17:45:27 RRSAgent has joined #owl 17:45:27 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/12/17-owl-irc 17:45:57 ewallace has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.12.17/Agenda 17:46:22 zakim, this will be owlwg 17:46:23 ok, ewallace; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 14 minutes 17:46:55 ScribeNick: ewallace 17:47:17 RRSAgent, make records public 17:57:59 pfps has joined #owl 17:58:24 SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started 17:58:31 +Peter_Patel-Schneider 17:58:46 zakim, who is here? 17:58:46 On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider 17:58:47 On IRC I see pfps, RRSAgent, ewallace, trackbot, sandro, Zakim 17:59:02 +Evan_Wallace 17:59:02 IanH has joined #owl 17:59:27 bcuencagrau has joined #owl 18:00:18 +??P4 18:00:29 zakim, ??P4 is IanH 18:00:29 +IanH; got it 18:00:35 +??P5 18:00:41 Zakim, ??P5 is me 18:00:41 +bcuencagrau; got it 18:00:46 Zakim, mute me 18:00:46 bcuencagrau should now be muted 18:00:58 uli has joined #owl 18:01:00 uli_ has joined #owl 18:01:09 msmith has joined #owl 18:01:32 ivan has joined #owl 18:01:48 +msmith 18:01:57 zakim, dial ivan-voip 18:01:57 ok, ivan; the call is being made 18:01:59 +Ivan 18:02:17 +Sandro 18:02:24 elisa has joined #owl 18:02:25 +??P9 18:02:33 zakim, ??P9 is me 18:02:35 +uli_; got it 18:02:41 zakim, mute me 18:02:41 uli_ should now be muted 18:02:41 zakim, who is here? 18:02:42 On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Evan_Wallace, IanH, bcuencagrau (muted), msmith, Ivan, Sandro, uli_ (muted) 18:02:46 On IRC I see elisa, ivan, msmith, uli_, bcuencagrau, IanH, pfps, RRSAgent, ewallace, trackbot, sandro, Zakim 18:03:18 Christine has joined #OWL 18:03:39 they're perfect :-) 18:03:41 look good 18:03:41 schneid has joined #owl 18:03:57 Zhe has joined #owl 18:04:29 +Zhe 18:04:34 zakim, uli_ is uli 18:04:34 +uli; got it 18:04:37 zakim, mute me 18:04:37 Zhe should now be muted 18:04:38 I've pushed 252 off to next year anyway. 18:04:51 +Elisa_Kendall 18:04:56 + +7.233.aaaa 18:05:01 topic: action item status 18:05:08 MarkusK_ has joined #owl 18:05:17 zakim, +7.233.aaaa is mw 18:05:17 +mw; got it 18:05:19 zakim, +7.233.aaaa is me 18:05:19 sorry, schneid, I do not recognize a party named '+7.233.aaaa' 18:05:27 zakim, 7.233.aaaa is me 18:05:27 sorry, schneid, I do not recognize a party named '7.233.aaaa' 18:05:35 zakim, mw is schneid 18:05:35 +schneid; got it 18:05:37 +??P15 18:05:50 MIME registration should happen soon 18:05:58 resolved: accept previous minutes http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.12.17/Agenda 18:06:00 zakim, mute me 18:06:00 schneid should now be muted 18:07:01 There is a note on the action that appears to do something relevant. 18:07:23 push out action 258 to january 18:08:08 258 might be done, but we should get confirmation from Jie that he thinks he is done. 18:08:12 baojie has joined #owl 18:08:43 ianh: have we done enough publicizing? 18:08:48 + +49.343.aabb 18:08:49 action 258 (QRG) might be done, but we should get confirmation from Jie that he thinks he is done. 18:08:49 Sorry, couldn't find user - 258 18:08:57 sandro: the key thing is getting enough comments? 18:09:14 ... at two weeks before end we should remind folks to send comments. 18:09:19 +baojie 18:09:23 should put item on agenda for first Jan meeting to send out reminder. 18:09:40 topic: face-to-face meeting 5 18:10:06 fill in people page ASAP 18:10:10 23-24 Feb 2009 is the date proposed 18:10:26 s/proposed/chosen/ 18:10:43 topic: Last Call Comments 18:10:48 sorry for being late, unexpected snow. I believe Action 258 is done 18:11:03 ianh: We did get one last call comment from Alan Rector 18:11:09 ... about annotations. 18:11:16 q+ 18:11:17 yes 18:11:19 is it the same as his other comment? 18:11:20 ianh: Anyone looked at it? 18:11:21 zakim, unmute me 18:11:21 schneid should no longer be muted 18:11:22 q? 18:11:26 ack schneid 18:11:47 mscheid: As far as I understand Alan 18:11:59 ... you cannot annotate class expressions? 18:12:22 ianh: I think he wants a target not to be restricted to IRIs 18:12:25 UnionOf(comment("foo") A B) ? 18:12:36 non-IRIs should work in OWL full, right? 