00:00:00 (this RRSAgent log isn't really an RRSAgent log. We forgot to invite RRSAgent, so I took my xchat log and converted it to RRSAgent format and put it here.) 16:49:08 Zakim, this will be owl 16:49:08 ok, bmotik; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes 16:52:21 urhjg 16:52:25 stupid dls 16:56:26 SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started 16:56:33 +Peter_Patel-Schneider 16:56:56 zakim, dial ivan-voip 16:56:56 ok, ivan; the call is being made 16:56:58 +Ivan 16:57:31 +aliman 16:57:38 I'd forgotten 16:57:44 Zakim, aliman is me 16:57:44 +bmotik; got it 16:57:48 Zakim, mute me 16:57:48 bmotik should now be muted 16:58:13 +bmotik.a 16:58:19 +??P11 16:58:23 Zakim, bmotik.a is bcuencagrau 16:58:23 +bcuencagrau; got it 16:58:26 zakim, ??p11 is me 16:58:26 +bijan; got it 16:58:28 Zakim, mute me 16:58:28 bcuencagrau should now be muted 16:58:30 zakim, mute me 16:58:30 bijan should now be muted 16:59:50 + +03539158aaaa 17:00:17 + +1.518.276.aabb 17:01:07 Zakim, +03539158aaaa is mme 17:01:07 +mme; got it 17:01:18 Zakim, +03539158aaaa is me 17:01:18 sorry, zimmer, I do not recognize a party named '+03539158aaaa' 17:01:45 Zakim, 03539158aaaa is me 17:01:45 sorry, zimmer, I do not recognize a party named '03539158aaaa' 17:02:31 +Jonathan_Rees 17:02:59 zakim, Jonathan_Rees is me 17:02:59 +alanr; got it 17:03:29 I can 17:03:31 ye 17:03:37 yes 17:04:25 scribnick pfps 17:04:33 scribenick: pfps 17:04:33 scribenick pfps 17:04:48 + +1.202.408.aacc 17:04:51 Topic: Admin 17:04:55 zakim, who is here? 17:04:55 On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Ivan, bmotik (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), bijan (muted), mme, +1.518.276.aabb, alanr, +1.202.408.aacc 17:04:57 On IRC I see Achille, msmith, ewallace, baojie, zimmer, alanr, bcuencagrau, ivan, Ratnesh, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, bijan, sandro, trackbot 17:05:10 SubTopic: Agenda amendments 17:05:26 +[IBM] 17:05:31 zakim, who is here? 17:05:31 On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Ivan, bmotik (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), bijan (muted), mme, +1.518.276.aabb, alanr, msmith, [IBM] 17:05:34 On IRC I see Achille, msmith, ewallace, baojie, zimmer, alanr, bcuencagrau, ivan, Ratnesh, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, bijan, sandro, trackbot 17:05:43 Zakim, aabb is baojie 17:05:43 +baojie; got it 17:05:43 SubTopic: Minutes 17:05:46 q+ 17:05:48 zakim, ibm is me 17:05:48 +Achille; got it 17:05:57 ack pfps 17:06:01 +??P22 17:06:04 ack pfps 17:06:09 +Sandro 17:06:11 PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (4 March) 17:06:15 +1 17:06:17 alanr: comprehensible 17:06:17 +1 17:06:21 pfps: minimally acceptable 17:06:23 +1 17:06:24 +1 17:06:25 q 17:06:30 q? 17:06:59 +??P1 17:07:05 christine: minutes cut off 17:07:06 zakim, ??P1 is me 17:07:09 +schneid; got it 17:07:09 q+ 17:07:12 zakim, mute me 17:07:19 schneid should now be muted 17:07:19 ack pfps 17:07:21 zakim, ??P1 is me 17:07:38 + +1.603.897.aadd 17:07:39 I already had ??P1 as schneid, christine 17:07:40 pfps: what is missing 17:07:44 q? 17:07:48 +Evan_Wallace 17:07:49 zakim, +1.603.897.aadd is me 17:07:49 christine: IRC occured after end 17:07:51 q+ 17:07:56 +Zhe; got it 17:07:56 ack pfps 17:08:19 pfps: discussion