IRC log of owl on 2009-02-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

01:02:58 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl
02:43:14 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl
03:02:13 [schneid]
schneid has joined #owl
14:32:26 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
14:32:27 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:32:58 [Jie]
Ian: Health WG has good use case
14:33:48 [Zakim]
14:33:49 [Jie]
Ivan: the problem is even if it is technically possible to add such features, I'm not sure we should
14:33:57 [uli]
zakim, ??P15 is me
14:33:57 [Zakim]
+uli; got it
14:34:09 [uli]
zakim, mute me
14:34:09 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
14:34:11 [Jie]
... add a new feature without major justification may not be good
14:34:18 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
14:34:18 [Zakim]
On the phone I see jar, MIT346, Evan_Wallace, Achille, uli (muted)
14:34:19 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Achille, Jie, sandro, alanr, schneid, ivan, zwu2, jar, msmith, MarkusK_, Zakim, bmotik, pfps, IanH, bijan, uli, ewallace, trackbot
14:34:31 [Jie]
... I'm worry about for doing it lately
14:34:44 [IanH]
14:34:56 [Jie]
... We get overall negative feedback on RL all together]
14:36:05 [Jie]
Mike: I think a justification is that it is in OWL and we can add it without technical difficult.
14:36:23 [Jie]
... open linked data people would need it
14:36:43 [Jie]
... even through I don't have a specific example now
14:37:06 [Jie]
Alan: Profile document needs to be more user understandable
14:37:31 [Jie]
... adding a new functionality will increase its complexity
14:37:42 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
14:37:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see jar, MIT346, Evan_Wallace, Achille, uli (muted)
14:38:23 [Jie]
Zhe: we can define the core stuff, and user add their need
14:38:28 [sandro]
jar, ewallace, uli, Achille --- the webcam is active again --
14:38:41 [uli]
+1 to Markus
14:38:55 [uli]
and Mike, sorry!
14:39:26 [Jie]
Markus: Profile is target at making ontology processing easier
14:40:03 [Jie]
Ivan: We sure can implement more, but that's not the point
14:40:48 [Jie]
... if we don't know what the community need, then it is not we do standardization
14:41:57 [Jie]
Ivan: QL anr RL are "entry-level" ontologies in OWL
14:42:01 [Jie]
... it should be easy
14:42:19 [Jie]
Mike: One of the audience of QL is linked data
14:42:47 [Jie]
... also include people who want get relational data in OWL
14:42:56 [Jie]
... they are not new to OWL
14:43:22 [Jie]
Alan: QL and RL are different
14:43:49 [Jie]
QL is targeted at low complexity
14:44:07 [Jie]
... we are not designing the language to be introdutory
14:44:40 [Jie]
s/ introdutory/introductory/
14:44:54 [Jie]
Boris: we have some general misunderstanding
14:45:05 [Jie]
... on why need QL
14:45:36 [Jie]
... on processing database data, or low complexity or rule reasoning
14:46:25 [uli]
+1 to Boris -- this distinction makes "space" for vendor's PR and for teaching/KT
14:46:34 [ewallace]
This is the same discussion around OWL Lite
14:46:39 [ewallace]
as Sandro says
14:46:59 [Jie]
Zhe: from vendor point of view
14:47:08 [Jie]
... vendor wants to add more
14:48:12 [Jie]
... but i don't think it is necessary to add this feature
14:49:16 [Jie]
Peter: if people don't understand, they should look at primer
14:49:35 [Jie]
Ian: profile is not techinical driven
14:49:43 [Jie]
... it is user community driven
14:49:54 [schneid]
14:50:07 [Jie]
... it should be the case we do it because it is doable
14:51:32 [uli]
14:52:00 [Jie]
Markus: we don't get simpler to move a feature from non allowed list to allowed list
14:52:13 [IanH]
14:52:18 [IanH]
ack schneid
14:53:06 [Jie]
schneid: requirement for QL for processing database data IS technical requirement
14:53:36 [Jie]
... features we should avoid are
14:53:57 [Jie]
... the ones need further understanding or other features
14:54:08 [Jie]
... or the ones may be misleading
14:54:21 [Jie]
... i think that's not the case here
14:54:23 [schneid]
was owl lite easy to understand for new users?
14:54:40 [Jie]
Alan: reducing the language does not help anybody
14:55:14 [Jie]
Boris: I didn't say it should technical driven
14:55:25 [IanH]
14:55:29 [Jie]
s/should/should be
14:55:53 [Jie]
... I agree things should be simple
14:56:10 [Jie]
... but it may exculde some people
14:57:41 [Jie]
Ian: of course the document should be improve a little
14:57:49 [Jie]
... but the document is not user facing
14:58:20 [Jie]
... the specification document are for people who build system
14:59:21 [Jie]
... if they run into things they can't understand, there is primer, overview and (there will be) other books
15:00:39 [Jie]
... we should void the mistake that pointing people to the wrong document
15:02:07 [Jie]
Boris: why we need profile, it is contentious
15:02:50 [Jie]
... there would be extension, but it will be painful.
15:03:23 [Jie]
Zhe: I agree we should focus on accessability
15:03:56 [Jie]
... for a regular user without good OWL knowledge, which one to choose?
15:04:04 [Jie]
... we should make it clear to them
15:04:12 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call
15:04:14 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the call', sandro
15:04:17 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
15:04:17 [Zakim]
On the phone I see jar, MIT346, Evan_Wallace, Achille, uli (muted)
15:05:23 [ewallace]
Ian's suggestion sounds good.
15:05:45 [Jie]
Ian: profile can have some discussion, but the major explanation will be in the primer
15:05:51 [ewallace]
Explain in detail in Primer, summarize in Profile doc.
15:06:38 [Jie]
Ivan: some examples in profile will help
15:06:46 [Jie]
Boris: i agree
15:07:38 [Jie]
Ian: we should go back and focus on decision
15:07:55 [uli]
15:07:55 [uli]
and symmetric
15:08:45 [Jie]
PROPSOED: the reflexive, symmetric, and asymmertic should be add to be QL profile
15:08:47 [pfps]
+1 (ALU)
15:08:49 [uli]
15:08:49 [alanr]
15:08:50 [MarkusK_]
15:08:51 [sandro]
15:08:52 [Jie]
15:08:52 [schneid]
15:08:52 [IanH]
15:08:55 [ewallace]
15:08:56 [ivan]
15:09:00 [ivan]
15:09:01 [zwu2]
15:09:03 [bmotik]
15:09:08 [bijan]
15:09:18 [Achille]
15:09:22 [msmith]
15:09:25 [Jie]
15:09:47 [Jie]
15:10:04 [alanr]
An example that I've recently dealt with on the profiles was a snomed inspired (approximate) workaround for the lack of union in EL. There are benefits and tradeoffs and this might serve as an informative example.
15:10:13 [pfps]
RESOLVED: reflexive, symmetric, and asymmertic should be add to be QL profile
15:10:29 [uli]
q+ to explain
15:10:37 [uli]
i don't mind
15:10:41 [ivan]
ack uli
15:10:42 [uli]
zakim, unmute me
15:10:42 [Zakim]
uli, you wanted to explain
15:10:44 [Zakim]
uli was not muted, uli
15:10:50 [IanH]
ack uli
15:11:03 [schneid]
s/assymetric/asymmetric :-)
15:11:29 [Jie]
RESOLVED: reflexive, symmetric, and assymmertic should be added to the QL profile
15:12:14 [alanr]
15:12:42 [uli]
zakim, mute me
15:12:42 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
15:12:52 [IanH]
15:12:55 [IanH]
ack alanr
15:12:57 [Jie]
Uli: if we add sameAS, we may have either recursive query or materialized view
15:13:02 [Jie]
... we need to note it
15:13:31 [ivan]
15:13:43 [Jie]
Alan: for many users, having an extra table is not an issue
15:13:45 [uli]
no Jie, I said that, if we don't use sameAs, we can use a standard RDBMs system without touching the data.
15:14:02 [Jie]
thanks, uli
15:14:08 [uli]
...and if we have sameAs, we need a system..
15:14:12 [uli]
zakim, unmute me
15:14:12 [Zakim]
uli should no longer be muted
15:14:19 [IanH]
15:14:47 [msmith]
15:14:51 [alanr]
but what about using materialization for transitive
15:15:17 [alanr]
15:15:22 [uli]
zakim, mute me
15:15:22 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
15:15:28 [Jie]
Ian: question is if we have sameAs, will we have transitive property also?
15:15:50 [Jie]
Mike: transitive property is not in LOGSAPCE
15:15:59 [Jie]
... it increases complexity
15:16:33 [uli]
+1 to Markus
15:17:01 [uli]
(the point about QL is "by querying only")
15:18:06 [Jie]
Boris: adding transitive is not only about recursive query
15:18:33 [MarkusK_]
markus: replying to alln, I do not think that it is enough to state that QL can still be implmented in DBs using "some extra tables"
15:18:36 [Jie]
... sameAs is the only thing can introduce equivalency
15:18:46 [alanr]
zhe asked. We're done now.
15:18:47 [Jie]
... and it can be precomputed
15:19:28 [MarkusK_]
markus: maintaining these tables may not be trivial, and recursive queries and "some extra tables" are sufficient for all OWL 2 profiles, so it is not a specific feature of QL
15:20:17 [MarkusK_]
markus: moreover, many RDBMS may have recursive queries that implement a bag (multiset) semantics only, so termination may not be easy to achieve when relying on these queries
15:20:44 [MarkusK_]
s /alln/allen/
15:20:57 [Jie]
=Ivan: my favorite approach is that we have sameAs in QL, but make it clear for some implementation it may lead to slower performance
15:21:54 [Jie]
Ian: we have QL is for accessing database
15:22:51 [Jie]
... if add sameas, we lose the ability to access db just from a query interface
15:23:01 [Jie]
s/if/if we
15:23:31 [uli]
Ivan, you *do* care as a person who wants to query data through an ontology
15:23:47 [Jie]
Ivan: if I'm a user, I will not care about how things are technical done
15:24:12 [Jie]
15:25:08 [uli]
Michael, it's not only related to scalability (and the index issue mentioned by Zhe might hit you), but about "what you can/want to do" before you can start querying
15:25:27 [Jie]
Schneid: QL is designed for scalability, sameas may kill it
15:26:53 [Jie]
Mike: if we add sameAs, user may lose some access for data
15:27:05 [uli]
...and existentials in the head
15:27:53 [Jie]
Markus: QL is not a subset of EL because symmertic property and (scriber lost it)
15:29:14 [Jie]
Ivan: what it is in QL , not in EL?
15:29:36 [Jie]
Markus: inverse property and symmertic property
15:30:19 [Jie]
Alan: people need QL, not EL because they want to access database data, how can they do it with EL?
15:30:36 [Jie]
Ian: we need to cut discussion
15:31:15 [sandro]
Uli, do you have a handy text for your proposal?
15:32:06 [uli]
15:32:11 [uli]
will send in a second
15:32:49 [schneid]
schneid: I want to avoid to add stuff that brings a bad dilemma to implementers: if they don't support it, then they are non-conformant, and if they implement it, then their main performance advantages will break down
15:32:54 [Jie]
Mike: on conformance, if a feature is not in the language, and the tool support it, does not make the tool not conforming
15:33:05 [LeeF]
LeeF has joined #owl
15:33:12 [LeeF]
LeeF has left #owl
15:33:14 [uli]
We propose to not add sameAs to QL, but a paragraph to its introduction that says, roughly, "hey, if you add sameAs to QL, you can't answer queries anymore using an off-the-shelf RDBMS plus a little query rewriter *without* modifying the data...but you could still answer queries by either materializing a view for the "sameAs" closure or using an RDBMS that supports recursive queries."
15:33:30 [schneid]
and this dillemma would be delegated to users, of course
15:33:34 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
15:33:45 [uli]
15:33:52 [Jie]
PROPOSED: not add sameAs to QL, but a paragraph to its introduction that says, roughly, "hey, if you add sameAs to QL, you can't answer queries anymore using an off-the-shelf RDBMS plus a little query rewriter *without* modifying the data...but you could still answer queries by either materializing a view for the "sameAs" closure or using an RDBMS that supports recursive queries."
15:33:55 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Keep sameAs out of OWL QL, in order to keep the properties of QL, with a note about QL such Uli proposes.
15:34:20 [msmith]
chair adjusting wording
15:34:36 [Jie]
PROPOSED: We will add sameas to the QL profile.
15:34:44 [MarkusK_]
15:34:44 [pfps]
-1 ALU
15:34:46 [IanH]
15:34:46 [bmotik]
15:34:47 [Jie]
15:34:47 [alanr]
15:34:48 [uli]
15:34:49 [Achille]
-100 (IBM)
15:34:49 [ivan]
15:34:50 [ewallace]
15:34:51 [schneid]
15:35:01 [IanH]
15:35:04 [sandro]
15:35:04 [sandro]
15:35:06 [ivan]
ack ivan
15:35:08 [msmith]
15:35:14 [zwu2]
15:35:21 [sandro]
yes, bijan, following without the audio isn't really practical.
15:35:37 [Jie]
RESOLVED: We will not add sameas to the QL profile.
