IRC log of owl on 2009-03-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:54:35 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:54:35 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/03/04-owl-irc
17:54:50 [IanH]
IanH has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.03.04/Agenda
17:55:03 [IanH]
Zakim, this will be owlwg
17:55:03 [Zakim]
ok, IanH; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
17:55:15 [IanH]
RRSAgent, make records public
17:55:28 [IanH]
ScribeNick: Uli
17:55:39 [zimmer]
zimmer has joined #owl
17:56:06 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
17:56:31 [bmotik]
Zakim, this will be owl
17:56:31 [Zakim]
ok, bmotik; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
17:56:38 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
17:56:45 [Zakim]
+Alistair
17:57:08 [bcuencagrau]
bcuencagrau has joined #owl
17:57:35 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
17:58:06 [Zakim]
+Alistair.a
17:58:26 [Zakim]
-Alistair.a
17:58:34 [bmotik]
Zakim, who is on call
17:58:34 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on call', bmotik
17:58:42 [bmotik]
ZAkim, who is on call?
17:58:42 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, bmotik.
17:58:52 [Zakim]
+Peter_Patel-Schneider
17:59:01 [Zakim]
+Alistair.a
17:59:11 [Zakim]
-Alistair
17:59:12 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, +Alistair.a is bcuencagrau
17:59:12 [Zakim]
sorry, bcuencagrau, I do not recognize a party named '+Alistair.a'
17:59:32 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, Alistair.a is bcuencagrau
17:59:32 [Zakim]
+bcuencagrau; got it
17:59:34 [Zakim]
+bcuencagrau.a
17:59:36 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:59:36 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau, bcuencagrau.a
17:59:37 [Zakim]
On IRC I see pfps, bcuencagrau, bmotik, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, sandro, trackbot
17:59:38 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, mute me
17:59:38 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:59:43 [bmotik]
Zakim, bcuencagrau.a is me
17:59:43 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
17:59:47 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:59:47 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:00:03 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
18:00:03 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
18:00:04 [Zakim]
+Ivan
18:00:23 [Zakim]
+IanH
18:00:30 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
18:00:30 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Ivan, IanH
18:00:33 [Zakim]
On IRC I see pfps, bcuencagrau, bmotik, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, sandro, trackbot
18:00:37 [uli]
uli has joined #owl
18:00:40 [uli_]
uli_ has joined #owl
18:00:50 [IanH]
Evening all!
18:00:56 [uli]
hiho
18:01:17 [IanH]
In the civilised world.
18:01:23 [IanH]
Uli: you are scribing?
18:01:29 [uli]
yes i am
18:01:40 [pfps]
scribenick uli
18:01:51 [uli]
but i am still dialing
18:02:02 [ewallace]
ewallace has joined #owl
18:02:02 [Zakim]
+??P8
18:02:06 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
18:02:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Ivan, IanH, ??P8
18:02:08 [Zakim]
On IRC I see ewallace, uli_, uli, pfps, bcuencagrau, bmotik, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, sandro, trackbot
18:02:08 [uli]
zakim, ??P8 is me
18:02:08 [Zakim]
+uli; got it
18:02:18 [uli]
regrets from Bijan
18:02:19 [MarkusK_]
MarkusK_ has joined #owl
18:02:24 [uli]
he is off sick
18:02:48 [Zakim]
+??P4
18:03:00 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
18:03:00 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Ivan, IanH, uli, ??P4
18:03:00 [Zakim]
On IRC I see MarkusK_, ewallace, uli_, uli, pfps, bcuencagrau, bmotik, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, sandro, trackbot
18:03:11 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
18:03:15 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
18:03:15 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Ivan, IanH, uli, MarkusK_
18:03:17 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Zhe, MarkusK_, ewallace, uli_, uli, pfps, bcuencagrau, bmotik, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, sandro, trackbot
18:03:25 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
18:03:28 [ivan]
zakim, mute me
18:03:28 [Zakim]
Ivan should now be muted
18:03:33 [pfps]
some things to stick into topics later
18:03:41 [Zakim]
+Zhe
18:03:46 [uli]
IanH: Agenda amendments?
18:03:52 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
18:03:52 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Ivan (muted), IanH, uli, MarkusK_, Zhe
18:03:54 [Zakim]
On IRC I see msmith, Zhe, MarkusK_, ewallace, uli_, uli, pfps, bcuencagrau, bmotik, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, sandro, trackbot
18:03:58 [pfps]
q+
18:04:03 [Zakim]
+msmith
18:04:05 [IanH]
ack pfps
18:04:28 [uli]
pfps: I miss status of actions & documents
18:04:40 [uli]
pfps: not actions, issues
18:04:50 [Zakim]
+Sandro
18:04:58 [Zakim]
+??P16
18:05:09 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
18:05:24 [zimmer]
Zakim, ??P16 is me
18:05:24 [Zakim]
+zimmer; got it
18:05:44 [Zakim]
+Evan_Wallace
18:06:01 [uli]
IanH: there is one action left on the open issue on Alan
18:06:09 [Zakim]
+[IBM]
18:06:30 [Achille]
zakim, ibm is me
18:06:30 [Zakim]
+Achille; got it
18:06:48 [IanH]
q?