was not part of the meeting 17:08:27 I don't see anything else at http://www.w3.org/2009/03/04-owl-irc 17:08:38 q+ 17:08:45 ack pfps 17:09:26 zakim, mme is really zimmer 17:09:26 +zimmer; got it 17:09:50 alanr: things that happen after the meeting are not part of the meeting 17:10:05 q+ 17:10:16 I guess we're talking about these lins in the irc: 19:36:45 [uli_] 17:10:16 am i scribing this? 17:10:16 19:36:55 [uli_] 17:10:16 i thought so 17:10:16 19:41:28 [msmith] 17:10:16 msmith has left #owl 17:10:16 19:52:01 [uli_] 17:10:16 DisjointUnion(A B1 B2 ...Bk) 17:10:16 19:53:10 [uli_] 17:10:16 HasSelf(R) 17:10:16 19:53:41 [uli_] 17:10:16 MaxCardinality(n R C) 17:10:35 (that was from http://www.w3.org/2009/03/04-owl-irc) 17:10:37 Resolved: accept minutes of Mar 4 17:10:46 5 17:10:49 (and rightfully cut from http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-03-04 ) 17:11:27 sandro: discussion from last week is added to records of this meeting 17:11:32 Zakim, unmute me 17:11:34 bmotik should no longer be muted 17:11:36 Subtopic: Action item status 17:11:50 alanr: pending review actions 17:12:14 alanr: what about 301 - is Andy happy? 17:12:25 baojie: didn't hear anything back 17:12:26 Perhaps I should take it 17:12:31 alanr: keep open? 17:12:31 I'm interacting with andy via sparql 17:12:55 sandro: please ping andy and tell him we want to republish soon 17:13:10 alanr: please adjust status of 301 17:13:23 baojie: OK 17:13:23 q? 17:13:26 ack pfps 17:13:27 q- 17:13:42 Due and Overdue Actions 17:14:10 q+ 17:14:49 boris: 270 will be picked up in current edits 17:15:01 boris: currently in progress 17:15:19 sandro: ongoing discussion with RIF on 292 17:15:28 alanr: 300 is done 17:15:39 sandro: waiting on 299 until publication 17:15:49 alanr: 283 is done 17:15:58 Topic: datatypes 17:16:13 alanr: several (draft) proposals on the table 17:16:20 I'm good with it 17:16:25 +1 17:16:28 Proposal: Add named datatypes to OWL 2 - one definition per datatype not in the datatype map, acyclic, as per email from Boris and mentioned in LC Comments 51 and 62. 17:16:36 +1 17:16:37 +1 17:16:37 +1 17:16:39 +1 17:16:40 +1 17:16:40 +1 17:16:41 +1 17:16:42 +1 17:16:43 +1 17:16:45 +1 17:16:47 pfps: +1 17:16:47 +1 17:16:47 +1 17:16:48 +1 17:16:48 +1 17:16:51 +1 17:16:59 Resolved: Add named datatypes to OWL 2 - one definition per datatype not in the datatype map, acyclic, as per email from Boris and mentioned in LC Comments 51 and 62. 17:17:01 Resolved: Add named datatypes to OWL 2 - one definition per datatype not in the datatype map, acyclic, as per email from Boris and mentioned in LC Comments 51 and 62. 17:17:33 alanr: datatype disjointness - Sandro will moderate 17:17:44 Draft Proposal: OWL 2 datatypes will have disjointness as in XML Schema (i.e., the datatypes xsd:string, xsd:boolean, owl:real, xsd:float, xsd:double, xsd:dateTimeStamp, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary, and xsd:anyURI are pairwise disjoint), as requested in LC Comments 22 and 24. 17:18:02 q+ 17:18:15 ack pfps 17:18:20 q= 17:18:24 queue= 17:18:26 sandro: discussed at F2F5 - Alan and Zhe wanted to wai 17:18:36 sandro: Zhe seems to be comfortable now 17:18:45 q- 17:19:13 alanr: communicated with Chris Welty (RIF chair) 17:19:25 q+ 17:19:26 alan, if we *keep* disjointness? 