15:36:24 [Jie]
PROPOSED: add some uli's text to profile document
15:36:28 [pfps]
+1 ALU
15:36:28 [IanH]
15:36:28 [Achille]
15:36:29 [bijan]
15:36:29 [sandro]
15:36:29 [msmith]
15:36:29 [MarkusK_]
15:36:31 [ivan]
15:36:32 [Jie]
15:36:35 [alanr]
15:36:35 [schneid]
15:36:36 [bmotik]
15:36:42 [ewallace]
15:36:51 [zwu2]
15:37:02 [Jie]
RESOLVED: add some uli's text to profile document
15:37:13 [bijan]
I wonder whether if all OWL QL implementations at CR support sameAs that that would be sufficient new information
15:37:20 [IanH]
PROPOSED: reflexive, irreflexive, & asymmetric properties will be added to the QL profile
15:37:34 [pfps]
+1 ALU
15:37:35 [bmotik]
15:37:35 [MarkusK_]
15:37:36 [msmith]
15:37:37 [ivan]
15:37:38 [Achille]
15:37:38 [schneid]
15:37:38 [alanr]
15:37:41 [uli]
15:37:41 [ewallace]
15:37:41 [sandro]
15:37:42 [bijan]
15:37:46 [zwu2]
15:37:54 [sandro]
(this is correcting the previious proposal)
15:37:59 [Jie]
15:38:03 [IanH]
RESOLVED: reflexive, irreflexive, & asymmetric properties will be added to the QL profile
15:38:16 [sandro]
ian: (just tidying up)
15:38:20 [Zakim]
15:39:15 [Jie]
15:39:16 [sandro]
Bijan, can you dial in about 3:30 boston time?
15:39:36 [Zakim]
15:39:37 [bijan]
8:30 here, yes?
15:39:38 [bijan]
15:46:59 [Zakim]
15:54:49 [pfps]
no updated agenda - we are still finishing yesterday's agenda
15:55:28 [jar]
oh my. so you will all have to extend your stay so you can finish today's tomorrow :-)
16:01:09 [sandro]
scribe: Boris
16:01:36 [Zakim]
16:01:39 [bmotik]
subtopic: TQ comments
16:01:43 [Achille]
zakim, ibm is me
16:01:46 [Zakim]
+Achille; got it
16:01:51 [Zakim]
16:01:54 [bmotik]
ianh: I've drafted a response
16:02:01 [IanH]
16:02:35 [bmotik]
ianh: I've tried to tease out each of the individual comments that had technical content
16:04:48 [bmotik]
(everyone's reading Ian's response)
16:07:49 [msmith]
editorial: s/IEFT/IETF/g (Internet Engineering Task Force)
16:08:55 [bmotik]
ianh: Let's go through the comment
16:09:23 [bmotik]
ivan: There were specific comments by TQ that we should stop the OWL 2 effort altogether
16:09:36 [bmotik]
ianh: My response does not address this
16:09:55 [bmotik]
ianh: We are currently disucssing only the technical comments from Jeremy's e-mail
16:10:33 [bmotik]
ianh: My response should say that there will be another response about the philosophical objections
16:10:47 [bmotik]
ianh: Thanks -- I'll add this to my response
16:11:50 [bmotik]
ianh: Links to Wiki's should be the links to TR
16:12:02 [bmotik]
sandro: I can't find these links, but I'll ask Jeremy
16:12:27 [sandro]
action: sandro find and fix the to-wiki-links Jeremy complains about
16:12:27 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-299 - Find and fix the to-wiki-links Jeremy complains about [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-03-03].
16:12:56 [bmotik]
ianh: I'll make the comment about syntax examples more precise w.r.t. what we decided at this F2F
16:13:22 [IanH]
16:15:33 [bmotik]
schneid: Jeremy says that various disjointness axioms would make implementation more difficult
16:15:52 [IanH]
16:16:35 [bmotik]
inah: Rather than just making statements "It's easy to implement", can we point to implementations?
16:16:47 [bmotik]
ianh: Zhe, does your implementation support disjoint union?
16:16:49 [bmotik]
Zhe: No
16:17:35 [bmotik]
bmotik: OWL 2 RL does not have disjoint union, but does have disjoint properties
16:18:21 [bmotik]
ivan: We can just say that we don''t understand why disjoint union would be difficult to implement
16:18:30 [bmotik]
ivna: We could ask for more explanation
16:18:34 [bmotik]
16:19:09 [bmotik]
alanr: We already said that disjoint classes have benefits, but what to say aout the disjoint union?
16:19:58 [bmotik]
ianh: We'll tweak the proposal to say that this does not address all the points and say that we don't see the difficult in implementations
16:20:06 [bmotik]
16:20:37 [bmotik]
ianh: In OWL 1, there was some OWL file that was used to capture bits of RDF
16:21:09 [bmotik]
schneid: There is no technical need to add this: (1) no sense on the DL side and (2) it is entailed by the full side
16:21:16 [bmotik]
ianh: We'll add this
16:21:39 [bmotik]
ianh: Jeremy suggested changing the serialization of property chains
16:22:18 [bmotik]
pfps: No, they are suggesting something else
16:22:39 [bmotik]
pfps: RDF allows blank nodes in properties
16:23:01 [bijan]
RDF doesn't allow blank nodes in properties.
16:23:32 [IanH]
16:23:41 [bmotik]
alanr: Jeremy is worried about a blank node being used as subject or object that will then get turned into a property by some rule
16:24:21 [MarkusK_]
markus: the fact that predicates in RDF cannot be bnodes is not a bug but a feature:
16:24:24 [bmotik]
msmith: Jeremy doesn't point this out, but does not this also imply that bnodes are not good for inverse properties
16:24:25 [pfps]
RDF does not allow bnodes for predicates - it allows bnodes for properties
16:24:44 [MarkusK_]
markus: we explicitly do not want anybody to use the bnode property of some OWL 2 property chain in a triple
16:24:53 [bijan]
Oh, right. Yes. Carry on. _:x rdf:type rdf:Property
16:25:06 [MarkusK_]
markus: since this would be a statement about the property chain that is not supported by OWL 2 anyway
16:25:26 [bmotik]
schneid: I was careful on the Full side to avoid the bnode to become a property chain
16:25:29 [MarkusK_]
markus: effectively, it would be similar to allowing inverted property chain inclusions
16:25:41 [bmotik]
schneid: The full semantics does not make this LHS property into a property chain
16:26:01 [bmotik]
schneid: The bnode does not represent a property chain
16:26:19 [bmotik]
schneid: I believe that people will be confused by this
16:27:07 [bmotik]
scnheid: We overloaded the rdfs:subPropertyOf to do something that it wasn't designed for
16:27:14 [bmotik]
schneid: I couldn't find a real problem
16:27:46 [bmotik]
schneid: I'd like to have a single triple encoding
16:28:23 [bmotik]
schneid: On the LHS would be a superproperty, and on the RHS would be a list with the chain
16:28:38 [bmotik]
ianh: What do we think of this?
16:28:42 [bmotik]
bmotik: I don't care
16:29:02 [bmotik]
ianh: Didn't we have an issue about this?
16:29:13 [bmotik]
schneid: I had it on my agenda, but didn't want to bring it up
16:30:07 [bmotik]
ivan: I remember that, when I needed to familiarize myself with the property chains, the current encoding was complicated
16:31:31 [bmotik]
PROPOSED: Change the encoding of the property chains to a single-triple encoding (LHS is the superproperty and RHS is the list of properties)
16:31:47 [schneid]
16:31:50 [MarkusK_]
16:31:51 [bmotik]
16:31:52 [pfps]
16:31:52 [alanr]
16:31:58 [ewallace]
16:32:08 [bijan]
16:33:31 [bmotik]
(Addendum: it will be called owl:propertyChainAxiom)
16:34:03 [Jie]
16:34:04 [MarkusK_]
16:34:07 [alanr]
16:34:11 [ewallace]
+1 on owl:propertyChainAxiom name
16:34:12 [schneid]
16:34:16 [msmith]
16:34:16 [Achille]
16:34:18 [ivan]
16:34:20 [IanH]
16:34:21 [sandro]
16:34:30 [zwu2]
16:34:32 [pfps]
+0.2 for chaining the property axiom
16:34:32 [bmotik]
RESOLVED: Change the encoding of the property chains to a single-triple encoding (LHS is the superproperty and RHS is the list of properties) -- with the addendum
16:34:46 [bijan]
16:35:23 [bmotik]
schneid: Note that owl:propertyChain gets ditched
16:35:41 [bmotik]
ianh: TQ complained about negative property assertions
16:35:50 [bmotik]
alanr: Nobody compained about them
16:36:00 [bmotik]
ianh: SOme people found them useful
16:36:17 [bmotik]
schenid: He had a problem with the encoding and with the negative tiples
16:36:30 [bmotik]
ianh: What about my response?
16:36:40 [bmotik]
alanr: I'm good with this
16:36:48 [bmotik]
ianh: So that covers it?
16:37:00 [bmotik]
inah: OK, so let's move on to SelfRestrictions
16:37:10 [bmotik]
16:37:44 [bmotik]
alanr: Local reflexivity is more useful than the global reflexivity
16:37:59 [bmotik]
schneid: In the past, there was a problem with certain semantics
16:38:33 [bmotik]
schneid: Now, however, the paradox is no longer pertinent
16:38:55 [bmotik]
ianh: SO we can strenghten the response by saying that local reflexivity is more useful than the global one
16:39:21 [bmotik]
schneid: THis is particular in RDF
16:39:32 [bmotik]
ianh: And we say that there is no problem now as paradoxes do not arise
16:40:34 [bmotik]
ianh: Jeremy doesn't like reflexive, irreflexive, asymmetric, and disjoint properties in general
16:41:00 [bmotik]
alanr: Can't we add a line to the response saying that we'll extend NF&R?
16:41:08 [ewallace]
Holger had this same position before Jeremy joined TopQuadrant
16:41:19 [bmotik]
markusk: Have we got any use-cases for globally reflexive properties?
16:41:58 [bmotik]
ianh: So global reflexivity approximates local reflexivity, particularly in the profiles that don't have local reflexivity
16:42:23 [alanr]
this point should be added to NF&R
16:42:31 [schneid]
schneid: global reflexivity can be used for local reflexivity in profiles which do not have local reflexivity (QL): e.g. to approximate locatedIn property to be "locally" reflexive" on class "Location"
16:42:56 [bmotik]
ianh: We'll say that we'll clarify this in NF&R
16:43:14 [bmotik]
ivan: We should add this to the introductory text
16:43:59 [bmotik]
ianh: I'll say that we'll extended NF&R
16:44:01 [bmotik]
ianh: Let's move to OWL/XML
16:44:26 [bmotik]
ivan: When you say that OWL/XML is not a new feature -- Jeremy probably knows that it is not a new feature
16:44:39 [bmotik]
ivan: Jeremy is not satisfied with the recommendation status
16:45:11 [bmotik]
alanr: Can we have a small section in NF&R explaining why we want OWL/XML?
16:45:17 [Zakim]
16:45:18 [bmotik]
alanr: Bijan has a coherent story
16:45:23 [bijan]
zakim, ??p4 is me
16:45:23 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
16:45:39 [bmotik]
ianh: Good, we'll add this and mention this addition in the response
16:45:53 [Zakim]
16:46:01 [bmotik]
pfps: We can say "There is rational for it and wil lbe (has been?) added"
16:46:21 [bmotik]
ivan: The sentence about "not a new feature" should go
16:46:42 [bmotik]
ianh: The next thing is Manchester Syntax
16:46:51 [bijan]
For NF&F or whatever, here's my earlier bit: <>
16:46:59 [bijan]
16:47:13 [bmotik]
(everyone): ship it
16:47:34 [bmotik]
ianh: Jeremy doesn't like using reification in annotations
16:47:36 [bijan]
16:47:51 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
16:47:51 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
16:47:56 [IanH]
16:47:59 [IanH]
ack bijan
16:48:10 [bmotik]
bijan: I don't recall any explicit feedback about reification
16:48:39 [bmotik]
bijan: We used our own vocabulary to avoid overloading the meaning of the RDF vocabulary
16:49:02 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
16:49:02 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
16:49:21 [bmotik]
ianh: Jeremy is worried about reification at all
16:49:40 [bmotik]
ianh: But this doesn't handle annotation on axioms
16:49:57 [bijan]
We considered *many* alternative encodings, e.g., Literals
16:50:24 [bmotik]
ianh: The response says that, if a single axiom is annotated, there is nothing to hang the annotation off of
16:50:32 [bmotik]
ianh: Therefore, we *must* reify
16:50:49 [bmotik]
ianh: I pointed to our discussion about the usage of RDF reification
16:51:04 [bmotik]
schneid: Raised by Jeremy!
16:51:22 [bmotik]
ianh: So we're happy with the response as is?
16:51:30 [bmotik]
alanr: I hear no objections
16:51:58 [bmotik]
ianh: I could only make it clearer that we do hang annotations off of blank nodes whenever there is one
16:52:07 [bmotik]
ianh: Other than that, we are good with it
16:52:28 [bmotik]
ianH: Moving on to n-ary datatypes
16:52:36 [bmotik]
alanr: I have a problem with how this is stated
16:53:19 [bmotik]
alanr: We should say that we introduced hooks because there was a reasonably thought out extension that will be presented as a note, but not say too much what you can do with it?
