IRC log of owl on 2009-04-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:39:10 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:39:10 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:53:15 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
16:56:38 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
16:56:55 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
16:57:02 [Zakim]
16:57:09 [Rinke]
Rinke has joined #owl
16:57:11 [pfps]
pfps has changed the topic to:
16:57:24 [pfps]
zakim, this is owl
16:57:24 [Zakim]
pfps, this was already SW_OWL()1:00PM
16:57:26 [Zakim]
ok, pfps; that matches SW_OWL()1:00PM
16:57:30 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.408.aaaa
16:58:06 [sebastian]
sebastian has joined #owl
16:58:32 [bcuencagrau]
bcuencagrau has joined #owl
16:58:54 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
16:59:17 [Zakim]
+ +86528aabb
16:59:25 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
16:59:28 [Zakim]
16:59:31 [bijan]
zakim, ??p1 is me
16:59:31 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
16:59:39 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, 86528aabb is me
16:59:39 [Zakim]
sorry, bcuencagrau, I do not recognize a party named '86528aabb'
16:59:43 [Zakim]
+ +2
16:59:50 [bijan]
zkaim, aabb is bcuencagrau
16:59:51 [Zakim]
+ +1.603.897.aadd
16:59:58 [bijan]
zakim even
17:00:04 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
17:00:08 [bijan]
zakim, aabb is bcuencagrau
17:00:08 [Zakim]
sorry, bijan, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb'
17:00:09 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #owl
17:00:11 [Zakim]
17:00:12 [christine]
christine has joined #owl
17:00:19 [bcuencagrau]
zakim, aabb is me
17:00:19 [Zakim]
+bcuencagrau; got it
17:00:24 [MarkusK_]
MarkusK_ has joined #owl
17:00:26 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, mute me
17:00:26 [Zakim]
17:00:26 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:00:27 [Zakim]
- +2
17:00:38 [IanH]
zakim, Ian_Horrocks is IanH
17:00:38 [Zakim]
+IanH; got it
17:00:49 [msmith]
17:00:54 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:00:54 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, +1.603.897.aadd, ??P6, IanH
17:00:56 [Zakim]
On IRC I see MarkusK_, christine, JeffP, Zhe, IanH, bcuencagrau, sebastian, Rinke, pfps, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, sandro, trackbot
17:00:59 [Zakim]
17:01:04 [Zakim]
17:01:05 [ivan]
ivan has joined #owl
17:01:05 [Rinke]
zakim, ??P4 is me
17:01:05 [Zakim]
+Rinke; got it
17:01:10 [Rinke]
zakim, mute me
17:01:10 [Zakim]
Rinke should now be muted
17:01:16 [msmith]
scribenick: msmith
17:01:17 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:01:17 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
17:01:18 [Zakim]
17:01:22 [Zakim]
17:01:22 [christine]
zakim, ??P8 is me
17:01:26 [Zakim]
I already had ??P8 as MarkusK_, christine
17:01:37 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:01:39 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, +1.603.897.aadd, ??P6, IanH, Rinke (muted), MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro
17:01:39 [uli]
uli has joined #owl
17:01:48 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
17:01:54 [Zakim]
On IRC I see uli, ivan, MarkusK_, christine, JeffP, Zhe, IanH, bcuencagrau, sebastian, Rinke, pfps, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, sandro, trackbot
17:02:00 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.276.aaee
17:02:04 [msmith]
topic: admin
17:02:04 [baojie]
baojie has joined #owl
17:02:05 [Zakim]
17:02:09 [christine]
zakim, ??P6 is me
17:02:13 [Zakim]
+christine; got it
17:02:14 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:02:15 [msmith]
subtopic: roll call
17:02:18 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, +1.603.897.aadd, christine, IanH, MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, +1.518.276.aaee
17:02:26 [Zakim]
17:02:27 [baojie]
Zakim, aaee is baojie
17:02:27 [Zakim]
On IRC I see baojie, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, christine, JeffP, Zhe, IanH, bcuencagrau, sebastian, Rinke, pfps, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, sandro, trackbot
17:02:28 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??P4 is me
17:02:30 [ewallace]
ewallace has joined #owl
17:02:33 [Zakim]
17:02:34 [msmith]
subtopic: agenda amendments
17:02:35 [Zakim]
+baojie; got it
17:02:39 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
17:02:43 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:02:45 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:02:52 [msmith]
subtopic: previous minutes
17:02:53 [Zakim]
17:02:57 [pfps]
minutes OK by me
17:03:00 [uli]
zakim, ??P16 is me
17:03:00 [Zakim]
+uli; got it
17:03:03 [Rinke]
can you hear me?
17:03:06 [Zakim]
+ +22427aaff
17:03:10 [Zakim]
17:03:12 [uli]
zakim, mute me
17:03:12 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
17:03:13 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??P4 is someone-else
17:03:14 [Zakim]
I already had ??P4 as bmotik, bmotik
17:03:18 [uli]
Rinke, I couldn't hear you
17:03:18 [Rinke]
zakim, ??P4 is me
17:03:18 [Zakim]
I already had ??P4 as bmotik, Rinke
17:03:26 [msmith]
ianh: any comments on minutes?
17:03:34 [pfps]
"minutes OK by me"
17:03:37 [JeffP]
zakim, aaff is me
17:03:37 [Zakim]
+JeffP; got it
17:03:39 [Zakim]
17:03:42 [bmotik]
Zakim, bmotik is Rinke
17:03:42 [Zakim]
+Rinke; got it
17:03:52 [msmith]
RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes (8 April)
17:03:54 [bmotik]
Zakim, +bcuencagrau.a is me
17:03:55 [Zakim]
sorry, bmotik, I do not recognize a party named '+bcuencagrau.a'
17:03:58 [JeffP]
17:04:04 [msmith]
subtopic: pending review action items
17:04:04 [pfps]
17:04:13 [bmotik]
Zakim, bcuencagrau.a is me
17:04:13 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
17:04:14 [IanH]
ack JeffP
17:04:17 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:04:17 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:04:40 [msmith]
jeffp: I'd like agenda amendment for negative property assertions
17:04:53 [IanH]
17:04:56 [IanH]
ack pfps
17:05:04 [msmith]
ianh: ok, we'll try to do this in topic "(Technical) Issues Arising"
17:05:13 [ewallace]
she said consider it done
17:05:17 [msmith]
pfps: what about Elisa's review action (ACTION-321)
17:05:29 [pfps]
OK to close it by me
17:05:29 [IanH]
17:05:29 [msmith]
ianh: she considers it done for this review round
17:05:51 [msmith]
ianh: consider all pending done (320, 321, 329, 328, 326)
17:06:05 [msmith]
subtopic: Due and overdue Actions
17:06:22 [msmith]
subsubtopic: ACTION-299
17:06:31 [pfps]
Maybe the links from NF&R, but these are intentional
17:06:38 [msmith]
sandro: I don't know what links he was talking about.
17:06:56 [msmith]
ianh: there are references in NF&R that reference documents in the wiki. e.g., there is a reference to punning
17:07:24 [msmith]
sandro: yesterday (or before) I sent an email to the list about links to the wiki
17:07:37 [pfps]
in any case NF&R is not in last call, so we don't need to fix it right now
17:07:41 [christine]
17:07:46 [bijan]
17:07:53 [ivan_]
ivan_ has joined #owl
17:08:07 [pfps]
RDF Semantics might be a bit more problematic
17:08:08 [msmith]
ianh: links to wiki seem like a bad idea - mutable
17:08:25 [msmith]
sandro: I'm not sure they're so bad, they may be the best we can do
17:08:31 [IanH]
ack christine
17:08:46 [sandro]
sandro: I do agree it's worth some effort to find better citations than links to wiki pages.
17:08:49 [msmith]
christine: what should I do for these links?
17:08:53 [Zakim]
17:09:52 [msmith]
ianh: it seems there is a reasonable justification for pointing at the wiki now and this is not time critical yet
17:10:03 [msmith]
... what we have now is fine for a working draft
17:10:05 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:10:11 [IanH]
17:10:19 [Zakim]
17:10:24 [Rinke]
zakim, ??P4 is me
17:10:24 [Zakim]
+Rinke; got it
17:10:27 [Rinke]
zakim, mute me
17:10:27 [Zakim]
Rinke should now be muted
17:10:32 [msmith]
bijan: I have no problem with wiki mutability, if we can freeze specific pages.
17:10:41 [IanH]
17:10:50 [msmith]
sandro: are you worried about vandalism if left unattended?
