IRC log of owl on 2008-12-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:45:27 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #owl

17:45:27 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/12/17-owl-irc

17:45:57 [ewallace]

ewallace has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.12.17/Agenda

17:46:22 [ewallace]

zakim, this will be owlwg

17:46:23 [Zakim]

ok, ewallace; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 14 minutes

17:46:55 [ewallace]

ScribeNick: ewallace

17:47:17 [ewallace]

RRSAgent, make records public

17:57:59 [pfps]

pfps has joined #owl

17:58:24 [Zakim]

SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started

17:58:31 [Zakim]

+Peter_Patel-Schneider

17:58:46 [pfps]

zakim, who is here?

17:58:46 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider

17:58:47 [Zakim]

On IRC I see pfps, RRSAgent, ewallace, trackbot, sandro, Zakim

17:59:02 [Zakim]

+Evan_Wallace

17:59:02 [IanH]

IanH has joined #owl

17:59:27 [bcuencagrau]

bcuencagrau has joined #owl

18:00:18 [Zakim]

+??P4

18:00:29 [IanH]

zakim, ??P4 is IanH

18:00:29 [Zakim]

+IanH; got it

18:00:35 [Zakim]

+??P5

18:00:41 [bcuencagrau]

Zakim, ??P5 is me

18:00:41 [Zakim]

+bcuencagrau; got it

18:00:46 [bcuencagrau]

Zakim, mute me

18:00:46 [Zakim]

bcuencagrau should now be muted

18:00:58 [uli]

uli has joined #owl

18:01:00 [uli_]

uli_ has joined #owl

18:01:09 [msmith]

msmith has joined #owl

18:01:32 [ivan]

ivan has joined #owl

18:01:48 [Zakim]

+msmith

18:01:57 [ivan]

zakim, dial ivan-voip

18:01:57 [Zakim]

ok, ivan; the call is being made

18:01:59 [Zakim]

+Ivan

18:02:17 [Zakim]

+Sandro

18:02:24 [elisa]

elisa has joined #owl

18:02:25 [Zakim]

+??P9

18:02:33 [uli_]

zakim, ??P9 is me

18:02:35 [Zakim]

+uli_; got it

18:02:41 [uli_]

zakim, mute me

18:02:41 [Zakim]

uli_ should now be muted

18:02:41 [IanH]

zakim, who is here?

18:02:42 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Evan_Wallace, IanH, bcuencagrau (muted), msmith, Ivan, Sandro, uli_ (muted)

18:02:46 [Zakim]

On IRC I see elisa, ivan, msmith, uli_, bcuencagrau, IanH, pfps, RRSAgent, ewallace, trackbot, sandro, Zakim

18:03:18 [Christine]

Christine has joined #OWL

18:03:39 [pfps]

they're perfect :-)

18:03:41 [uli_]

look good

18:03:41 [schneid]

schneid has joined #owl

18:03:57 [Zhe]

Zhe has joined #owl

18:04:29 [Zakim]

+Zhe

18:04:34 [uli_]

zakim, uli_ is uli

18:04:34 [Zakim]

+uli; got it

18:04:37 [Zhe]

zakim, mute me

18:04:37 [Zakim]

Zhe should now be muted

18:04:38 [pfps]

I've pushed 252 off to next year anyway.

18:04:51 [Zakim]

+Elisa_Kendall

18:04:56 [Zakim]

+ +7.233.aaaa

18:05:01 [ewallace]

topic: action item status

18:05:08 [MarkusK_]

MarkusK_ has joined #owl

18:05:17 [schneid]

zakim, +7.233.aaaa is mw

18:05:17 [Zakim]

+mw; got it

18:05:19 [schneid]

zakim, +7.233.aaaa is me

18:05:19 [Zakim]

sorry, schneid, I do not recognize a party named '+7.233.aaaa'

18:05:27 [schneid]

zakim, 7.233.aaaa is me

18:05:27 [Zakim]

sorry, schneid, I do not recognize a party named '7.233.aaaa'

18:05:35 [pfps]

zakim, mw is schneid

18:05:35 [Zakim]

+schneid; got it

18:05:37 [Zakim]

+??P15

18:05:50 [pfps]

MIME registration should happen soon

18:05:58 [ewallace]

resolved: accept previous minutes http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.12.17/Agenda

18:06:00 [schneid]

zakim, mute me

18:06:00 [Zakim]

schneid should now be muted

18:07:01 [pfps]

There is a note on the action that appears to do something relevant.

