17:01:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:01:38 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/12/11-owl-irc
17:01:50 <sandro> RRSAgent, make log public
17:02:05 <StellaMitchell> StellaMitchell has joined #owl
17:02:09 <Zakim> + +039047101aaaa
17:02:21 <Zakim> +Zhe
17:02:52 <Zakim> +[IBM]
17:02:55 <StellaMitchell> zakim, ibm is temporarily me
17:02:55 <Zakim> +StellaMitchell; got it
17:03:01 <Zakim> + +1.845.227.aabb
17:03:02 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl
17:03:14 <sandro> zakim, who is here?
17:03:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see bmotik (muted), Sandro, Ivan, josb, Zhe, StellaMitchell, +1.845.227.aabb
17:03:16 <ChrisW> zakim, aabb is me
17:03:17 <Zakim> On IRC I see Zhe, StellaMitchell, RRSAgent, ChrisW, josb, Zakim, ivan, bmotik, sandro, pfps, trackbot
17:03:17 <StellaMitchell> i'll scribe
17:03:19 <Zakim> +ChrisW; got it
17:03:31 <sandro> scribe: StellaMitchell 
17:04:08 <sandro> zakim, who is on the phone?
17:04:08 <Zakim> On the phone I see bmotik (muted), Sandro, Ivan, josb, Zhe, StellaMitchell, ChrisW
17:04:30 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:04:30 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
17:04:41 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:04:41 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:04:54 <Zakim> +??P7
17:04:55 <ivan> :-(
17:05:20 <ivan> zakim, drop me
17:05:20 <Zakim> Ivan is being disconnected
17:05:21 <Zakim> -Ivan
17:05:38 <sandro> zakim, who is here?
17:05:38 <christine> christine has joined #owl
17:05:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see bmotik (muted), Sandro, josb, Zhe, StellaMitchell, ChrisW, ??P7
17:05:41 <DaveReynolds> DaveReynolds has joined #owl
17:05:41 <Zakim> On IRC I see christine, Zhe, StellaMitchell, RRSAgent, ChrisW, josb, Zakim, ivan, bmotik, sandro, pfps, trackbot
17:05:48 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:05:48 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
17:05:50 <Zakim> +Ivan
17:05:51 <sandro> zakim, ??P7 is Christine
17:05:51 <Zakim> +Christine; got it
17:06:19 <sandro> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Dec/0035.html
17:06:37 <Zakim> +??P8
17:07:09 <StellaMitchell> sandro: Goal this meeting is to figure out the tasks and who will do them, but not to dig completely into all the technical details
17:08:06 <StellaMitchell> sandro: four topics of coordination, the first is probably simple
17:08:19 <StellaMitchell> ...first item: rdf:text
17:08:29 <ChrisW> Topic: rdf:text
17:08:43 <ChrisW> zakim, list agenda
17:08:43 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
17:08:50 <ChrisW> agenda+ rdf:text
17:08:53 <StellaMitchell> ...when it was published I said public comments  should go to the public owl list
17:08:55 <ChrisW> take up item 1
17:09:03 <ChrisW> zakim, take up item 1
17:09:03 <Zakim> agendum 1. "rdf:text" taken up [from ChrisW]
17:09:09 <sandro> q?
17:09:34 <ChrisW> agenda+ RIF OWL&RDF compatibility
17:09:57 <ChrisW> agenda+ The list of datatypes
17:10:10 <ChrisW> agenda+ OWL RL
17:10:14 <StellaMitchell> chris:  ask editors of rdf:text if they are willing to be the coordinators of public comments
17:10:49 <bmotik> q+
17:10:57 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:10:57 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
17:11:00 <sandro> ack bmotik 
17:11:07 <StellaMitchell> sandro: in terms of last call and dependences, the OWL ? spec depends on this, and some RIF documents will also be dependent also
17:11:34 <DaveReynolds> q+
17:11:39 <sandro> ack DaveReynolds 
17:12:20 <StellaMitchell> boris: is it ok to say in the spec that we sppport the rdf:text datatype, and if it changes later that will be ok 
17:13:28 <StellaMitchell> ...use it in an opaque way, and so remove the dependency on the document. This applies to other datatype also.