18:06:52 [uli]
IanH: we will come back to this after admin stuff
18:07:02 [pfps]
18 Feb OK
18:07:07 [uli]
IanH: previous minutes?
18:07:20 [uli]
PROPOSED: accept last week's minutes
18:07:29 [pfps]
23 Feb minimally OK
18:07:32 [uli]
RESOLVED: accept last week's minutes
18:07:33 [ivan]
s/last week's/feb 18's/
18:07:34 [pfps]
24 Feb has a problem
18:07:58 [uli]
pfps: 24s isn't finished yet
18:08:54 [pfps]
otherwise minimally acceptable
18:09:06 [schneid]
schneid has joined #owl
18:09:08 [uli]
IanH: 24s are acceptable modula minor cleanup?
18:09:29 [uli]
RESOLVED: accept minutes from F2F modulo minor clean-up
18:09:33 [pfps]
q+
18:09:43 [IanH]
q?
18:09:49 [IanH]
ack pfps
18:09:50 [uli]
IanH: Action item status
18:10:07 [schneid]
hi, i did not yet find the time to edit my scribe job at F2F
18:10:55 [uli]
IanH: we need to check answer to LC 45 (ML2)
18:10:58 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
18:11:20 [IanH]
q?
18:11:20 [schneid]
zakim, [IPcaller] is me
18:11:21 [Zakim]
+schneid; got it
18:11:25 [IanH]
q?
18:11:27 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
18:11:27 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
18:11:29 [uli]
IanH: pending review actions are all trivial?
18:11:37 [uli]
pfps: action 298
18:11:57 [uli]
pfps: response lack diffs
18:12:11 [ewallace]
I don't see anything in the action page for ACTION-298
18:12:17 [uli]
IanH: will point to a section of a document
18:12:49 [uli]
IanH: ok, then all pending review action are deemed to be completed
18:12:54 [bmotik]
I haven't
18:13:03 [bmotik]
I'll do this now as I go trhoguh the spec
18:13:07 [uli]
IanH: Boris, did you find examples for 270?
18:13:11 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:13:11 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:13:13 [bmotik]
q+
18:13:15 [msmith]
regarding ACTION-283, a technical barrier that was preventing me from moving forward on the "comment" part has been removed. I have pushed the due date to Mar 11 and expect to be done by then.
18:13:25 [bmotik]
q-
18:13:29 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:13:29 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:13:33 [uli]
IanH: 283 is moved forward
18:13:35 [IanH]
q?
18:13:36 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:13:36 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:13:57 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:13:57 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:14:02 [uli]
bmotik: I will start implementing all these changes from tomorrow
18:14:12 [uli]
IanH: Action 292
18:14:17 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
18:14:17 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Ivan (muted), IanH, uli, MarkusK_, Zhe, msmith, Sandro, zimmer, Evan_Wallace, Achille, schneid
18:14:20 [Zakim]
... (muted)
18:14:21 [Zakim]
On IRC I see schneid, Achille, msmith, Zhe, MarkusK_, ewallace, uli_, uli, pfps, bcuencagrau, bmotik, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, sandro, trackbot
18:14:27 [uli]
Sandro: isn't done yet, will go to next week
18:14:39 [uli]
IanH: 295 waits for Boris
18:14:47 [christine]
christine has joined #owl
18:14:56 [uli]
IanH: 301? Jie?
18:15:08 [uli]
IanH: 299? Sandro?
18:15:19 [uli]
IanH: 299 will be pushed forward as well
18:16:00 [uli]
IanH: 300? Alan isn't here - did anybody hear about
18:16:10 [uli]
IanH: 300 will be pushed forward as well
18:16:39 [uli]
"Responding to XML Schema"
18:16:49 [IanH]
q?
18:17:01 [uli]
IamH: we concluded that we should write the, "good job, thanks"
18:17:03 [pfps]
I'll send out a message saying this shortly.
18:17:10 [uli]
s/IamH/IanH
18:17:29 [uli]
IanH: ok, then we ask pfps to complete action 281 in this sense
18:17:38 [pfps]
fine
18:17:44 [IanH]
PROPOSED: Respond to XML Schema "Good job, thanks!"
18:17:55 [pfps]
+1
18:17:58 [uli]
+1
18:17:59 [ivan]
+1
18:18:00 [MarkusK_]
+1
18:18:00 [IanH]
+1
18:18:02 [schneid]
+1
18:18:03 [zimmer]
+1
18:18:03 [msmith]
+1
18:18:04 [ewallace]
+1
18:18:07 [Achille]
+1
18:18:16 [Zhe]
+1
18:18:17 [IanH]
RESOLVED: Respond to XML Schema "Good job, thanks!"
18:18:34 [pfps]
q+
18:18:41 [IanH]
q?