18:12:42 ianh: Wants to make statements about what kind of statements 18:12:43 UnionOf(comment("foo") A C) ? 18:12:53 ... are reasonable in an ontology. 18:12:57 wasn't this more about integrating 2 ontologies? 18:12:58 q? 18:13:33 q+ 18:13:42 yes, I understood as Ian did 18:13:46 zakim, unmute me 18:13:46 sorry, uli_, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 18:13:46 q+ 18:13:48 zakim, mute me 18:13:48 schneid should now be muted 18:13:49 ianh: I think he wants the target of the annotation to be a class expression 18:13:50 q? 18:13:52 zakim, unmute me 18:13:52 sorry, uli_, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 18:13:54 Something like AnnotationAssertion(rdfs:comment foo UnionOf(a b)) 18:13:59 ack uli_ 18:14:39 60? 18:15:02 zakim, who is on the phone? 18:15:02 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 ... baojie 18:15:18 uli: I agree with Ian that what Alan wants is to have complex 18:15:29 ... class expressions be the target of annotations 18:15:41 q? 18:15:45 ... His main use case was combination of ontologies 18:16:14 uli: we could do this, but without any semantics ... 18:16:25 q? 18:16:28 ... it's late to be doing this. 18:16:43 ... I don't think that its a well sorted through use case. 18:17:15 There is a work-around, which is to put a string in, as in AnnotationAssertion(rdfs:comment foo "UnionOf(a b)") 18:17:29 ianh: I was thinking, it was probably motivated by this sanctioning idea. 18:17:52 uli: In Alan's email he has a list of use cases. 18:18:36 q? 18:18:39 zakim, mute me 18:18:39 sorry, uli_, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 18:18:40 ack msmith 18:18:44 msmith: 2 things: 18:19:03 -uli 18:19:33 +??P9 18:19:41 zakim, ??P9 is me 18:19:41 +uli_; got it 18:19:51 zakim, mute me 18:19:51 uli_ should now be muted 18:20:21 q? 18:20:25 q+ 18:20:28 q? 18:20:31 ack pfps 18:20:57 ianh: not hearing anyone respond, "yes we should change the spec accordingly" 18:21:18 pfps: This doesn't require a big fix since its part of the annotation system. 18:21:35 q+ 18:21:35 ... I am against doing something and still have Alan R. be unhappy. 18:21:38 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 q+ 18:21:45 q? 18:21:52 ack sandro 18:21:53 ianh: I am reluctant to take a decision on this today. 18:22:09 msmith: (1) bnodes can be the object of annotation assertions 18:22:10 sandro: I wonder if we could have someone push back with suggested 18:22:25 ack pfps 18:22:27 ... ways of addressing the use cases without change to the language. 18:22:38 no, we can't...cause e.g., we don't have an "interface mechanism" in OWL 18:22:46 pfps: It could be useful to send an informal reply to Alan that unless there 18:22:59 sure 18:23:07 sure 18:23:09 ... is a better use case, it's unlikely for anything to happen. 18:23:36 sandro: I'd rather try and make Alan happy 18:23:41 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 q? 18:25:00 sandro: the question is could the response be something that would be 18:25:09 ... helpful to others as well. 18:26:07 no need for a formal one! 18:26:44 topic: Test Cases 18:27:11 - +49.343.aabb 18:27:17 ianh: Markus and Mike have been doing quite a bit of work on the test cases 18:27:20 Test cases are now colelcted at http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/ 18:27:26 q+ 18:27:30 q+ 18:27:32 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test_Result_Format 18:27:34 ack msmith 18:27:34 s/colelcted/collected/ 18:27:41 q? 18:27:42 ... there is also a test harness now that can be used for running tests on various reasoners 18:28:39 ianh: With OWL 1 we had a page with an overview of the tests and results 18:28:53 q? 18:28:56 ... we want to produce a similar thing, which means producing results 18:29:05 ack MarkusK_ 18:29:08 ... in a form that can be aggregated 18:29:40 Markus: the URL above is the place for submitting tests 18:30:17 ianh: I put a link from the sidebar of the OWL wg wiki to this page 18:30:53 ianh: quite a few tests have already been added 18:31:19 ianh: we have the test infrastructure, its easy to add tests 18:31:44 q? 18:31:58 ianh: we will need to create a process for approving tests in the telecons 18:32:03 q? 18:32:33 ianh: I think that Mike S converting a set of OWL 1 tests that are pending for approval 18:32:38 q? 18:32:56 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test_Queue 18:33:23 ianh: that page contains all the test that have been transferred from 18:33:46 ... OWL 1 and have been run against at least two reasoners. 