_]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Conformance_and_Test_Cases#Approval_Process_Overview
18:58:39 [bmotik]
s/aproving/approving
18:59:05 [bmotik]
sandro: One style is meticulous: everyone looks at a test case, understands it, and then agrees on it
18:59:44 [bmotik]
sandro: There is this bulk-test style: These three engines all pass particular tests, so we all approve them and don't look at each test in detail
18:59:54 [bmotik]
alanr: Where is in this process place for discussion?
19:00:00 [bmotik]
sandro: I don't understand the question
19:00:14 [bmotik]
alanr: Is approving tests expected to be controversial?
19:00:30 [IanH]
q+
19:00:35 [bmotik]
sandro: I think it will test at least 3-4 or 10 minutes to approve each test
19:00:51 [bmotik]
ianh: I don't recall there being a great deal of discussion and arguments in OWL 1
19:01:06 [bmotik]
ianh: This is because we had many implementations that agreed on everything
19:01:12 [bmotik]
ianh: The semantics is well-defined
19:01:21 [bmotik]
ianh: I don't expect problems
19:01:44 [bmotik]
sandro: The problem is when you have an issue in the langauge, and you realize this only when you look at the test
19:02:02 [bmotik]
msmith: Most of the OWL 1 tests are already OK
19:02:09 [Zakim]
+ +1.908.612.aaaa
19:02:18 [bmotik]
msmith: There is some work to make them ready to go
19:03:06 [alanr]
Mike will start posting sets of links to test cases that are ready review
19:03:26 [alanr]
Ian and I will start adding question periods/ approval items to the agenda
19:03:28 [msmith]
I will do all this in coordination with MarkusK
19:03:48 [bmotik]
alanr: Do you have an expectation when we can start receiving tests on the mailing lists?
19:03:55 [bmotik]
msmith: I hope next week
19:04:07 [alanr]
zakim, mute aaaa
19:04:07 [Zakim]
+1.908.612.aaaa should now be muted
19:04:25 [IanH]
zakim, aaaa is Peter
19:04:25 [Zakim]
+Peter; got it
19:04:52 [bmotik]
topic: F2F5
19:05:15 [bmotik]
alanr: What is the likelyhood of us needing another F2F?
19:05:24 [bmotik]
alanr: We'd need to give 8 week notice
19:05:44 [alanr]
q?
19:06:04 [IanH]
q+
19:06:09 [alanr]
ack ianh
19:06:17 [bmotik]
alanr: If we decided that don't know now whether we need another F2F b ythe end of LC, then we'd be able to have F2F only in March
19:06:27 [bmotik]
ianh: This would mean that we'd have significan schedule delay
19:06:36 [bmotik]
ianh: Therefore, we should plan for another F2F
19:06:40 [bmotik]
+1 to ianh
19:06:58 [alanr]
q?
19:07:02 [bmotik]
ianh: We should plan to February; if we decide later tha we don't need it, we can cancel it
19:07:13 [bmotik]
q+
19:07:20 [alanr]
ack bmotik
19:07:25 [bmotik]
alanr: There might be some penatly for canceling
19:07:37 [bmotik]
ianh: I agree, but we could at least settle on some provisional date
19:08:01 [schneid]
+q
19:08:06 [bmotik]
sandro: If we reserve a date now, we can have less than 8 weeks notice
19:08:08 [alanr]
q?
19:08:27 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
19:08:27 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
19:08:35 [alanr]
ack scneid
19:08:36 [bmotik]
+q
19:08:45 [alanr]
ack schneid
19:08:54 [bmotik]
schneid: One day might suffice
19:08:54 [alanr]
ack bmotik
19:09:00 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
19:09:00 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
19:09:05 [IanH]
Well, a lot depends on the comments!
19:09:48 [IanH]
Boris: will need F2F if we get substantial LC comments
19:09:49 [bmotik]
bmotik: We'll probably need a F2F
19:09:57 [IanH]
+1 to Boris
19:10:11 [bmotik]
sandro: We should have a poll about dates and times
19:10:23 [bmotik]
alanr: I'm rather constrained in March
19:10:40 [bmotik]
alanr: It's February as well
19:11:07 [sandro]
Feb
19:11:10 [schneid]
feb
19:11:12 [bcuencag2]
Any
19:11:13 [IanH]
February
19:11:14 [bmotik]
STRAWPOLL: Should we try for February (1) or March (2)?