16:53:35 [bmotik]
ianh: Let's skip on the next one while Alan is generating text
16:53:49 [bmotik]
ianh: Moving on to RDF interoperability
16:54:52 [bmotik]
ivan: Looking at the comment itself, my feeling is that it falls in the same caterogy of general misunderstanding regarding the role of RDF
16:55:00 [bmotik]
ivan: We have already addressed that
16:55:23 [bmotik]
ivan: We should say that the overall structure has not changed a bit compared to OWL 1
16:55:31 [bmotik]
ivan: I would simply say "Nothing has changed"
16:55:55 [bmotik]
ianh: I can strengten the second sentence in my proposed response
16:56:09 [bmotik]
ivan: I see that you are referring to some other responses
16:57:02 [bmotik]
ivan: Sorry, not important
16:57:20 [bmotik]
alanr: Why are we saying that the role of RDF is better than it was?
16:57:33 [bmotik]
ivan: It is the same, not better, not worse
16:58:01 [bijan]
Tactically, it's better not to say "better" because that gets us into a debate about whether it's *really* better
16:58:03 [bmotik]
ianh: Alan is saying that we could improve interoperability (by taking up more graphs), but we don't go there
16:58:07 [bijan]
"not changed" is less arguable
16:58:37 [bmotik]
ianh: Appendix and dependcies on life sciences
16:58:45 [bmotik]
alanr: We should response a bit more actively
16:59:14 [bmotik]
alanr: We should say that we'll explore the possibilities for diversifying the examples in NF&R
16:59:21 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
16:59:21 [Zakim]
bijan was already muted, bijan
16:59:30 [bmotik]
alanr: We should also say that we welcome examples from his user base
16:59:44 [bmotik]
ianh: He complained about some trivial typos
17:00:52 [bmotik]
ianh: Another complaint was that NF&R motivated features that are not in OWL 2
17:01:01 [bmotik]
ianh: It is similar to OWL 1
17:01:19 [bmotik]
ianh: We motivated certain features, but not included all of them
17:01:26 [bmotik]
alanr: Why don't we get rid of them?
17:01:37 [bmotik]
ianh: It could be useful to document them
17:01:46 [bmotik]
ianh: I'd be OK with deleting these
17:02:02 [bmotik]
pfps: We were supposed to gather use cases and requirements
17:02:15 [bmotik]
pfps: This is what we did and should not be throwing away our work
17:02:18 [bijan]
Throw it away!
17:02:27 [bmotik]
alanr: The document is called "New Features and Rationale"
17:02:34 [bijan]
The use cases right? I'm strongly against them
17:02:34 [bmotik]
alanr: These are not new features
17:02:42 [uli]
uli has joined #owl
17:02:56 [bmotik]
pfps: Given the abstract of the current document, Alan is correct
17:03:19 [bmotik]
ianh: The document wasn't supposed to be a general "Use Cases and Requirements" document
17:03:32 [bijan]
17:03:43 [ewallace]
17:03:48 [bijan]
17:03:49 [ewallace]
17:03:49 [bmotik]
PROPOSED: Remove UC10 and UC11 from MF&R
17:03:55 [IanH]
17:04:02 [IanH]
ack ewallace
17:04:03 [bmotik]
17:04:19 [bmotik]
evallace: I was just wondering we're still controversial about the n-ary hook
17:04:20 [bijan]
17:04:26 [ewallace]
17:04:29 [bmotik]
17:04:38 [bmotik]
ewallace: This is a motivation for n-ary
17:04:47 [bmotik]
ianh: This is a good point
17:05:13 [bmotik]
ianh: Evan is saying that motivating the hook for n-ary is not bad
17:05:37 [bmotik]
alanr: If it speaks to what we have in the n-ary note, I'm OK with that
17:05:49 [bmotik]
ianh: I believe that UC10 and UC11 will be covered by the note
17:05:56 [bijan]
On the queue!
17:06:00 [bmotik]
alanr: Then we can say that this is the motivation for the note
17:06:03 [bijan]
17:06:04 [IanH]
17:06:09 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:06:29 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:06:29 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:06:48 [bmotik]
ianh: The response to Jeremy then becomes that these use cases motivate the hooks
17:06:57 [bmotik]
alanr: I'd say that they motivate what's in the note
17:07:06 [bmotik]
ianh: Alan should craft the text for that
17:07:42 [bijan]
17:07:55 [bmotik]
ianh: Some references to TQ composer were fixed
17:08:05 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:08:05 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:08:15 [bmotik]
ianh: Jeremy doesn't like Manchester syntax
17:08:40 [IanH]
17:08:44 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:08:55 [bmotik]
pfps: If the WG decides that there will not be MIME type for Man syntax, it will happen anyway
17:09:08 [bmotik]
bijan: I'm not sure whether one can comment on a note
17:09:57 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:09:57 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:10:08 [bmotik]
bijan: We could say "This will not be a REC document. THanks for the comment, but we won't follow it"
17:10:19 [bmotik]
ianh: Next is GRIDDL
17:10:24 [IanH]
17:10:30 [bijan]
17:10:36 [bijan]
I didn't hear that
17:10:57 [bmotik]
ianh: My response says that the charter does not mandate GRIDDL
17:11:07 [bmotik]
alanr: This is not a general reading of the charter
17:11:11 [IanH]
17:11:12 [bmotik]
ivan: I agree
17:11:15 [bijan]
17:11:23 [bijan]
I'm happy with that response
17:11:29 [bmotik]
ivan: My proposal is to say that this is still a subject of an open issue
17:11:29 [bijan]
17:11:39 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:11:40 [bijan]
I'm off again
17:11:49 [bmotik]
bijan: I agree with Ivan's rpoposal
17:11:51 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:11:51 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:12:20 [bmotik]
ianh: OK. THe response will be "This is a subject of an open issue, and we'll take your opinion into consideration"
17:12:31 [bijan]
17:13:21 [bmotik]
ianh: The next comment is again about normativeness of OWL/XML
17:13:30 [bijan]
17:14:02 [bmotik]
msmith: IETF has it own notions about normative and informative and these are disconnected from MIME type registration
17:14:21 [bmotik]
msmith: I'll look up a reference
17:14:34 [bijan]
MIME type registration is normative *for that type*, not that the W3C has made it noramtive. N3 has a mime type!
17:14:39 [bijan]
17:14:43 [bmotik]
ianh: The response to this will be to say "The XML syntax is option"
17:14:48 [bmotik]
17:15:14 [bmotik]
pfps: He also appears to be complaining that the document is REC rather than a note
17:15:18 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:15:18 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:15:33 [bmotik]
sandro: In my mind it is logically nonsense to have a specification which is nonnormative
17:15:46 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:15:46 [pfps]
normative is not the same as rec-track
17:15:48 [IanH]
17:15:55 [bmotik]
bijan: Jeremy raised several points
17:16:09 [bmotik]
bijan: I have plenty of motivation for XML syntax
17:16:33 [bmotik]
bijan: We have also done our best not to be divisive
17:16:47 [bmotik]
bijan: We are reaching to the rest of the world (such as XML)
17:17:02 [IanH]
17:17:14 [IanH]
17:17:30 [bmotik]
bijan: We'd registed a MIME type even if XML syntax is a note
17:17:44 [bmotik]
17:18:05 [bmotik]
bijan: We should say that we want to have a single XML-friendly exchange format
17:18:36 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:18:36 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:18:39 [bmotik]
ianh: Could you type into IRC some text about these points?
17:18:43 [bmotik]
bijan: I'll do it
17:18:49 [bijan]
I think this should be the response to JJC
17:19:03 [bmotik]
ivan: There is already an entry on OWL/XML and we are repeating here a part of our reponse
17:19:10 [bijan]
1) Motivation: XML toolchain friendly owl foramt (e.g., SOAP, etc.)
17:19:16 [bmotik]
ivan: I don't see a need for repetition
17:19:29 [bijan]
2) Divisive, it helps bridge the gap between the XML world and semantic web world
17:19:51 [bmotik]
ivan: I think we can simply refer to the Document Overview that will describe the place of OWL/XML in the grand scheme of things
17:19:51 [bijan]
3) Why recommendation? Because we want to standardize the XML toolchain friendly owl format
17:20:02 [bijan]
17:20:28 [bmotik]
alanr: Less is more, Bijan. I don't agree with your particular arguments, but we don't need to include them
17:21:14 [bmotik]
ianh: We'll have one oint response about XML. We've already decided on what that is.
17:21:15 [schneid_]
schneid_ has joined #owl
17:21:25 [bmotik]
ivan: We can only refer to the Document Overview.
17:21:27 [baojie]
baojie has joined #OWL
17:21:34 [bmotik]
ianh: Moving on to owl:real
17:21:52 [msmith]
the relevant reference to media type registration and the relationship to normativity from IETF's perspective is section 4.10
17:21:56 [bmotik]
ivan: We can't do anything here because it is pending resolution of issues from yesterday
17:21:57 [schneid_]
schneid_ has joined #owl
17:22:16 [bmotik]
ianh: We go back to the cases where Alan was asked to craft some text
17:22:20 [IanH]
17:22:30 [alanr]
UC#10 and UC#11 motivate a feature which the working group was not able to fully develop, but for which we have published a note [cite note].
17:22:36 [alanr]
N-ary datatype: This specification currently does not define data ranges of arity more than one; however by allowing, syntactically, for n-ary data ranges, the syntax of OWL 2 provides a "hook" allowing the working group to introduce experimental extensions as will be published as in [cite note].
17:23:42 [zwu2]
zwu2 has joined #owl
17:24:09 [bmotik]
ianh: Good, we're done with that
17:24:33 [bmotik]
ianh: There a
17:24:50 [bmotik]
ianh: There were a couple of comments that were between technical and motivational. I'd like to ask for some advice on that
17:25:00 [bmotik]
ianh: One comment is regarding effactiveness
17:25:14 [bijan]
Isn't the abstract going to change?
17:26:46 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:26:46 [Zakim]
bijan was already muted, bijan
17:26:48 [bmotik]
ianh: Jeremy doesn't like the abstract of the document mentioning effective reasoning algorithms
17:26:58 [bmotik]
ianh: The response is "We'll rewrite the abstract"
17:27:20 [bijan]
I don't think we should get into a debate with him about the word "effective"
17:27:39 [bmotik]
pfps: We'll remove the offending word from all documents apart from the Profiles (where it has a particular meaning)
17:27:41 [bijan]
He supports OWL Full! :)
17:27:48 [bmotik]
ivan: It is ducking his comments.
17:27:59 [IanH]
17:28:01 [bmotik]
ivan: I don't know what to asnwer regarding his non-belief
17:28:39 [ewallace]
Isn't less still more?
17:28:44 [zwu21]
zwu21 has joined #owl
17:28:50 [bijan]
Even less is way more
17:29:23 [bmotik]
alanr: The charter doesn't talk about "effective", but "reasonable" and "feasible"
17:30:03 [ewallace]
17:30:11 [bmotik]
ianh: Our response is "The abstract has changed, and we no longer talk about 'effective'"
17:30:15 [bijan]
17:30:19 [bmotik]
ianh: His next comment is more philosophical
17:30:42 [bmotik]
ianh: We made a lot of mention of the OWL-ED workshop and that this didn't represent a broad spectrum of the OWL community
17:30:46 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #owl
17:31:04 [ewallace]
It was in NF&R
17:31:05 [bmotik]
ivan: We should not mentioned OWL-ED anywhere, and I don't think we have any mention of it in our documents
17:31:11 [baojie_]
baojie_ has joined #owl
17:31:19 [bmotik]
alanr: I thinnk it is appropriate to mention OWL-ED in references, but nowhere else
17:31:22 [baojie]
baojie has left #OWL
17:31:48 [IanH]
17:31:53 [bmotik]
(everyone looking at NF&R)
17:31:58 [ewallace]
It is still there.
17:32:14 [bmotik]
pfps: It is in the overview but in a completely unobjetionalbe spot
17:32:21 [bmotik]
pfps: We could change "much" to "some"
17:32:31 [bijan]
17:32:41 [bmotik]
alanr: In the intreset of less-is-more, I don't see a problem with removing it
17:32:44 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:32:44 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:32:47 [bmotik]
pfps: I think it belongs in that paragraph
17:32:52 [bmotik]
sandro: I agree
17:32:53 [IanH]
17:32:57 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:33:06 [bmotik]
bijan: It is a comment about a non-LC document and it is a non-technical comment
17:33:13 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
17:33:25 [ewallace]
This one will go to Last Call.