17:13:33 <ivan> q+
17:14:05 <StellaMitchell> daver:  rdf:text is a different case from other datatypes
17:14:30 <StellaMitchell> boris:  when you say you change rdf:text, you are not chaning the satisfiability of any document
17:14:38 <StellaMitchell> daver: yes, it would be an observable change
17:14:50 <sandro> ack ivan 
17:14:51 <StellaMitchell> ....,Andy Seaborne sent an email about this
17:15:26 <StellaMitchell> ivan:  I don't see the problem
17:16:03 <StellaMitchell> sandro: Andy's email sent to the public rdf:text list shows the problem
17:17:47 <StellaMitchell> sandro: we need to make sure now that rdf:text will be defined in an acceptable way - we can't assume it will happen in the future
17:18:00 <sandro> sandro; we need rdf:text to get to rec before anything that depends on it
17:18:10 <DaveReynolds> Andy's message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-text/2008OctDec/0032.html
17:18:25 <sandro>        http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/0046.html
17:18:29 <StellaMitchell> zakim, next item
17:18:29 <Zakim> agendum 2. "RIF OWL&RDF compatibility" taken up [from ChrisW]
17:18:55 <StellaMitchell> jos: summarizing the above email
17:21:14 <StellaMitchell> ...I made 5 proposals (labelled P1 through P5) in the email
17:21:54 <StellaMitchell> sandro: I don't understand the relationship between owl 1 full and owl 2 full
17:22:25 <StellaMitchell> sandro: I tentatively agree to proposal P1
17:22:51 <StellaMitchell> chris: there was a change to OWL full in OWL2, but do we believe it to be insignificant?
17:23:08 <DaveReynolds> Similarly I see no problem with P1 
17:23:19 <sandro> sandro: sounds like P1 is fine
17:23:26 <StellaMitchell> jos, ivan: yes
17:23:44 <ivan> s/ivan/boris/
17:24:18 <sandro> q?
17:24:59 <StellaMitchell> jos: summarized P2 and P3 
17:25:39 <sandro> sandro: In OWL 2 you can't signal that you're not in OWL 1, so year, P2 and P3 make sense.
17:25:41 <StellaMitchell> sandro: as I understand, you are not allowed to signal whether you're in OWL 1 and OWL 2
17:25:53 <StellaMitchell> boris: P2 and P3 are ok with me'
17:26:51 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Importing_RDF_and_OWL_in_RIF
17:27:46 <StellaMitchell> jos:  explaining IRIs of profiles. reference above.
17:27:56 <StellaMitchell> sandro: note that these are not like OWL profiles
17:28:25 <StellaMitchell> jos: does anyone disagree with P4?
17:28:38 <sandro> Jos: drop OWL Dl annotaiton 
17:28:39 <StellaMitchell> sandro: do we still need the annotation profile?
17:28:47 <StellaMitchell> jos: no, would drop it.
17:29:40 <StellaMitchell> sandro: conformance clause for owl says everyone has to implement rdf serializaiton for owl and them may implement the other ones
17:29:53 <StellaMitchell> s/them/they/
17:30:19 <sandro> sandro: I think leave it RDF/XML, but maybe add a note about other syntaxes.
17:30:58 <StellaMitchell> jos: I don't have a strong opinion about allowing other syntaxes to be imported
17:31:08 <StellaMitchell> jos: summarizing P5
17:31:53 <sandro> jos: "OWL DLP" would migrate to "OWL 2 RL"
17:32:25 <StellaMitchell> boris:  what is meant by a combination?
17:32:28 <DaveReynolds> Agree with P5 too
17:32:33 <sandro> P5 sounds good...
17:32:55 <StellaMitchell> jos: (explained combination)
17:33:06 <StellaMitchell> chris: why should DLP be dropped?
17:33:25 <StellaMitchell> jos: OWL 2 RL is sort of the same thing
17:34:27 <StellaMitchell> chris: but is not the same thing, so why should we drop DLP?  Most OWL implementations are currently OWL 1
17:35:50 <StellaMitchell> jos: I made up this DLP, it's not the one you are thinking of that people have implemented
17:35:54 <sandro> jos: no datatype support in Horrocks et al DLP.   that's one of several differences.
