17:45:19 RRSAgent has joined #owl 17:45:19 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/02/18-owl-irc 17:45:34 bijan has left #owl 17:46:28 bijan has joined #owl 17:46:36 zakim, this is owl 17:46:36 bijan, Team_(owlc)16:58Z is already associated with an irc channel; use 'move owl to here' if you mean to reassociate the channel 17:48:48 zakim, this will be owlwg 17:48:48 ok, bijan; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 12 minutes 17:48:56 ScribeNick: bijan 17:49:02 RRSAgent, make records public 17:50:16 pfps has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.02.18/Agenda 17:55:56 zimmer has joined #owl 17:56:15 Hi everybody! 17:56:41 ratnesh has joined #owl 17:56:49 bmotik has joined #owl 17:57:20 SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started 17:57:27 +??P2 17:57:41 zakim, ??P2 is me 17:57:41 +bijan; got it 17:58:14 MarkusK_ has joined #owl 17:59:37 Zakim, this will be owl 17:59:37 ok, bmotik, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM already started 17:59:45 +[IPcaller] 17:59:46 +??P7 17:59:55 bcuencag has joined #owl 18:00:01 +Alan 18:00:06 Achille has joined #owl 18:00:15 zakim, ??P7 is me 18:00:15 +ratnesh; got it 18:00:25 +bmotik 18:00:28 zakim, mute me 18:00:28 bijan should now be muted 18:00:30 Zakim, mute me 18:00:30 bmotik should now be muted 18:00:33 elisa has joined #owl 18:00:39 yes 18:00:42 zakim, ??P7 is me 18:00:42 I already had ??P7 as ratnesh, zimmer 18:00:45 +pfps 18:00:57 +[IBM] 18:01:18 +Sandro 18:01:29 +bmotik.a 18:01:39 Zakim bmotik.a is me 18:01:58 Zakim, mute me 18:01:58 sorry, bcuencag, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 18:02:05 +IanH 18:02:19 -bmotik.a 18:02:30 Ratnesh and I are both on P7 18:02:32 +msmith 18:02:41 msmith has joined #owl 18:03:22 ivan has joined #owl 18:03:33 Zakim, bmotik.a is bcuencag 18:03:33 sorry, bmotik, I do not recognize a party named 'bmotik.a' 18:03:40 uli has joined #owl 18:03:42 +Elisa_Kendall 18:03:51 Zhe has joined #owl 18:04:20 +Zhe 18:04:27 there was a "-bmotik.a" bernardo 18:04:32 zakim, dial ivan-voip 18:04:32 ok, ivan; the call is being made 18:04:33 +bmotik.a 18:04:34 +Ivan 18:04:39 schneid has joined #owl 18:04:45 +??P24 18:04:48 Zakim, bmotik.a is bcuencag 18:04:48 +bcuencag; got it 18:04:52 zakim, ??P24 is me 18:04:52 +uli; got it 18:04:56 Zakim, mute me 18:04:56 bcuencag should now be muted 18:04:56 zakim, mute me 18:04:57 uli should now be muted 18:04:59 +??P25 18:05:05 zakim, ??P25 is me 18:05:05 +schneid; got it 18:05:09 zakim, mute me 18:05:09 schneid should now be muted 18:05:21 ewallace has joined #owl 18:05:28 +Evan_Wallace 18:05:30 zakim, who is here? 18:05:30 On the phone I see bijan (muted), MarkusK_, ratnesh, Alan, bmotik (muted), pfps, [IBM], Sandro, IanH, msmith, Elisa_Kendall, Zhe, bcuencag (muted), Ivan, uli (muted), schneid 18:05:34 ... (muted), Evan_Wallace 18:05:35 On IRC I see ewallace, schneid, Zhe, uli, ivan, msmith, elisa, Achille, bcuencag, MarkusK_, bmotik, ratnesh, zimmer, bijan, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, MartinD, alanr, IanH, sandro, 18:05:37 ... trackbot 18:06:00 Alan: Agenda amendments? No? Ok 18:06:07 Alan: Previous minutes 18:06:15 zakim, unmute me 18:06:15 bijan should no longer be muted 18:06:31 action 288 doesn't make sense 18:06:31 Sorry, couldn't find user - 288 18:06:36 ivan 18:06:58 anyone can do the fixup 18:07:12 only a few minor problems 18:07:27 approve with revisions? 