17:33:31 [IanH]
17:33:32 [schneid]
+1 to bijan (in general for non-lc docs)
17:33:33 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:33:33 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:33:41 [bmotik]
bijan: We could say "Thanks for the comment, but this is a manner of editorial discression; you can comment at LC"
17:33:41 [bijan]
17:33:45 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:33:45 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:33:47 [IanH]
17:33:52 [bmotik]
ivan: We are just postponing this issue. This doens't make much sense
17:34:10 [bmotik]
ivan: Instead of "much" we say "some" and this seems quite good
17:34:14 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:34:26 [bmotik]
bijan: I'd be perfectly happy for them to raize a new LC comment and to give the same response
17:34:31 [IanH]
17:34:35 [bmotik]
17:35:01 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:35:01 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:35:05 [IanH]
17:35:13 [bmotik]
ianh: I think everything feels that changing "much" to "some" would be sufficient
17:35:26 [bmotik]
alanr: But what do we lose if we remove it?
17:35:26 [bijan]
I think it's fair and helpful
17:35:44 [bmotik]
pfps: We remove the connection to our history! TQ wants to revision history!
17:36:21 [bijan]
I think it's a denial of service attack. I vote with the majoirty
17:36:22 [bmotik]
alanr: I love OWL-ED. I just believe that the connections to the OWL-ED are reflected with references
17:36:37 [bmotik]
PROPOSED: The reference to OWL-ED stays in the document but with a change of "much" to "some"
17:36:39 [bmotik]
17:36:39 [pfps]
+1 ALU
17:36:40 [msmith]
17:36:43 [ewallace]
17:36:45 [ivan]
17:36:45 [IanH]
17:36:47 [MarkusK_]
17:36:47 [alanr]
-1 (but won't block)
17:36:47 [zwu21]
17:36:47 [schneid]
17:36:50 [baojie]
17:36:58 [sandro]
17:36:59 [bijan]
17:37:10 [Achille]
17:37:15 [IanH]
17:37:27 [bmotik]
ewallace: I would go with Bijan and Peter
17:37:40 [bmotik]
ewallace: I voted against changing "much" to "some"
17:37:47 [bmotik]
ianh: Will you lie in the road?
17:37:50 [bmotik]
ewallace: No
17:38:03 [bmotik]
RESOLVED: The reference to OWL-ED stays in the document but with a change of "much" to "some"
17:38:17 [bmotik]
ewallace: Ask Christine to make the change
17:38:20 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:38:20 [Zakim]
bijan was already muted, bijan
17:38:45 [IanH]
17:39:34 [bijan]
Who's changing it?
17:40:17 [bmotik]
bmotik: I've changed "much" to "some"
17:40:43 [IanH]
17:41:20 [bijan]
Earlier for bijanissues would be appreciated
17:41:25 [ewallace]
+1 on replanning now
17:43:11 [IanH]
17:46:11 [IanH]
17:46:13 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:46:13 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:46:29 [IanH]
17:47:01 [ewallace]
Don't worry about me, time wise.
17:47:24 [ewallace]
17:47:47 [ewallace]
What time are we planning for the NF&R discussion?
17:47:54 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:47:54 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:48:12 [ewallace]
Just want to know when to encourage Christine to join.
17:50:38 [Zakim]
17:53:40 [baojie]
Ian just said "Other Documents" will be discussed
17:53:42 [ewallace]
17:53:47 [Zakim]
17:53:49 [Zakim]
17:58:59 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
18:04:13 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl
18:27:24 [christine]
christine has joined #owl
18:30:35 [bijan]
christine, my (jokey) comment was directed at the use cases, not NF&R or n-ary
18:30:37 [bijan]
Sorry for the confusion
18:31:59 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
18:32:55 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
18:33:36 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
18:33:46 [schneid]
schneid has joined #owl
18:34:21 [zwu21]
scribenick: Zhe
18:34:22 [ivan]
zakim, who is here?
18:34:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see MIT346
18:34:23 [Zakim]
On IRC I see schneid, alanr, msmith, pfps, christine, sandro, baojie, zwu21, RRSAgent, Achille, ivan, jar, MarkusK_, Zakim, bmotik, IanH, bijan, ewallace, trackbot
18:34:26 [pfps]
scribenick zwu21
18:34:45 [sandro]
scribe: Zhe
18:34:56 [IanH]
18:35:12 [zwu21]
18:35:13 [alanr]
18:35:23 [zwu21]
scribenick: Zhe
18:35:47 [zwu21]
Topic: philosophical
18:36:11 [zwu21]
alanr: goal is to look at responses that have been drafted
18:36:12 [Zakim]
18:36:17 [bijan]
zakim, ??p5
18:36:17 [Zakim]
I don't understand '??p5', bijan
18:36:22 [bijan]
zakim, ??p5 is me
18:36:24 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
18:36:26 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:36:26 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:36:30 [zwu21]
... looking at TC1
18:36:42 [zwu21]
ivan: only one change made.
18:36:58 [zwu21]
... last sentence before the refences
18:37:08 [IanH]
18:37:18 [Zakim]
18:37:33 [IanH]
we don't hear any noise
18:38:23 [ewallace]
Hearing nothing.
18:38:45 [alanr]
structural specification and functional-style syntax document
18:38:57 [zwu21]
alanr: make a normal reference,
18:39:14 [pfps]
abstract structure -> generic syntax
18:39:14 [alanr]
18:39:19 [alanr]
drop "This was only a matter of timing; the plan is to have both semantics (and all other documents) published as Recommendations together."
18:39:34 [alanr]
was not _yet_ published -> has not yet been published
18:40:02 [pfps]
OK by me
18:40:12 [alanr]
18:41:16 [zwu21]
ivan: will send it out tommrrow
18:41:41 [alanr]
18:41:48 [zwu21]
ivan: regarding LC 29,
18:42:23 [zwu21]
pfps: there are two responses. we are both stuck
18:42:30 [zwu21]
... with Bijan's
18:42:48 [bijan]
I give up mine without hesitation
18:43:03 [bijan]
I didn't put it in there but sent it to the list
18:43:27 [bijan]
Mine is more on justifying xml syntax
18:43:36 [bijan]
Peter's is more about the harmlessness of owl/xml
18:44:17 [christine]
if still plan to discuss Documents, at what time please ?
18:44:18 [zwu21]
IanH: we agreed on a bare minimal response to TopQuadrant's comments
18:44:35 [bijan]
18:45:04 [pfps]
OWL/XML: XML syntax is not a new feature -- see [8]. It should also be noted that RDF/XML is the only syntax that MUST be supported by implementations; support for the XML syntax is not required (see also FH3).
18:45:10 [zwu21]
pfps: ... jc1b
18:45:34 [zwu21]
alanr: add a node that we will add something in NF&R
18:45:43 [zwu21]
18:45:49 [sandro]
amended to (1) remove the XML syntax is not a new feature, and (2) link to NF&R
18:46:16 [zwu21]
ivan: the reason I think short resposne is ok
18:46:58 [bijan]
18:47:06 [bijan]
Then I'm all for microshort
18:47:09 [alanr]
PROPOSED: Respond to FH3 as in JC1b
18:47:29 [bijan]
I'mhappy to be out of the loop here
18:47:39 [alanr]
18:47:43 [Zakim]
18:47:45 [zwu21]
pfps: delegate to IanH for response
18:47:46 [bijan]
18:47:47 [msmith]
18:47:48 [MarkusK_]
18:47:49 [zwu21]
18:47:56 [Achille]
zakim, ibm is me
18:47:56 [Zakim]
+Achille; got it
18:47:59 [sandro]
18:48:13 [alanr]
RESOLVED Respond to FH3 as in JC1b
18:48:26 [pfps]
18:48:28 [zwu21]
subtopic: LC 34A
18:48:37 [alanr]
18:48:38 [baojie]
18:48:54 [zwu21]
alanr: I hope we can have something shorter
18:49:01 [alanr]
18:49:05 [zwu21]
pfps: fine by me
18:49:06 [bijan]
Second paragraph only?
18:49:12 [bijan]
First and second paragraph only?
18:49:32 [bijan]
18:49:51 [zwu21]
IanH: bijan wrote the initial version.
18:49:58 [zwu21]
... some of it is used here
18:51:01 [zwu21]
ivan: this is the answer to his comment to stop the work?
18:51:16 [alanr]
18:51:25 [zwu21]
... can we add something more formal?
18:51:33 [bijan]
18:51:49 [zwu21]
... for example, a few WG members want to move forward
18:51:52 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:51:52 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:51:54 [alanr]
ack Bijan
18:52:02 [IanH]
ack bijan
18:52:12 [alanr]
q+ sandro
18:52:36 [zwu21]
bijan: I don't see that TopQuardrant wants us to stop work
18:52:41 [alanr]
q+ ianh
18:52:48 [zwu21]
... he asked that we redo all the work we have done
18:53:00 [zwu21]
... according to the process he think is more appropriate
18:53:16 [alanr]
18:53:19 [zwu21]
... We can safely ignore it
18:54:09 [zwu21]
... given the strong support from lots of WG members, we can just let it go
18:54:09 [alanr]
ack sandro
18:54:14 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:54:14 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:54:27 [zwu21]
sandro: I am for short responses
18:54:40 [zwu21]
... not sure what we can do differently here
18:54:45 [alanr]
ack ian
18:54:46 [zwu21]
pfps: you can just point to NF&R
18:54:50 [alanr]
q+ ivan
18:54:54 [alanr]
q+ alanr
18:55:06 [zwu21]
ianH: a) one of the option is to stop working on OWL and start working on something else
18:55:10 [bijan]
18:55:11 [bijan]
I see
18:55:14 [zwu21]
... and don't call it OWL
18:55:37 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:55:37 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:55:40 [alanr]
18:56:08 [alanr]
ack ivan
18:56:13 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:56:13 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:56:20 [sandro]
bijan: Put third paragraph of into Positive Last Call Responses web page
18:56:23 [IanH]
I like that -- put positive responses on a wiki page
18:56:41 [zwu21]
ivan: what I would do to the last paragraph is to list the references (positive comments about the features)
18:56:45 [IanH]
That way we could even be more expansive
18:56:51 [zwu21]
... and they can read/check it
18:56:55 [sandro]
18:56:56 [bijan]
I'd like the testimonal page anyway
18:56:59 [ewallace]
+1 to putting positive comments on a page and including a pointer to that
18:57:11 [sandro]
+1 to a testimonial/blurbs page
18:57:18 [IanH]
18:57:22 [zwu21]
... I still believe that some kind of statement says that based on these positive comments, WG should move forward
18:57:24 [sandro]
(W3C usually does it during PR, but we can start now.)
18:57:33 [zwu21]
... according to the charter
18:57:36 [alanr]
ack alanr
18:58:37 [alanr]
ack ianh
18:58:38 [zwu21]
alanr: suggest 1) chaning course is not an option; 2) point out positive comments
18:58:46 [zwu21]
18:58:52 [bijan]
18:59:26 [alanr]
18:59:42 [bijan]
18:59:51 [alanr]
18:59:52 [zwu21]
IanH: first thing is to align with JC1B response, we would improve the motivation. make it more constructive
19:00:05 [zwu21]
... for the rest, point to a web page
19:00:10 [IanH]
19:02:05 [zwu21]
pfps crafted FH1 response
19:02:31 [zwu21]
Topic: document schedule
19:02:34 [alanr]
19:02:47 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
19:02:47 [Zakim]
bijan was already muted, bijan
19:02:52 [zwu21]
ivan: what I believe is in the next roudn of publications, we
19:03:01 [zwu21]
... do a complete publication of all our documents,
19:03:25 [zwu21]
... the current LC documents to be re-issued as LC
19:03:25 [alanr]
19:03:50 [zwu21]
... for the current working drafts, we should republish them as working drafts
19:04:04 [zwu21]
... hope that RDF semantics could be LC, quick reference be LC
19:04:25 [zwu21]
... ok with re-issue another draft of Primer
19:04:35 [zwu21]
... not sure about NF&R,
19:04:45 [bijan]
19:05:09 [zwu21]
... politically, re-issue everything as a package, without implying a priority, is the right thing to do
19:05:18 [alanr]
q+ ianh
19:05:30 [zwu21]
... regarding timing, RDf semantics is not clear to me
19:05:50 [Zakim]
19:05:51 [zwu21]
Michael: when do you think is the earliest date for publishing?
19:05:57 [IanH]
19:06:06 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
19:06:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see MIT346, bijan (muted), Evan_Wallace, Achille, ??P8
19:06:07 [Zakim]
On IRC I see schneid, alanr, msmith, christine, sandro, baojie, zwu21, RRSAgent, Achille, ivan, MarkusK_, Zakim, bmotik, IanH, bijan, ewallace, trackbot
19:06:15 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
19:06:15 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
19:06:16 [zwu21]
alanr: do we agree to a simultaneous publication of all docs?
19:06:20 [alanr]
ack bijan
19:06:21 [christine]
zakim, ??P8 is christine
19:06:22 [Zakim]
+christine; got it
19:06:23 [alanr]
q+ mike
19:06:50 [alanr]
19:07:02 [sandro]
Bijan: In a Second-Last-Call, you ask for comments on specifically what has changed.
19:07:08 [zwu21]
bijan: my only concern is we need to be careful about second LC is a new round of major comments...
