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