18:07:23 [ewallace]

push out action 258 to january

18:08:08 [pfps]

258 might be done, but we should get confirmation from Jie that he thinks he is done.

18:08:12 [baojie]

baojie has joined #owl

18:08:43 [ewallace]

ianh: have we done enough publicizing?

18:08:48 [Zakim]

+ +49.343.aabb

18:08:49 [pfps]

action 258 (QRG) might be done, but we should get confirmation from Jie that he thinks he is done.

18:08:49 [trackbot]

Sorry, couldn't find user - 258

18:08:57 [ewallace]

sandro: the key thing is getting enough comments?

18:09:14 [ewallace]

... at two weeks before end we should remind folks to send comments.

18:09:19 [Zakim]

+baojie

18:09:23 [pfps]

should put item on agenda for first Jan meeting to send out reminder.

18:09:40 [ewallace]

topic: face-to-face meeting 5

18:10:06 [pfps]

fill in people page ASAP

18:10:10 [ewallace]

23-24 Feb 2009 is the date proposed

18:10:26 [ewallace]

s/proposed/chosen/

18:10:43 [ewallace]

topic: Last Call Comments

18:10:48 [baojie]

sorry for being late, unexpected snow. I believe Action 258 is done

18:11:03 [ewallace]

ianh: We did get one last call comment from Alan Rector

18:11:09 [ewallace]

... about annotations.

18:11:16 [schneid]

q+

18:11:17 [uli_]

yes

18:11:19 [pfps]

is it the same as his other comment?

18:11:20 [ewallace]

ianh: Anyone looked at it?

18:11:21 [schneid]

zakim, unmute me

18:11:21 [Zakim]

schneid should no longer be muted

18:11:22 [IanH]

q?

18:11:26 [IanH]

ack schneid

18:11:47 [ewallace]

mscheid: As far as I understand Alan

18:11:59 [ewallace]

... you cannot annotate class expressions?

18:12:22 [ewallace]

ianh: I think he wants a target not to be restricted to IRIs

18:12:25 [schneid]

UnionOf(comment("foo") A B) ?

18:12:36 [pfps]

non-IRIs should work in OWL full, right?

18:12:42 [ewallace]

ianh: Wants to make statements about what kind of statements

18:12:43 [schneid]

UnionOf(comment("foo") A C) ?

18:12:53 [ewallace]

... are reasonable in an ontology.

18:12:57 [uli_]

wasn't this more about integrating 2 ontologies?

18:12:58 [IanH]

q?

18:13:33 [uli_]

q+

18:13:42 [msmith]

yes, I understood as Ian did

18:13:46 [uli_]

zakim, unmute me

18:13:46 [Zakim]

sorry, uli_, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you

18:13:46 [msmith]

q+

18:13:48 [schneid]

zakim, mute me

18:13:48 [Zakim]

schneid should now be muted

18:13:49 [ewallace]

ianh: I think he wants the target of the annotation to be a class expression

18:13:50 [IanH]

q?

18:13:52 [uli_]

zakim, unmute me

18:13:52 [Zakim]

sorry, uli_, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you

18:13:54 [pfps]

Something like AnnotationAssertion(rdfs:comment foo UnionOf(a b))

18:13:59 [IanH]

ack uli_

18:14:39 [uli_]

60?

18:15:02 [sandro]

zakim, who is on the phone?