19:07:31 [zwu21]
... otherwise, I am ok with it
19:07:37 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
19:07:37 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
19:08:03 [alanr]
19:08:06 [alanr]
ack ianh
19:08:15 [bijan]
Er...I won't agree to simultaneous unless this is I don't see how we can get agreement of simultaneous without the resolution
19:08:16 [zwu21]
IanH: I have the same worry as bijan, a second LC gives people chance more comments that may slow down WG progress
19:08:18 [alanr]
q+ alanr
19:09:11 [alanr]
ack mike
19:09:46 [zwu21]
Ivan: by CR, all should be in sync
19:10:01 [zwu21]
Mike: want to clarify the consequences
19:10:02 [alanr]
q+ sandro
19:10:05 [alanr]
ack alanr
19:10:31 [zwu21]
alanr: not so worried by TopQuadrant, don't think WG has spent too much time on reponses
19:10:50 [zwu21]
... we can do the same thing if they come back
19:11:01 [bijan]
19:12:10 [zwu21]
sandro: your concern about Profiles is editorial, so it can be post LC
19:12:15 [alanr]
19:12:18 [alanr]
ack sandro
19:12:22 [ivan]
ack sandro
19:12:45 [zwu21]
... main point of second LC is the whole package
19:13:05 [zwu21]
... all the rec track spec will be LC,
19:13:25 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
19:13:25 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
19:13:26 [alanr]
ack bijan
19:13:26 [zwu21]
... ok with this strategy
19:13:43 [zwu21]
bijan: I did not understand Sandro's story
19:13:48 [sandro]
sandro: story of LC2 would be "now you get to see the whole package together"
19:14:18 [alanr]
q+ sandro
19:14:50 [ivan]
zakim, who is here?
19:14:50 [Zakim]
On the phone I see MIT346, bijan, Evan_Wallace, Achille, christine
19:14:51 [Zakim]
On IRC I see schneid, alanr, msmith, christine, sandro, baojie, zwu21, RRSAgent, Achille, ivan, MarkusK_, Zakim, bmotik, IanH, bijan, ewallace, trackbot
19:14:54 [alanr]
q+ schneid
19:14:57 [alanr]
ack sandro
19:15:17 [zwu21]
sandro: one of the reason is publilsing document review without other documents is strange
19:15:37 [zwu21]
... the story is not perfect, but good enough
19:15:37 [alanr]
q+ alanr to ask if there are editor drafts between lc and cr
19:15:37 [bijan]
19:15:46 [alanr]
q+ boris
19:15:53 [zwu21]
... the roadmap will look really odd without other documents
19:15:54 [ivan]
ack schneid
19:16:02 [sandro]
sandro: the roadmap is screwey if it's linking to 4-months old documents.
19:16:12 [alanr]
q+ sandro
19:16:21 [alanr]
q+ mike
19:16:22 [zwu21]
schneid: we make editorial, we also make design changes.
19:16:55 [bijan]
If there's no change to the design?
19:17:09 [schneid]
schneid: I don't know whether, e.g., the changes to to the functional syntax and the effects on other documents will /necessarily/ demand a new LC
19:17:12 [alanr]
ack alanr
19:17:12 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to ask if there are editor drafts between lc and cr
19:17:24 [alanr]
ack boris
19:17:31 [zwu21]
bmotik: I think changes are significant
19:17:34 [bijan]
They change implementations :(
19:17:39 [alanr]
q+ ianh
19:18:00 [alanr]
q+ schneid
19:18:08 [alanr]
ack sandro
19:18:55 [alanr]
ack mike
19:18:58 [sandro]
sandro: second-last-call is required if the positive-reviews would be invalidated
19:18:59 [ivan]
ack mike
19:19:08 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
19:19:08 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
19:19:14 [alanr]
q+ alanr to mention some substantive changes, e.g. to property chains
19:19:17 [ivan]
19:19:24 [alanr]
ack ianh
19:19:24 [ivan]
ack ianh
19:19:31 [zwu21]
Mike: if we think we need comments on the changes we make, 2nd LC is in order
19:19:47 [ivan]
ack schneid
19:19:47 [alanr]
ack schneid
19:20:36 [ivan]
ack alanr
19:20:36 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to mention some substantive changes, e.g. to property chains
19:20:36 [zwu21]
schneid: to Boris, for 2nd LC, if there is a comment already made,
19:20:52 [zwu21]
... in 1st LC, then we can do minimal
19:21:03 [alanr]
ack ivan
19:21:32 [zwu21]
ivan: getting beyond LC does not mean it is over
19:21:54 [zwu21]
... in some way, I prefer to have comments now instead of at PR phase
19:22:11 [bijan]
There's some advantage to having comments after CR, since we have implementation valdiation
19:22:18 [zwu21]
alanr: publish date 3/31/09...
19:23:09 [alanr]
19:23:13 [IanH]
19:23:14 [zwu21]
schneid: end of march should be enough for RDF semantics
19:23:19 [christine]
3/31/09 for UF docs as well ?
19:23:24 [zwu21]
ivan: what about Primer, NF&R
19:23:33 [bijan]
Primer is fine for another draft by then
19:23:46 [schneid]
schneid: end of march will be clearly enough for RDF-Based Semantics
19:23:59 [jar]
jar has joined #owl
19:24:14 [alanr]
ack ianh
19:24:21 [IanH]
19:24:24 [IanH]
19:24:31 [christine]
can you write what said about NF&R
19:24:51 [zwu21]
jie: 1 month is enough for quick reference
19:25:14 [zwu21]
... the missing links are primer and syntax,
19:25:53 [ewallace]
Who will be working on the Primer?
19:26:00 [christine]
19:26:01 [zwu21]
Markus: end of March is too tight
19:26:03 [Zakim]
19:26:09 [alanr]
q+ pfps
19:26:13 [alanr]
q+ ivan
19:26:22 [ivan]
19:26:32 [alanr]
ack IanH
19:26:58 [alanr]
q+ sandro
19:26:58 [zwu21]
IanH: if LC is April, Aug will be CR, Oct will be PR, Nov/Dec will be rec
19:27:24 [zwu21]
... and we already said that we want to finish by Dec
19:27:36 [zwu21]
... I want to whole timeline be examined
19:27:39 [alanr]
q+ schneid
19:27:42 [zwu21]
... for feasibility
19:27:43 [ivan]
19:27:51 [alanr]
ack christine
19:28:01 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
19:29:35 [ewallace]
Ah, now it is clear.
19:29:37 [zwu21]
ivan: the NF&R can move directly from LC to PR
19:29:53 [zwu21]
christine: is there lots of work to do?
19:30:20 [zwu21]
... maybe NF&R can finish in 1 month as well?
19:30:23 [alanr]
ack pfps
19:30:31 [IanH]
19:30:33 [zwu21]
alanr: we will review it and see what needs to be done
19:30:35 [alanr]
ack sandro
19:30:43 [sandro]
Editors Done - March 17; begin WG review
19:30:43 [sandro]
LC2 published March 1, comment deadline march 29
19:30:43 [sandro]
4-8 weeks handling LC2 comments
19:30:43 [sandro]
CR (LC for User Docs), in May
19:30:43 [sandro]
PR for everything (but Notes) in July
19:30:44 [sandro]
Rec in September
19:31:04 [christine]
19:31:29 [zwu21]
s/March 1/April 1/g
19:31:36 [IanH]
19:31:42 [ivan]
ack schneid
19:31:50 [dlm]
dlm has joined #owl
19:31:55 [zwu21]
schneid: I can finish in the first half of march
19:32:04 [alanr]
ack schneid
19:32:15 [zwu21]
... however, what does 2 weeks buy us?
19:32:43 [alanr]
ack ivan
19:33:07 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.276.aaaa
19:33:25 [alanr]
q+ ianh
19:33:26 [IanH]
19:33:35 [alanr]
ack christine
19:34:25 [alanr]
ack ianh
19:34:33 [ivan]
ack IanH
19:34:54 [alanr]
19:35:05 [zwu21]
IanH: I appreciate that RDF semantics has to go through LC,
19:35:13 [ivan]
ivan: to the question of Christine, the plan is to publish _all_ documents (ie, including quick ref and features) on the same day
19:35:15 [Zakim]
19:35:24 [zwu21]
... it seems to me that because schedule is tight,
19:35:26 [bijan]
zakim, ??p14 is me
19:35:26 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
19:35:34 [zwu21]
... we may want to avoid 2nd LC
19:35:48 [sandro]
09 March - FPWD Document Overview
19:35:48 [sandro]
30 March - Editors Done, begin WG review
19:35:48 [sandro]
13 April - Publish Round 5 (LC2)
19:35:48 [sandro]
01 June - CR
19:35:48 [sandro]
01 Aug - PR
19:35:49 [sandro]
01 Oct - Rec
19:36:10 [bijan]
When would CR end?
19:36:18 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
19:36:18 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
19:36:27 [sandro]
CR ends 15 July
19:37:02 [alanr]
19:37:05 [zwu21]
ivan: how long does implenters need for CR to do implementation
19:37:13 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
19:37:13 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
19:37:15 [zwu21]
IanH: Pellet and HermiT are very close
19:37:20 [christine]
19:37:28 [zwu21]
... HermiT is more or less complete
19:37:43 [zwu21]
bijan: Pellet is tracking OWL 2
19:37:56 [ivan]
19:38:03 [alanr]
q+ alanr
19:38:12 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
19:38:12 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
19:38:52 [bijan]
FPWD, publish early and often
19:38:53 [alanr]
ack christine
19:38:56 [alanr]
ack ivan
19:39:04 [zwu21]
christine: can we set is to Mar 9?
19:39:12 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
19:39:25 [alanr]
q+ pfps
19:39:37 [christine]
scan we set is to Mar 9?/ 15
19:39:57 [ivan]
ack alanr
19:39:59 [zwu21]
ivan: the LC version can have your current comments
19:40:14 [bijan]
I have more answers
19:40:23 [zwu21]
... question of Profiles implementation
19:40:27 [alanr]
q+ pfps
19:40:32 [alanr]
q+ mike
19:40:36 [alanr]
ack pfps
19:40:52 [zwu21]
pfps: HermiT is an implementation complete for everything except for syntax checking
19:41:10 [christine]
for scribe : christine asked : can we set is to Mar 15 not 9
19:41:17 [zwu21]
... given a RL document, it will do RL reasoning
19:41:54 [alanr]
ack mike
19:41:56 [alanr]
q+ pfps
19:41:59 [bijan]
19:42:13 [zwu21]
Mike: if we have Pellet and Hermit, then we have 2 implementations
19:42:21 [alanr]
q+ alanr to ask whether hermit is an "spirit of the law" implementation of RL
19:42:35 [zwu21]
... Pellet RC can support RL and QL
19:42:59 [alanr]
ack pfps
19:43:02 [zwu21]
ivan: no RL implementation
19:43:13 [zwu21]
pfps: what do we need for CR exit status
19:43:18 [alanr]
q+ schneid
19:43:22 [zwu21]
... I don't think we need a product
19:43:37 [zwu21]
sandro: two interoperable implementations
19:43:38 [alanr]
q+ boris
19:43:59 [alanr]
q+ ianh
19:44:04 [alanr]
ack bijan
19:44:04 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
19:44:06 [sandro]
ack bijan
19:44:07 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
19:44:54 [zwu21]
bijan: regarding profiles, for QL, there are 3
19:45:04 [sandro]
Bijan: QL implementations: C&P, Aberdeen, Rome
19:45:07 [zwu21]
... for EL, IBM has one
19:45:08 [alanr]
q+ pfps
19:45:12 [Achille]
19:45:18 [pfps]
19:45:37 [zwu21]
... for profile checkers, there will be one from Machnester
19:45:44 [zwu21]
... one from Aberdeen
19:46:11 [ivan]
ack alanr
19:46:11 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to ask whether hermit is an "spirit of the law" implementation of RL
19:46:18 [alanr]
ack schneid
19:46:22 [alanr]
ack boris
19:46:43 [zwu21]
bmotik: regarding profiles, if it is about an implementation that pass the tests, then do we can about implementation details?
19:46:51 [zwu21]
19:46:54 [alanr]
q+ pfps
19:46:59 [pfps]
19:47:13 [alanr]
ack ianh
19:47:18 [zwu21]
IanH: I think we already have enough implementations,
19:47:21 [alanr]
q+ schneid
19:47:37 [alanr]
ack Achille
19:47:50 [zwu21]
Achille: want to clarify IBM's implementation of EL++,
19:47:59 [zwu21]
... is a simplfied version
19:47:59 [alanr]
ack baojie
19:48:30 [christine]
19:48:32 [alanr]
ack schneid
19:48:42 [alanr]
19:48:47 [zwu21]
schneid: CR's purpose is to find bugs and implementation difficulty,
19:48:54 [zwu21]
... now, we already have enough
19:49:14 [alanr]
q+ ianh
19:49:20 [alanr]
ack christine
19:49:21 [ivan]
ack christine
19:49:46 [zwu21]
alanr: it is not necessary to delay because we want to keep an schedule
19:50:05 [zwu21]
... you know what, let us communicate in emails
19:50:40 [bijan]
+1 to ivan, publishing wds *should be cheap*
19:50:57 [bijan]
What's the question?
19:51:01 [ewallace]
What is the question?