18:19:04 [uli]
pfps: I forgot...issue 97 (grrdl) is missing an action
18:19:06 [ivan]
q+
18:19:10 [IanH]
q?
18:19:34 [pfps]
q-
18:19:35 [ivan]
ack ivan
18:19:36 [uli]
IanH: the solution is still slightly unclear, Ivan is finding out how many transform we can have
18:19:39 [IanH]
ack ivan
18:20:00 [pfps]
action on Ivan?
18:20:00 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - on
18:20:00 [uli]
ivan: i talked to the grrdl people, and i will come up with a proposal soon
18:20:09 [IanH]
q?
18:20:16 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
18:20:16 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Ivan, IanH, uli, MarkusK_, Zhe, msmith, Sandro, zimmer, Evan_Wallace, Achille, schneid (muted)
18:20:19 [Zakim]
On IRC I see christine, schneid, Achille, msmith, Zhe, MarkusK_, ewallace, uli_, uli, pfps, bcuencagrau, bmotik, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, sandro, trackbot
18:20:39 [uli]
ivan: it seems as if we could have several implementation referenced
18:20:44 [pfps]
OK
18:21:18 [uli]
Agenda: Issue 646?
18:21:30 [uli]
Agenda: Issue 146
18:21:38 [ewallace]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/146
18:21:47 [uli]
thanks evan
18:21:58 [IanH]
q?
18:22:33 [uli]
pfps: as a summary of the ongoig discussion, Alan wants to have a new 'entity name' in the Manchester Syntax
18:22:51 [uli]
pfps: with a number of unclear points
18:22:55 [IanH]
q?
18:22:56 [pfps]
I'll take an action to update Manchester syntax without any labels stuff.
18:23:06 [ewallace]
Can we summarize that as PFPS finds Alan's proposal underspecified?
18:23:10 [uli]
...regarding as to what happens if...with labels
18:23:12 [ivan]
q+
18:23:18 [IanH]
q?
18:23:48 [IanH]
ack ivan
18:24:21 [uli]
Ivan: manchester syntax isn't a rectrack document, so we are free to publish draft or note
18:24:40 [pfps]
I don't want to publish with an EdNote.
18:24:53 [uli]
...so i'd suggest that we don't push back this issue when Alan isn't here
18:25:33 [uli]
IanH: would this be ok with pfps?
18:25:39 [pfps]
q+
18:25:45 [IanH]
ack pfps
18:25:53 [uli]
...i.e., a draft without labels and no ednote
18:26:35 [pfps]
OK
18:27:20 [IanH]
PROPOSED: new working draft of Manchester Syntax will be published at the end of the month; it won't attempt to address issue-146, nor will it include any ed-note referring to this issue
18:27:26 [schneid]
q
18:27:32 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
18:27:32 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
18:27:38 [IanH]
q?
18:28:31 [pfps]
end-of-month = with other documents
18:28:41 [sandro]
01 June - Publish Round 7: All docs; rec-track specs to CR
18:28:46 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
18:28:46 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
18:28:57 [sandro]
15 April - Publish Round 6: All documents, specs in Last Call (LC1 or LC2)
18:29:00 [sandro]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Timeline
18:29:41 [IanH]
PROPOSED: new working draft of Manchester Syntax will be published as part of round 6 on the 15th April; it won't attempt to address issue-146, nor will it include any ed-note referring to this issue
18:29:49 [pfps]
+1
18:29:52 [uli]
+1
18:29:58 [ivan]
+1
18:30:02 [sandro]
+1
18:30:03 [IanH]
+1
18:30:07 [ewallace]
+1
18:30:07 [Zhe]
+1
18:30:15 [msmith]
+1
18:30:16 [schneid]
+1
18:30:19 [MarkusK_]
+1
18:30:21 [sandro]
(publication is already planned --- the point here is about issue-146.)
18:30:24 [bcuencagrau]
+1
18:30:30 [IanH]
RESOLVED: new working draft of Manchester Syntax will be published as part of round 6 on the 15th April; it won't attempt to address issue-146, nor will it include any ed-note referring to this issue
18:30:31 [pfps]
It would also be good to get a vote on 146 and close it by Round 6.
18:30:54 [pfps]
I'm OK
18:31:22 [uli]
Agenda: F2F debrief
18:31:41 [uli]
IanH: for those who weren't there/didn't read minutes
18:31:57 [uli]
...there are summaries on http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F5_Summary
18:31:58 [IanH]
q?
18:32:19 [uli]
...and please take a look at the revised schedule
18:32:21 [IanH]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Timeline
18:33:09 [uli]
...so we won't finish by the end of April, and hope to be finished by October
18:33:12 [schneid]
q+
18:33:15 [IanH]
q?
18:33:18 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
18:33:18 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
18:33:19 [uli]
...and possibly hang on until the end of the year
18:33:20 [IanH]
ack schneid
18:33:54 [uli]
schneid: we discussed to have a very short cand-rec phase
18:34:09 [uli]
IanH: correct - it's in the timeline page
18:34:25 [IanH]
q?