18:15:02 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Evan_Wallace, IanH, bcuencagrau (muted), msmith, Ivan, Sandro, uli, Zhe (muted), Elisa_Kendall, schneid (muted), MarkusK_, +49.343.aabb,

18:15:05 [Zakim]

... baojie

18:15:18 [ewallace]

uli: I agree with Ian that what Alan wants is to have complex

18:15:29 [ewallace]

... class expressions be the target of annotations

18:15:41 [IanH]

q?

18:15:45 [ewallace]

... His main use case was combination of ontologies

18:16:14 [ewallace]

uli: we could do this, but without any semantics ...

18:16:25 [IanH]

q?

18:16:28 [ewallace]

... it's late to be doing this.

18:16:43 [ewallace]

... I don't think that its a well sorted through use case.

18:17:15 [pfps]

There is a work-around, which is to put a string in, as in AnnotationAssertion(rdfs:comment foo "UnionOf(a b)")

18:17:29 [ewallace]

ianh: I was thinking, it was probably motivated by this sanctioning idea.

18:17:52 [ewallace]

uli: In Alan's email he has a list of use cases.

18:18:36 [IanH]

q?

18:18:39 [uli_]

zakim, mute me

18:18:39 [Zakim]

sorry, uli_, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you

18:18:40 [IanH]

ack msmith

18:18:44 [ewallace]

msmith: 2 things:

18:19:03 [Zakim]

-uli

18:19:33 [Zakim]

+??P9

18:19:41 [uli_]

zakim, ??P9 is me

18:19:41 [Zakim]

+uli_; got it

18:19:51 [uli_]

zakim, mute me

18:19:51 [Zakim]

uli_ should now be muted

18:20:21 [IanH]

q?

18:20:25 [pfps]

q+

18:20:28 [IanH]

q?

18:20:31 [IanH]

ack pfps

18:20:57 [ewallace]

ianh: not hearing anyone respond, "yes we should change the spec accordingly"

18:21:18 [ewallace]

pfps: This doesn't require a big fix since its part of the annotation system.

18:21:35 [sandro]

q+

18:21:35 [ewallace]

... I am against doing something and still have Alan R. be unhappy.

18:21:38 [uli_]

I would be afraid that this would confuse users even further...because it introduces more stuff that "looks" semantics but isn't...

18:21:42 [pfps]

q+

18:21:45 [IanH]

q?

18:21:52 [IanH]

ack sandro

18:21:53 [ewallace]

ianh: I am reluctant to take a decision on this today.

18:22:09 [msmith]

msmith: (1) bnodes can be the object of annotation assertions

18:22:10 [ewallace]

sandro: I wonder if we could have someone push back with suggested

18:22:25 [IanH]

ack pfps

18:22:27 [ewallace]

... ways of addressing the use cases without change to the language.

18:22:38 [uli_]

no, we can't...cause e.g., we don't have an "interface mechanism" in OWL

18:22:46 [ewallace]

pfps: It could be useful to send an informal reply to Alan that unless there

18:22:59 [uli_]

sure

18:23:07 [uli_]

sure

18:23:09 [ewallace]

... is a better use case, it's unlikely for anything to happen.

18:23:36 [ewallace]

sandro: I'd rather try and make Alan happy

18:23:41 [msmith]

msmith: (2) obo in owl uses annotations in which the the objects are structured. This causes individuals to be added to the model (and the realization hierarchy, etc.), which is not intended.

18:24:21 [IanH]

q?

18:25:00 [ewallace]

sandro: the question is could the response be something that would be

18:25:09 [ewallace]

... helpful to others as well.

18:26:07 [uli_]

no need for a formal one!

18:26:44 [ewallace]

topic: Test Cases

18:27:11 [Zakim]

- +49.343.aabb

18:27:17 [ewallace]

ianh: Markus and Mike have been doing quite a bit of work on the test cases

18:27:20 [MarkusK_]

Test cases are now colelcted at http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/

18:27:26 [msmith]

q+

18:27:30 [MarkusK_]

q+

18:27:32 [msmith]

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test_Result_Format

18:27:34 [IanH]

ack msmith

18:27:34 [ivan]

s/colelcted/collected/

18:27:41 [IanH]

q?