17:11:04 [IanH]
17:11:31 [ewallace]
+1 to IanH
17:11:37 [msmith]
bijan: not so much vandalism. more just unanticipated changes
17:12:05 [msmith]
ianh: we're considering ACTION-299 done
17:12:14 [msmith]
subsubtopic: ACTION-325
17:12:20 [sandro]
action-299: closed
17:12:20 [trackbot]
ACTION-299 Find and fix the to-wiki-links Jeremy complains about notes added
17:12:20 [trackbot]
If you meant to close ACTION-299, please use 'close ACTION-299'
17:12:34 [sandro]
close action-299
17:12:34 [Zakim]
17:12:34 [trackbot]
ACTION-299 Find and fix the to-wiki-links Jeremy complains about closed
17:12:43 [sandro]
close action-325
17:12:43 [trackbot]
ACTION-325 Send a comment to the CURIE folks about us not using them. closed
17:12:49 [pfps]
zakim, who is talking?
17:12:49 [Zakim]
I am sorry, pfps; I don't have the necessary resources to track talkers right now
17:12:56 [IanH]
17:13:18 [msmith]
subtopic: which document should we propose as a citation for OWL 2 as a whole?
17:13:23 [IanH]
17:13:39 [pfps]
OK by me, I guess
17:13:40 [ivan_]
17:13:43 [msmith]
ianh: current position seems to be recommend overview
17:13:45 [IanH]
17:13:46 [sandro]
17:13:47 [ewallace]
Overview is the main entry point.
17:13:47 [bijan]
I'm reconciled enough to that, with grumpiness
17:14:03 [msmith]
+1 to overview (which is why we made all WG authors)
17:14:13 [IanH]
17:14:23 [msmith]
ianh: that was the intention of overview from last f2f
17:14:44 [IanH]
17:14:53 [pfps]
I'm happy with it.
17:14:57 [ivan_]
i'll ship it then...
17:15:02 [msmith]
... we continue with owverview as main citation point
17:15:08 [IanH]
PROPOSED: WG will send LC comment to POWDER WG as per Ivan's draft
17:15:13 [ivan_]
17:15:14 [pfps]
17:15:16 [IanH]
17:15:17 [bijan]
17:15:18 [Rinke]
17:15:19 [MarkusK_]
17:15:23 [Zhe]
17:15:25 [baojie]
17:15:25 [uli]
17:15:26 [msmith]
msmith: +1
17:15:27 [sebastian]
17:15:27 [christine]
17:15:29 [msmith]
subtopic: LC comment to POWDER WG
17:15:36 [IanH]
RESOLVED: WG will send LC comment to POWDER WG as per Ivan's draft
17:15:50 [msmith]
ivan's draft:
17:16:14 [msmith]
topic: Documents and Reviewing
17:16:29 [IanH]
17:16:32 [IanH]
17:16:35 [pfps]
Primer looks good to me.
17:16:44 [christine]
17:16:45 [sebastian]
17:16:45 [msmith]
ianh: last week we punted on publishing the Primer. I think it is now ready to pub. Comments?
17:16:47 [uli]
looks fine to me
17:16:49 [ivan_]
17:16:55 [IanH]
17:17:10 [bijan]
No one has to like it in it's current form!
17:17:17 [bijan]
By publishing we don't commit to it
17:17:19 [IanH]
17:17:20 [msmith]
christine: I haven't changed my mind since last week and do not want to see it published
17:17:47 [msmith]
... I would like a commitment for significant changes before last call
17:18:16 [sandro]
Christine, note that it currently says: "This Working Draft has undergone a complete rewrite since the previous version of 11 April 2008, to improve its readability and utility. Examples are now mostly also available in Turtle syntax. This document will undergo further significant revision before a final version is produced. "
17:18:17 [msmith]
ianh: there is no positive commitment inherent in publishing, so such a commitment to force changes is inappropriate
17:18:20 [IanH]
17:18:21 [sandro]
17:18:23 [sandro]
17:18:28 [pfps]
+1 to Ian
17:18:41 [IanH]
ack sandro
17:18:47 [msmith]
christine: I don't want to commit to going to LC in the next publication
17:19:07 [bijan]
Standard boilerpalte:
17:19:07 [bijan]
No Endorsement
17:19:08 [bijan]
Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.
17:19:11 [pfps]
I did it. :-)
17:19:15 [bijan]
This is standard for WD
17:19:17 [MarkusK_]
+1 to Sandro stating that further revisions are in scope for us
17:19:36 [msmith]
sandro: I think the text quoted above (authored by pfps) meets your goal
17:19:40 [IanH]
PROPOSED: Primer is ready for publication as OWD
17:19:44 [pfps]
+1 ALU
17:19:47 [bcuencagrau]
17:19:49 [MarkusK_]
17:19:49 [ivan_]
17:19:51 [bijan]
17:19:52 [uli]
17:19:52 [msmith]
17:19:53 [sebastian]
17:19:55 [sandro]
17:19:57 [Rinke]
17:19:59 [ewallace]
17:20:01 [christine]
17:20:02 [Zakim]
17:20:06 [JeffP]
17:20:08 [Zhe]
17:20:09 [IanH]
RESOLVED: Primer is ready for publication as OWD
17:20:11 [baojie]
17:20:16 [christine]
even no reviews!