17:36:53 <Zhe> q+
17:36:59 <DaveReynolds> +1 with Jos
17:37:04 <ivan> +1 with Jos
17:37:32 <StellaMitchell> chris: I'm not sure about dropping the DLP section from RIF, RDF and OWL compatibility document, I need to think about it more
17:37:37 <sandro> ack Zakim 
17:37:41 <sandro> ack Zhe 
17:38:35 <StellaMitchell> zhe:  when I started in the OWL WG, we had a DLP but the working group decided to drop it, and then later OWL 2 RL was defined, so I support dropping DLP
17:38:49 <StellaMitchell> sandro: we'll investigate before deciding
17:39:18 <sandro> topic:    3.  The list of datatypes (aside from RL)  (10 minutes)
17:39:30 <sandro>        http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB#Symbol_Spaces
17:39:30 <sandro>        http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Datatype_Maps
17:39:40 <StellaMitchell> zakim, next item
17:39:40 <Zakim> agendum 3. "The list of datatypes" taken up [from ChrisW]
17:40:20 <bmotik> q+
17:40:39 <sandro> ack bmotik 
17:40:46 <StellaMitchell> chris: we should coordinate on the set of datatypes, there is no real rationale for having different sets in RIF and OWL
17:40:48 <DaveReynolds> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWLRL#Datatypes_supported
17:41:30 <StellaMitchell> boris: it's not just the list of types, but we have adapted the semantics of some of the datatypes, e.g. for double
17:42:35 <StellaMitchell> sandro: from what I understand, the same reasons should apply to RIF, and RIF should use the same definitions
17:42:43 <sandro> sandro: It sounds like there's nothing OWL specific here....    so RIF should also use owl:real, etc?
17:42:59 <StellaMitchell> boris: RIF has casts between datatypes, and OWL does not
17:44:32 <sandro> boris: imagine weight has range integer, and then someone gives a value of "70"^^xs:double --- that's inconsistent.
17:44:56 <StellaMitchell> boris: giving example of how casts could results in inconsistency: range of certain property is integer, weight,  someone puts 70.0 as double so 
17:45:00 <sandro> boris: In RIF you can do a cast, which allows you to hack around this situation.
17:45:44 <StellaMitchell> boris: OWL doesn't support any functions
17:45:48 <DaveReynolds> q+
17:46:33 <StellaMitchell> chris: so we could adopt a common set of datatypes, where OWL doesn't include the built-ins and RIF does
17:47:17 <sandro> ack DaveReynolds 
17:47:45 <StellaMitchell> dave: are you saying that owl real isn't separated from the integers?
17:48:06 <sandro> boris explains owl:real and owl:realPlus
17:48:08 <StellaMitchell> boris: owl real is the umbrella for all the numeric datatypes
17:49:07 <StellaMitchell> chris: I'm trying to understand if there needs to be an actual difference in the set of datatypes  
17:49:24 <StellaMitchell> ...such that we can share datatypes and RIF supports built-ins while OWL doesn't
17:49:44 <DaveReynolds> dave: don't understand how "1.1"^^owl:real can be both a double and decimal, they are different
17:50:12 <StellaMitchell> boris: with our datatype definitions, we are trying to be more user friendly
17:50:30 <StellaMitchell> chris: so, owl:real is a superclass?
17:50:32 <StellaMitchell> boris: yes
17:51:08 <StellaMitchell> chris: ok, so there is a difference in some of the datatype definitions
17:51:54 <StellaMitchell> chris: owl approach breaks xml schema compatibility
17:52:38 <StellaMitchell> boris: we did talk to xml schema people and they weren't averse to this, and supported it
17:52:46 <Zhe> sure
17:53:00 <sandro> meeting extended until 20 after the hour.
17:53:16 <Zakim> -Ivan
17:53:16 <StellaMitchell> chris: so that feedback from xml schema group may help address the concerns of the production rule concerns in RIF
17:53:39 <ChrisW> zakim, who is on the phone?