17:19:31 q+ 17:19:44 alanr: Rees unhappy if we have the extra disjointness 17:19:44 Zakim, mute me 17:19:44 bmotik should now be muted 17:20:10 alanr: XML Schema has issues for us and is not unhappy with our current design 17:20:22 alanr: so no need to change and little gain 17:20:22 alanr: jonathan rees considers formally objecting against disjointness 17:20:26 ack Zhe 17:20:46 (Gary Hallmark) 17:20:55 (the Oracle rep in RIF) 17:21:18 zakim, unmute me 17:21:18 bijan should no longer be muted 17:21:18 ack bijan 17:21:19 zhe: talked to Oracle's RIF rep and team - want to be aligned with XML schema 17:21:22 Zakim, mute me 17:21:22 bmotik was already muted, bmotik 17:22:02 bijan: SC is likely to object if disjointness changed, Manchester likely to object if not changed 17:22:20 bijan: I think that we made a mistake and we should change 17:22:21 Oracle wants OWL spec to be aligned with XML schema in terms of datatype disjointness 17:22:27 q+ 17:22:33 sandro: what about the binary DTs 17:22:49 bijan: because all primitives are disjoint 17:23:01 q- bijan covered it 17:23:04 q- 17:23:13 bijan: so no conversion/coersion is needed 17:23:14 I don't think it's right but I wouldn't object. 17:23:45 zakim, mute me 17:23:45 bijan should now be muted 17:24:04 sandro: other objections? 17:24:13 q+ 17:24:13 pfps: not object but strong for disjoint 17:24:19 zakim, unmute me 17:24:19 schneid should no longer be muted 17:24:21 ack schneid 17:24:36 schneid: need to talk to my institute for objection 17:24:45 q+ 17:24:49 ack pfps 17:25:18 pfps: for an objection, only? 17:25:21 schneid: right 17:25:32 q+ 17:25:39 1+ 17:25:41 q+ 17:25:46 sandro: no need to wait on vote 17:25:48 Zakim, unmute me 17:25:48 bmotik should no longer be muted 17:25:48 ack alanr 17:25:48 +1 to sandro's assessment 17:25:50 ack alanr 17:25:57 q+ 17:26:02 alanr: what about discussion with RIF 17:26:16 q+ 17:26:19 sandro: most opinions don't depend on RIF, I think 17:26:36 schneid: All I said is that I will consult with my institute to see where we stand, and how strong, since compatibilty questions are generally relevant for us 17:26:41 I wouldn't change my mind 17:26:47 q? 17:26:50 ack bmotik 17:26:51 sandro: if RIF changes, then this might trigger some more discussion 17:27:01 boris: vote on numerics or all? 17:27:11 PROPOSED: OWL 2 datatypes will have disjointness as in XML Schema (i.e., the datatypes xsd:string, xsd:boolean, owl:real, xsd:float, xsd:double, xsd:dateTimeStamp, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary, and xsd:anyURI are pairwise disjoint), as requested in LC Comments 22 and 24. 17:27:17 sandro: proposal is as in XML Schema 17:27:37 ack bijan 17:27:38 zakim, unmute me 17:27:40 q? 17:27:41 bijan was not muted, bijan 17:27:48 zakim, mute me 17:27:48 schneid should now be muted 17:28:02 bijan: could SC change depending on RIF discussion? 17:28:07 q? 17:28:09 ack alanr 17:28:30 alanr: can't rule it out 17:28:43 Zakim, mute me 17:28:43 bmotik should now be muted 17:28:48 alanr: is there new information? 