19:51:32 [alanr]
19:52:03 [zwu21]
chrisinte: want to understand why it is hard to set the date 15th
19:52:05 [bijan]
There's a schedule and there's no real benefit. FPWD is a low bar
19:52:15 [zwu21]
alanr: happy to discuss offlien
19:52:22 [zwu21]
19:53:04 [zwu21]
ivan: from CR to PR, we come up with a report on implementations
19:53:40 [zwu21]
alanr: do we expect comments on PR?
19:54:17 [zwu21]
ivan: it is possible, that is why I want comments now
19:54:33 [zwu21]
... not on PR documents
19:55:04 [zwu21]
IanH: if schedule slips, then it is going to be tight for dec 2009
19:55:29 [alanr]
19:55:31 [alanr]
19:55:35 [alanr]
ack alanr
19:55:38 [alanr]
ack inah
19:55:43 [alanr]
ack ianh
19:56:01 [pfps]
I'm not happy with the schedule, but it is about as good as it could be
19:56:02 [zwu21]
sandro: we chould consider skip CR
19:56:16 [pfps]
However, we should use the schedule as a cloture mechanism
19:56:49 [zwu21]
ivan: let us not skip CR
19:57:37 [zwu21]
... what we called user facing documents do not go through CR
19:57:38 [sandro]
09 March - Publich Round 5: FPWD Document Overview
19:57:38 [sandro]
30 March - Editors Done, begin WG review
19:57:38 [sandro]
15 April - Publish Round 6: All documents, specs in Last Call (LC1 or LC2)
19:57:38 [sandro]
01 June - Publish Round 7: All docs; rec-track specs to CR
19:57:38 [sandro]
15 July - CR comments due
19:57:39 [sandro]
01 Aug - Publish Round 8: All docs; rec-track documents to PR
19:57:42 [sandro]
01 Oct - Publish Round 9: All documents to final state (Rec / Note)
19:57:43 [zwu21]
... that gives up more time
19:57:57 [zwu21]
... Manchester syntax does not go through CR because it is not rec track
19:58:10 [zwu21]
... if it is final, we can publish it as a note anytime
19:58:19 [bijan]
We shouldn't solicit comments on a note
19:58:29 [sandro]
19:58:48 [bijan]
The only reason to go not go final on MS now is to track any changes we make in the rest of the langauge
20:00:13 [zwu21]
ivan: at PR, we may get formal objections
20:00:28 [zwu21]
... which will be a very tough thing
20:00:48 [zwu21]
Mike: it is indepenent of our timeline though
20:00:52 [IanH]
PROPOSED: the WG will use its best endeavours to complete its work according to the schedule proposed by Sandro above.
20:01:02 [christine]
20:01:17 [IanH]
20:01:20 [alanr]
ack christine
20:02:02 [zwu21]
christine: don't see the impact of either 9th of 15th
20:02:07 [zwu21]
alanr: we will address that
20:02:25 [pfps]
+1 ALU
20:02:31 [alanr]
+1 SC
20:02:32 [schneid]
20:02:32 [ivan]
20:02:32 [IanH]
20:02:33 [bmotik]
20:02:33 [MarkusK_]
+1 FZI
20:02:33 [zwu21]
20:02:34 [bijan]
20:02:36 [msmith]
20:02:37 [sandro]
20:02:38 [Achille]
20:02:40 [baojie]
20:02:59 [christine]
+1 (except 09 march)
20:03:00 [zwu21]
alanr: we need to note that which documents will go to LC2
20:03:06 [ewallace]
20:03:26 [IanH]
RESOLVED: the WG will use its best endeavours to complete its work according to the schedule proposed by Sandro above.
20:03:42 [bijan]
Is all that's left editorial?
20:03:50 [bijan]
I have a course to prepare for and to go to sleep :(
20:04:04 [pfps]
no, after break is imports and griddle
20:04:28 [Zakim]
20:08:22 [Zakim]
- +1.518.276.aaaa
20:08:28 [Zakim]
20:17:51 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
20:17:51 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
20:19:30 [jar]
jar has joined #owl
20:20:26 [zwu21]
IanH: going to imports
20:20:58 [pfps]
scribenick: ivan
20:21:08 [pfps]
it should be one
20:21:25 [ivan]
Topic: imports
20:21:37 [ivan]
IanH: 2 comments, both with drafts
20:21:41 [ivan]
... #53
20:22:22 [IanH]
20:22:36 [pfps]
draft response is
20:22:55 [ivan]
IanH: proposed draft:
20:23:35 [sandro]
sorry, my IP address changed on me. webcam restarted....
20:23:39 [IanH]
20:23:53 [jar]
q+ jar
20:23:57 [ivan]
schneid: there are confusions due to sloppiness of myself
20:24:12 [ivan]
... in the old owl 1 full ther ehas been a definition of import closure
20:24:36 [IanH]
20:24:38 [ivan]
... in my 1st pwd I put a bunch of things I did not know how to deal with into one section
20:24:48 [ivan]
... i kept that in in the 2nd draft
20:24:58 [baojie]
20:24:59 [ivan]
... there was also a note that was very clever;
20:25:09 [ivan]
... ie, i did not plan to have this in the final version of the document
20:25:26 [ivan]
... in the owl 1 the definition was only used in two theorems
20:25:47 [ivan]
... on of them was the old correspondence theorem, and there is a new one for owl 2 that does not use this any more
20:25:52 [IanH]
20:25:53 [ivan]
20:26:01 [ivan]
.... my current draft does not have it any more
20:26:22 [ivan]
IanH: ie,, the current version of the owl full semantics does not have this feature in
20:26:29 [ivan]
schneid: indeed
20:26:46 [ivan]
... importing has nothing to do with logic, treating it in a semantics is not correct
20:27:12 [Zakim]
20:27:16 [IanH]
20:27:25 [IanH]
ack jar
20:27:34 [schneid]
20:27:34 [ivan]
jar: since i submitted that I was thinking about it.
20:27:40 [ivan]
... this is a borderline editorial
20:27:49 [ivan]
... i am not sure what the goal for today
20:27:58 [ivan]
... i guess it is the lc comments
20:28:18 [ivan]
... i did sent another public comment today on how to present this whole comment idea
20:28:37 [ivan]
... i am happy to contribute and work with whoever works on this
20:28:57 [ivan]
IanH: you should send a mail to the wg list targeted at michael, and then discuss this
20:29:01 [ivan]
... is that o.k?
20:29:07 [ivan]
jar: yes, that sounds fine
20:29:10 [IanH]
20:29:19 [jar]
my email (today):
20:29:35 [ivan]
... I feel there is a lot of room for improvement
20:29:52 [ivan]
IanH: but if the response to you was along the line that this document is chaning
20:29:55 [IanH]
20:29:55 [ivan]
... is that ok
20:29:59 [ivan]
jar: yes
20:30:38 [ivan]
baojie: about the semantics of incompatibility with in owl 1 we do not have that, so we have a backward incompatibility problem
20:30:50 [jar]
any clarification is fine I think. just wanted to make sure someone had thought about it, and that the next reader was clear on the intent (full different from / same as dl in this way)
20:30:58 [IanH]
20:31:01 [ivan]
IanH: i am reluctant to reopen this
20:31:05 [IanH]
ack baojie
20:31:17 [ivan]
boris: michael you defer to the syntax document?
20:31:44 [ivan]
schneid: i have either an own part that treats this stuff or not, i decided to point to the syntax document
20:31:57 [ivan]
bmotik: I agree
20:32:12 [ivan]
IanH: we are done on this one, aren't we?
20:32:22 [ivan]
... do we have a response draft?
20:32:48 [ivan]
pfps: (reads up the response)
20:33:09 [ivan]
IanH: the response is that this is not last call, the document has changed, the import is not a semantics operation
20:33:24 [ivan]
... further efforts will be made to improve the presentation
20:34:21 [bijan]
20:34:22 [ivan]
Topic: import by location
20:34:27 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
20:34:27 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
20:34:29 [IanH]
20:34:32 [IanH]
ack bijan
20:35:13 [ivan]
bijan: we had an extensive discussion with Tim ???, Peter has a very long and involved response and we trim that
20:35:21 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
20:35:21 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
20:35:23 [IanH]
20:35:27 [bijan]
I happy to
20:35:29 [ivan]
pfps: I volunteer bijan to write it:-)
20:35:58 [bijan]
I head to the page
20:36:09 [ivan]
Topic: 2 comments on axiom annotation
20:36:26 [ivan]
IanH: they are from bijan, asking for axiom hiding and for naming
20:36:29 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
20:36:29 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
20:36:32 [ivan]
... i though we agreed
20:36:38 [ivan]
... and the commenter agreed, too
20:36:57 [ivan]
bijan: i think we decided to reject that and i had the action to answer to myself
20:37:04 [ivan]
pfps: i can do it
20:37:10 [ivan]
... i know how to abuse you nicely
20:37:52 [ivan]
Topic: number 30, frank's objection
20:38:18 [IanH]
Ivan: discussed this to death
20:38:26 [bijan]
ship it!
20:38:28 [IanH]
Ivan: version on the web agrees with discussion
20:38:40 [msmith]
20:39:19 [bijan]
I just reread it and it's great!
20:39:31 [IanH]
PROPOSED: send drafted response to comment 30
20:39:34 [ewallace]
20:39:36 [IanH]
20:39:36 [ivan]
20:39:38 [zwu21]
20:39:40 [pfps]
+1 ALU
20:39:52 [schneid]
20:39:54 [baojie]
20:39:59 [msmith]
20:40:01 [MarkusK_]
20:40:04 [bmotik]
20:40:06 [sandro]
20:40:09 [alanr]
20:40:11 [IanH]
RESOLVED: send drafted response to comment 30
20:40:14 [bijan]
20:40:29 [pfps]
20:40:36 [ivan]
Topic: number 58, strong typing
20:40:47 [ivan]
pfps: the answer is yes, was part of the discussion yesterday
20:41:03 [ivan]
IanH: it brings the fs and the structure aligned
20:41:20 [ivan]
bmotik: I will do it, 'thank you, we will do it'
20:41:42 [bijan]
We discussed this yesterday
20:41:57 [bijan]
I have and action to send the schema (nearly done :()
20:42:20 [ivan]
Topic: number 47, disallow multiple key values
20:42:31 [ivan]
IanH: no multiple key values
20:42:38 [pfps]
20:43:14 [bijan]
20:43:20 [ivan]
pfps: I suggest to say no to this
20:43:22 [IanH]
20:43:39 [ivan]
schneid: talking to database people they say this is plainly wrong
20:43:42 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
20:43:42 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
20:43:44 [IanH]
ack bijan
20:44:02 [ivan]
bijan: i agree with schneid and peter
20:44:10 [ivan]
... you can get that if you wanted
20:44:15 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
20:44:15 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
20:44:30 [ivan]
pfps: i will take it
20:44:51 [IanH]
20:44:53 [ivan]
Topic: automatic testing in the owl link interface (45)
20:45:15 [bijan]
"Thanks for the comment."
20:45:26 [ivan]
IanH: i think our response is that it is out of scope
20:45:47 [bijan]
20:45:58 [ivan]
pfps: uli is on the hook for that one
20:46:04 [zwu21]
20:46:32 [ivan]
pfps: ship it!
20:46:37 [bijan]
20:46:42 [IanH]
20:47:04 [IanH]
PROPOSED: send response as drafted to comment 45
20:47:06 [pfps]
+1 ALU
20:47:08 [ivan]
20:47:12 [IanH]
20:47:13 [ewallace]
20:47:17 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
20:47:55 [bijan]
20:48:05 [ivan]
msmith: one problem, the text says that we will publish document and test cases, but that is not exactly true
20:48:14 [ivan]
... we will produce a test collection
20:48:52 [zwu21]
20:49:03 [msmith]
20:49:05 [MarkusK_]
20:49:13 [schneid]
20:49:16 [IanH]
RESOLVED: send response as drafted to comment 45
20:49:21 [MarkusK_]
I meant +1
20:49:28 [Achille]
20:49:45 [ivan]
Topic: number 23, extending annotation
20:49:57 [IanH]
20:50:02 [ivan]
pfps: after a long discussion with jeremy roger he and i approved a response
20:50:10 [IanH]
20:50:26 [ivan]
pfps: "we would love to do, but nobody knows how@
20:50:31 [ivan]
20:50:34 [bijan]
I've drafted a response to TR1:
20:50:45 [IanH]
20:50:47 [bijan]
sorry, jsut reporting
20:50:48 [bijan]
not relevant
20:51:13 [IanH]
PROPOSED: send draft response
20:51:26 [bijan]
Not tr1
20:51:30 [bmotik]
20:51:31 [pfps]
20:51:32 [ivan]
20:51:33 [msmith]
20:51:34 [IanH]
20:51:35 [MarkusK_]
20:51:36 [bijan]
no nono
20:51:36 [zwu21]
20:51:39 [schneid]
20:51:40 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
20:51:40 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
20:51:48 [baojie]
20:52:22 [IanH]
PROPOSED: send draft response
20:52:24 [msmith]
20:52:27 [bijan]
20:52:28 [pfps]
+1 alu
20:52:30 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
20:52:30 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
20:52:32 [alanr]
20:52:32 [zwu21]
20:52:50 [IanH]
RESOLVED: send draft response
20:52:52 [ewallace]
20:53:05 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
20:53:05 [Zakim]
bijan was already muted, bijan
20:53:19 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
20:53:19 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
20:53:25 [ivan]
Topic: number 7, import via
20:53:41 [IanH]
PROPOSED: send draft response
20:53:42 [ivan]
bijan: just put up a response
20:54:07 [pfps]
20:54:10 [bijan]
20:54:14 [schneid]
20:54:18 [zwu21]
20:54:31 [baojie]
20:54:31 [Achille]
20:54:32 [MarkusK_]
20:54:36 [bmotik]
20:54:40 [msmith]
20:54:45 [alanr]
20:54:45 [IanH]
RESOLVED: send draft response
20:57:24 [sandro] says GRDDL
20:57:24 [sandro]
Our understanding of the WG charter is that a GRDDL transform, in XSLT1, will be provided. We will raise this issue again at PR review if necessary. Our preferred fix to the lack of a GRDDL transform, is to drop the OWL/XML serialization.