17:53:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see bmotik, Sandro, josb, Zhe, StellaMitchell, ChrisW, Christine, DaveReynolds
17:54:42 <StellaMitchell> jos: these issues with value spaces are subtle and I would be ok with changing to the way OWL is doing it, but I think the long list of datatypes is a problem
17:55:21 <StellaMitchell> dave: owl:real sounds like a problem to me. people use decimal and double for specific reasons
17:55:37 <josb> q+
17:55:56 <StellaMitchell> dave: when you express something you need to know what it is
17:56:11 <christine> christine has joined #owl
17:56:14 <StellaMitchell> boris: you do always know what it is
17:57:25 <StellaMitchell> ...small problem might be when you say the range must be an integer and then put a double constant there that is actually an integer
17:57:33 <sandro> boris: The only question is when you do class reasoning on types....
17:57:50 <StellaMitchell> ...in owl, we say you have not violated the range constraint in that case
17:57:59 <sandro> sandro: in RIF this comes up with is-this-an-integer applied to "70"^^xs:float or "70"^^xs:decimal.
17:58:31 <StellaMitchell> sandro: RIF needs a test case about this, to get feeback from the WG
17:58:59 <StellaMitchell> jos: what sandro wrote above, in OWL would you interpret those as different objects?
17:59:12 <StellaMitchell> boris: no, we interpret them all as the integer 70
17:59:52 <StellaMitchell> ...but 0.1 double is not the same as 0.1 decimal, because 0.1 double gets rounded
18:00:07 <sandro> boris: "0.1"^^xs:float is NOT the same as "0.1"^^xs:decimal, because of rounding in the internal representation.   We don't lose any precision.
18:00:47 <sandro> boris  "70"^^xs:float and  "70"^^xs:decimal are IDENTICAL in OWL -- they are both the number 70.
18:01:40 <StellaMitchell> boris: xml schema defines equality differently from identity
18:02:26 <StellaMitchell> dave: if you put in value that is larger than the mantissa for xs:float, what happens?
18:03:07 <StellaMitchell> boris:  it would follow the mapping giving in xml schema, I don't know what it is off the top of my head
18:04:34 <ChrisW> is 100000000000045 (assuming that is beyond the range of float) a *float*
18:04:47 <sandro> boris: This gets messy, comparing doubles with integers, etc, but we did manage to implement this in Hermit.
18:06:03 <StellaMitchell> chris:  question - is the number above considered a float?
18:06:11 <DaveReynolds> The test case is whether "100000000000045 "^^xsd:float = "100000000000045"^^xsd:integer, the answer should be no.
18:06:28 <StellaMitchell> boris: yes, it is.  but it might get rounded into another float
18:06:45 <Zhe> or "1.0000000000000001"^^float = "1"^^integer, answer is yes
18:07:20 <sandro> topic:    4.  OWL RL (20 minutes)
18:08:33 <StellaMitchell> sandro: summarize items from agenda
18:08:41 <sandro>        -- aligning the list of datatypes
18:08:41 <sandro>        -- providing the rules as a RIF Core document
18:08:41 <sandro>        -- any issues with the ruleset itself
18:08:41 <sandro>        -- rules/code to check the ontology
18:09:37 <StellaMitchell> sandro: first item:  since datatypes don't align, we couldn't express OWL RL in RIF
18:09:59 <StellaMitchell> s/sandro:/dave:/
18:10:18 <sandro> DaveReynolds: it would be ideal if the OWL-RL datatypes were the intersection of OWL and RIF-Core datatypes.
18:11:03 <StellaMitchell> sandro: it will be easier to reduce the list of datatypes in OWL-RL than in the other OWL profiles
18:12:11 <StellaMitchell> sandro: customers would want RIF and OWL to be aligned
18:12:20 <StellaMitchell> dave: normalized strings
18:12:26 <josb> q+
18:12:34 <sandro> ack josb 
18:13:00 <StellaMitchell> jos: why in OWL-RL can you not allow datatypes with finite value spaces
18:13:22 <StellaMitchell> boris:  (missed answer)
18:14:00 <StellaMitchell> ...maybe in OWL-RL that restriction is not necessary
18:14:10 <StellaMitchell> ...we do in EL and QL
18:14:13 <sandro> boris: Ah, the finiteness restriction on OWL-RL might not be necessary.
18:15:22 <StellaMitchell> sandro: Dave, are you willing to see if we can get these extra datatypes added to RIF Core?