18:34:27 [uli]
...because we already have quite a lot of implementations
18:34:37 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
18:34:37 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
18:35:07 [IanH]
q?
18:35:08 [uli]
IanH: i'd suggest to not spend more time reminiscising
18:35:49 [uli]
Agenda: Last Call Comments
18:35:55 [IanH]
q?
18:35:58 [pfps]
q- :-)
18:36:09 [uli]
IanH: for the 'easy' ones, we will send them unless somebody wants to discuss them
18:36:43 [uli]
IanH: so we send all answers to those in the list "Responses ready to send "
18:37:19 [IanH]
q?
18:37:20 [uli]
IanH: for LC 43a, did anybody look at it?
18:37:43 [pfps]
Fine by me :-)
18:37:46 [IanH]
q?
18:37:50 [uli]
...I did and it seems fine
18:37:55 [Zhe]
yes
18:38:07 [uli]
IanH: did you see the response?
18:38:09 [schneid]
a few of them came in today, and I hadn't time to look at them yet
18:38:15 [uli]
Zhe: looks ok to me
18:38:31 [pfps]
I'll put togther one message
18:38:32 [uli]
IanH: so, we send LC 43a
18:38:47 [uli]
IanH: LC 46
18:38:49 [ewallace]
This response looks good to me.
18:38:53 [msmith]
looks good to me
18:39:00 [pfps]
ship it
18:39:10 [uli]
IanH: LC 46 is good to go
18:39:23 [uli]
IanH: LC 53
18:39:32 [IanH]
q?
18:39:41 [pfps]
53
18:39:42 [schneid]
53 is fine by me :-)
18:40:04 [pfps]
OKed by commenter already
18:40:10 [schneid]
yes
18:40:14 [uli]
IanH: we already basically ok-ed it at F2F
18:40:24 [uli]
IanH: LC 53 is good to go
18:40:25 [pfps]
OK
18:40:32 [uli]
IanH: LC 61
18:40:36 [pfps]
61 needs the pointer to the changed section(s)
18:40:52 [pfps]
otherwise OK to go
18:40:59 [uli]
IanH: it needs a pointer to changed sections
18:41:00 [msmith]
good with those changes
18:41:12 [uli]
IanH: I will fix LC 61 and send it
18:41:15 [schneid]
ok
18:41:29 [uli]
IanH: LC 10
18:41:36 [IanH]
q?
18:41:53 [IanH]
q?
18:41:58 [uli]
...intro needs fixing since unclear whether OWL 1 should be mentioned there
18:42:03 [pfps]
q+
18:42:07 [IanH]
q?
18:42:07 [uli]
...this is related to the 'overview'
18:42:18 [uli]
pfps: intro or abstract
18:42:32 [pfps]
q+
18:42:38 [IanH]
q?
18:42:44 [uli]
IanH: new abstract plus roadmap could go into the intro of every document
18:42:51 [pfps]
q+ to say where to go
18:42:58 [IanH]
ack pfps
18:42:58 [Zakim]
pfps, you wanted to say where to go
18:43:17 [uli]
pfps: it could go into 'status of document set' part of the whole lot
18:43:26 [ewallace]
Which would go into status ...?
18:43:30 [IanH]
q?
18:43:43 [pfps]
q+
18:43:53 [IanH]
q?
18:43:56 [pfps]
q-
18:44:07 [pfps]
q-
18:44:11 [uli]
Sandro: don't think this would be a good idea, the roadmap gets quite big
18:44:27 [pfps]
q+
18:44:30 [uli]
IanH: yes, it looks strange next to copyright and should go after table of contents
18:44:32 [IanH]
ack pfps
18:44:57 [uli]
pfps: then we shouldn't do this because it's big and bulky and we *have* the document overview
18:45:03 [christine]
what topic of agenda is discussed?
18:45:12 [uli]
LC 10
18:45:34 [IanH]
q?
18:45:39 [schneid]
Christine, new generic abstract to all our documents
18:45:56 [uli]
IanH: this doesn't seem to be optimal
18:46:01 [IanH]
q?
18:46:02 [pfps]
like what?
18:46:04 [ewallace]
+q
18:46:14 [uli]
...ideally, we should something at the beginning of intro like the roadmap
18:46:27 [IanH]
q?
18:46:28 [uli]
...which isn't too bulky
18:46:33 [IanH]
ack ewallace
18:46:45 [sandro]
q+
18:46:49 [uli]
ewallace: why would we stick the roadmap into all documents?
18:47:07 [uli]
IanH: we try to avoid confusing people who start with reading the wrong document
18:47:17 [IanH]
q?
18:47:31 [IanH]
q?
18:47:35 [IanH]
ack sandro
18:48:18 [uli]
Sandro: we should always make clear (in abstract, intro) in each document that it's a part of a set and *which*
18:48:32 [IanH]
q?