18:07:37 PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (11 February) (with minor clean up) 18:07:43 fine by me 18:07:58 RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes (11 February) (with minor clean up) 18:08:07 q+ 18:08:07 zakim, mute me 18:08:08 bijan should now be muted 18:08:11 ack pfps 18:08:27 it was only a draft 18:08:55 because the action is wrong 18:08:57 pfps: Action 287 is not done as written 18:09:16 alanr: We read it differently. 18:09:22 pfps: Let's change the action text so it is done 18:09:23 change action to correspond to what happened 18:09:28 IanH: doing it 18:09:38 Oh wait 18:09:42 zakim, unmute me 18:09:42 bijan should no longer be muted 18:10:38 there should be a pointer to the rdf:text wiki from our page 18:10:59 msmith: action 283 is partially done (the ontology header has been added), but not complete. I updated it in tracker with status and pushed the date. 18:11:09 some chatter involving the scribe wrt 278; bijan will add the new unicode reference and tell jie 18:11:10 by the way, the action tracker is bad about interpreting IRIs - don't use (IRI) 18:11:34 refresh the agenda 18:11:40 zakim, unmute me 18:11:40 bijan was not muted, bijan 18:11:44 "Propose a change on the documents" 18:12:39 IanH: That's clarified and will be posponed 18:12:49 alanr: F2F on mon and tues...questions? 18:13:10 elisa: What about dialin? 18:13:17 sandro: I'll figure that out and send instructions 18:13:37 Topic: ast Call Comments 18:13:38 q+ 18:13:41 Topic: Last Call Comments 18:13:43 ack pfps 18:13:54 you? 18:14:01 zakim, mute me 18:14:01 sorry, alanr, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 18:14:01 i don't 18:14:04 zakim, who is talking? 18:14:15 sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pfps (52%), Sandro (10%), IanH (4%), Ivan (18%) 18:14:48 pfps: What about 51? Is it ready to send? 18:14:54 q+ 18:14:58 maybe ivan causing the echo. 18:14:58 pfps: I'm not happn. I'll kill your dog. 18:15:04 s/happn/happy 18:15:06 It's a fair comment -- sorry. 18:15:58 pfps: I prepared a lot based on the agenda sent yesterday. What are we doing now? I'm very very very UPSET 18:16:14 alanr: I don't know want to say beyond "sorry". 18:16:19 ElisaKendall has joined #owl 18:16:24 pfps: I suppose we muddle on as best as possible. 18:17:21 pfps: Listen alanr, I am *not* happy. This is not the right way to run a working group. I expect consideration in other cases in return for my consideration here. 18:17:31 q+ 18:17:37 zakim, unmute me 18:17:37 schneid should no longer be muted 18:17:39 ack schneid 18:17:52 baojie has joined #owl 18:18:09 alanr: "Responses ready to send" are uncontroversial and should go out 18:18:11 ElisaKendall_ has joined #owl 18:18:22 zakim, mute me 18:18:22 Ivan should now be muted 18:18:33 Sorry for being late. and I can only join IRC. 18:18:41 q? 18:18:47 q+ 18:18:47 q+ 18:18:52 schneid: I disagree esp. on mine, RMI51/1, because it's too early to send. We need to have a slight discussion. 18:19:00 ack ianh 18:19:16 alanr: I understand that we had a discussion last week on functional properties 18:19:43 ack pfps 18:19:46 IanH: I recall deciding it last week and schneid tasked with answering it 18:19:47 q+ 18:20:38 pfps: In prep for this meeting, I went through every response and judged them. This is a WG. We do work. If no one puts their hand up...it goes. 18:20:47 schneid: I just wrote it yesterday 18:20:57 ack bijan 18:20:59 pfps: I read it yesterday and I touch back on the advance agenda 18:21:02 zakim, mute me 18:21:02 schneid should now be muted 18:21:04 