19:11:20 [Zhe1]
+1 to any as long as in the US
19:11:20 [schneid]
1
19:11:24 [alanr]
no opinion
19:11:24 [IanH]
1
19:11:25 [msmith]
if in boston, no preference
19:11:26 [Achille]
where?
19:11:33 [IanH]
Boston
19:11:33 [bmotik]
1 (February)
19:11:36 [Zakim]
-Alan
19:11:36 [JeffP]
prefer in Europe
19:11:40 [Achille]
+1
19:12:00 [alanr]
calling back in
19:12:08 [MarkusK_]
any, but prefer Europe
19:12:15 [Zakim]
+Alan_Ruttenberg
19:12:39 [bmotik]
ianh: It might be difficult to have the meeting anywhere other than in Boston
19:13:07 [schneid]
no preference on location on my side
19:13:15 [IanH]
Nobody said March
19:13:26 [bmotik]
alanr: We should set up a poll for February and 1st week of March
19:13:56 [bmotik]
sandro: Can you do this?
19:14:05 [bmotik]
s/sandro/alanr
19:14:07 [sandro]
ACTION: Sandro set up WBS poll for F2F times
19:14:07 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-257 - Set up WBS poll for F2F times [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-12-10].
19:14:08 [bmotik]
sandro: Sure
19:14:31 [bmotik]
topic: Frequency of calls
19:14:39 [bmotik]
alanr: Do we want to continue weekly?
19:14:50 [bmotik]
alanr: What about holidays?
19:14:58 [schneid]
on demand, not over the holliday
19:15:10 [IanH]
Wed 24th an 31st
19:15:27 [bmotik]
We wouldn't have meetings on Wed 24th and 31st
19:15:56 [schneid]
q+
19:16:00 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
19:16:00 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
19:16:19 [bmotik]
schnei: I think we can do calls on demand, depending on the agenda
19:16:28 [IanH]
q+
19:16:32 [bmotik]
schnei: We shouldn't plan now for this
19:16:33 [alanr]
ack schneid
19:16:36 [alanr]
ack ianh
19:16:39 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
19:16:39 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
19:16:47 [bmotik]
ianh: I sort of suggest doing it the other way around
19:16:56 [bmotik]
ianh: We have a few issues to resolve, approcing test cases
19:17:03 [bmotik]
ianh: We should carry on for the moment
19:17:18 [bmotik]
ianh: If we see that we don't have material, we can cancel
19:17:20 [bmotik]
+1 to ian
19:17:30 [Zhe1]
+1 to ian
19:17:38 [bmotik]
ianh: Having meetings on demand might easily turn into never
19:17:39 [schneid]
no problem with this, was just a suggestion :)
19:17:52 [IanH]
+1
19:17:58 [bmotik]
alanr: OK, so we are continuing with weekly
19:18:24 [bmotik]
topic: Status of at-risk items
19:18:36 [schneid]
q+
19:18:40 [bmotik]
ianh: I just tried to group together everything that is outstanding
19:18:46 [bmotik]
ianh: No particular comments
19:18:49 [IanH]
q?
19:18:53 [bmotik]
topic: Open items
19:18:59 [schneid]
q-
19:19:18 [schneid]
the "At Risk" points are perfect for the next F2F
19:19:23 [bmotik]
alanr: I'll try to speed up my action regarding Man Syntax labels
19:19:35 [bmotik]
alanr: Ian, can you take over chairing?
19:19:46 [IanH]
q?
19:19:52 [bmotik]
ianh: OK. Alan, introduce what you have in mind regarding GRIDDL
19:19:59 [bmotik]
s/GRIDDL/GRDDL
19:20:21 [IanH]
Not GRDDL -- repairs!