18:48:38 [elisa]
elisa has joined #owl
18:48:41 [uli]
IanH: you want "title...part x'
18:48:50 [IanH]
q?
18:48:56 [pfps]
I'm looking at DIrect Semantics - something like "This document is part of the OWL 2 recommendation. It formally defines the .... For an introduction to the OWL 2 recommendation, see the Document Overview.
18:49:13 [uli]
Sandro: yes, add something thoughtful to all intros
18:49:42 [pfps]
q+
18:49:51 [pfps]
q-
18:49:54 [uli]
IanH: we should add to whom the document is aimed at
18:49:54 [IanH]
q?
18:50:47 [pfps]
q+
18:50:56 [IanH]
q?
18:51:02 [ivan]
zakim, who is here?
18:51:02 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Ivan, IanH, uli, MarkusK_, Zhe, msmith, Sandro, zimmer, Evan_Wallace, Achille, schneid (muted)
18:51:06 [Zakim]
On IRC I see elisa, christine, schneid, Achille, msmith, Zhe, MarkusK_, ewallace, uli_, uli, pfps, bcuencagrau, bmotik, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, sandro, trackbot
18:51:10 [uli]
IanH: so, what about a part of the intro of each doc that tells them for whom the doc is intended and what it does
18:51:24 [IanH]
q?
18:51:25 [pfps]
a less-formal document could be more user-friendly :-)
18:51:29 [pfps]
q-
18:51:30 [IanH]
ack pfps
18:51:33 [uli]
IanH: (reads pfps' above suggestion and likes it)
18:51:57 [uli]
s/likes it/deems it adequate
18:52:04 [schneid]
where should it be now?
18:52:37 [uli]
Action on all editor to add such a 'uniform' passage to the intro of their intros
18:52:37 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - on
18:52:40 [pfps]
q+
18:53:02 [IanH]
q?
18:53:05 [IanH]
ack pfps
18:53:12 [uli]
pfps: i suggest 1. sentence in each intro 'this doc is about' 2. sentence 'for an intro, go ...'
18:53:15 [schneid]
q+
18:53:22 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
18:53:22 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
18:53:23 [ivan]
q+
18:53:27 [uli]
Sandro: this is adequate
18:53:29 [IanH]
ack schneid
18:53:33 [ewallace]
If we do more, it won't be uniform.
18:53:35 [uli]
we could also link to the roadmap?
18:53:54 [uli]
schneid: sees a lot of text before intro
18:54:15 [pfps]
there is proposed text for abstract in the "response" for 10
18:54:22 [uli]
Sandro: do we continue to have 2 part abstract - 1 for OWL 2, 1 for this document
18:54:30 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
18:54:30 [Zakim]
schneid was not muted, schneid
18:54:34 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
18:54:34 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
18:54:42 [uli]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/IH2
18:54:45 [IanH]
q?
18:54:52 [IanH]
ack ivan
18:54:53 [pfps]
no pointer to Doc Overview yet
18:55:12 [uli]
ivan: we can't take a final decision now
18:55:21 [Zakim]
+Elisa_Kendall
18:55:31 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
18:55:31 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Ivan, IanH, uli, MarkusK_, Zhe, msmith, Sandro, zimmer, Evan_Wallace, Achille, schneid (muted),
18:55:34 [Zakim]
... Elisa_Kendall
18:55:35 [Zakim]
On IRC I see elisa, christine, schneid, Achille, msmith, Zhe, MarkusK_, ewallace, uli_, uli, pfps, bcuencagrau, bmotik, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, sandro, trackbot
18:56:10 [uli]
IanH: we add, in the preamble to the abstract of each document, a pointer to the overview
18:56:20 [IanH]
q?
18:56:26 [uli]
...even if we loose some uniformity
18:56:47 [pfps]
q+
18:56:59 [ivan]
q+
18:57:06 [IanH]
ack pfps
18:57:22 [uli_]
Sandro: the preamble in LC 10 answer is too long
18:57:37 [uli_]
pfps: i'd happily drop the 2. paragraph
18:57:48 [ivan]
q-
18:57:55 [IanH]
q?
18:58:12 [IanH]
q?
18:58:20 [ivan]
q+
18:58:22 [IanH]
q?
18:58:25 [IanH]
ack ivan
18:58:58 [pfps]
fine by me
18:58:58 [IanH]
q?
18:59:05 [uli_]
Ivan: the first paragraph is finte, the second one too long
18:59:35 [IanH]
q?
18:59:37 [uli_]
IanH: ok, so we agree to drop second paragr. and do some word smithing on the first one\
18:59:39 [ewallace]
Can we capture this consensus?
19:00:01 [uli_]
s/\/?
19:00:07 [IanH]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/IH2
19:00:14 [pfps]
+1
19:00:57 [IanH]
PROPOSED: Substitute common first para of abstract with the first para from http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/IH2 (modulo wordsmithing)
19:01:01 [pfps]
The OWL 2 Web Ontology Language, informally OWL 2, is an ontology language for the Semantic Web with formally defined meaning. OWL 2 ontologies provide the basic ontological categories of classes, properties, individuals, and data values and are stored as Semantic Web documents. OWL 2 ontologies can be used along with information written in RDF, and OWL 2 ontologies themselves can be written...