18:33:49 q? 18:33:52 q+ 18:33:58 zakim, unmute me 18:33:58 schneid should no longer be muted 18:33:59 ack schneid 18:34:00 ianh: Should we bulk approve these? 18:34:43 mschneid: I looked at some ... there are some that deal with DAML+OIL 18:34:49 zakim, mute me 18:34:49 schneid should now be muted 18:34:53 zakim, unmute me 18:34:53 schneid should no longer be muted 18:34:55 zakim, mute me 18:34:55 schneid should now be muted 18:35:03 ... I think these should be dropped, since they don't make sense anymore. 18:35:22 msmith: These are not in the test Q 18:35:26 zakim, unmute me 18:35:26 schneid should no longer be muted 18:35:30 q? 18:35:35 zakim, mute me 18:35:35 schneid should now be muted 18:35:47 q+ 18:35:54 ianh: M Scheider - where did you see these tests that refer to DAML OIL? 18:35:55 q 18:35:56 ? 18:35:58 q? 18:36:01 ack msmith 18:36:39 msmith: in terms of bulk acceptance - this will work well for many of the tests 18:36:51 ... that don't fit into a particular profile. 18:36:52 sorry, will send them later. I just have some problems with my internet connection 18:37:18 q? 18:37:20 ianh: I presume these came from the DL test suite, so they should be sensible 18:37:26 ... tests for OWL 2. 18:37:31 zakim, unmute me 18:37:31 schneid should no longer be muted 18:37:36 q? 18:37:44 zakim, mute me 18:37:44 schneid should now be muted 18:38:10 ianh: Given that we are a fairly small group today, I'd be happy to postpone 18:38:14 q+ 18:38:20 q? 18:38:29 q+\ 18:38:30 ... a decision on these until the next scheduled telecon. 18:38:31 q+ 18:38:36 ack msmith 18:38:37 ack \ 18:38:39 q? 18:38:59 msmith: the list is the set of tests that were complete. The list is larger. 18:39:24 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 q? 18:39:32 ack sandro 18:39:44 ianh: Please mark the block that we are talking about today for consideration 18:39:47 ... next time. 18:39:59 schneid: see e.g., http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/TestCase:WebOnt-I3.2-001 18:40:20 sandro: I think we should say for every OWL 1 test if it is approved or why it isn't 18:40:28 q+ 18:40:38 ... so people have a better sense of compatibility between the versions of OWL. 18:40:46 q? 18:40:53 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Conformance_and_Test_Cases#Changes_to_Test_Types 18:40:54 q? 18:40:55 thanks, mike, for the pointer 18:40:58 ack msmith 18:40:59 ianh: It may be that even the DAML OIL tests should be translated. 18:41:35 msmith: I just posted the links to the test cases, and the DAML/OIL tests are 18:41:43 ... already removed. 18:42:09 q? 18:42:13 ianh: I guess we could expand a section of the Test document to include an explanation 18:42:16 yes, I agree. clear documentation of any test removal makes sense. 18:42:27 ... of those OWL 1 tests that weren't included. 18:42:38 btw, we don't have "daml:" in our "restricted vocabulary" :) 18:43:08 ianh: we have this set of tests that's in the queue. 18:43:32 ... its are job to look at these tests. Barring any concerns we will bulk approve 18:43:34 q? 18:43:37 ... those pending. 18:44:37 ianh: we anticipate approving the current bunch and announcing new pending 18:44:45 ... tests at the next meeting. 18:45:00 q? 18:45:34 yes. 18:45:38 ianh: in the future, tests will come in from the wiki in the sidebar and be pushed into 18:45:43 ... the queue. 18:45:51 q? 18:46:13 q? 18:46:28 q+ 18:46:28 q? 18:46:32 q? 18:46:34 zakim, unmute me 18:46:34 schneid should no longer be muted 18:46:38 ack schneid 18:46:42 ianh: is anyone will to produce some test cases for new capabilities, like annotations 18:47:09 mscheid: I guess I will produce some test cases for RDF semantics after LC 18:47:24 schneid, that is handled in some of the webont tests already. I will send you a link 18:47:42 q? 18:47:44 zakim, mute me 18:47:44 schneid should now be muted 18:47:48 ianh: I guess there are two things: the distinction of OWL 1 and 2, and the issue that 18:47:59 ... annotations no longer have semantics 18:48:13 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/TestCase:WebOnt-AnnotationProperty-002 18:48:23 q? 18:48:23 is the full version of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/TestCase:WebOnt-AnnotationProperty-001 18:48:27 ianh: Not sure how OWL 1 annotation semantics could have been properly tested 18:48:51 pfps: I believe that there was a test for this, and some impl's passed this test. 18:49:33 q? 18:49:40 ianh: this test would reveal this backwards incompatibility. 