zakim, unmute me 18:21:04 bijan was not muted, bijan 18:21:30 it's fine by me in this case 18:21:35 zakim, mute me 18:21:35 bijan should now be muted 18:21:44 I read it too, and it was fine 18:21:49 q+ 18:21:55 ack ianh 18:22:05 alanr: The responses ready to send should be sent 18:22:06 q+ 18:22:11 zakim, unmute me 18:22:11 bijan should no longer be muted 18:22:16 ack bijan 18:22:59 it's not much worse than the other wiki editing stuff - I just import into a text editor 18:23:09 q+ 18:23:13 zakim, mute me 18:23:13 bijan should now be muted 18:23:14 q? 18:23:16 ack ivan 18:23:37 bijan: The wiki table is hard to work with, can we break up the table into smaller ones? 18:23:52 IanH: That seems reasonable. 18:24:16 ivan: Where do we put pointers to long discussion threads? 18:24:25 alanr: On the response page. Column 5 18:24:37 ivan: Ok, thanks! 18:24:49 Topic: Draft responses available for commen 18:24:54 s/commen/comment 18:24:55 zakim, mute me 18:24:55 Ivan should now be muted 18:25:04 -msmith 18:25:08 q+ 18:25:11 ack pfps 18:25:16 alanr: There was a bug in MS4 14 which mike fixed this morning 18:25:31 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS4 18:25:45 pfps: IanH sent out a message saying that the response page should be current 18:26:01 alanr: I think there's a lag here since the change only went out this morning 18:26:06 the wiki page is the initial, incorrect reply. I will update the page now (while dialing back in) 18:26:07 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0165.html 18:26:30 +msmith 18:27:19 ship it 18:27:27 msmith: I misunderstood. We change it. But it was a good change and I'll update the test cases 18:27:29 ship it 18:27:37 +1 18:28:13 :) 18:28:14 alanr: So, should we have him send it or put it on the next one 18:28:19 He should send it 18:28:21 +1 18:28:34 zakim, unmute me 18:28:34 Ivan should no longer be muted 18:28:38 q+ 18:28:42 ack ivan 18:28:48 ACTION: msmith to send response to MS4 14 18:28:48 Sorry, couldn't find user - msmith 18:28:59 -IanH 18:29:01 Ian, I heard you say "Hello" a couple of time. 18:29:03 q+ 18:29:04 ACTION: smith to send response to MS4 14 18:29:04 Created ACTION-289 - Send response to MS4 14 [on Michael Smith - due 2009-02-25]. 18:29:07 ack msmith 18:29:30 ivan: Didn't we say it should be registered as a bug on OWL1? 18:29:31 +IanH 18:29:39 msmith: No, that was ontology headers against test cases 18:29:49 -Elisa_Kendall 18:30:04 Topic: JR8 54 18:30:06 Ship it 18:30:10 q+ 18:30:15 ack pfps 18:30:28 alanr: Peter had a concern 18:30:58 pfps: upon reflection, it doesn't promise anything so I'm ok with it. With a little tiny format change "including..." 18:31:04 ivan:I'm changing it as we speak 18:31:05 my concern is alleviated 18:31:11 ship it 18:31:17 +1 18:31:28 it may be that we get a "I'll wait and see" response 18:31:53 ACTION: ivan send response to JR8 54 18:31:53 Created ACTION-290 - Send response to JR8 54 [on Ivan Herman - due 2009-02-25]. 18:32:04 Topic: SS1a & SS1b 26 (37) 18:32:08 q? 18:32:09 alanr: I like the response 18:32:11 ship it :-) 18:32:15 ship it 18:32:23 I am happy with it. 18:32:25 ivan: we had a discussion on the weekend... 18:32:31 alanr: Anything of note? 18:32:53 ivan: read the thread! More general thing is that we need a more understandable rationale for the profiles 18:32:55 q+ 18:33:13 ...how we do this is a matter of taste so no discussion will be fruitful. 