19:01:03 [pfps]
...and exchanged as RDF documents. The OWL 2 Document Overview describes the overall state of OWL 2.
19:01:07 [ewallace]
Yes
19:01:07 [pfps]
+1
19:01:10 [Achille]
+1
19:01:11 [ivan]
+1
19:01:12 [ewallace]
+1
19:01:12 [IanH]
+1
19:01:13 [MarkusK_]
+1
19:01:14 [bcuencagrau]
+1
19:01:14 [zimmer]
+1
19:01:15 [uli_]
+1
19:01:17 [Zhe]
+1
19:01:25 [elisa]
+1
19:01:31 [IanH]
RESOLVED: ROPOSED: Substitute common first para of abstract with the first para from http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/IH2 (modulo wordsmithing)
19:01:32 [msmith]
+1
19:01:39 [IanH]
q?
19:02:03 [uli_]
IanH: ..and we also answer to Ivan's LCC
19:02:10 [pfps]
I'll send the message
19:02:18 [IanH]
q?
19:02:33 [uli_]
IanH: LC 21
19:02:47 [pfps]
21
19:03:35 [pfps]
21 needs some more work
19:03:38 [IanH]
q?
19:03:41 [uli_]
IanH: mostly editorial?
19:03:58 [IanH]
q?
19:03:59 [uli_]
q+
19:04:03 [IanH]
q?
19:04:14 [pfps]
also needs to wait for disjointness of datatypes decision
19:04:24 [IanH]
q?
19:04:29 [IanH]
ack uli_
19:04:47 [pfps]
there are reasons to leave out reflexive and thing -
19:04:47 [msmith]
q+ about datatypes
19:04:53 [IanH]
q?
19:04:59 [uli_]
IanH: non-editorial is reflexive properties in RL
19:05:04 [IanH]
ack about
19:05:08 [IanH]
ack datatypes
19:05:13 [IanH]
q?
19:05:26 [uli_]
msmith: and datatypes/disjointness needs answering
19:05:34 [pfps]
this should be part of the discussion and vote next week
19:05:37 [IanH]
q?
19:05:40 [bmotik]
q+
19:05:43 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
19:05:43 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
19:05:45 [IanH]
ack bmotik
19:05:53 [pfps]
q+
19:05:57 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
19:05:57 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
19:06:01 [IanH]
ack pfps
19:06:18 [uli_]
bmotik: we discussed this and decided to not have reflexive in RL
19:06:38 [IanH]
q?
19:06:52 [bmotik]
I'll rephrase that
19:06:55 [uli_]
pfps: we don't want reflexive in RL because they lead to free variables on the RHS of a rule
19:07:01 [IanH]
q?
19:07:01 [bmotik]
Yes
19:07:29 [bmotik]
These are the ones in the first box from the appendix of Syntax
19:07:46 [uli_]
pfps: so Boris is already understanding & drafting answer
19:07:53 [uli_]
IanH: LC 32
19:08:48 [IanH]
q?
19:08:59 [uli_]
pfps: i need to change the doc & then add diffs to response. but we need to decide that this is our response
19:09:10 [IanH]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/CO1
19:09:15 [uli_]
IanH: is Ivan happy with this?
19:09:40 [uli_]
IanH: LC 58
19:10:11 [IanH]
q?
19:10:14 [bmotik]
The response is already there
19:10:19 [uli_]
IanH: it's on its way to being done, in the sense 'thanks, we will do it'
19:10:20 [christine]
fix what
19:10:21 [schneid]
q+
19:10:24 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
19:10:24 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
19:10:25 [bmotik]
I'll make the changes tomorrow
19:10:25 [IanH]
q?
19:10:40 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
19:10:40 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
19:10:46 [bmotik]
q+
19:10:50 [uli_]
schneid: would it still be possible to declare classes? allowed?
19:10:51 [pfps]
yes
19:10:51 [IanH]
Boris will fix the syntax to be strongly typed
19:10:55 [IanH]
ack schneid
19:10:58 [IanH]
ack bmotik
19:11:02 [IanH]
q?
19:11:11 [uli_]
bmotik: everything is preserved - in DL you still need declaration
19:11:24 [IanH]
q?
19:11:28 [uli_]
schneid: thanks
19:11:30 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
19:11:30 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
19:11:33 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
19:11:33 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
19:11:42 [ivan]
q+
19:11:42 [uli_]
IanH: do we are only for bmotik to make these changes
19:11:43 [christine]
still not convinced argument from MH was 2 passes
19:12:00 [IanH]
q?
19:12:21 [uli_]
IanH: i don't understand Christine's question
19:12:43 [pfps]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
19:12:43 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Ivan, IanH, uli, MarkusK_, Zhe, msmith, Sandro, zimmer, Evan_Wallace, Achille, schneid (muted),
19:12:43 [christine]
why not mandatory declaration for it instead of full
19:12:46 [Zakim]
... Elisa_Kendall
19:13:11 [IanH]
q?