17:28:51 q+ 17:28:52 q+ 17:28:53 q+ 17:29:02 sandro: implementation report is new information 17:29:10 ack bijan 17:29:22 disagree that they were strongest champion 17:29:50 bijan: and also change from Oxford, Oracle 17:29:58 ack alanr 17:30:16 ack pfps 17:30:27 good point 17:30:30 pfps: we also have LC comments on the issue 17:30:42 PROPOSED: OWL 2 datatypes will have disjointness as in XML Schema (i.e., the datatypes xsd:string, xsd:boolean, owl:real, xsd:float, xsd:double, xsd:dateTimeStamp, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary, and xsd:anyURI are pairwise disjoint), as requested in LC Comments 22 and 24. 17:30:53 +1 (NIST) 17:30:54 pfps: +1 ALU 17:30:59 +1 (Manchester) 17:31:00 +1 (FZI) 17:31:01 -1 (Science Commons) 17:31:01 (formal vote by organization, expecting objection from Science Commons.) 17:31:02 +1 (Oxford) 17:31:03 +1 (IBM) 17:31:04 +1 (RPI) 17:31:07 +1 ORACLE 17:31:07 +1 17:31:11 +1 (DERI) 17:31:11 +1 (W3C) 17:31:12 +1 17:31:23 +1 C&P 17:31:54 RESOLVED: (over one objection) OWL 2 datatypes will have disjointness as in XML Schema (i.e., the datatypes xsd:string, xsd:boolean, owl:real, xsd:float, xsd:double, xsd:dateTimeStamp, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary, and xsd:anyURI are pairwise disjoint), as requested in LC Comments 22 and 24. 17:32:44 PROPOSED: OWL 2 datatypes will be as in Last Call draft (non-disjoint) -- the inverse of the above resolution 17:32:45 And Manchester would formally object if this resolution was overturned 17:32:51 q+ 17:32:54 -1 (formal object) (Manchester) 17:32:56 -0 17:33:04 0 C&P 17:33:05 0 17:33:06 +1 (Science Commons) 17:33:08 -0 17:33:10 -0 17:33:17 -1 (IBM) 17:33:21 -0 17:33:25 -1 17:33:26 -0 (depends on RIF) 17:33:27 0 17:33:28 0 17:33:33 0 17:33:36 0 (DERI) 17:33:57 proposal fails, as expected -- clarifying need to override one objections. 17:34:12 (might become a -1, depending on outcome with talking to my institute) 17:34:57 alanr: what about owl:real - it seems to be not useful now 17:34:58 q+ 17:35:02 ack alanr 17:35:10 Zakim, unmute me 17:35:10 bmotik should no longer be muted 17:35:15 Email 17:35:20 q? 17:35:25 ack bmotik 17:35:28 ack bmotik 17:35:39 boris: owl:realPlus is useless now 17:35:42 q+ 17:35:44 That was my understanding 17:35:45 ack pfps 17:35:46 yes, realPlus is out 17:35:57 pfps: there is a draft proposal to remove realPlus 17:36:06 PROPOSED: Remove the datatype owl:realPlus from OWL 2, as it was introduced to unify floats, doubles, and other numbers. 17:36:23 +1 17:36:24 +1 (C&P) 17:36:24 +1 17:36:26 bijan: do it 17:36:27 +1 (Oxford) 17:36:30 +1 (ORACLE) 17:36:33 boris: it goes 17:36:34 +1 (NIST) 17:36:36 Zakim, mute me 17:36:36 bmotik should now be muted 17:36:37 +1 (Manchester) 17:36:39 +1 (FZI) 17:36:39 +1 (DERI) 17:36:40 pfps: +1 ALU 17:36:43 0 (Science Commons) only if previous proposal stands. 17:36:55 RESOLVED: Remove the datatype owl:realPlus from OWL 2, as it was introduced to unify floats, doubles, and other numbers. 17:37:10 +1 17:37:14 +1 17:37:41 alanr: if the previous proposal is overturned, then realPlus should rise from the grave 17:37:51 q? 17:38:14 Topic: Document plans 17:38:28 Zakum, unmute me 17:38:37 alanr: status of changes to syntax? 17:38:49 Zakim, unmute me 17:38:49 bmotik should no longer be muted 17:39:10 Zakim, mute me 17:39:10 bmotik should now be muted 17:39:13 boris: probably tomorrow is the end of the big changes, but maybe Friday 17:39:14 q+ 17:39:21 ack bijan 17:39:28 alanr: rdf:text 17:39:49 baojie: 17:40:11 bijan: sparql may have something to say, but there is sufficient player overlap 17:40:23 bijan: I'll ping axel 17:40:39 q+ 17:40:40 sandro: we want rdf:text to go to LC ASAP, ask them for review 17:41:04 baojie: I have done changes per Andy's comment. I'm not aware of other comments 17:41:13 q? 17:41:14 alanr: we don't want to formally link to sparql because of timing 17:41:17 ack ivan 17:41:43 q+ 17:42:07 ivan: sparql is very early so we may not get any good information from them, any feedback is likely only andy 17:42:07 ack bijan 17:42:45 q+ 17:42:54 bijan: i share these concerns, but ... we would like sparql to do sparql owl and sparql has new virtuous people 17:43:10 bijan: sparql should implement rdf:text 17:43:14 ack sandro 17:43:17 q? 17:43:25 q+ 17:43:31 sandro: maybe not, i would be unhappy if it would 17:43:42 sandro: andy had last comments that were editorial 17:43:43 that was my understanding 17:43:51 bijan: then no worries 17:44:08 sandro: lets address comments (andy) and go to LC when sparql can review 17:44:11 ack ivan 17:44:12 q- 17:44:21 sandro: are we happy? is RIF happy? if to, proceed 17:44:35 s/to/so/ 17:44:40 alanr: need schedule for LC on rdf:text 17:45:10 baojie: need andy happy - I also have extra comments that may need some time 17:45:13 alanr: schedule? 17:45:31 irc frozen ? 17:45:31 baojie: depends on andy responding 17:45:41 ivan: andy did just reply 17:46:09 q 17:46:24 alanr: want to ensure progress - please get firm schedule by next week 17:46:33 q+ 17:46:35 baojie: andy doesn't have time to review 17:46:41 his reply is: We have not had time to review the changes. I was not aware there was a time scale and will endeavour to review the changes soon. 17:46:49 alanr: can we press the issue? 17:46:51 ack bijan 17:47:39 bijan: editors can make a good attempt. if they think that the changes are OK, then we can proceed, even without responses 17:47:55 alanr: by next week we want a firm schedule 17:48:05 baojie: OK - I'll talk to the parties 17:48:19 alanr: Quick Reference Guide 17:48:24 q+ 17:48:29 ack ivan 17:48:39 alanr: we need reviewers for this - not a LC publication 17:48:46 ivan: I'll review 17:48:47 I can secure a reviewer from Manchester 17:48:48 q? 17:48:52 I can 17:48:56 christine: I'll review 17:49:10 action: ivan review QRG 17:49:10 Created ACTION-306 - Review QRG [on Ivan Herman - due 2009-03-18]. 17:49:12 A week is fine 17:49:21 action: christine review QRG 17:49:21 Created ACTION-307 - Review QRG [on Christine Golbreich - due 2009-03-18]. 17:49:32 action: bijan review QRG 17:49:32 Created ACTION-308 - Review QRG [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-03-18]. 17:49:35 q? 17:49:54 q+ 17:49:58 ack ivan 17:49:59 action bernardo review QRG 17:49:59 Created ACTION-309 - Review QRG [on Bernardo Cuenca Grau - due 2009-03-18]. 17:50:09 bijan: review what form? 17:50:28 ivan: review wiki, other versions may look somewhat different 17:50:48 q? 17:50:53 bijan: what about making the QRG look really nice - i've done some work 17:51:17 alanr: review document for content and HTML presentation 17:51:33 bijan: but QRG is supposed to have HTML look like PDF 17:51:49 baojie: HTML is 10 pages PDF will be much less 17:52:02 q+ 17:52:12 bijan: I sent out a css method that makes the HTML and the PDF look the same 17:52:13 q? 17:52:17 ack ivan 17:52:26 bijan: there appears to be two documents, is there, what am I reviewing 17:52:44 baojie: content is the same, layout is a bit different - PDF is three columns 17:52:54 bijan: but css can to multi-column 17:53:05 This isn't current? http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/images/8/8b/Owl2-refcard_2008-10-01.pdf 17:53:11 struggling with IRC frozen! 17:53:27 ivan: this document is going to REC, so the W3C HTML version is authoritative 17:53:29 q+ 17:53:30 No, it is obsolete 17:53:34 ack bijan 17:53:44 ivan: other display methods are not authoritative 17:53:55 bijan: I didn't expect this 17:54:28 alanr: review content (correctness, wording) but consider presentation as well 17:54:36 bijan: fair enough 17:54:38 zakim, mute me 17:54:38 bijan should now be muted 17:54:55 alanr: Document Overview 17:55:03 alanr: appears to be decent shape 17:55:25 +q 17:55:30 alanr: need decision to publish as FPWD, some minor comments outstanding 17:56:11 sandro: i'm not aware of any blockers, some bibliography fixes, nothing major 17:56:12 ack cgolbrei 17:56:12 What about Venn diagram? 17:56:29 christine: what is the version we should look at 17:56:36 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Document_Overview 17:56:39 Zakim, mute me 17:56:39 bmotik was already muted, bmotik 17:56:51 I would like to see the sentence reference OWL Full Semantics removed before publish 17:56:55 sandro: the current Wiki page, as always 17:57:04 oh... 17:57:13 Figure 1 contains GRDDL 17:57:17 christine: will roadmap be moved? 17:57:17 That's a bit controversial 17:57:33 sandro: we should decide now 17:57:37 q+ 17:57:40 q+ 17:57:40 alanr: any blockers? 17:57:41 ack bijan 17:58:03 bijan: diagram has GRDDL but we are not completely resolved on this 17:58:03 ok, to take out GRDDL for the moment 17:58:11 sandro: question mark on GRDDL? 17:58:15 bijan: would be OK 17:58:22 prefer editorial note over "?" 17:58:27 q? 17:58:43 q+ 17:58:58 msmith: what about OWL 2 Full? 17:59:03 sandro: forgot about that 17:59:11 ack ivan 17:59:19 ack msmith 17:59:23 ivan: what about the diagram? 17:59:50 q? 17:59:55 I suggest "EdNote: The exact nature of the GRDDL relation is still an open issue." 18:00:26 to resolve: roadmap placement, OWL 2 Full, alan's minor edits 18:00:49 + +39.047.101.aaee 18:01:11 zakim, aaee is me 18:01:11 +calvanese; got it 18:01:13 +??P3 18:01:15 ivan: what about names? OWL Full? 18:01:24 zakim, mute me 18:01:24 calvanese should now be muted 18:01:27 "This semantics for OWL 2 Ontologies is sometimes called the “OWL 2 Full” semantics and “OWL 2 Full” is also used to refer to the entire OWL 2 language, particularly when expressed as RDF graphs." 18:01:27 +q 18:01:28 sandro: only thing about OWL 2 Full is in semantics section 18:02:06 ivan: its a FPWD so details don't matter too much 18:02:09 agreed -- we'll adopt msmith's proposal 18:02:16 ack cgolbrei 18:02:31 q+ 18:02:41 q+ 18:02:46 christine: need to consider longer 18:03:01 alanr: we already extended the decision 18:03:12 christine: lots of discussion has happened 18:03:28 ack sandro 18:03:37 why bijan laugh? 18:03:52 ack ivan 18:03:56 sandro: it will take a couple of days to get out the door, so we do have a bit of time to wait for objections 18:03:59 ah! 18:04:09 Sorry for the late 18:04:18 q 18:04:18 + +0122427aaff 18:04:31 ack schneid 18:04:33 zakim, unmute me 18:04:33 schneid was not muted, schneid 18:04:33 ivan: this is only a FPWD, so it doesn't have to be near perfect 18:04:48 michael: OWL 2 Full? 18:04:50 q+ 18:05:04 q- 18:05:13 oops 18:05:13 michael: agree to removing 18:05:21 is there no risk of reaction even on a FPWD 18:05:27 zakim, mute me 18:05:27 schneid should now be muted 18:05:32 q+ 18:05:33 I do! 18:05:37 me too 18:05:40 ack pfps 18:05:56 I totally agree with what Peter just said 18:06:08 q? 18:06:10 pfps: roadmap first is cart before the horse 18:06:19 +1 to peter, we have the diagram at the beginning, that's perfectly fine 18:06:31 usualy Table of Contents is first 18:06:37 bijan: document roadmap is not user friendly at the beginning 18:06:37 +1 to peter and bijan 18:06:41 q? 18:06:48 q+ 18:07:00 q? 18:07:02 sandro: roadmap is like the ToC so it should be first 18:07:05 ack bijan 18:07:18 present TOC is not explicit 18:07:26 bijan: roadmap is not like a ToC - it is like a ... roadmap! 18:07:39 rofl 18:07:39 sandro: I hate those (but I don't hate the roadmap) 18:07:44 it's not a TOC, it's a list of references 18:07:54 straw poll: I like the roadmap at the top 18:07:57 -1 18:07:57 +0.5 18:07:58 -1 18:07:59 0 18:07:59 +1 18:08:00 -1 18:08:01 0 18:08:01 0 18:08:01 0 18:08:04 0 18:08:04 -1 18:08:04 0 18:08:05 0 18:08:09 0 18:08:09 0.5 18:08:25 should we add 0.5 ? 18:08:47 -0 18:08:53 alan: keep in its current place in this draft; maybe revisit. 18:08:53 alanr: keep roadmap were it is (for now) 18:09:06 alanr: changes about QL and RL 18:09:09 I'll also note that the roadmap is *not* a table of contents *for this document*. 18:09:12 q+ 18:09:18 ack ivan 18:09:20 pfps: QL and RL OK by me 18:09:54 Who do we direct comments to? 18:09:57 "OWL 2 adds new functionality with respect to OWL 1. Some of the new features are syntactic sugar (e.g., disjoint union of classes) while others offer new reasoning capabilities, including:" 18:10:03 alanr: sandro start the process 18:10:09 The features don't add reasoning capabiltieis, but expressivity 18:10:11 PROPOSED: Publish http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Document_Overview as a FPWD, with changes agreed to in this meeting, and give folks 24 hours to object in case there's something critical they missed. 18:10:17 Can we have de facto editors? 18:10:23 i.e., "pester victims" 18:10:28 sandro: agreed that this is a WG document 18:10:38 sandro: I'm the victim this week 18:10:53 pfps: +1 ALU 18:10:55 +1 18:10:57 +1 (Science Commons) 18:11:01 +1 (W3C) 18:11:02 +1 18:11:03 +1 18:11:05 +1 18:11:05 +1 18:11:14 +0 18:11:14 +1 18:11:17 0 18:11:34 Resolved: Publish http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Document_Overview as a FPWD, with changes agreed to in this meeting, and give folks 24 hours to object in case there's something critical they missed. 18:12:21 alanr: NF&R - is it ready for publication (not LC) in April 18:12:30 When did we agree that UF docs wouldn't go to last call? 18:12:35 at the f2f 18:12:42 (I hope) 18:13:04 q+ 18:13:33 (Yikes, RRSAgent isn't here. Fortunately, I have an xchatlog, which we can use..... I'll do that Peter.) 18:13:56 Not that I heard or saw in minutes. But don't want to disrupt the meeting. 