18:33:16 q+ 18:33:25 q- 18:33:28 alanr: I hope there'll be discussion in the primer as it develops 18:33:34 ack bijan 18:33:37 I'm OK adding a mention of Primer 18:33:47 ivan: Bijan already has some text there and we can mention it to susie in the response 18:35:03 zakim, mute me 18:35:03 bijan should now be muted 18:35:21 alanr: With mention of primer, good to go? 18:35:41 ivan: Very formal question: There were three comments. We have one mail for all three. Is this ok? 18:35:51 Judgement call for each case 18:35:54 This one is ok by me 18:36:20 alanr: Do you have a view about when to split? My view is that when we have distinct work to be done we should split, but here it's fine. 18:36:23 ivan: Yeah, its' a ju 18:36:35 q+ 18:36:35 s/its' a ju/it's a judgment call and here it's fine 18:36:49 Topic: JR7 53 18:36:51 me 18:36:52 alanr: I found it reasonable 18:36:55 zakim, unmute me 18:36:55 schneid should no longer be muted 18:37:38 schneid: I cannot accept this answer, for several reasons. This is a non-LC comment but the comment says specific things to be done. 18:37:44 q+ 18:37:54 ack schneid 18:38:37 ...can we just say we'll take it at input and see you at LC for that document? 18:39:06 ...The *real* problem, however, is a specific sentence in this document, "It is the intention of the WG that in OWL 2 Full such importing produces semantic inconsistency, although this is not yet in the OWL 2 Full Semantics document."" 18:39:10 ack, me 18:39:15 ack bijan 18:39:46 schneid: I would like to redraft this email. 18:39:59 q+ 18:40:00 bijan: I'm fine with that 18:40:02 ack pfps 18:40:15 q+ alanr 18:40:32 pfps: It is my recollection that it is the recorded intent of the working group that my sentence is right 18:40:36 q+ to make a point of order 18:40:50 zakim, mute me 18:40:50 Ivan should now be muted 18:42:05 pfps: I believe I was recording the will of the working group in that response 18:42:10 zakim, mute me 18:42:10 bijan should now be muted 18:42:50 alanr: On replied to a comment on a non-lc comment: In this case, there's an interaction between an LC and non-LC document so we need to deal with it 18:42:51 q+ 18:43:03 q- 18:43:04 ack alanr 18:43:11 I'm happy with Bijan's reading 18:43:13 it was left over 18:43:40 schneid: If we wait until its in LC then many things have changed. If we answer this mail now, it's pointless 18:44:19 alanr: I propose we start a discussion over email over it, perhaps a rediscussion, but I want to see what you propos 18:44:24 I have a proposal on the table too! 18:46:03 zakim, mute me 18:46:03 schneid should now be muted 18:46:06 alanr: This one is clearly not ready to go 18:46:32 Topic: JR5 50 18:46:53 alanr: No comment so it goes 18:46:55 q+ 18:47:06 ack schneid 18:47:07 ACTION: pfps to send out reply to JR5 50 18:47:07 Created ACTION-291 - to send out reply to JR5 50 [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2009-02-25]. 18:47:10 ack pfps 18:47:46 pfps: LC 37 is not on the list but it's an "I agree with 26", should I respond to both? 18:47:49 this sounds like a good idea 18:48:04 alanr: It's fine to reply to both in the same mail. 18:48:06 pfps: I shall do that 18:48:08 q+ 18:48:14 ack ivan 18:48:21 q- 18:48:22 schneid: I do not want to have model-theoretic semantics for owl:incompatibleWith in Full, when there are no model-theoretic semantics in the Direct Semantics 18:48:33 ivan: We agreed that we would make responses "in thread" 18:48:34 q+ 18:48:38 ...we will break some thread 18:48:40 ack bijan 18:48:42 ooh - OK I'll send an "extra" message pointing to the other thread 18:50:25 The question is who is going to produce the Disposition of Comments?!?! 