18:27:42 [ewallace]

... there is also a test harness now that can be used for running tests on various reasoners

18:28:39 [ewallace]

ianh: With OWL 1 we had a page with an overview of the tests and results

18:28:53 [IanH]

q?

18:28:56 [ewallace]

... we want to produce a similar thing, which means producing results

18:29:05 [IanH]

ack MarkusK_

18:29:08 [ewallace]

... in a form that can be aggregated

18:29:40 [ewallace]

Markus: the URL above is the place for submitting tests

18:30:17 [ewallace]

ianh: I put a link from the sidebar of the OWL wg wiki to this page

18:30:53 [ewallace]

ianh: quite a few tests have already been added

18:31:19 [ewallace]

ianh: we have the test infrastructure, its easy to add tests

18:31:44 [IanH]

q?

18:31:58 [ewallace]

ianh: we will need to create a process for approving tests in the telecons

18:32:03 [IanH]

q?

18:32:33 [ewallace]

ianh: I think that Mike S converting a set of OWL 1 tests that are pending for approval

18:32:38 [IanH]

q?

18:32:56 [IanH]

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test_Queue

18:33:23 [ewallace]

ianh: that page contains all the test that have been transferred from

18:33:46 [ewallace]

... OWL 1 and have been run against at least two reasoners.

18:33:49 [IanH]

q?

18:33:52 [schneid]

q+

18:33:58 [schneid]

zakim, unmute me

18:33:58 [Zakim]

schneid should no longer be muted

18:33:59 [IanH]

ack schneid

18:34:00 [ewallace]

ianh: Should we bulk approve these?

18:34:43 [ewallace]

mschneid: I looked at some ... there are some that deal with DAML+OIL

18:34:49 [schneid]

zakim, mute me

18:34:49 [Zakim]

schneid should now be muted

18:34:53 [schneid]

zakim, unmute me

18:34:53 [Zakim]

schneid should no longer be muted

18:34:55 [schneid]

zakim, mute me

18:34:55 [Zakim]

schneid should now be muted

18:35:03 [ewallace]

... I think these should be dropped, since they don't make sense anymore.

18:35:22 [ewallace]

msmith: These are not in the test Q

18:35:26 [schneid]

zakim, unmute me

18:35:26 [Zakim]

schneid should no longer be muted

18:35:30 [IanH]

q?

18:35:35 [schneid]

zakim, mute me

18:35:35 [Zakim]

schneid should now be muted

18:35:47 [msmith]

q+

18:35:54 [ewallace]

ianh: M Scheider - where did you see these tests that refer to DAML OIL?

18:35:55 [IanH]

q

18:35:56 [IanH]

?

18:35:58 [IanH]

q?

18:36:01 [IanH]

ack msmith

18:36:39 [ewallace]

msmith: in terms of bulk acceptance - this will work well for many of the tests

18:36:51 [ewallace]

... that don't fit into a particular profile.

18:36:52 [schneid]

sorry, will send them later. I just have some problems with my internet connection

18:37:18 [IanH]

q?

18:37:20 [ewallace]

ianh: I presume these came from the DL test suite, so they should be sensible

18:37:26 [ewallace]

... tests for OWL 2.

18:37:31 [schneid]

zakim, unmute me

18:37:31 [Zakim]

schneid should no longer be muted

18:37:36 [IanH]

q?

18:37:44 [schneid]

zakim, mute me

18:37:44 [Zakim]

schneid should now be muted

18:38:10 [ewallace]

ianh: Given that we are a fairly small group today, I'd be happy to postpone

18:38:14 [msmith]

q+

18:38:20 [IanH]

q?

18:38:29 [sandro]

q+\

18:38:30 [ewallace]

... a decision on these until the next scheduled telecon.