19:13:15 [ivan]
q-
19:13:25 [IanH]
q?
19:13:29 [uli_]
IanH: so, peter will send the respone
19:13:33 [msmith]
q+
19:13:34 [pfps]
q+
19:13:38 [uli_]
s/respone/response
19:13:54 [ivan]
q+
19:14:05 [IanH]
q?
19:14:09 [pfps]
q-
19:14:09 [IanH]
ack msmith
19:14:17 [christine]
Peter, OK to what ?
19:14:24 [uli_]
msmith: i think christine means to say that our arguments in the email to Matt are sufficient to justifiy the changes
19:14:40 [pfps]
q+
19:14:46 [uli_]
...but we have had other arguments outside those mentioned in the response
19:14:58 [IanH]
ack ivan
19:14:58 [ivan]
msmisth, ie, what I wrote in http://www.w3.org/mid/49AEAAF6.5050904@w3.org o.k.
19:14:59 [pfps]
q-
19:15:02 [uli_]
...and we might want to document those
19:15:38 [uli_]
ivan: i gave an answer to her just before (linked above)
19:15:51 [bmotik]
Not really
19:16:17 [bmotik]
ACTION: ianh to Flesh out the resposne to 58
19:16:17 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - ianh
19:16:18 [uli_]
Action in IanH to flesh out response to LC 58
19:16:19 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - in
19:16:23 [bmotik]
ACTION: ian to Flesh out the resposne to 58
19:16:23 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-303 - Flesh out the resposne to 58 [on Ian Horrocks - due 2009-03-11].
19:17:13 [uli_]
Ianh: now we have only more difficult LCCs left
19:17:53 [uli_]
IanH: at F2F, we discussed disjointness of numeric DTs as requested in LC 24
19:18:30 [uli_]
...some people didn't mind this, other did mind (including Zhe and Alan)
19:18:44 [uli_]
...and we decided to discuss it at next week's telecon
19:18:52 [msmith]
q+ to ask about the relation of this to JDB2
19:18:56 [IanH]
q?
19:19:01 [IanH]
ack msmith
19:19:01 [Zakim]
msmith, you wanted to ask about the relation of this to JDB2
19:19:53 [IanH]
q?
19:20:01 [pfps]
q+
19:20:09 [IanH]
q?
19:20:10 [bmotik]
q+
19:20:14 [IanH]
ack pfps
19:20:15 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
19:20:15 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
19:20:16 [uli_]
msmith: in LC 21, there is another case of questions on disjointness of DTs. Is the disjointness of Hex... and ..binary related to the disjointness of numerices?
19:20:21 [IanH]
ack bmotik
19:20:55 [msmith]
Jos commented on hexBinary and base64Binary specifically
19:21:16 [uli_]
bmotik: we depart from WXS in more than 1 place (not only disjointness of numerics) - are we treating others similarly?
19:21:19 [IanH]
q?
19:21:57 [uli_]
IanH: nobody has mentioned dateTime so far.
19:22:11 [msmith]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JDB2 in the "syntax" paragraph
19:22:20 [IanH]
q?
19:22:25 [pfps]
yep
19:22:28 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
19:22:28 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
19:22:56 [uli_]
IanH: LC 32
19:23:31 [uli_]
s/58/28 and 48
19:23:51 [uli_]
IanH: LC 28 and 48
19:24:18 [uli_]
IanH: who writes to Frank and Guus?
19:24:46 [uli_]
Action to write responses to LC 28 and 48 on IanH
19:24:46 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - to
19:25:11 [bmotik]
ACTION: ian to Craft the response to 28 and 48
19:25:11 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-304 - Craft the response to 28 and 48 [on Ian Horrocks - due 2009-03-11].
19:25:25 [pfps]
Bijan can respond to himself
19:25:30 [uli_]
IanH: LC 40
19:25:47 [uli_]
...I will ask him to respond to himself
19:26:10 [uli_]
IanH: 51 and 62
19:26:28 [IanH]
q?
19:26:31 [bmotik]
q+
19:26:34 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmut eme
19:26:34 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'unmut eme', bmotik
19:26:36 [pfps]
amnesia
19:26:37 [IanH]
q?
19:26:41 [IanH]
ack bmotik
19:26:42 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
19:26:43 [ewallace]
We should have it. IMO
19:26:44 [Zakim]
bmotik was not muted, bmotik
19:26:45 [uli_]
...it might be useful to be able to coin names like "over 18" -- we discussed this, but why do we have this?
19:26:46 [IanH]
q?
19:27:08 [uli_]
bmotik: i think there was never an issue created, and so nothing ever happened
19:27:12 [msmith]
+1 to add them
19:27:13 [IanH]
q?
19:27:16 [pfps]
q+
19:27:17 [uli_]
IanH
19:27:17 [ewallace]
Address it.