20:57:45 [ewallace]
Have to go for an hour. I will be back at 5, if you are still meeting.
20:57:48 [Zakim]
20:58:05 [ivan]
Topic: number 17, 34 plus a bunch together, GRDDL
20:58:49 [ivan]
IanH: 17 says that there is an open issue, will that be resolved?
20:58:51 [bijan]
I am
20:58:52 [IanH]
20:58:54 [Zakim]
20:58:58 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
20:58:58 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
20:59:15 [ivan]
bijan: i have seen no change, nobody has talked to me,
20:59:47 [ivan]
sandro: last i remember (last f2f) we might move forward with a plan with a grddl that would get to a transform
21:00:00 [ivan]
bijan: we got a push back from jonathan
21:00:52 [sandro]
ivan: I am unsure whether it is doable in XSLT.
21:00:54 [bijan]
It doesn't seem that TQ would be happy with it either
21:00:58 [AchilleF]
AchilleF has joined #owl
21:01:08 [bijan]
21:01:15 [ivan]
jar: i think it is clear you can do it in xslt, so it is a question of service
21:01:16 [dlm]
dlm has joined #owl
21:01:25 [ivan]
... doing it relying on service is a bit fragile
21:01:27 [sandro]
jar: I think you CAN do it in XSLT. It's a question of judgement. I think relying on a service is really quite fragile, as opposed to relying on a program.
21:01:34 [ivan]
... the argument is that it is the same sort of thing
21:01:39 [Zakim]
21:01:45 [bijan]
Not catchign everything
21:01:45 [IanH]
21:01:49 [bijan]
Could he move closer to the phone
21:01:51 [ivan]
... and it relies on a service
21:01:51 [AchilleF]
zakim, ibm is me
21:01:51 [Zakim]
+AchilleF; got it
21:01:52 [ivan]
21:02:11 [IanH]
21:02:25 [ivan]
... i think it can be done in many different ways, one way is a service, i am advocating for a proof of something more robust
21:02:34 [IanH]
q+ sandro
21:02:39 [ivan]
... how hard is it to replicate this transform, can I copy the software, etc
21:02:41 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
21:02:41 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
21:02:43 [IanH]
q+ peter
21:02:56 [IanH]
ack bijan
21:03:12 [sandro]
bijan: associating a URI with a mapping is sufficient, I believe.
21:03:26 [ivan]
bijan: my original point was that a URI pointing at a generic thing is enough
21:03:38 [IanH]
21:03:56 [alanr]
21:04:01 [sandro]
bijan: then we were asked for an XSLT, and that proves you're really asking for a program, not a spec.
21:04:04 [pfps]
bijan: we are heading down the slippery slope to implementation
21:04:05 [ivan]
scribe gave up scribing bijan
21:04:12 [IanH]
21:04:18 [pfps]
bijan: let's do something minimal
21:04:19 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
21:04:19 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
21:04:26 [IanH]
ack ivan
21:04:44 [alanr]
21:04:44 [alanr]
q- alanr
21:05:18 [IanH]
21:05:22 [sandro]
ivan: I don't want to reopen this. We agree to disagree. The problem (cf JAR) -- we have no one producing that XSLT that converts OWL/XML to RDF/XML. If so, then we could talk to Bijan about it. But we don't have it.
21:05:24 [dlm]
dlm has joined #owl
21:05:53 [sandro]
ivan: Will you make the implementation JAR?
21:06:04 [sandro]
jar: No.
21:06:11 [alanr]
21:06:19 [IanH]
ack sandro
21:06:20 [bijan]
What? Quality? Huh?
21:06:57 [jar]
to reflect back what bijan said: the grddl uri 'identifies' not a script or program, but the transformation. any implementation of it that works is fine; and implementation is outside the scope of the spec.
21:07:00 [ivan]
sandro: bijan you talked about another possibility if the xslt were produced mechanically and if necessary i might volounteer to do taht
21:07:10 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
21:07:10 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
21:07:10 [IanH]
21:07:11 [alanr]
21:07:14 [bijan]
21:07:15 [ivan]
... i hear bijan say that he is against that
21:07:52 [ivan]
pfps: in sympathy with bijan here, bijan's solution is to reuse another tool that will go through our cr tool,
21:07:56 [IanH]
21:08:01 [bijan]
21:08:02 [ivan]
... and plan it to be make it available
21:08:04 [IanH]
ack peter
21:08:13 [ivan]
... it is code reuse, which is good
21:08:22 [ivan]
... the only thing it does not have is normativity
21:08:32 [IanH]
q+ sandro
21:08:35 [ivan]
... if you wan normativity to point to our document
21:08:49 [ivan]
... then there is no code, no viruses, no nothing...
21:08:55 [IanH]
ack alanr
21:09:19 [IanH]
21:09:21 [ivan]
alanr: i have already scraped the document once and that can be an input to sandro's script
21:09:50 [ivan]
... fair to say that publishing a spec without is a minority view
21:09:59 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
21:09:59 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
21:10:01 [IanH]
ack bijan
21:10:05 [sandro]
alan: It's a minority view that spec or on-line service is "grddl" per se.
21:10:13 [ivan]
... we may have a formal objection that we have to consider, do the damn thing and let it done
21:10:22 [sandro]
alan: It's a minority view that spec is "grddl" per se.
21:10:47 [sandro]
bijan: My main objection is to on-line downloadability.
21:11:13 [pfps]
21:11:16 [ivan]
bijan: i disagree with what alan says, my main objection is a downloadable script, having a page with a set of transformation is fine, manchester might put an objection if we do thi
21:11:17 [pfps]
21:11:35 [IanH]
ack sandro
21:11:49 [ivan]
bijan: i have in principle objections the way grddl work
21:11:56 [ivan]
... maybe the mechanical would work
21:12:03 [ivan]
... maybe we should just table this
21:12:05 [sandro]
bijan: the mechanical-generation of the transform doesn't help.
21:12:09 [ivan]
... i cannot promise i will agree
21:12:09 [IanH]
21:12:10 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
21:12:11 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
21:12:25 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
21:12:25 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
21:12:25 [ivan]
sandro: a few weeks i do not want to spend unless i need to
21:12:27 [bijan]
21:12:49 [ivan]
... i do not know whether we can judge the strength of the objections
21:13:07 [IanH]
q+ msmith
21:13:17 [ivan]
bijan: proposal, if sandro produces such a thing and it pasts all the tests, then i have a strong bias to accept it
21:13:21 [sandro]
bijan: if you produce such a thing, and it passes all the tests, I will have a strong bias in favor of supporting it, although I can't promise I'll accept it.
21:13:26 [IanH]
21:13:35 [sandro]
thanks, Bijan.
21:13:45 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
21:13:45 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
21:14:22 [bijan]
Or defaultly use
21:14:24 [ivan]
IanH: bijan seems to say that he has an in principle objection to specify a piece of software
21:14:41 [ivan]
... to be honest i fully sympathize with that objection
21:14:48 [ivan]
sandro: no one is saying
21:15:18 [IanH]
21:15:35 [IanH]
ack IanH
21:15:47 [bijan]
It's de facto have to use otherwise this wouldn't matter
21:15:51 [bijan]
It's defaultly used
21:15:58 [alanr]
there is no "have to" anywhere
21:16:20 [sandro]
sandro: all the spec says is "use this namespace". then it's up to the namespace owner (W3C, guided by the WG) to make sure the right (GRDDL) thing happens.
21:16:33 [bijan]
as a *Second* specification!
21:17:11 [IanH]
21:17:18 [schneid]
and if we simply put silently, without spec'ing it, a GRDDL transform at the OWL URL? :-)
21:17:18 [bijan]
21:17:53 [pfps]
we annoint the transform by using the namespace
21:18:14 [bijan]
The editor, DanC, agreed with my interpretation
21:18:16 [sandro]
ivan: Whether we like it or not, there is GRDDL. It's done. That's not for us to discuss. Bijan and I disagree about what that spec means, but....
21:18:20 [sandro]
21:18:55 [sandro]
ivan: Bottom-Line: if this is not set up the way the community is set up, there will be formal objections to OWL/XML.
21:18:56 [bijan]
THat's why I caved
21:19:02 [IanH]
ack pfps
21:19:08 [sandro]
ivan: Bottom-Line: if this is not set up the way the community expects it, there will be formal objections to OWL/XML.
21:19:19 [bijan]
However, will the director not override the objection?
21:19:21 [bijan]
21:19:43 [IanH]
21:20:43 [bijan]
Uhm, I have the editor telling me that my interpretation is correct
21:21:11 [sandro]
peter: If you like to XSLT in GRDDL,you're annointing that XSTL as *the* *definition*
21:21:35 [sandro]
sandro: no, that's ridiculous. The real spec is still obvious the Recommendation, which the XSLT implements.
21:21:43 [schneid]
ian: if we create such an implementation, but explicitly say that it is not our spec, what happens then?
21:21:47 [ivan]
21:21:55 [IanH]
ack msmith
21:22:17 [bijan]
21:22:30 [bijan]
As noted above, each GRDDL transformation specifies a transformation property, a function from XPath document nodes to RDF graphs. This function need not be total; it may have a domain smaller than all XML document nodes. For example, use of xsl:message with terminate="yes" may be used to signal that the input is outside the domain of the transformation.
21:22:30 [bijan]
Developers of transformations should make available representations in widely-supported formats. XSLT version 1[XSLT1] is the format most widely supported by GRDDL-aware agents as of this writing, though though XSLT2[XSLT2] deployment is increasing.
21:22:35 [schneid]
msmith: asks, people, you want a single XSD that would be referenced?
21:22:47 [bijan]
Who uses GRDDL?
21:22:53 [schneid]
alanr: people who use grddl, should have their expectations met
21:22:57 [bijan]
I mean, what's the population?
21:22:59 [sandro]
alan: What I think is needed is the kind of thing GRDDL users want/expect.
21:23:02 [IanH]
21:23:22 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
21:23:22 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
21:23:25 [IanH]
ack bijan
21:23:55 [IanH]
q+ pfps
21:24:09 [schneid]
bijan: grddl chair made assertion that conflicts with what sandro sais
21:24:13 [pfps]
from GRDDL abstract: Abstract
21:24:15 [pfps]
GRDDL is a mechanism for Gleaning Resource Descriptions from Dialects of Languages. This GRDDL specification introduces markup based on existing standards for declaring that an XML document includes data compatible with the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and for linking to algorithms (typically represented in XSLT), for extracting this data from the document.
21:24:30 [schneid]
bijan: our spec is the document
21:24:45 [schneid]
bijan: understands positions of both parties
21:24:51 [IanH]
21:25:31 [schneid]
bijan: asks, whether ivan suggests to not make the grddl transform a rec?
21:25:36 [sandro]
ivan: Of course I can't know what will happen if there is a formal objection.
21:25:50 [IanH]
21:25:58 [schneid]
ivan: if there is a formal objection, then this will probably kill owl/xml as a rec
21:26:40 [sandro]
21:26:44 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
21:26:44 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
21:26:46 [ivan]
21:26:53 [sandro]
ack IanH
21:27:08 [bijan]
users will never see those disclaimers
21:27:18 [sandro]
IanH: maybe do the XSLT, and hedge around it with various warnings.
21:27:20 [IanH]
21:27:24 [schneid]
ianh: no one has commented on my suggestion: "this grddl transform is not a mandatory spec"
21:27:29 [IanH]
ack pfps
21:28:39 [bijan]
People don't pick it's silent
21:28:39 [schneid]
alanr: don't understand what the problem is with having bugs in the transform, then let's fix it; the normative thing is the document
21:28:40 [bijan]
21:29:17 [IanH]
21:29:19 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
21:29:19 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
21:29:19 [schneid]
alanr: why not document this that we will fix all bugs
21:29:21 [pfps]
21:29:22 [IanH]
ack bijan
21:29:38 [IanH]
ack pfps
21:29:54 [schneid]
bijan: I am not going to accept this [FIXME!]