18:38:31 [sandro]

q+

18:38:36 [IanH]

ack msmith

18:38:37 [sandro]

ack \

18:38:39 [IanH]

q?

18:38:59 [ewallace]

msmith: the list is the set of tests that were complete. The list is larger.

18:39:24 [schneid]

DAML+OIL stuff in the "by issue" list, e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/byIssue#issue-I3.2-Qualified-Restrictions

18:39:29 [IanH]

q?

18:39:32 [IanH]

ack sandro

18:39:44 [ewallace]

ianh: Please mark the block that we are talking about today for consideration

18:39:47 [ewallace]

... next time.

18:39:59 [msmith]

schneid: see e.g., http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/TestCase:WebOnt-I3.2-001

18:40:20 [ewallace]

sandro: I think we should say for every OWL 1 test if it is approved or why it isn't

18:40:28 [msmith]

q+

18:40:38 [ewallace]

... so people have a better sense of compatibility between the versions of OWL.

18:40:46 [IanH]

q?

18:40:53 [msmith]

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Conformance_and_Test_Cases#Changes_to_Test_Types

18:40:54 [IanH]

q?

18:40:55 [schneid]

thanks, mike, for the pointer

18:40:58 [IanH]

ack msmith

18:40:59 [ewallace]

ianh: It may be that even the DAML OIL tests should be translated.

18:41:35 [ewallace]

msmith: I just posted the links to the test cases, and the DAML/OIL tests are

18:41:43 [ewallace]

... already removed.

18:42:09 [IanH]

q?

18:42:13 [ewallace]

ianh: I guess we could expand a section of the Test document to include an explanation

18:42:16 [msmith]

yes, I agree. clear documentation of any test removal makes sense.

18:42:27 [ewallace]

... of those OWL 1 tests that weren't included.

18:42:38 [schneid]

btw, we don't have "daml:" in our "restricted vocabulary" :)

18:43:08 [ewallace]

ianh: we have this set of tests that's in the queue.

18:43:32 [ewallace]

... its are job to look at these tests. Barring any concerns we will bulk approve

18:43:34 [IanH]

q?

18:43:37 [ewallace]

... those pending.

18:44:37 [ewallace]

ianh: we anticipate approving the current bunch and announcing new pending

18:44:45 [ewallace]

... tests at the next meeting.

18:45:00 [IanH]

q?

18:45:34 [msmith]

yes.

18:45:38 [ewallace]

ianh: in the future, tests will come in from the wiki in the sidebar and be pushed into

18:45:43 [ewallace]

... the queue.

18:45:51 [IanH]

q?

18:46:13 [IanH]

q?

18:46:28 [schneid]

q+

18:46:28 [IanH]

q?

18:46:32 [IanH]

q?

18:46:34 [schneid]

zakim, unmute me

18:46:34 [Zakim]

schneid should no longer be muted

18:46:38 [IanH]

ack schneid

18:46:42 [ewallace]

ianh: is anyone will to produce some test cases for new capabilities, like annotations

18:47:09 [ewallace]

mscheid: I guess I will produce some test cases for RDF semantics after LC

18:47:24 [msmith]

schneid, that is handled in some of the webont tests already. I will send you a link

18:47:42 [IanH]

q?

18:47:44 [schneid]

zakim, mute me

18:47:44 [Zakim]

schneid should now be muted

18:47:48 [ewallace]

ianh: I guess there are two things: the distinction of OWL 1 and 2, and the issue that

18:47:59 [ewallace]

... annotations no longer have semantics

18:48:13 [msmith]

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/TestCase:WebOnt-AnnotationProperty-002

18:48:23 [IanH]

q?

18:48:23 [msmith]

is the full version of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/TestCase:WebOnt-AnnotationProperty-001

18:48:27 [ewallace]

ianh: Not sure how OWL 1 annotation semantics could have been properly tested

18:48:51 [ewallace]

pfps: I believe that there was a test for this, and some impl's passed this test.

18:49:33 [IanH]

q?

18:49:40 [ewallace]

ianh: this test would reveal this backwards incompatibility.

18:49:41 [pfps]

agreed.

18:50:01 [msmith]

q+

18:50:03 [schneid]

old DL: annotate an individual x, then say SameIndividual(x y), and y should have the same annotation, but not OWL 2 DL

18:50:05 [IanH]

q?

18:50:06 [ewallace]

ianh: we should identify which test this was and mention it in the conformance

18:50:14 [ewallace]

... and test case document.

18:50:38 [ewallace]

msmith: we have a place in the document where the whole point is to highlight

18:50:38 [schneid]

(the above was a guess!)

18:50:42 [IanH]

q?

18:50:50 [ewallace]

... diffs between OWL Full and DL.

18:51:07 [ewallace]

ianh: Do we have a similar category for diffs between OWL 1 and 2?

18:51:16 [ewallace]

msmith: No.

18:51:59 [ewallace]

ianh: I wasn't overwhelmed with volunteers for test cases, but we could use

18:52:09 [ewallace]

... some more tests.

18:52:22 [IanH]

q?

18:52:28 [msmith]

yes

18:52:32 [IanH]

ack msmith

18:52:33 [ewallace]

ianh: I will ask the editors of the relevant docs to produce some of these.

18:52:37 [uli_]

perhaps we all have a think about this over christmas?!

18:53:16 [schneid]

As I said, I will take the opportunity to produce a few testcases, but only after LC publication

18:53:57 [uli_]

I will also have a look at how we can get test cases out of our ontology repository

18:54:18 [ewallace]

topic: Plans for non-Last Call documents

18:54:22 [pfps]

q+

18:54:28 [IanH]

q?

18:54:31 [IanH]

ack pfps

18:54:42 [uli_]

why?

18:54:44 [sandro]

q+

18:54:45 [ewallace]

ianh: I don't plan for a decision today on this.

18:54:49 [IanH]

q?

18:54:58 [IanH]

ack sandro

18:55:21 [ewallace]

pfps: I wouldn't object to ManchesterSyntax being rec track, but I am not in favor.

18:55:27 [IanH]

q?

18:55:28 [pfps]

q+

18:55:30 [uli_]

q+

18:55:49 [ewallace]

sandro: I would be against this being Rec track as I described in email.

18:55:59 [IanH]

q?

18:56:03 [IanH]

ack pfps

18:56:27 [uli_]

zakim, unmute me

18:56:27 [Zakim]

uli_ should no longer be muted

18:56:28 [IanH]

q?

18:56:30 [Zakim]

+ +49.343.aacc

18:56:31 [IanH]

ack uli_

18:56:32 [ewallace]

pfps: I don't see how the ManchesterSyntax doc could be inferred to be the

18:56:49 [pfps]

q+

18:57:01 [ewallace]

... one and only OWL 2 ASCII syntax because the Functional Syntax is also ASCII-ish

18:57:20 [sandro]

q+ to respond to Uli, with "that's what a WG Note is"

18:57:20 [msmith]

+1 to uli

18:57:30 [IanH]

ack pfps

18:57:31 [uli_]

zakim, mute me

18:57:31 [Zakim]

uli_ should now be muted

18:57:39 [uli_]

good point

18:57:43 [IanH]

q?

18:57:46 [IanH]

ack sandro

18:57:46 [Zakim]

sandro, you wanted to respond to Uli, with "that's what a WG Note is"

18:57:54 [ewallace]

pfps: I am also confused why Sandro wouldn't object to the QRG because its not in

18:58:02 [ewallace]

... the charter either.

18:58:22 [uli_]

but do we make similar statements regarding other syntaxes?

18:58:44 [IanH]

q?

18:58:47 [ewallace]

sandro: A Recommendation says THE technology you should use for this space is defined here.

18:58:53 [ivan]

q+

18:59:01 [IanH]

q?