19:27:17 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
19:27:17 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
19:27:21 [IanH]
ack pfps
19:27:34 [uli_]
pfps: let's do it
19:27:35 [IanH]
q?
19:27:38 [bmotik]
q+
19:27:42 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
19:27:42 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
19:27:50 [IanH]
ack bmotik
19:27:59 [uli_]
...bmotik has mentioned that we only need to make sure that they act like macros and are non-cyclic
19:28:09 [schneid]
q+
19:28:14 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
19:28:14 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
19:28:20 [IanH]
ack schneid
19:28:22 [uli_]
bmotik: it isn't difficult, doable, but will touch many documents
19:28:26 [pfps]
there should be no effect on the RDF side
19:28:47 [ivan]
q+
19:28:54 [uli_]
mschneid: it will have many ramifications, a new feature, almost every document will need to be touched
19:28:57 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
19:28:57 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
19:29:14 [uli_]
mschneid: we could also add it post-hume
19:29:16 [IanH]
ack ivan
19:29:18 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
19:29:19 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
19:29:29 [ewallace]
Good to put in now since we are doing new LC.
19:29:37 [pfps]
OK, I'll look by next week
19:29:43 [IanH]
q?
19:29:46 [uli_]
ivan: we should ask bmotik and pfps to tell us exactly how much this would involve
19:30:06 [uli_]
ACTION pfps to tell us how much naming of datatypes would cost
19:30:06 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-305 - Tell us how much naming of datatypes would cost [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2009-03-11].
19:30:10 [schneid]
schneid: as an alternative, we can postpone it
19:30:14 [IanH]
q?
19:30:38 [uli_]
;)
19:30:46 [ivan]
q+
19:30:50 [IanH]
q?
19:30:54 [IanH]
ack ivan
19:31:03 [uli_]
IanH: thank you everyone for attending and i won't be here next week
19:31:14 [christine]
Plan for NF&R : proposal ?
19:31:43 [IanH]
q?
19:31:53 [uli_]
ivan: we should reorder the agenda so as to get to features at risk, etc
19:31:58 [uli_]
IanH: ok
19:32:02 [christine]
possible proposal f
19:32:06 [christine]
8 March: deadline for group input queries of extensions on NF&R
19:32:19 [schneid]
but the AtRisk stuff does not need to be decided before LC, right?
19:32:21 [pfps]
fine by me
19:32:55 [pfps]
NF&R - ship it
19:32:56 [Zakim]
-bcuencagrau
19:32:58 [IanH]
Schedule is here: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Timeline
19:33:04 [uli_]
ewallace: christine wants to know schedule for NF&R
19:33:22 [IanH]
NF&R is on the same schedule as other docs
19:33:33 [pfps]
q+
19:33:44 [pfps]
q-
19:33:44 [IanH]
q?
19:34:06 [Zakim]
-msmith
19:34:09 [IanH]
q?
19:34:17 [uli_]
pfps: i think christine wants to tell us to not request any changes after March 8
19:34:42 [uli_]
ivan: wonders where this request comes from
19:35:01 [IanH]
q?
19:35:04 [zimmer]
bye all
19:35:09 [pfps]
q-
19:35:13 [IanH]
q?
19:35:25 [uli_]
ivan: why can't we comment after March 8?
19:35:28 [IanH]
Why March 8th?
19:35:37 [uli_]
Christine?
19:35:54 [uli_]
IanH: suggests to drop back to email discussion
19:36:07 [Zhe]
bye
19:36:12 [uli_]
...and declares the meeting closed
19:36:15 [Zakim]
-Achille
19:36:17 [Zakim]
-MarkusK_
19:36:19 [Zakim]
-schneid
19:36:37 [Zakim]
-Zhe
19:36:42 [Zakim]
-zimmer
19:36:45 [uli_]
am i scribing this?
19:36:55 [uli_]
i thought so
19:41:28 [msmith]
msmith has left #owl
19:52:01 [uli_]
DisjointUnion(A B1 B2 ...Bk)
19:53:10 [uli_]
HasSelf(R)
19:53:41 [uli_]
MaxCardinality(n R C)
19:57:01 [Zakim]
-Evan_Wallace
19:57:04 [Zakim]
-uli
19:57:06 [Zakim]
-Elisa_Kendall
19:57:07 [Zakim]
-IanH
19:57:16 [Zakim]
-bmotik
19:57:17 [Zakim]
-Peter_Patel-Schneider
19:58:02 [Zakim]
-Ivan
20:02:28 [Zakim]
-Sandro
20:02:29 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
20:02:30 [Zakim]
Attendees were Alistair, Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau, bmotik, Ivan, IanH, uli, MarkusK_, Zhe, msmith, Sandro, zimmer, Evan_Wallace, Achille, schneid, Elisa_Kendall
20:03:42 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
20:03:42 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2009/03/04-owl-irc#T20-03-42
20:20:46 [uli_]
hmm, what am i supposed to do with this again?
21:42:22 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl
22:46:17 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl