IRC log of owl on 2009-04-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:49:05 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:49:05 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/01-owl-irc
16:49:10 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #owl
16:51:00 [ivan]: ivan has joined #owl
16:53:34 [pfps]: zakim, this is owl
16:53:34 [Zakim]: ok, pfps; that matches SW_OWL()1:00PM
16:53:41 [pfps]: zakim, who is on the phone?
16:53:41 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider
16:56:43 [Zakim]: +??P12
16:56:51 [bijan]: zakim, ??P12 is me
16:56:51 [Zakim]: +bijan; got it
16:56:53 [bijan]: zakim, mute me
16:56:53 [Zakim]: bijan should now be muted
16:57:04 [bmotik]: bmotik has joined #owl
16:57:16 [bmotik]: Zakim, this will be owl
16:57:16 [Zakim]: ok, bmotik, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM already started
16:57:43 [Zakim]: +bcuencag2
16:57:46 [MarkusK_]: MarkusK_ has joined #owl
16:57:50 [bmotik]: Zakim, bcuencag2 is me
16:57:50 [Zakim]: +bmotik; got it
16:57:53 [bmotik]: Zakim, mute me
16:57:53 [Zakim]: bmotik should now be muted
16:58:14 [Zakim]: +??P6
16:58:18 [ivan]: zakim, dial ivan-voip
16:58:18 [Zakim]: ok, ivan; the call is being made
16:58:20 [Zakim]: +Ivan
16:58:29 [MarkusK_]: ScribeNick: MarkusK_
16:58:55 [Zakim]: +Sandro
16:59:12 [christine]: christine has joined #owl
16:59:53 [pfps]: didn't Alan promise to find where we agreed on the five-minute rule?
17:00:11 [IanH]: IanH has joined #owl
17:00:30 [Zakim]: +??P14
17:00:38 [Zhe]: Zhe has joined #owl
17:00:44 [IanH]: i'm trying to connect, but zakim isn't cooperating
17:00:46 [christine]: Zakim, ??P14 is me
17:00:46 [Zakim]: +christine; got it
17:00:54 [Zakim]: +??P18
17:01:05 [uli]: zakim, ??P18 is me
17:01:05 [Zakim]: +uli; got it
17:01:09 [IanH]: I will hopefully be connected soon!
17:01:12 [Zakim]: +Zhe
17:01:15 [bcuencagrau]: bcuencagrau has joined #owl
17:01:18 [uli]: zakim, mute me
17:01:18 [Zakim]: uli should now be muted
17:01:19 [Zhe]: zakim, mute me
17:01:19 [Zakim]: Zhe should now be muted
17:01:20 [Zakim]: -christine
17:01:25 [Zakim]: +IanH
17:01:30 [sandro]: zakim, who is here?
17:01:30 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, uli (muted), Zhe (muted), IanH
17:01:31 [alanr]: alanr has joined #owl
17:01:33 [Zakim]: On IRC I see bcuencagrau, Zhe, IanH, christine, MarkusK_, bmotik, ivan, Zakim, RRSAgent, pfps, bijan, sandro, uli, trackbot
17:01:47 [baojie]: baojie has joined #owl
17:01:55 [Zakim]: +bmotik.a
17:01:57 [Zakim]: +??P19
17:01:57 [IanH]: zakim, who is here?
17:01:57 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, uli (muted), Zhe (muted), IanH, bmotik.a, ??P19
17:01:58 [ivan]: zakim, mute me
17:02:01 [MarkusK_]: Topic: Roll call
17:02:02 [Zakim]: On IRC I see baojie, alanr, bcuencagrau, Zhe, IanH, christine, MarkusK_, bmotik, ivan, Zakim, RRSAgent, pfps, bijan, sandro, uli, trackbot
17:02:05 [bcuencagrau]: Zakim bmotik.a is bcuencagrau
17:02:06 [Zakim]: Ivan should now be muted
17:02:07 [christine]: Zakim, ??P19 is me
17:02:11 [Zakim]: +christine; got it
17:02:13 [MarkusK_]: Topic: Agenda amendments?
17:02:19 [Zakim]: +baojie
17:02:20 [MarkusK_]: Ian: no amendments
17:02:29 [MarkusK_]: Topic: Previous minutes
17:02:32 [bcuencagrau]: Zakim, bmotik.a is bcuencagrau
17:02:32 [Zakim]: +bcuencagrau; got it
17:02:37 [bcuencagrau]: Zakim, mute me
17:02:37 [Zakim]: bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:02:50 [pfps]: they look OK, except that I seem to remember that Alan was going to find out about the five-minute rule
17:02:55 [MarkusK_]: Ian: Can somebody confirm that the minutes are in good shape?
17:02:55 [Achille]: Achille has joined #owl
17:03:19 [sandro]: sandro has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.04.01/Agenda
17:03:25 [MarkusK_]: Resolved: accept previous minutes
17:03:33 [Zakim]: +[IBM]
17:03:35 [alanr]: alanr has joined #owl
17:03:37 [pfps]: q+
17:03:37 [MarkusK_]: Topic: Pending Review Actions
17:03:47 [IanH]: ack pfps
17:03:49 [pfps]: some of these have been previously approved
17:03:51 [Achille]: zakim, ibm is me
17:03:51 [MarkusK_]: Ian: Any comments on pending review actions?
17:03:51 [Zakim]: +Achille; got it
17:03:51 [Zakim]: +Alan
17:04:08 [MarkusK_]: Pfps: Some of the actions did not get updated
17:04:14 [MarkusK_]: ... they are all good otehrwise
17:04:20 [MarkusK_]: Topic: Due and Overdue Actions
17:04:39 [alanr]: yes
17:04:44 [MarkusK_]: Ian: there is nothing to Action 299 to be done right now
17:04:47 [MarkusK_]: Sandro: yes
17:04:55 [MarkusK_]: Ian: Action 322 is done
17:05:01 [ewallace]: ewallace has joined #owl
17:05:14 [MarkusK_]: ... Action 320 was also done
17:05:20 [bcuencagrau]: yes
17:05:23 [bcuencagrau]: Zakim, unmute me
17:05:24 [Zakim]: bcuencagrau should no longer be muted
17:05:44 [MarkusK_]: Achile: the review will be sent today
17:05:48 [msmith]: msmith has joined #owl
17:05:48 [bcuencagrau]: Zakim, mute me
17:05:48 [Zakim]: bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:05:55 [MarkusK_]: s /Achile/Achille/
17:06:03 [pfps]: q+ status of rdf:text
17:06:11 [pfps]: q+ to talk about rdf:text
17:06:12 [Zakim]: +Evan_Wallace
17:06:12 [IanH]: q?
17:06:16 [Zakim]: +msmith
17:06:16 [IanH]: ack pfps
17:06:17 [Zakim]: pfps, you wanted to talk about rdf:text
17:06:26 [MarkusK_]: Bernardo: Action 311 will also be done soon
17:06:35 [MarkusK_]: Ian: Ok, so reviews are progressing well
17:06:49 [MarkusK_]: Topic: Documents and Reviewing
17:07:23 [MarkusK_]: Ian: Sandro, there will be some technical solution to automatically create references in documents?
17:07:45 [MarkusK_]: Sandro: There are currently some open issues, and the documents do not agree with the W3C policies on howe references should look.
17:07:56 [MarkusK_]: ... I will discuss this in email
17:08:50 [MarkusK_]: Ian: OK; it would be good if there would not be many additional changes to be done by the editors for fixing the references.
17:09:19 [pfps]: +1 to a single list
17:09:26 [MarkusK_]: subtopic: Changes since last call
17:09:44 [MarkusK_]: Ian: is it okay and suitable to have a single wiki page with changes since LC 1?
17:09:45 [pfps]: even if we don't need a list, it is an excellent idea, and we should make it prominent
17:09:54 [pfps]: how about in the announcement?
17:10:11 [MarkusK_]: Ian: There seems to be no strict requirement to have such a list
17:10:22 [pfps]: OK
17:10:25 [MarkusK_]: Sandro: Yes, but having one is clearly useful.
17:10:51 [MarkusK_]: Ian: Okay, so we keep the single wiki page and do not add separate change lists ot each document
17:11:20 [ewallace]: Let's not document every minor editorial fix
17:11:21 [MarkusK_]: Sandro: There are some changes that affect many documents anyway, but some other changes might be local to some documents
17:11:26 [pfps]: the advantage of a list (and it's in *the* list) is that it can point to last-call comments
17:11:40 [pfps]: it's on the wiki now
17:11:43 [pfps]: q+
17:11:50 [MarkusK_]: Ian: Yes, but many changes have been merely editorial; it might be enough to record the major changes
17:12:19 [MarkusK_]: Link in the agenda http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Changes_since_1st_Last_Call
17:12:19 [IanH]: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Changes_since_1st_Last_Call
17:12:36 [jar]: jar has joined #owl
17:12:46 [pfps]: go wild!
17:12:48 [schneid]: schneid has joined #owl
17:13:05 [MarkusK_]: Sandro: Could we retitle this to "Changes since Sept 2008" or similar
17:13:18 [MarkusK_]: ... since some documents were not in LC then
17:13:19 [Zakim]: +??P11
17:13:29 [schneid]: zakim, ??P11 is me
17:13:29 [Zakim]: +schneid; got it
17:13:33 [schneid]: zakim, mute me
17:13:33 [Zakim]: schneid should now be muted
17:13:33 [IanH]: q?
17:13:42 [MarkusK_]: Ian: Ok, feel free to change this, Sandro.
17:14:06 [pfps]: q+
17:14:14 [MarkusK_]: Subtopic: Publication Schedule
17:14:30 [pfps]: q+ to discuss rdf:text document
17:14:32 [MarkusK_]: Ian: The timeline is at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Timeline
17:14:54 [MarkusK_]: ... this states that the review started yesterday, and there will be a publication round on Apr 15.
17:15:15 [MarkusK_]: ... Initially, we were imagining that all Rec track documents would go to LC at this time.
17:15:23 [jar]: zakim, what conference is this?
17:15:23 [Zakim]: this is SW_OWL()1:00PM conference code 69594
17:15:34 [schneid]: q+
17:15:36 [pfps]: +1
17:15:37 [christine]: +q
17:15:42 [MarkusK_]: ... This may not be needed for all documents, esp for documents that need no CR phase.
17:15:42 [zimmer]: zimmer has joined #owl
17:15:43 [alanr]: +1
17:15:43 [IanH]: ack pfps
17:15:43 [Zakim]: pfps, you wanted to discuss rdf:text document
17:15:44 [schneid]: zakim, unmute me
17:15:46 [Zakim]: schneid should no longer be muted
17:15:49 [IanH]: ack michael
17:15:52 [Zakim]: +jar
17:16:01 [MarkusK_]: ... Those could have another public WD and then have the LC later.
17:16:30 [MarkusK_]: mschneider: How long would LC be delayed in those cases?
17:16:38 [ivan]: yes
17:16:44 [bijan]: I would prefer that
17:16:48 [MarkusK_]: ... If its only some weeks, then we may also wait this short time.
17:17:02 [pfps]: Primer in particular is not going to be ready for LC by the 15th
17:17:04 [IanH]: q?
17:17:07 [bijan]: Esp. since we might have to change the normative documents in response to 2nd last call
17:17:10 [MarkusK_]: Ian: We may not need user facing documents at last call before CR of the other technical documents.
17:17:14 [schneid]: zakim, mute me
17:17:14 [Zakim]: schneid should now be muted
17:17:17 [IanH]: ack schneid
17:17:30 [MarkusK_]: MSchneider: That sounds good to me.
17:17:32 [Zakim]: +??P16
17:17:46 [zimmer]: Zkaim, ??P16 is me
17:17:47 [MarkusK_]: Christine: I do not think that this delay is needed.
17:17:48 [pfps]: QRG needs *significant* work still, so I don't see how it can be ready
17:18:01 [MarkusK_]: ... Some reviewes were very late.
17:18:07 [zimmer]: Zakim, ??P16 is me
17:18:07 [Zakim]: +zimmer; got it
17:18:16 [pfps]: I don't think that *any* reviews are *late* yet.
17:18:21 [bijan]: I don't believe we have consensus that any of the UFD are ready for last call publication
17:18:27 [MarkusK_]: ... But some user facing documents may still be ready for LC now.
17:18:36 [IanH]: q?
17:18:42 [IanH]: ack christine
17:18:44 [MarkusK_]: ... We do not need to publish all user-facing docs at the same time.
17:18:45 [ewallace]: It's less work to respond to simple Public WG pub than to LC
17:18:48 [ivan]: q+
17:18:59 [ewallace]: so delaying can be a plus for the editors
17:19:01 [MarkusK_]: Ian: I do not think any reviews were late yet, according to the timeline.
17:19:09 [sandro]: q?
17:19:15 [pfps]: I think that NF&R needs significant work yet
17:19:19 [alanr]: as do I
17:19:21 [IanH]: ack ivan
17:19:22 [MarkusK_]: ... Do you think that NF&R can go to LC now?
17:19:41 [MarkusK_]: Christine: Yes, I think this is possible and it would be useful.
17:19:43 [schneid]: zakim, mute me
17:19:43 [Zakim]: schneid should now be muted
17:19:52 [bijan]: q+
17:19:53 [MarkusK_]: Ivan: I do not think that we have to make this decision now.
17:20:08 [IanH]: q?
17:20:14 [sandro]: q+ to clarify what the decision means
17:20:21 [MarkusK_]: ... We can always publish documents with the next publication round on short notice.
17:20:33 [MarkusK_]: ... We can make this decision when we have the formal vote on the other documents.
17:20:43 [bijan]: zakim, unmute me
17:20:43 [Zakim]: bijan should no longer be muted
17:20:49 [IanH]: ack bijan
17:21:03 [christine]: +q
17:21:20 [ewallace]: IanH: the schedule pressure on the UF documents is simply not as much as the others
17:21:21 [bijan]: zakim, mute me
17:21:21 [Zakim]: bijan should now be muted
17:21:23 [MarkusK_]: Ian: Ok, it should still be noted that the user-facing documents are not under the same publication pressure as the other technical documents.
17:21:31 [IanH]: q?
17:21:35 [IanH]: ack sandro
17:21:35 [Zakim]: sandro, you wanted to clarify what the decision means
17:21:47 [MarkusK_]: Bijan: It might be good to publish all user-facing documents at once, since they address the same audience.
17:21:56 [bijan]: +1 to sandro
17:22:10 [bijan]: +1 to publishing as WD
17:22:12 [alanr]: that was my understanding
17:22:23 [bijan]: That seems reasonable
17:22:46 [christine]: several od us understood different
17:22:49 [MarkusK_]: Sandro: As I read the timeline, we only agreed to publish all documents on Apr 15, with the normative specs being in LC
17:22:53 [bijan]: Not just the editor, but the WG
17:23:09 [MarkusK_]: ... we could in any case publish snapshots of all documents, possibly as public WDs
17:23:17 [IanH]: q?
17:23:33 [ivan]: q+
17:23:37 [ivan]: ack christine
17:23:46 [MarkusK_]: Ian: I agree, but it is probably good to bring the issue up now.
17:23:53 [IanH]: q?
17:24:15 [sandro]: NO ONE IS SAYING NF&R WONT BE PUBLISHED ON THIS SCHEDULE.
17:24:17 [ewallace]: LC vs none-LC ness of sync'ed pub this time was not clear but not a big issue for me
17:24:21 [IanH]: q?
17:24:25 [pfps]: q+
17:24:34 [MarkusK_]: Christine: I am disappointed if the user-facing docs should be delayed based on delays in other documents.
17:24:35 [IanH]: ack ivan
17:24:55 [MarkusK_]: ... Since NF&R is ready.
17:24:59 [MarkusK_]: Ivan: I do not understand what the problem.
17:25:03 [IanH]: q?
17:25:07 [MarkusK_]: ... is.
17:25:36 [pfps]: Alan's review is actually six days *early*
17:25:39 [MarkusK_]: Sandro: I also think that there is a misunderstanding here; we are clearly going to publish all documents
17:25:47 [MarkusK_]: ... only the status "LC" is what is discussed now.
17:26:05 [pfps]: q+
17:26:18 [MarkusK_]: Christine: My problem is that the user-facing documents are not under sufficient pressure for publication, and they are always late.
17:26:26 [bijan]: Regardless of the reviews, the document doesn't have WG consensus for LC
17:26:29 [IanH]: ack pfps
17:26:45 [MarkusK_]: Pfps: There are diverging opinions on what should be done with NF&R.
17:26:49 [bijan]: Plus, I had comments long ago on NF&R and only got a response very recently
17:26:52 [MarkusK_]: ... These should be discussed sometime soon.
17:27:01 [pfps]: q+ to talk about rdf:text
17:27:03 [christine]: when can it be solved ??
17:27:04 [MarkusK_]: Ian: Ok, we should take this discussion to email.
17:27:07 [IanH]: q?
17:27:17 [MarkusK_]: ... We do not need to decide this now.
17:27:26 [IanH]: q?
17:27:31 [IanH]: ack pfps
17:27:31 [Zakim]: pfps, you wanted to talk about rdf:text
17:28:06 [MarkusK_]: I note that the Primer has been updated a lot recently; it should not be perceived as a blocker for NF&R.
17:28:07 [ivan]: zakim, mute me
17:28:07 [Zakim]: Ivan should now be muted
17:28:38 [pfps]: rdf:text needs to be on the agenda next week if it is not ready by then
17:28:44 [MarkusK_]: Topic: Last Call Comments
17:29:17 [IanH]: q?
17:29:20 [MarkusK_]: subtopic?
17:29:25 [alanr]: yes
17:29:35 [alanr]: then we have a problem
17:29:38 [MarkusK_]: Ian: It seems we are now waiting on RIF here
17:29:40 [pfps]: rdf:text is *fine* for us (at least the parts we care about)
17:29:48 [MarkusK_]: Sandro: Yes, Axel needs to come back to us.
17:30:03 [MarkusK_]: ... As it looks now, we can not moce to LC without removing section 5.
17:30:07 [bijan]: q+
17:30:12 [IanH]: q?
17:30:15 [bijan]: zakim, unmute me
17:30:15 [Zakim]: bijan should no longer be muted
17:30:24 [MarkusK_]: Topic: Last Call Comments
17:30:43 [pfps]: we don't need a deadline, as we are going into 2nd last call
17:30:50 [pfps]: but we should get them to reply ASAP
17:30:56 [MarkusK_]: Ian: We are still wating for a number of acknowledgements.
17:31:07 [bijan]: zakim, mute me
17:31:07 [Zakim]: bijan should now be muted
17:31:08 [MarkusK_]: ... People are being chased to reply soon.
17:31:12 [IanH]: q?
17:31:16 [IanH]: ack bijan
17:31:23 [bijan]: Not even for CR
17:31:26 [MarkusK_]: Bijan: I think there must be some time after which we do not have to wait any longer.
17:31:30 [bijan]: q+
17:31:36 [MarkusK_]: Ian: Is there an official process for this?
17:32:08 [IanH]: q?
17:32:14 [MarkusK_]: Sandro: We should at least contact all people who have not replied when publishing the next LC.
17:32:29 [IanH]: q?
17:32:32 [IanH]: ack bijan
17:32:42 [MarkusK_]: ... We can ask them to see if their complaints are still valid for the new documents.
17:33:07 [bijan]: zakim, mute me
17:33:07 [Zakim]: bijan should now be muted
17:33:14 [MarkusK_]: Bijan: I think we did all that we could for satisfying people, but we have no obligation to satisfy everybody.
17:33:21 [IanH]: q?
17:33:25 [bijan]: I'm fine with that
17:33:33 [MarkusK_]: ... So I think there must be some point when we can move forward, even if the next publication is not LC but CR.
17:33:53 [MarkusK_]: Ian: Ok, but for now sending out the email notice seems to be a good solution.
17:33:57 [alanr]: DIG
17:33:58 [uli]: yes
17:34:00 [alanr]: q+
17:34:04 [IanH]: q?
17:34:04 [MarkusK_]: Subtopic: Non-positive Acknowledgments
17:34:07 [IanH]: ack alanr
17:34:16 [bijan]: q+
17:34:20 [MarkusK_]: Ian: Any comments on OWLlink?
17:34:44 [MarkusK_]: Alan: Yes, I will take an action to send a follow up on this, sugesting a member submission
17:34:53 [IanH]: q?
17:34:55 [IanH]: ack bijan
17:35:13 [MarkusK_]: ACTION: Alan to follow up comment ML2 45 to suggest making a W3C member submission.
17:35:13 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-324 - Follow up comment ML2 45 to suggest making a W3C member submission. [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2009-04-08].
17:35:18 [pfps]: ralf is not unhappy with 51a
17:35:25 [alanr]: he's "dealing"
17:35:27 [alanr]: :)
17:35:40 [IanH]: q?
17:35:45 [MarkusK_]: Ian: It also seems that 51a has been addressed as good as possible.
17:35:54 [MarkusK_]: ... At least Ralph stated that he is not unhappy now.
17:36:07 [IanH]: q?
17:36:08 [schneid]: zakim, unmute me
17:36:08 [Zakim]: schneid should no longer be muted
17:36:09 [pfps]: q+
17:36:10 [schneid]: q+
17:36:13 [MarkusK_]: Topic: Technical Issues Arising
17:36:17 [IanH]: ack pfps
17:36:23 [MarkusK_]: s/Ralph/Ralf/
17:36:23 [IanH]: ack schneid
17:36:24 [pfps]: q+
17:36:54 [MarkusK_]: Ian: Michael spotted a new issue regarding the RDF semantics on n-ary datatypes.
17:37:04 [MarkusK_]: Michael: These are really multiple issues.
17:37:18 [IanH]: q?
17:37:21 [MarkusK_]: ... Regarding the RDF semantics, I am unsure how to model n-ary datatypes properly.
17:37:43 [IanH]: q?
17:37:47 [IanH]: ack pfps
17:37:48 [MarkusK_]: ... I can write something down but there is no guideline in RDF how to do this.
17:37:55 [MarkusK_]: ... So is this really needed?
17:38:12 [IanH]: q?
17:38:12 [ivan]: q+
17:38:13 [MarkusK_]: pfps: I think that nothing needs to be changed in the RDF sematnics for narys
17:38:30 [MarkusK_]: ... The nary case corresponds to the unary case exactly.
17:38:46 [IanH]: q?
17:38:48 [alanr]: q+
17:38:50 [MarkusK_]: Michael: There is a bug with the ?? that I did not fix yet.
17:39:03 [MarkusK_]: Pfps: I think I can supply you with a one-line fix for this.
17:39:06 [alanr]: zakim, who is here?
17:39:06 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan, bmotik (muted), MarkusK_, Ivan (muted), Sandro, uli (muted), Zhe (muted), IanH, bcuencagrau (muted), christine, baojie, Achille,
17:39:09 [Zakim]: ... Alan, Evan_Wallace, msmith, schneid, jar, zimmer
17:39:10 [Zakim]: On IRC I see zimmer, schneid, jar, msmith, ewallace, alanr, Achille, baojie, bcuencagrau, Zhe, IanH, christine, MarkusK_, bmotik, ivan, Zakim, RRSAgent, pfps, bijan, sandro, uli,
17:39:12 [Zakim]: ... trackbot
17:39:32 [MarkusK_]: Michael: Ok, then there are two further issues I have.
17:39:43 [MarkusK_]: ... One is regarding conformance.
17:39:57 [MarkusK_]: ... Does a conformant tool need to support reasoning with naries?
17:40:05 [IanH]: q?
17:40:18 [MarkusK_]: Ian: No, nary is an extension that is not mandatory for conformance.
17:40:24 [pfps]: isn't this kind of think much better in email?
17:40:27 [IanH]: ack ivan
17:40:41 [schneid]: zakim, mute me
17:40:41 [Zakim]: schneid should now be muted
17:40:43 [MarkusK_]: ... It was never intended to be mandatory.
17:41:11 [MarkusK_]: Ivan: I could not find it in the Conformance document that nary is not required.
17:41:24 [alanr]: syntax says: "All data ranges explicitly supported by this specification are unary"
17:41:49 [MarkusK_]: Ian: It might be implicit there.
17:42:24 [alanr]: couldn't hurt to say so one more time
17:42:25 [MarkusK_]: ... Isn't it that the conformance document refers to OWL ontologies, and that this term only needs to include unary datatypes only.
17:42:28 [IanH]: q?
17:42:30 [schneid]: schneid: a concrete problem of the current state of the RDF-Based Semantics is that the semantic conditions for the n-ary value restrictions are currently formally broken
17:42:34 [IanH]: ack alanr
17:42:40 [MarkusK_]: Ivan: Maybe we should be more explicit about this.
17:42:49 [ivan]: q+
17:43:14 [schneid]: no, thats not the point!
17:43:19 [MarkusK_]: Alan: I also believe that it is clear that the RDF semantics does not need to deal with nary dataypes, since the according document is a note only.
17:43:28 [bijan]: +1 to alanr
17:43:29 [schneid]: q+
17:43:34 [IanH]: q?
17:43:37 [schneid]: zakim, unmute me
17:43:37 [Zakim]: schneid should no longer be muted
17:43:37 [IanH]: ack ivan
17:43:39 [MarkusK_]: ... Nary datatypes are clearly an optional extension.
17:43:52 [bmotik]: q+
17:43:56 [MarkusK_]: --- But we could still make this explicit in the conformance document.
17:44:02 [MarkusK_]: s /---/.../
17:44:04 [Zakim]: -MarkusK_
17:44:13 [MarkusK_]: I was dropped
17:44:21 [MarkusK_]: Scribe help needed
17:44:46 [msmith]: The relevant statement in conformance about datatypes is at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Conformance_and_Test_Cases#Datatype_Map_Conformance
17:44:58 [bmotik]: Zakim, unmute me
17:44:58 [Zakim]: bmotik should no longer be muted
17:45:08 [MarkusK_]: --- Scribe lost audio ---
17:45:13 [sandro]: understood MarkusK_
17:45:23 [pfps]: RDF-Based Semantics says:
17:45:25 [pfps]: if
17:45:27 [pfps]: s sequence of p1 , … , pn ∈ IR ,
17:45:28 [pfps]: 〈 z , c 〉 ∈ IEXT(I(owl:someValuesFrom)) ,
17:45:30 [pfps]: 〈 z , s 〉 ∈ IEXT(I(owl:onProperties)) p1 , … , pn ∈ IP ,
17:45:31 [pfps]: then
17:45:33 [pfps]: ICEXT(z) = { x | ∃ y1 , … , yn : 〈 x , yk 〉 ∈ IEXT(pk) for each 1 ≤ k ≤ n and 〈 y1 , … , yn 〉 ∈ ICEXT(c) }
17:45:35 [pfps]: This is perfectly OK. C is a class - it instances can be *anything*,
17:45:36 [pfps]: including tuples.
17:45:39 [IanH]: q?
17:45:42 [IanH]: ack schneid
17:46:09 [pfps]: and complements work fine as well
17:46:17 [alanr]: would it help to move the nary in direct semantics to the note?
17:46:27 [alanr]: q+
17:46:31 [pfps]: q+
17:46:35 [sandro]: schnei: In both semantics documents, there are concrete semantics for this n-ary stuff. something is said about compliments of nary, nary data ranges, ... there is something said about these value description. These are in. The quesiton is, are these normative? Do thay have to be supported by every conformant reasoner?
17:46:57 [sandro]: ian: Maybe this shouldn't be in the Direct Semantics?
17:47:02 [IanH]: q?
17:47:09 [sandro]: schneid: If it's in one, it should be in both, yes?
17:47:13 [IanH]: ack bmotik
17:47:30 [bijan]: Since they have no predicates!
17:47:49 [schneid]: q+
17:48:00 [sandro]: bmotik: No conformant reasoner needs to do anything with any n-ary stuff. From the syntax spec alone, you can't do anything with the hooks. The spec says all datatypes are arity 1. So no conformant reasoner needs to implement that.
17:48:08 [IanH]: q?
17:48:10 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
17:48:14 [sandro]: bmotik: I don't see why the RDF-based semantics is worried about that.
17:48:20 [IanH]: q?
17:48:47 [sandro]: schneid: Just to give you an idea what i"m talking about... You can do calculations with combinations of n-ary value restrictions, ....
17:48:51 [IanH]: q?
17:48:56 [sandro]: bmotik: but you don't have any names. that's the point.
17:48:56 [MarkusK_]: Michael: You can do calculation with nary datatypes without knowing about data ranges
17:49:10 [IanH]: q?
17:49:13 [IanH]: ack alanr
17:49:15 [schneid]: zakim, mute me
17:49:15 [Zakim]: schneid should now be muted
17:49:21 [MarkusK_]: Michael: Ok, then that is a different issue.
17:49:30 [IanH]: q?
17:49:34 [IanH]: ack pfps
17:49:46 [MarkusK_]: Alan: I was wondering if this could be solved by moving the conditions on direct semantics for naries into the nary note.
17:49:55 [MarkusK_]: ... Then the note would be self-contained.
17:49:59 [bijan]: +1 to say why moving into the note is not a great idea
17:50:13 [bijan]: er
17:50:14 [IanH]: q?
17:50:15 [MarkusK_]: Pfps: I do not know why we need to discuss this. The documents seem to be in good shape.
17:50:19 [bijan]: q+ to say why moving into the note is not a great idea
17:50:19 [IanH]: ack schneid
17:50:19 [schneid]: All <p1,p2>.D1 and All<p1,p2>.D2 iff All <p1,p2>.(D1 & D2)
17:50:26 [schneid]: q-
17:50:27 [alanr]: q?
17:50:31 [bijan]: zakim, unmute me
17:50:31 [Zakim]: bijan was not muted, bijan
17:50:31 [IanH]: ack bijan
17:50:32 [Zakim]: bijan, you wanted to say why moving into the note is not a great idea
17:50:34 [MarkusK_]: I do not see that any of the documents currently needs changing to be compatible with nary datatypes at all.
17:50:55 [pfps]: nope
17:51:23 [MarkusK_]: Bijan: I thought about Alan's suggestion. The one reason why I would not want to do this is that the note is just one specific instance of a possible nary extension.
17:51:24 [schneid]: <"a","b> in { 1, 2 }
17:51:25 [ivan]: +1 to bijan
17:51:37 [bijan]: zakim, mute me
17:51:37 [Zakim]: bijan should now be muted
17:51:39 [schneid]: zakim, unmute me
17:51:39 [Zakim]: schneid was not muted, schneid
17:51:42 [MarkusK_]: ... The general hook in the specs allows other extensions, too.
17:51:44 [IanH]: q?
17:51:54 [MarkusK_]: ... This is why I would like to keep this hook in the specs.
17:51:58 [pfps]: q+
17:52:07 [IanH]: ack pfps
17:52:12 [MarkusK_]: Ian: Michael, can you comment on the notes you pasted in IRC.
17:52:37 [MarkusK_]: Michael: Well, it was an example to illustrate that there is a bug in the RDF semantics that is inacceptible.
17:52:47 [schneid]: ok
17:52:49 [bijan]: If there's a bug, let's fix it
17:52:50 [schneid]: zakim, mute me
17:52:50 [Zakim]: schneid should now be muted
17:52:53 [pfps]: I need a demonstration of the bug
17:52:55 [MarkusK_]: Pfps: I think this is wrong, technically. There is no problem.
17:53:08 [ivan]: +1
17:53:09 [MarkusK_]: Ian: I think this discussion needs to be continued via email.
17:53:12 [bijan]: But I think the current setup is the right one
17:53:17 [schneid]: The set theories underlying RDF-Based Semantics and Direct Semantics are equal
17:53:21 [IanH]: q?
17:53:37 [MarkusK_]: Subtopic: xsd:DateTime
17:53:37 [ivan]: zakim, mute me
17:53:37 [Zakim]: Ivan should now be muted
17:53:48 [IanH]: q?
17:53:55 [alanr]: q?
17:53:58 [alanr]: q+
17:54:06 [MarkusK_]: Ian: Boris sent an email last week, stating that it might be useful to include xsd:dataTime now, too.
17:54:06 [IanH]: q?
17:54:09 [IanH]: ack alanr
17:54:12 [MarkusK_]: ... There was some discussion already.
17:54:14 [ewallace]: q+
17:54:24 [IanH]: ack ewallace
17:54:36 [MarkusK_]: Ewallace: I sent an email today regarding this issue.
17:54:51 [bmotik]: q+
17:54:56 [MarkusK_]: ... The question at hand is whether we want to support full xsd:dateTime.
17:55:19 [alanr]: q?
17:55:23 [alanr]: q+ alanr
17:55:27 [MarkusK_]: ... I am okay with Boris' proposal, but I want to see the consequences.
17:55:29 [IanH]: q?
17:55:48 [IanH]: q?
17:56:06 [IanH]: ack bmotik
17:56:21 [MarkusK_]: ... I still would like to have a look at the recent changes for dateTimeStamp in the specs
17:56:40 [MarkusK_]: Ian: So should we defer this decision to next week?
17:56:52 [MarkusK_]: Ewallace: Maybe Boris can clarify right now.
17:57:16 [IanH]: q?
17:57:18 [pfps]: sounds good to me
17:57:21 [MarkusK_]: Boris: When I did the change for xsd:dateTimeStamp, I noticed that only one more bullet point would be nede to include dataTime as well.
17:57:21 [IanH]: ack alanr
17:57:52 [MarkusK_]: ... And there needs to be some statement of what the facets are for xsd:dateTime.
17:58:05 [pfps]: q+
17:58:13 [MarkusK_]: ... And I would like to include the new type in all profiles as well.
17:58:14 [ewallace]: Alan raises a point I made in today's email
17:58:15 [bmotik]: q+
17:58:17 [IanH]: q?
17:58:32 [MarkusK_]: s/ni all profiles/in all profiles supporting xsed:dateTimeStamp/
17:58:35 [schneid]: zakim, mute me
17:58:35 [Zakim]: schneid was already muted, schneid
17:58:41 [IanH]: q?
17:58:49 [MarkusK_]: Alan: There might be some open issues regarding the facets.
17:58:56 [IanH]: ack pfps
17:58:57 [MarkusK_]: ... Some facets may have ratehr confusing effects.
17:59:17 [MarkusK_]: ... I also think that there is no very strong motivation to include this data type.
17:59:30 [ewallace]: Where?
17:59:50 [MarkusK_]: Pfps: The earlier issue was that values without time zones did not fit at all into the earlier semantics.
18:00:00 [MarkusK_]: ... This issue has been solved by the recent changes.
18:00:22 [MarkusK_]: ... You can still use time zoned values, but also non-timezoned values.
18:00:24 [IanH]: ack bmotik
18:00:28 [alanr]: in variance with xml schema, bijan
18:00:36 [MarkusK_]: ... Issues and some confusion mainly arises when comparing these two kinds.
18:00:45 [ewallace]: several? 1681 I think.
18:00:56 [IanH]: q?
18:01:08 [ewallace]: q+
18:01:14 [MarkusK_]: Boris: I hope that the XML Schema group comes up with a notion of comparability that is acceptable to us.
18:01:25 [IanH]: ack ewallace
18:01:27 [MarkusK_]: ... If not, then we should complain with them.
18:01:30 [IanH]: q?
18:01:37 [IanH]: q?
18:01:38 [pfps]: +1 to adding, and adding an example
18:01:51 [MarkusK_]: ... I think the change is well-motivated by many ontologies that are now using xsd:dataTime already.
18:01:58 [MarkusK_]: Markus: +1 to Boris
18:02:06 [christine]: christine has joined #owl
18:02:41 [IanH]: q?
18:02:43 [MarkusK_]: Ian: So, Alan, you are basically happy introducing dateTime?
18:02:58 [IanH]: s/Alan/Evan/
18:02:58 [MarkusK_]: s /Alan/Evan/
18:03:12 [IanH]: q?
18:03:20 [IanH]: PROPOSED: OWL 2 will include xsd:dateTime datatype
18:03:24 [pfps]: +1 ALU
18:03:28 [msmith]: +1
18:03:29 [uli]: +1
18:03:30 [MarkusK_]: Markus: +1
18:03:33 [bijan]: +1
18:03:35 [ivan]: +1
18:03:38 [bmotik]: +1
18:03:43 [zimmer]: +1
18:03:43 [alanr]: -.99 science commons (not formally objecting)
18:03:44 [ewallace]: +1 (with additional text per email discussion)
18:03:45 [Achille]: +1
18:03:48 [bcuencagrau]: +1
18:03:50 [christine]: +1
18:04:04 [sandro]: +1
18:04:07 [Zhe]: 0
18:04:12 [IanH]: RESOLVED: OWL 2 will include xsd:dateTime datatype
18:04:47 [bmotik]: Zakim, mute me
18:04:47 [Zakim]: bmotik should now be muted
18:05:06 [bijan]: q+
18:05:08 [MarkusK_]: q+
18:05:09 [ivan]: q+
18:05:11 [IanH]: q?
18:05:14 [bijan]: zakim, unmute me
18:05:14 [Zakim]: bijan should no longer be muted
18:05:21 [sandro]: q+
18:05:34 [MarkusK_]: Ian: There is currently some duplication of changes from OWL 1 to OWL 2 in various documents.
18:05:54 [MarkusK_]: ... Is this useful or should this be consolidated somewhere?
18:06:09 [MarkusK_]: Bijan: I think it should be in one document.
18:06:30 [ewallace]: an enumeration?
18:06:30 [IanH]: ack MarkusK_
18:06:32 [alanr]: q?
18:06:37 [IanH]: ack bijan
18:06:39 [uli]: yes
18:06:45 [bijan]: zakim, mute me
18:06:45 [Zakim]: bijan should now be muted
18:07:05 [bijan]: q+
18:07:10 [christine]: we cannot hear you
18:07:18 [bijan]: I want only *one* list
18:07:18 [ewallace]: That is what NF&R is for
18:07:20 [bijan]: I can hear you
18:07:23 [IanH]: q?
18:07:42 [bijan]: I object to it
18:08:07 [IanH]: ack ivan
18:08:07 [ivan]: ack ivan
18:08:29 [MarkusK_]: Bijan: I think a list of changes and features would be better than a complete explanation.
18:08:42 [MarkusK_]: q+
18:08:51 [IanH]: qq?
18:08:53 [IanH]: q?
18:09:03 [MarkusK_]: Markus: The primer already contains a detailed explanation of changes with examples, and I would not want to drop this.
18:09:11 [bijan]: Overview is a good place
18:09:13 [christine]: +q
18:09:31 [ewallace]: +1 to Ivan's position
18:09:37 [IanH]: ack sandro
18:09:38 [christine]: +1
18:09:49 [MarkusK_]: Ivan: I think that this content should not be in the Primer.
18:10:02 [ewallace]: OK with an enumeration of owl1-owl2 delta somewhere
18:10:15 [bijan]: +1 to ewallace
18:10:43 [MarkusK_]: ... In particular, the NF&R is a document that is especially dedicated to explaining the changes. We should not duplicate this.
18:10:54 [schneid]: q+
18:11:11 [IanH]: ack bijan
18:11:26 [alanr]: sandro: NF&R. File under R
18:11:26 [bmotik]: I've added the formal part of xsd:dateTime to both Profiles and the Syntax. I'll add an example or two later this week.
18:11:39 [IanH]: q?
18:11:57 [sandro]: s/sandro:/sandro,/
18:11:58 [uli]: +1 for leaving out 'changes to OWL 1' from Primer
18:11:59 [IanH]: q?
18:12:13 [MarkusK_]: Bijan: I disagree with Markus because the Primer should introduce the language as it is but not be mainly transitional.
18:12:16 [bijan]: zakim, mute me
18:12:16 [Zakim]: bijan should now be muted
18:12:23 [MarkusK_]: q+ to clarify hi viewpoint
18:12:26 [sandro]: bijan: The primer should be an introduction for people coming new to OWL 2 -- there shouldn't be much spent on transitional material.
18:12:38 [IanH]: q?
18:12:45 [christine]: +q
18:13:09 [IanH]: ack MarkusK_
18:13:09 [Zakim]: MarkusK_, you wanted to clarify hi viewpoint
18:13:29 [IanH]: q?
18:13:39 [bijan]: Not doubt that is is useful to a certain audience...but we can put it elsewhere...wiki, webont wiki, etc.
18:13:43 [MarkusK_]: Ian: We should keep this discussion short.
18:13:46 [sandro]: MarkusK_: I don't really care where the transitional content, currently in an appendix of the primer, lives, but I think it would be a real shame to drop it.
18:14:05 [bijan]: ? I think the short list should be in the overview :)
18:14:19 [schneid]: zakim, unmute me
18:14:19 [Zakim]: schneid should no longer be muted
18:14:19 [IanH]: q?
18:14:21 [MarkusK_]: Markus: I would like to clarify my point: I do not think that the content that is now in the Primer needs to be in the Primer appendix that it is in now.
18:14:23 [sandro]: christine: I think the right place for all this stuff is NF&R, and I'm hearing most other folks agreeing.
18:14:25 [ivan]: ack christine
18:14:25 [IanH]: ack christine
18:14:28 [schneid]: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF-Based_Semantics#Appendix:_Changes_from_the_OWL_RDF-Compatible_Semantics_.28Informative.29
18:14:29 [IanH]: q?
18:14:34 [IanH]: ack schneid
18:14:49 [MarkusK_]: ... I just think that this content is valuable to some people, and it should be placed *somewhere* instead of being dropped.
18:14:56 [sandro]: schneid: The RDF-Based Semantics has already a section listing, very technically, the differences from OWL 1.
18:15:14 [MarkusK_]: Christine: I think the Primer should point to NF&R for these changes.
18:15:22 [IanH]: q?
18:15:31 [alanr]: q+
18:15:37 [IanH]: q?
18:15:43 [IanH]: ack alanr
18:15:58 [pfps]: q+
18:16:00 [pfps]: q-
18:16:05 [MarkusK_]: The scection we discussed was: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Primer#Guide_to_OWL_2_for_OWL_1_users
18:16:05 [alanr]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Apr/0012.html
18:16:05 [IanH]: q?
18:16:29 [schneid]: schneid: if something of the RDF-Based Semantics difference should go to a userfacing document, then only one line of high level explanation, with a link to the RDF-Based Semantics: because it is very technical and RDF specific in most cases
18:16:48 [sandro]: q+
18:16:50 [bijan]: q+
18:16:53 [pfps]: q+
18:17:00 [IanH]: q?
18:17:15 [MarkusK_]: Topic: Open Issues
18:17:28 [schneid]: zakim, mute me
18:17:28 [Zakim]: schneid should now be muted
18:17:29 [IanH]: q?
18:17:33 [IanH]: ack sandro
18:18:08 [IanH]: q?
18:18:20 [MarkusK_]: Alan: I sent a proposal via email.
18:18:28 [IanH]: ack bijan
18:18:30 [IanH]: q?
18:18:52 [alanr_]: alanr_ has joined #owl
18:18:57 [MarkusK_]: Sandro: I agree that this is a long-standing issue in the Semantic Web architecture.
18:19:00 [alanr_]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0009.html
18:19:15 [MarkusK_]: ... But I think there are problems with the current proposal
18:19:16 [alanr_]: we aren't make Manch part of the language yet, are we? It's a note.
18:19:20 [alanr_]: q?
18:19:26 [MarkusK_]: ... as I also mentioned in my emails.
18:19:37 [IanH]: ack pfps
18:19:40 [sandro]: bijan: Like Sandro, I think the tool layer is adequate if not ideal for solving this. If some real solution comes along later, great.
18:19:42 [IanH]: q?
18:19:43 [bijan]: zakim, mute me
18:19:43 [Zakim]: bijan should now be muted
18:19:54 [alanr_]: q+
18:19:57 [uli]: q+
18:20:23 [IanH]: ack alanr_
18:20:38 [MarkusK_]: Bijan: I agree that this is a problem; but there are practical solutions that people use right now already.
18:20:44 [sandro]: pfps: If you wanted to dump an ontology with and without labels, with all the info needed to go both ways, they'd both be a lot more complicated.
18:21:03 [ivan]: q+
18:21:05 [pfps]: everything agrees that label display is nice
18:21:05 [bijan]: q+
18:21:06 [IanH]: q?
18:21:11 [sandro]: q+ to ask if OBO is making these labels unique and stable, then why don't they just make them part of the IRIs?
18:21:23 [IanH]: ack uli
18:21:24 [uli]: ack /me
18:21:40 [MarkusK_]: Alan: I did not mean this to be a mandatory change but rather a proposal to the community on how to solve this problem.
18:21:46 [alanr_]: q+
18:22:00 [MarkusK_]: Uli: I would rather like to see a solution that uses SKOS.
18:22:02 [sandro]: uli: use SKOS instead -- it has the formalization for handling labels.
18:22:18 [sandro]: alan: That's reasonable, but Alan Rector told me that people should have a choice of which the labels are.
18:22:41 [bijan]: Manchester, including Alan Rector, does not support this proposal
18:22:45 [sandro]: alan: Rector doesn't want to be tied to SKOS.
18:22:49 [IanH]: ack ivan
18:23:00 [alanr_]: q-
18:23:01 [uli]: zakim, mute me
18:23:02 [Zakim]: uli should now be muted
18:23:06 [Zakim]: -Alan
18:23:16 [IanH]: q?
18:23:20 [alanr_]: hang on calling back in
18:23:26 [MarkusK_]: Ian: We should at least get a strw poll on this issue.
18:23:32 [Zakim]: +Alan_Ruttenberg
18:23:38 [MarkusK_]: ... There are many people on the queue already.
18:23:53 [IanH]: q?
18:23:56 [MarkusK_]: Ivan: My point is that solving this issue in one single serialization makes me uneasy.
18:24:08 [bijan]: zakim, unmute me
18:24:08 [Zakim]: bijan should no longer be muted
18:24:11 [IanH]: ack bijan
18:24:14 [IanH]: q?
18:24:16 [sandro]: ivan: I am uneasy solving this in one serialization --- it ought to be solved in all of them, if that were possible....
18:24:19 [MarkusK_]: ... Even if this is a note, I do not think we should single out Manchester syntax here.
18:24:31 [sandro]: q-
18:24:38 [bijan]: zakim, mute me
18:24:38 [Zakim]: bijan should now be muted
18:24:38 [IanH]: q?
18:24:55 [MarkusK_]: Bijan: I do not want to put in this proposal, since I feel that there is no sufficient consensus that this is the right approach to solve the problem.
18:25:25 [bijan]: I suggest that alan propose it in other fora. If people get behind it, we can always add an extension
18:25:26 [MarkusK_]: Ian: Alan, would you lie in the road if we reject yur proposal?
18:25:29 [IanH]: PROPOSED: Manchester Syntax will-not specify how to use labels in addition to/instead of entity URIs
18:25:34 [ewallace]: +0
18:25:35 [bijan]: +1
18:25:36 [pfps]: +1 ALU
18:25:37 [sandro]: +1
18:25:38 [msmith]: +1
18:25:39 [uli]: +1
18:25:40 [ivan]: +1
18:25:42 [bcuencagrau]: 0
18:25:44 [Zhe]: +0
18:25:44 [MarkusK_]: Markus: +0
18:25:45 [schneid]: +1
18:25:45 [christine]: 0
18:25:47 [Achille]: 0
18:25:49 [alanr_]: -.99 (not formally objecting)
18:25:55 [zimmer]: 0
18:25:59 [baojie]: 0
18:26:00 [bmotik]: +1
18:26:09 [IanH]: RESOLVED: Manchester Syntax will-not specify how to use labels in addition to/instead of entity URIs
18:26:39 [MarkusK_]: Ian: In fact, we have some time left.
18:26:45 [pfps]: q+
18:26:48 [IanH]: q?
18:26:52 [IanH]: ack pfps
18:26:52 [MarkusK_]: ... It is probably not needed to discuss test cases?
18:26:56 [sandro]: q+
18:27:02 [IanH]: ack sandro
18:27:04 [uli]: alar_, it looks as if http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#secskosspecialization says that you can extend labels
18:27:09 [MarkusK_]: Pfps: Some tests may need cleanup after the recent changes of the functional syntax.
18:27:12 [msmith]: q+ to address both
18:27:17 [MarkusK_]: q+
18:27:21 [MarkusK_]: q-
18:27:22 [IanH]: ack msmith
18:27:23 [Zakim]: msmith, you wanted to address both
18:27:26 [IanH]: q?
18:27:26 [uli]: s/alar_/alanr_
18:27:37 [pfps]: Good
18:27:43 [MarkusK_]: Sandro: Is the machinery for publicly gathering tests working well?
18:28:05 [IanH]: q?
18:28:18 [IanH]: q?
18:28:25 [schneid]: zakim, mute me
18:28:25 [Zakim]: schneid was already muted, schneid
18:28:30 [MarkusK_]: msmith: There is already a test harness, but nobody has stepped forward to use it so far.
18:28:31 [IanH]: q?
18:29:00 [bijan]: You sure did
18:29:07 [IanH]: q?
18:29:19 [MarkusK_]: Ian: Birte Glimm at Oxford is working on getting Hermit tested based on this harness.
18:29:22 [sandro]: effective april 1, Ian is moving back to Manchester!
18:29:23 [MarkusK_]: Ian: AOB?
18:29:31 [Zakim]: -Alan_Ruttenberg
18:29:32 [Zhe]: bye
18:29:32 [alanr_]: bye
18:29:32 [Zakim]: -Evan_Wallace
18:29:32 [Zakim]: -bmotik
18:29:34 [Zakim]: -bijan
18:29:34 [Zakim]: -Ivan
18:29:34 [Zakim]: -baojie
18:29:35 [Zakim]: -msmith
18:29:35 [ivan]: ivan has left #owl
18:29:35 [Zakim]: -Sandro
18:29:35 [zimmer]: bye
18:29:37 [Zakim]: -bcuencagrau
18:29:40 [Zakim]: -Zhe
18:29:42 [Zakim]: -zimmer
18:29:44 [Zakim]: -jar
18:29:46 [Zakim]: -IanH
18:29:48 [Zakim]: -MarkusK_
18:29:50 [Zakim]: -Peter_Patel-Schneider
18:29:52 [Zakim]: -christine
18:29:54 [Zakim]: -uli
18:29:59 [Zakim]: -schneid
18:30:06 [jar]: jar has left #owl
18:30:06 [IanH]: RRSAgent, make records public
18:30:14 [uli]: bye
18:30:19 [Zakim]: -Achille
18:30:20 [Zakim]: SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
18:30:21 [Zakim]: Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan, bmotik, Ivan, MarkusK_, Sandro, christine, uli, Zhe, IanH, baojie, bcuencagrau, Achille, Alan, Evan_Wallace, msmith, schneid, jar,
18:30:24 [Zakim]: ... zimmer, Alan_Ruttenberg
18:30:59 [uli]: uli has left #owl
20:29:55 [pfps]: pfps has left #owl
20:57:52 [alanr]: alanr has joined #owl
20:58:02 [alanr]: zakim, pointer
20:58:02 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'pointer', alanr
20:58:06 [alanr]: rrsagent, pointer
20:58:06 [RRSAgent]: See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/01-owl-irc#T20-58-06