21:30:11 [IanH]
21:30:12 [bijan]
21:30:26 [bijan]
q+ to point out a service based example
21:30:48 [bijan]
21:31:15 [IanH]
21:31:27 [schneid]
ivan: in f2f4 we discussed that there should /exist/ some xslt transform as a service (somehow)
21:31:56 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
21:31:57 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
21:32:03 [IanH]
21:32:18 [IanH]
ack bijan
21:32:18 [Zakim]
bijan, you wanted to point out a service based example
21:32:22 [IanH]
21:32:27 [bijan]
We did dicusss it
21:32:37 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
21:32:37 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
21:32:40 [IanH]
ack bijan
21:32:45 [schneid]
bijan: there is a conversion service (have put url into irc)
21:33:05 [schneid]
ivan: we can have such a service at w3c, too
21:33:24 [IanH]
21:33:28 [schneid]
alanr: what is the issue with this?
21:33:45 [IanH]
21:33:46 [schneid]
alanr: how would this solve the problem?
21:33:59 [IanH]
21:33:59 [schneid]
ivan: does not resolve the principle problem
21:34:11 [bijan]
21:34:21 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
21:34:21 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
21:34:29 [IanH]
21:34:46 [IanH]
21:34:49 [IanH]
ack bijan
21:35:37 [IanH]
21:35:53 [bijan]
bijan: The service based one makes me a little happier (not ideal) because it makes it very clear that there is no specification going on with this implementation
21:36:10 [bijan]
Like the RDF Mapping
21:36:35 [IanH]
21:36:39 [sandro]
jar: for practical reasons, the grddl transform must resolve to code that will run.
21:37:08 [schneid]
jonathan: issue for me is how to have the transform behind the firewall
21:37:17 [bijan]
Why is firewall replication a criterion?
21:37:18 [IanH]
21:37:18 [sandro]
jar: then the question is how hard will it be for me to implement the transform behind my firewall. (1) punch a hole, (2) copy the service, (3) re-implenet
21:37:28 [sandro]
21:37:29 [bijan]
21:37:30 [sandro]
21:38:31 [bijan]
It is open source
21:38:43 [IanH]
21:39:13 [sandro]
peter: grddl should selectiveally apply any/all trnasforms.
21:39:15 [IanH]
21:39:18 [bijan]
Peter is wrong
21:39:30 [bijan]
21:39:54 [IanH]
21:40:01 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
21:40:01 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
21:40:09 [IanH]
ack bijan
21:40:20 [pfps]
21:40:30 [schneid]
bijan: belives peter's reading of the grdll spec is invalid
21:40:52 [IanH]
21:40:54 [schneid]
bijan: one can have several transforms for the same
21:41:02 [bijan]
I agree!
21:41:04 [IanH]
21:41:15 [IanH]
21:41:40 [bijan]
I proposed this way back and was rejected :(
21:41:42 [schneid]
pfps: if we cannot understand the grddl spec, then it is not perfect
21:41:48 [IanH]
21:41:51 [msmith]
peter is referencing the second normative (green) block at
21:41:57 [sandro]
alan: nice solution would be to have multiple transforms.
21:42:01 [bijan]
The GRDDL chair suggested that this is nice idea
21:42:11 [jar]
what I need a story for: What happens 10 years from now after the service stops running (you look at the spec and reimplement it?); what do I do inside the firewall (same? or find the java code?)
21:42:58 [IanH]
21:43:14 [schneid]
ivan: service oriented solution works for me, and if it also works for jar and tq, then its ok?
21:43:17 [bijan]
jar, what would happen if the w3c servers died and no longer served the XSLT?
21:43:41 [jar]
go to the time machine.
21:43:52 [schneid]
alanr: ivan, you would not object
21:43:54 [schneid]
ivan: no
21:43:54 [bijan]
So, same deal
21:44:01 [sandro]
PROPOSED: if we can have multiple GRDDL transforms, then we'll do (1) the spec, (2) on-line transform service, (3) download single xslt; if only one transform, then we'll do the on-line transform service only.
21:44:49 [sandro]
<DanC> it's OK to have multiple XSLTs; the GRDDL test suite has an example, yes
21:44:49 [sandro]
<DanC> if you're willing to claim the spec is a representation of an algorithm, then yes, you can link the spec as a GRDDL transformation.
21:44:52 [pfps]
+1 ALU
21:45:02 [ivan]
21:45:06 [IanH]
21:45:35 [IanH]
21:45:35 [sandro]
(I'm quoting what Dan just answered me.)
21:46:41 [schneid]
sandro: what will have happen, if I don't manage it?
21:46:45 [ivan]
21:46:47 [zwu21]
21:46:51 [sandro]
PROPOSED: if we can have multiple GRDDL transforms, then we'll do (1) the spec, (2) on-line transform service (if a good one is produced), (3) download single xslt (if a good one is produced); if only one transform, then we'll do the on-line transform service only.
21:47:05 [sandro]
PROPOSED: if we can have multiple GRDDL transforms, then we'll do (1) the spec, (2) on-line transform service (if a good one is produced), AND (3) download single xslt (if a good one is produced); if only one transform, then we'll do the on-line transform service only.
21:47:26 [bijan]
WHy wouldn't we do the spec?
21:48:00 [sandro]
Ivan: A GRDDL transform with do BOTH (2) and (3).
21:48:06 [pfps]
21:48:07 [sandro]
Ivan: A GRDDL system with do BOTH (2) and (3).
21:48:16 [schneid]
ivan: if a grddl system sees several transforms, then it applies them all and merges the resulting RDF documents
21:48:43 [jar]
I think DanC is hinting at content negotiation. spec is one 'representation', xslt is another. don't know if that will work.
21:48:50 [bijan]
So what's wrong with that?
21:48:56 [schneid]
ianh: let's assume the grddl spec is the way ivan and bijan say
21:49:02 [bijan]
It can run them both, merge them, and it's fine ;)
21:49:13 [msmith] , section 7
21:49:16 [pfps]
+1 to bijan
21:49:35 [sandro]
PROPOSED: if we can have multiple GRDDL transforms, and systems and systems will behave reasonably with them, then we'll do (1) the spec, (2) on-line transform service (if a good one is produced), AND (3) download single xslt (if a good one is produced); if only one transform, then we'll do the on-line transform service only.
21:50:10 [pfps]
21:50:16 [bmotik]
21:50:17 [sandro]
21:50:18 [ivan]
21:50:18 [alanr]
21:50:19 [IanH]
21:50:20 [baojie]
21:50:22 [msmith]
21:50:22 [zwu21]
21:50:24 [AchilleF]
21:50:27 [bijan]
In general, that we cannot rely on the spec where it conflicts with the *assumptions* certain people have about the spec. In particular, the people objecting.
21:50:35 [bijan]
+1 (for the sake of group hugs)
21:50:40 [schneid]
+0.5 (sounds good, at least...)
21:50:43 [sandro]
*hugs* bjian
21:50:45 [MarkusK_]
21:51:25 [alanr]
even better alan *hugs* bijan
21:51:27 [sandro]
RESOLVED: if we can have multiple GRDDL transforms, and systems will behave reasonably with them, then we'll do (1) the spec, (2) on-line transform service (if a good one is produced), AND (3) download single xslt (if a good one is produced); if only one transform, then we'll do the on-line transform service only.
21:51:53 [sandro]
RESOLVED: if we can have multiple GRDDL transforms, and systems will behave reasonably with them, then we'll do (1) the spec, (2) on-line transform service (if a good one is produced), AND (3) download single xslt (if a good one is produced); ELSE: we'll do the on-line transform service only.
21:52:10 [sandro]
RESOLVED: if we can have multiple GRDDL transforms, and systems will behave reasonably with them, then we'll do (1) the spec, (2) on-line transform service (if a good one is produced), AND (3) download single xslt (if a good one is produced); ELSE: we'll do the on-line transform service only. This closes ISSUE-97.
21:52:32 [bijan]
I wonder if we should send a bug report to the GRDDL list
21:54:47 [bijan]
21:54:52 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
21:54:52 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
21:54:55 [IanH]
21:54:58 [IanH]
21:55:02 [IanH]
ack bijan
21:56:22 [bijan]
21:56:30 [bijan]
21:56:36 [ivan]
bijan: can I send it to Jim now?
21:58:25 [alanr]
action: Alan to send wg apology to jim re: initial version of
21:58:26 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-300 - Send wg apology to jim re: initial version of [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2009-03-03].
21:58:42 [IanH]
PROPOSED: Bijan sends response
21:58:45 [pfps]
+1 ALU
21:58:51 [IanH]
21:58:59 [bmotik]
21:59:01 [msmith]
21:59:05 [baojie]
21:59:06 [alanr]
21:59:07 [ivan]
21:59:08 [alanr]
21:59:09 [bijan]
21:59:10 [zwu21]
21:59:11 [MarkusK_]
21:59:18 [IanH]
RESOLVED: Bijan sends response
22:00:10 [ivan]
topic: number 8, facet space
22:00:16 [IanH]
22:00:31 [IanH]
22:00:54 [ivan]
schneid: there is some text in the struc spec where the topics is facet space of datatype maps
22:01:09 [ivan]
... (reads the content of the text)
22:02:13 [ivan]
after looking in the diret semantics a value space of some of the datatypes in the dataype map, for everything else the definitions are not specified
22:02:27 [ivan]
bmotik: i have a slight problem
22:02:39 [ivan]
... this makes the definition of one datatype dependent on the others
22:02:51 [ivan]
... you should be able to do them independently
22:03:08 [ivan]
... we do define by taking the definitions from somewhere
22:03:25 [ivan]
schneid: we are talking about datatypes
22:03:46 [ivan]
... do we talk about datatypes and these arbtirary objects are in some value space
22:04:03 [ivan]
bmotik: it should be possible to define a datatype in isolation
22:04:31 [ivan]
schneid: if we do not talk about data values, then can we allow things without a value
22:04:40 [ivan]
... there should be some data value for the facets
22:04:49 [ivan]
... one point what do we want to have
22:04:50 [IanH]
22:04:56 [ivan]
... other what is in the definition
22:05:13 [zwu2]
zwu2 has joined #owl
22:05:18 [ivan]
... The way things are defined is that the datatypes are also in the datatype maps
22:05:30 [ivan]
... what you want to have does not match to what is written
22:05:44 [ivan]
schneid: i would suggest to have an offline diiscussion
22:05:45 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
22:05:45 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
22:06:04 [ivan]
msmith: you primary object is that an arbitrary object can come from another domain?
22:06:19 [ivan]
22:06:26 [bijan]
In rdf, malformed literals get interpreted as an arbitrary element of the domain outside the datatype
22:07:10 [IanH]
22:07:22 [ivan]
Topic: number 9
22:07:29 [ivan]
bmotik: i have it on my todo list
22:07:45 [ivan]
Topic: editorials
22:08:01 [bijan]
It was sent
22:08:04 [ivan]
IanH: we have a couple here which are done and we should just decide whether we should just ship them
22:08:11 [ivan]
.. number 14 done
22:08:27 [ivan]
... number 16: this is response draft, edits identified
22:08:30 [IanH]
22:10:53 [Zakim]
22:11:03 [ewallace]
22:11:10 [IanH]
PROPOSED: In response to we will use the term "lexical form" for datatypes
22:11:47 [zwu2]
22:11:51 [baojie]
22:11:55 [schneid]
22:12:18 [IanH]
22:12:44 [bijan]
22:13:23 [MarkusK_]
22:14:32 [baojie]
22:14:33 [IanH]
RESOLVED: In response to we will use the term "lexical form" for datatypes
22:14:48 [IanH]
22:17:48 [Zakim]
22:24:24 [alanr]
22:25:00 [alanr]
I don't understand the meaning here - abbreviation is the process of transforming literals of datatype rdf:text isn't it? I assume in OWL that no literals of datatype xs:string would be present as they have a rdf:text form. Or can there be two representations?
22:26:24 [jar]
jar has joined #owl
22:31:55 [bmotik_]
bmotik_ has joined #owl
22:32:30 [sandro]
action: jie Contact Andy Seaborn and try to make sure he's happy with our work on rdf:text, and will talk to use about any remaining issues.
22:32:30 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-301 - Contact Andy Seaborn and try to make sure he's happy with our work on rdf:text, and will talk to use about any remaining issues. [on Jie Bao - due 2009-03-03].
22:32:45 [ewallace]
22:33:14 [IanH]
22:33:20 [IanH]
22:33:47 [IanH]
ack ewallace
22:33:56 [ivan]
zakim, who is here?
22:33:56 [Zakim]
On the phone I see MIT346, bijan (muted), Evan_Wallace
22:33:57 [Zakim]
On IRC I see jar, zwu2, dlm, AchilleF, schneid, msmith, christine, sandro, baojie, RRSAgent, ivan, MarkusK_, Zakim, bmotik, IanH, bijan, ewallace, trackbot
22:34:12 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
22:34:12 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
22:35:03 [ivan]
22:35:06 [zwu2]
zwu2 has left #owl
22:35:07 [ivan]
clap clap clap
22:35:44 [bijan]
Ivan has a huge range of facial expressions
22:36:10 [Zakim]
22:36:24 [Zakim]
22:42:51 [Zakim]
22:42:52 [Zakim]
SW_OWL(F2F)8:00AM has ended
22:42:54 [Zakim]
Attendees were jar, MIT346, Evan_Wallace, Achille, uli, bijan, christine, +1.518.276.aaaa, AchilleF