17:20:39 [Zakim]
17:20:50 [sandro]
alan: +1
17:21:32 [IanH]
17:21:32 [msmith]
subtopic: procedure for LC comments (in 2nd LC)
17:21:49 [Rinke]
zakim, who is talking?
17:21:49 [Zakim]
I am sorry, Rinke; I don't have the necessary resources to track talkers right now
17:21:54 [sandro]
ian: Last time, we treated last call comments from WG members like we treated them from outside. I think this was a mistake, overkill, with extra admin burden.
17:22:28 [msmith]
ianh: last time we allowed lc comments from wg members. We should change this b/c: I think this was a mistake b/c it added administrative burden, and interested parties should have already reviewed
17:22:33 [IanH]
17:22:38 [sandro]
ian: I would expect that folks in the WG have *already* *reviewed* these documents, and given their feedback already.
17:22:48 [sandro]
Ian; I think we should be quicker in dealing with the comments.
17:22:48 [schneid]
schneid has joined #owl
17:22:51 [bijan]
17:22:54 [msmith]
... we also need to be quicker responding to lc comments
17:22:58 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:23:37 [IanH]
17:23:41 [msmith]
bijan: are we pretty committed to thinking we have everything fixed (presentation and technical)? if so, then we can dispose of things pretty quickly.
17:23:47 [Zakim]
17:24:01 [sandro]
rrsagent, make record public
17:24:23 [schneid]
zakim, [IPcaller] is me
17:24:23 [Zakim]
+schneid; got it
17:24:27 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
17:24:27 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
17:24:27 [msmith]
ianh: last time we took a long time just to allocate resources for response. that consumed a lot of time. chairs might delegate actions more this time around
17:24:31 [IanH]
17:24:35 [Zakim]
17:24:37 [msmith]
bijan: that sounds great.
17:24:58 [IanH]
17:25:04 [pfps]
*I* feel more confident. :-)
17:25:08 [msmith]
... but if we're not committed enough to push against push back - then we're definitely going to take a long time. are we more confident this time?
17:25:37 [IanH]
17:25:51 [msmith]
... so, then we should be quick and avoid revisiting the same debates
17:25:55 [IanH]
17:26:06 [IanH]
17:26:21 [Zakim]
17:26:26 [IanH]
17:26:46 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:26:46 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, +1.603.897.aadd, christine, IanH, MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, baojie, bmotik (muted), uli (muted), JeffP,
17:26:48 [JeffP]
17:26:49 [Zakim]
... Evan_Wallace, Rinke (muted), sebastian, schneid (muted), Jonathan_Rees
17:26:52 [Zakim]
On IRC I see schneid, ivan_, ewallace, baojie, bmotik, uli, MarkusK_, christine, JeffP, Zhe, IanH, bcuencagrau, sebastian, Rinke, pfps, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, sandro,
17:26:54 [Zakim]
... trackbot
17:27:12 [msmith]
jeffp: what are the deadlines for this lc?
17:27:16 [IanH]
ack JeffP
17:27:19 [msmith]
ianh: 21 days from publish
17:27:34 [msmith]
sandro: apr 21 is expected pub date, so may 12 for end of lc period
17:27:49 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
17:27:51 [bijan]
17:27:52 [IanH]
17:27:56 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:27:59 [alanr]
on irc now...
17:28:02 [msmith]
ianh: last time we got comments well after end of comment period, we tried to deal with those. I'm not sure what happens with those?
17:28:18 [msmith]
bijan: if we set an intended CR date, that will help.
17:28:28 [msmith]
sandro: june 1 was a nominal CR date
17:28:28 [alanr]
17:28:42 [IanH]
ack alanr
17:29:02 [bijan]
We should respond to comments before end of LC period :)
17:29:02 [msmith]
alanr: we said 3 weeks for comments, 3 weeks for response. so 6 weeks from pub.