18:15:49 <StellaMitchell> dave:  I think it will be mostly up to Axel - I see no value in having things like ncname
18:16:14 <StellaMitchell> boris: we kept it for consistency, so we didn't have to explain why we excluded it
18:16:32 <StellaMitchell> dave: RIF took opposite approach: each inclusion had to be justified
18:19:16 <StellaMitchell> jos: owl:rational would be something completely new for RIF
18:19:52 <sandro> sandro: lets have RIF look at the RL datatype list and push back where necessary.
18:19:56 <StellaMitchell> sandro: RIF needs to look at list of OWL datatypes and see which ones can go in RIF core and then ask OWL to remove the other ones
18:20:16 <StellaMitchell> chris: does OWL 2 support all the RIF datatypes?
18:20:47 <StellaMitchell> boris: there are 2 xquery, duration related ones that we don't support
18:21:58 <sandro> DaveReynolds: I'm fine with my document being folded into Jos'
18:22:10 <StellaMitchell> sandro:  We need to decide what to do with the "OWL 2 RL in RIF" document
18:22:22 <josb> q+
18:23:12 <StellaMitchell> chris: in Dave's document there is the RIF core rule implementation of OWL 2 RL and there is a lot of background information. How about just taking the RIF Core implementation and making that the OWL RL profile?
18:23:45 <sandro> bmotik: We're perfectly aware that a naive implementation of the OWL RL rules will have poor performance.  But we wanted the semantics to be very clear.
18:24:16 <sandro> bmotik: eg quadratic number of literals, but you'd need builtins and NAF, etc.
18:24:25 <sandro> bmotik: and we didnt want to go there.
18:25:05 <StellaMitchell> chris: I don't understand your point. I'm suggesting you express the ruleset in RIF Core syntax.
18:25:18 <sandro> chrisw: How about using RIF Core Presentation Syntax to express the OWL-RL rules?
18:25:24 <StellaMitchell> boris: ok, I understand the question. I'm not sure right now, have to consult with others.
18:25:25 <Zhe> q+
18:26:35 <StellaMitchell> chris: I think if we solve the datatype issues, then I think it would just be a small change to the syntax 
18:27:38 <sandro> ack josb 
18:27:59 <StellaMitchell> dave:  owl uses ellipsis, makes it easier to read, less explicity about what to implement
18:28:41 <sandro> jos: my embedding stuff does not operate on T(s,p,o) but on translation to RIF.   very different.
18:28:50 <sandro> ack Zhe 
18:29:35 <sandro> Zhe: I don't want to take out the RDF-oriented rule in the OWL-RL spec, but I like adding RIF stuff.
18:30:29 <StellaMitchell> boris: my personal opinion is that changing the actual ruleset  would be painful for OWL 
18:30:40 <StellaMitchell> ...and require extensive negotiations
18:30:48 <StellaMitchell> ...but changing syntax may be ok
18:31:02 <ChrisW> "Life IS pain, princess.  Anyone who says otherwise is selling something" - Princess Bride
18:31:14 <DaveReynolds> :-)
18:31:39 <Zhe> thanks
18:31:47 <Zakim> -Zhe
18:31:48 <Zakim> -bmotik
18:31:49 <Zakim> -DaveReynolds
18:31:49 <Zakim> -StellaMitchell
18:31:50 <christine> bye
18:31:51 <Zakim> -ChrisW
18:31:51 <Zakim> -Sandro
18:31:53 <Zakim> -josb
18:31:57 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make minutes
18:31:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/11-owl-minutes.html ChrisW
18:31:58 <Zakim> -Christine
18:31:59 <Zakim> Team_(owl)17:00Z has ended
18:31:59 <sandro> StellaMitchell, thanks so much for scribing.    
18:32:00 <Zakim> Attendees were Sandro, bmotik, Ivan, +039047101aaaa, josb, Zhe, StellaMitchell, +1.845.227.aabb, ChrisW, Christine, DaveReynolds
18:32:16 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make logs public
18:32:17 <StellaMitchell> you're welcome
18:32:25 <ChrisW> +1 thanks
18:32:30 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make minutes
18:32:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/11-owl-minutes.html ChrisW
18:33:19 <StellaMitchell> thanks, I have the minutes