18:59:14 [uli_]

q+

18:59:28 [IanH]

ack ivan

18:59:39 [sandro]

http://www.w3.org/2007/06/OWLCharter.html#deliverables

18:59:43 [ewallace]

Sandro: I think that QRG could be said to be part of the Reference that we are chartered to produce.

18:59:58 [IanH]

q?

19:00:01 [pfps]

q+

19:00:48 [pfps]

From Conformance: Several syntaxes have been defined for OWL 2 ontology documents, some or all of which could be used by OWL 2 tools for exchanging documents. However, conformant OWL 2 tools that take ontology documents as input(s) MUST accept ontology documents using the RDF/XML serialization [OWL 2 Mapping to RDF Graphs], and conformant OWL 2 tools that publish ontology documents MUST, if...

19:00:49 [ewallace]

ivan: If we have the Manchester syntax of the Rec, we have to say something about conformance wrt it.

19:00:49 [IanH]

q?

19:00:49 [pfps]

...possible, be able to publish them in the RDF/XML serialization if asked to do so (e.g., via HTTP content negotiation). OWL 2 tools MAY also accept and/or publish ontology documents using other serializations, for example the XML Serialization [OWL 2 XML Syntax].

19:00:56 [uli_]

ack uli

19:00:56 [IanH]

q?

19:00:58 [pfps]

q-

19:01:14 [ivan]

q+

19:01:54 [IanH]

ack ivan

19:02:20 [ewallace]

ivan: the question I have is Why should it be a Rec?

19:02:25 [IanH]

q?

19:03:00 [uli_]

zakim, unmute me

19:03:00 [Zakim]

uli_ should no longer be muted

19:03:06 [IanH]

q?

19:03:13 [ewallace]

... Regardless of what happened to the other documents, are there any arguments for making it Rec.

19:03:26 [Christine]

several arguments why not have been given

19:03:32 [IanH]

q?

19:03:39 [ivan]

q+

19:03:46 [ewallace]

uli: In past, we have read some many papers where folks have pasted in rdf/xml for e.g.s.

19:03:53 [sandro]

hopefully the primer will give it enough exposure....

19:04:12 [Christine]

agree

19:04:13 [IanH]

q?

19:04:21 [ewallace]

... We should encourage a human readable alternative, like Manchester.

19:04:50 [Christine]

+q

19:04:52 [ewallace]

uli: I would like not to discourage people in using it for human to human communication.

19:04:56 [IanH]

q?

19:05:12 [IanH]

ack ivan

19:05:14 [uli_]

zakim, mute me

19:05:14 [Zakim]

uli_ should now be muted

19:05:31 [sandro]

I think most people don't care Rec-vs-Note, but for the ones who do care, it's an important thing to get right.

19:05:42 [ewallace]

ivan: I understand Uli. But RDF community has been happy to use Turtle for years

19:05:50 [IanH]

q?

19:05:58 [ewallace]

... without any Rec document spec'ing it.

19:06:22 [ewallace]

Christine: I don't see why it would discourage people for using it becuase

19:06:36 [ewallace]

... it is already used in tools, etc.

19:06:44 [IanH]

q?

19:06:48 [IanH]

ack Christine

19:06:54 [ewallace]

... I think it would be in conflict with what is in Conformance.

19:07:09 [ewallace]

... Having it in Rec track will give it a special status.

19:07:42 [ewallace]

ianh: Given a lack of champion for this being Rec track, let's not continue this

19:07:46 [ewallace]

... discussion now.

19:07:56 [ewallace]

topic: Coordination with RIF

19:08:14 [ewallace]

ianh: There was a meeting last Thursday about this topic.

19:08:18 [IanH]

q?

19:08:27 [ewallace]

ianh: Can someone give a quick overview of what occured?

19:08:41 [IanH]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Dec/att-0044/2270.2.html

19:08:50 [ewallace]

sandro: Everyone should have a pointer to the minutes.

19:08:58 [MarkusK_]

I have to leave now. Bye.