18:13:56 zakim, unmute me 18:13:56 bijan was not muted, bijan 18:13:56 ack bijan 18:13:58 christine: nearly finished 18:14:16 bijan: outstanding comment from about one use case 18:14:25 alanr: please send a note to me 18:14:36 I think that Bijan's comment is on a use case table 18:15:37 alanr: we need to take bijan at his word as to whether his comment was addressed 18:15:50 bijan: I haven't heard anything 18:16:28 christine: reviewers for NF&R? 18:16:49 alanr: for next meeting 18:17:02 alanr: Manchester syntax 18:17:23 alanr: I have objected to removal of editorial notes and not addressing issue 146 18:17:25 q+ 18:17:29 ack pfps 18:17:45 pfps: objections have to be public 18:17:56 alanr: i object now 18:18:20 pfps: I object to pocket vetos 18:18:27 alanr: I need to wait for Ian 18:18:37 zakim, unmute me 18:18:37 bijan was not muted, bijan 18:18:45 alanr: Data Range Extensions 18:19:16 bijan: delayed because of XML syntax - when is next round 18:19:30 alanr: finish by end of month - publlish for mid-April 18:19:40 bijan: sounds doable 18:19:51 bijan: this is a note 18:19:58 alanr: but we want it to be good 18:20:07 bijan: doesn't need to be LC (ever) 18:20:13 sandro: right 18:20:32 q+ 18:20:38 ack ivan 18:20:44 sandro: roadmap points to it, so it would be good to have a FPWD 18:20:53 q+ alanr 18:20:54 bijan: any problem with current status as FPWD 18:20:58 q- 18:21:13 q+ 18:21:27 alanr: want a full thing before FPWD 18:21:28 ack alanr 18:21:33 ack ivan 18:22:00 ivan: no problem because it will be a note 18:22:07 ivan: at CR time we want a good version 18:22:18 q+ 18:22:42 ivan: roadmap should state note status of notes 18:23:04 sandro: this is intentional 18:23:31 q+ alanr 18:23:34 ack bijan 18:24:10 ack alanr 18:24:13 bijan: agree with Ivan - should be good, but timeline isn't so tight - FPWD can be a bit sketchy 18:24:45 alanr: want at least something about RDF mapping and one example for FPWD 18:24:58 bijan: OK, can be done soon 18:25:09 alanr: Document Overview (again) 18:25:39 q+ 18:25:39 ivan: just want to make situation clear 18:25:50 I'd prefer being ambiguous 18:25:56 sandro: I'm fine as long as it's not *IN YOUR FACE* 18:26:03 But I'm not hard for it 18:26:08 q- 18:26:21 yep 18:26:26 alanr: OK, lets do it 18:26:53 RDF-Based? 18:26:57 Topic: LC Comments 18:27:06 i think it is too short 18:27:11 q+ 18:27:18 alanr: can we mass-approve quick approval ones 18:27:18 zakim, unmute me 18:27:18 schneid should no longer be muted 18:27:20 ack schneid 18:27:50 and there is a discussion thread there... 18:28:31 schneid: not 28 18:28:40 and 48 and 58 18:29:03 q+ 18:29:04 -Achille 18:29:07 Zakim, unmute me 18:29:07 bmotik should no longer be muted 18:29:12 zakim, mute me 18:29:12 schneid should now be muted 18:29:21 alanr: we are out of time 18:29:25 q? 18:29:28 alanr: we will bring all this up next week 18:29:30 ack bmotik 18:29:39 1 hour earlier 18:30:03 -Zhe 18:30:04 -bmotik 18:30:04 - +0122427aaff 18:30:08 bye 18:30:10 -msmith 18:30:11 -Evan_Wallace 18:30:11 -alanr 18:30:12 rrsagent, make minutes public 18:30:12 bye 18:30:15 -baojie 18:30:15 -MarkusK_ 18:30:15 -Sandro 18:30:16 -Ivan 18:30:16 -calvanese 18:30:19 bye 18:30:24 -bcuencagrau 18:30:49 quit 18:31:09 this is a comment after the meeting has been adjourned and will not form part of the minutes 18:31:10 :) 18:31:28 rrsagent, bookmark 18:31:35 -schneid 18:31:53 rrsagent, bookmark 18:32:08 -zimmer