18:49:41 agreed. 18:50:01 q+ 18:50:03 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 q? 18:50:06 ianh: we should identify which test this was and mention it in the conformance 18:50:14 ... and test case document. 18:50:38 msmith: we have a place in the document where the whole point is to highlight 18:50:38 (the above was a guess!) 18:50:42 q? 18:50:50 ... diffs between OWL Full and DL. 18:51:07 ianh: Do we have a similar category for diffs between OWL 1 and 2? 18:51:16 msmith: No. 18:51:59 ianh: I wasn't overwhelmed with volunteers for test cases, but we could use 18:52:09 ... some more tests. 18:52:22 q? 18:52:28 yes 18:52:32 ack msmith 18:52:33 ianh: I will ask the editors of the relevant docs to produce some of these. 18:52:37 perhaps we all have a think about this over christmas?! 18:53:16 As I said, I will take the opportunity to produce a few testcases, but only after LC publication 18:53:57 I will also have a look at how we can get test cases out of our ontology repository 18:54:18 topic: Plans for non-Last Call documents 18:54:22 q+ 18:54:28 q? 18:54:31 ack pfps 18:54:42 why? 18:54:44 q+ 18:54:45 ianh: I don't plan for a decision today on this. 18:54:49 q? 18:54:58 ack sandro 18:55:21 pfps: I wouldn't object to ManchesterSyntax being rec track, but I am not in favor. 18:55:27 q? 18:55:28 q+ 18:55:30 q+ 18:55:49 sandro: I would be against this being Rec track as I described in email. 18:55:59 q? 18:56:03 ack pfps 18:56:27 zakim, unmute me 18:56:27 uli_ should no longer be muted 18:56:28 q? 18:56:30 + +49.343.aacc 18:56:31 ack uli_ 18:56:32 pfps: I don't see how the ManchesterSyntax doc could be inferred to be the 18:56:49 q+ 18:57:01 ... one and only OWL 2 ASCII syntax because the Functional Syntax is also ASCII-ish 18:57:20 q+ to respond to Uli, with "that's what a WG Note is" 18:57:20 +1 to uli 18:57:30 ack pfps 18:57:31 zakim, mute me 18:57:31 uli_ should now be muted 18:57:39 good point 18:57:43 q? 18:57:46 ack sandro 18:57:46 sandro, you wanted to respond to Uli, with "that's what a WG Note is" 18:57:54 pfps: I am also confused why Sandro wouldn't object to the QRG because its not in 18:58:02 ... the charter either. 18:58:22 but do we make similar statements regarding other syntaxes? 18:58:44 q? 18:58:47 sandro: A Recommendation says THE technology you should use for this space is defined here. 18:58:53 q+ 18:59:01 q? 18:59:14 q+ 18:59:28 ack ivan 18:59:39 http://www.w3.org/2007/06/OWLCharter.html#deliverables 18:59:43 Sandro: I think that QRG could be said to be part of the Reference that we are chartered to produce. 18:59:58 q? 19:00:01 q+ 19:00:48 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 ivan: If we have the Manchester syntax of the Rec, we have to say something about conformance wrt it. 19:00:49 q? 19:00:49 ...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 ack uli 19:00:56 q? 19:00:58 q- 19:01:14 q+ 19:01:54 ack ivan 19:02:20 ivan: the question I have is Why should it be a Rec? 19:02:25 q? 19:03:00 zakim, unmute me 19:03:00 uli_ should no longer be muted 19:03:06 q? 19:03:13 ... Regardless of what happened to the other documents, are there any arguments for making it Rec. 19:03:26 several arguments why not have been given 19:03:32 q? 19:03:39 q+ 19:03:46 uli: In past, we have read some many papers where folks have pasted in rdf/xml for e.g.s. 19:03:53 hopefully the primer will give it enough exposure.... 19:04:12 agree 19:04:13 q? 19:04:21 ... We should encourage a human readable alternative, like Manchester. 19:04:50 +q 19:04:52 uli: I would like not to discourage people in using it for human to human communication. 19:04:56 q? 19:05:12 ack ivan 19:05:14 zakim, mute me 19:05:14