19:09:07 [Zakim]

-MarkusK_

19:09:15 [ewallace]

sandro: We need to coordinate comments to rdf:text.

19:09:44 [ewallace]

... We talked about Jos' rdf compatibility document and updating it to OWL 2.

19:09:54 [IanH]

action: baojie forward rdf:text comments to RIF list

19:09:54 [trackbot]

Sorry, couldn't find user - baojie

19:10:08 [ewallace]

We talked about the list of datatypes. In particular this was an opportunity

19:10:24 [ewallace]

... for Boris to speak about the new datatypes.

19:10:36 [Zakim]

- +49.343.aacc

19:11:13 [ewallace]

... Other types in OWL for completeness.

19:11:30 [ivan]

q+

19:11:35 [IanH]

q?

19:11:36 [ewallace]

... Finally we talked about OWL RL.

19:11:54 [IanH]

q?

19:12:18 [ewallace]

ianh: Timeline?

19:12:26 [IanH]

What is future actions and timeline?

19:12:44 [ewallace]

sandro: we might have assigned a schedule for the RL encoding.

19:12:53 [ewallace]

... it was probably about 2 weeks.

19:13:12 [ewallace]

sandro: No additional meeting has been planned at this time.

19:13:13 [IanH]

q?

19:13:17 [IanH]

ack ivan

19:13:23 [ewallace]

ianh: Should there be a future meeting?

19:13:27 [ewallace]

ivan: Yes.

19:13:59 [ewallace]

ivan: I think that for the RL rules, the least disruptive thing would

19:14:09 [ewallace]

... be to publish a joint note.

19:14:36 [ewallace]

... Changing the OWL 2 Profile document might force us to a 2nd LC.

19:15:09 [ewallace]

sandro: Disagree. It just changes the syntax of the rules.

19:15:26 [IanH]

q?

19:15:34 [ewallace]

ianh: Worried that the action wrt datatypes is open ended, with no schedule.

19:15:58 [ewallace]

sandro: the worst thing would be for RIF to respond that the burden of

19:16:10 [ewallace]

... these datatypes is too great.

19:16:18 [IanH]

q?

19:16:19 [ewallace]

... This would have to be done at LC.

19:16:56 [ewallace]

topic: Features "At-Risk"

19:17:07 [ewallace]

just a place holder in today's agenda.

19:17:17 [ewallace]

topic: AOB

19:17:20 [uli_]

hurray

19:17:31 [uli_]

ho ho ho

19:17:46 [schneid]

+1 to 7th Jan

19:17:48 [ewallace]

ianh: Next call will be Wednesday the 7th of Jan

19:18:13 [msmith]

happy holidays everyone. See you in January.

19:18:14 [uli_]

happy new year

19:18:18 [Zakim]

-uli_

19:18:20 [Zakim]

-msmith

19:18:20 [Zakim]

-bcuencagrau

19:18:22 [ivan]

bye, bye everyone!

19:18:22 [Zakim]

-Peter_Patel-Schneider

19:18:22 [Zhe]

happy new year

19:18:23 [Zakim]

-Sandro

19:18:23 [schneid]

bye!

19:18:25 [Zakim]

-Elisa_Kendall

19:18:27 [Zakim]

-Evan_Wallace

19:18:28 [Zakim]

-Zhe

19:18:30 [Zakim]

-baojie

19:18:31 [Christine]

bye

19:18:31 [Zakim]

-Ivan

19:18:38 [Zakim]

-schneid

19:18:40 [Zakim]

-IanH

19:18:40 [Zakim]

SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended

19:18:41 [Zakim]

Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, Evan_Wallace, IanH, bcuencagrau, msmith, Ivan, Sandro, Zhe, uli, Elisa_Kendall, schneid, MarkusK_, +49.343.aabb, baojie, uli_, +49.343.aacc

19:18:46 [baojie]

baojie has left #owl

19:24:21 [IanH]

RRSAgent, make records public

19:55:09 [msmith]

msmith has left #owl