19:20:29 [alanr]
repairs
19:21:00 [IanH]
Alan: preference is to have repairs in existing docs, but could be another doc
19:21:13 [bmotik]
alanr: We should explain to OWL users which kinds of RDF graphs could be brought into OWL by repairs
19:21:28 [bmotik]
alanr: We could have a pointer to owl:list for the list vocabulary
19:21:41 [bmotik]
alanr: as an example
19:22:02 [IanH]
q?
19:22:32 [bmotik]
alanr: Is anyone willing to help?
19:22:58 [IanH]
q?
19:23:03 [alanr]
zakim, unmute peter
19:23:03 [Zakim]
Peter should no longer be muted
19:23:05 [msmith]
zakim, unmute aaaa
19:23:05 [Zakim]
sorry, msmith, I do not know which phone connection belongs to aaaa
19:23:06 [IanH]
ack Peter
19:23:22 [bmotik]
pfps: Not only am I not willing to work on this, but I'm disenthartened
19:23:33 [bmotik]
pfps: I worry that this might delay other work
19:23:40 [IanH]
zakim, mute Peter
19:23:40 [Zakim]
Peter was already muted, IanH
19:23:42 [bmotik]
inah: Alan, have you got some idea about schedule?
19:24:05 [bmotik]
alanr: If we had a section in the Primer that I authored, I'd try to align it with the next publication or Primer
19:24:40 [bmotik]
alanr: End of January would be a realistic schedule for this
19:24:59 [IanH]
zakim, unmute Peter
19:24:59 [Zakim]
Peter should no longer be muted
19:25:00 [bmotik]
ianh: Some comment from Peter about this?
19:25:17 [bmotik]
pfps: Primer is in Bijan's hands
19:25:34 [bmotik]
pfps: If Bijan doesn't get his act together, I'll start working on it
19:25:42 [bmotik]
pfps: Bijan has promised to work on it
19:25:47 [bmotik]
ianh: So no schedule?
19:25:49 [bmotik]
pfps: No
19:25:57 [alanr]
+
19:25:59 [alanr]
q+
19:26:15 [bmotik]
ianh: This depends on whether they would be REC track?
19:26:16 [IanH]
zakim, mute Peter
19:26:16 [Zakim]
Peter should now be muted
19:26:19 [IanH]
q?
19:26:21 [IanH]
ack alanr
19:26:36 [bmotik]
alanr: A question would be whether my suggestion of adding a section to Primer is a reasonable way to go
19:26:53 [IanH]
q?
19:26:58 [bmotik]
ianh: It looks you are alone on that
19:27:11 [bmotik]
ianh: Your contribution might either go into the Primer or a note
19:27:21 [bmotik]
ianh: Are you happy with that?
19:27:52 [bmotik]
ianh: Perhaps we should take the Primer idea off-line for discussion with Bijan and Peter
19:28:18 [bmotik]
inah: We can put this on the agenda next week, together with a decision about whether these documents would be on the REC track
19:28:38 [sandro]
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/rif-owl-coord/
19:28:40 [bmotik]
topic: Additional business
19:29:04 [schneid]
bye
19:29:04 [JeffP]
thanks, bye
19:29:04 [Zakim]
-Peter
19:29:06 [Zakim]
-msmith
19:29:07 [Zhe1]
bye
19:29:07 [Zakim]
-Alan_Ruttenberg
19:29:08 [Zakim]
-bcuencag2
19:29:09 [Zakim]
-JeffP
19:29:10 [Zakim]
-MarkusK_
19:29:10 [Zakim]
-Achille
19:29:11 [Zakim]
-Sandro
19:29:13 [Zakim]
-IanH
19:29:14 [Zakim]
-Zhe
19:29:16 [Zakim]
-schneid
19:29:22 [bmotik]
sandro: The link to the time for the RIF meeting is in IRC
19:29:54 [Zakim]
-christine
19:30:09 [Zakim]
-bmotik
19:30:10 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
19:30:12 [Zakim]
Attendees were bmotik, IanH, Sandro, bcuencag2, MarkusK_, Alan, Achille, JeffP, Zhe, christine, schneid, msmith, +1.908.612.aaaa, Peter, Alan_Ruttenberg
20:22:40 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
21:33:01 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
22:00:22 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl
22:37:17 [alanr_]
alanr_ has joined #owl