18:50:48 bijan: It's not working for me. 18:50:58 ivan: It's making it less work for me 18:51:21 sandro: it's trivial, retrieve all the [LC comment] and follow the first link 18:51:32 Right! 18:51:35 It's broken by design 18:51:44 No 18:51:46 It hardly ever works properly for me in any case 18:52:39 Abandon shit 18:52:45 Sorry, ship 18:52:45 q+ 18:52:47 alanr: can we do "those who can should, and those who can't shouldn't| 18:52:50 q+ 18:52:56 ack pfps 18:53:13 sandro: But we need to generate a report. 18:53:17 pfps: What about the table? 18:53:29 sandro: Maybe. 18:53:36 ack bijan 18:54:02 pfps: We're even to have a pointer to the final reply 18:54:21 alanr: It seems like it's a lot of extra effort and if ivan signs off on it 18:54:46 Topic: Responses being drafted (FYI) 18:54:54 alanr: No need to discuss these...actions are out. 18:55:05 Topic: Comments that may require policy decisions 18:55:18 Topic: FH2 28, SWD1 18:55:30 alanr: Ian has a proposal in an email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0006.html 18:56:04 alanr: One proposal is to audit the documents to use OWLDL/Full as appropriate and other terms 18:56:24 q? 18:56:31 q+ 18:56:33 q+ 18:56:34 ...In order to address the needs of several communities we make the multiple syntaxes available across all documents 18:56:35 q+ 18:56:36 ack ianh 18:56:53 ack pfps 18:56:55 I'm happy with the "name" one 18:56:58 +1 on Ian's impression 18:57:01 IanH: I think, from last week, everyone seemed on board. It was down to implementation 18:57:06 +1 to IanH 18:57:21 pfps: I'mhappy with the "name" one but not so much about every syntax everywhere 18:58:32 alanr: In the chairs meeting, we wanted to generate a "unified view of owl". Where there are distinctions, we should highlight it. Where there are no-distinctions, we should avoid any impressions that there are. 18:58:38 zakim, unmute me 18:58:38 bijan was not muted, bijan 18:58:41 q+ 18:58:46 ack bijan 18:58:56 q+ 19:00:01 ack pfps 19:00:17 pfps: I'm not even prepared to discuss this topic today. It's not on the agenda at all. 19:00:51 ack ivan 19:00:59 ...I'm not comfortable discussing these together, at all. Why are we discussing them? 19:01:21 ivan: An answer to bijan: in my mind, I only had the functional syntax in mind. 19:01:29 q+ 19:01:41 ...The syntax is the key one. (And the primer). The quick ref has it already. 19:02:42 ack pfps 19:02:50 ...It's good to try to make the Syntax document as the description of the language "as a whole" which might result from a name change, this would require multiple syntax 19:03:08 q+ 19:03:19 pfps: What I recall from the FS, it could be the *most* harmed by multiple syntaxes. It's big; it has a grammar...ouch. 19:03:25 ...It could kill it hard! 19:03:26 ack ivan 19:03:44 ivan: We already have the mechanism in that document to hide or show the examples. We can use that along the lines of the primer 19:03:48 q+ 19:04:05 q- 19:04:09 alanr: Let's stop it here and pick it up at the F2F 19:04:50 alanr: What I hear is that a least on the naming we have agreement to move forward. Boris has suggested that he wants to make a lot of changes all at once 19:04:50 q+ 19:04:54 q+ 19:04:59 ack bijan 19:05:00 +q 19:05:04 Zakim, unmute me 19:05:04 bmotik should no longer be muted 19:05:14 q- 19:05:26 scrupulososity :) 19:05:52 ack bmotik 19:06:13 bijan: Let's not do so much work for such little gain over an editorial point 19:06:34 Zakim, mute me 19:06:34