17:29:10 [msmith]
sandro: ok, that means june 2
17:29:14 [IanH]
17:29:21 [pfps]
17:29:23 [bijan]
+1 to alanr
17:29:27 [alanr]
17:29:32 [msmith]
alanr: we should be explicit about schedule dates in LC publish
17:29:34 [pfps]
17:29:44 [schneid]
17:29:49 [msmith]
sandro: yes, phrased in a friendly way
17:29:52 [alanr]
+1 to being more friendly :)
17:29:53 [pfps]
17:30:16 [msmith]
sandro: doesn't want to over commit to dates
17:30:20 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
17:30:20 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
17:30:26 [IanH]
ack schneid
17:30:31 [pfps]
17:30:49 [msmith]
schneid: should we see if everyone is available for a f2f at the end of may
17:30:53 [pfps]
17:31:09 [msmith]
ianh: we can check, but I think we're hoping to avoid another f2f.
17:31:09 [sandro]
June 1 is only 7 weeks away now, and we need 8 weeks lead time.
17:31:12 [IanH]
ack pfps
17:31:14 [schneid]
17:31:16 [msmith]
... we can schedule one just in case
17:31:19 [bijan]
+1 to peter
17:31:23 [msmith]
pfps: let's not have another f2f
17:31:33 [alanr]
17:31:33 [ivan_]
+1 to peter
17:31:40 [msmith]
... let's schedule an extended telecon (whole afternoon) instead
17:31:40 [sandro]
"virtual F2F" is the goofy name I've heard for that.
17:31:41 [JeffP]
unless the f2f is in Europe :-)
17:31:57 [msmith]
ianh: it would be pretty tough to have another f2f at such short notice
17:32:07 [IanH]
17:32:18 [msmith]
... doind it by telecon is more economical with everyone's time
17:32:22 [IanH]
17:32:31 [IanH]
17:32:43 [msmith]
topic: (Technical) Issues Arising
17:32:52 [alanr]
zakim, mute me
17:32:52 [Zakim]
sorry, alanr, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:33:00 [IanH]
17:33:08 [msmith]
subtopic: negative property assertions (in RL)
17:33:14 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
17:33:14 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, +1.603.897.aadd, christine, IanH, MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, baojie, bmotik (muted), uli (muted), JeffP,
17:33:17 [Zakim]
... Evan_Wallace, Rinke (muted), sebastian, schneid, Jonathan_Rees
17:33:18 [Zakim]
On IRC I see alanr, schneid, ivan_, ewallace, baojie, bmotik, uli, MarkusK_, christine, JeffP, Zhe, IanH, bcuencagrau, sebastian, Rinke, pfps, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan,
17:33:21 [Zakim]
... sandro, trackbot
17:33:33 [IanH]
17:33:35 [alanr]
zakim, Jonathan_Rees is alanr
17:33:35 [Zakim]
+alanr; got it
17:33:38 [sandro]
Ciao, everyone. Back to RIF F2F.
17:33:41 [alanr]
zakim, mute me
17:33:41 [Zakim]
alanr should now be muted
17:33:44 [uli]
17:33:47 [Zakim]
17:33:56 [msmith]
jeffp: last telecon we discussed n.p.a.'s in RL. I did some investigation and I think it boils down to syntactic sugar.
17:34:21 [msmith]
... jos's comment was about if such syntactic sugar is appropriate
17:34:25 [IanH]
17:34:30 [pfps]
pointer, please
17:34:41 [IanH]
pointer to what?
17:34:42 [uli]
q+ to answer to Jeff that 'we have learned from OWL lite that leaving out syntactic sugar from a profile is bad'
17:34:46 [msmith]
... jjc's email laid out why the syntactic sugar is problematic
17:34:49 [schneid]
jeremy fears an idea he calls "negative triples" - whatever this is
17:35:02 [bmotik]
17:35:13 [bijan]
It's harmless, it was requested, add it
17:35:18 [uli]
zakim, unmute me
17:35:18 [Zakim]
uli should no longer be muted
17:35:19 [IanH]
ack uli
17:35:19 [Zakim]
uli, you wanted to answer to Jeff that 'we have learned from OWL lite that leaving out syntactic sugar from a profile is bad'
17:35:26 [bijan]
17:35:41 [Zakim]
17:35:46 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:35:46 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
17:36:02 [JeffP]
17:36:05 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:36:11 [msmith]
uli: one design principle for all profiles is that if something can be expressed indirectly, it can be expressed directly. i.e., so each profile is maximal in a certain sense.
17:36:38 [msmith]
bmotik: jjc is wrong, there is no problem with the RDF. we either have it in the language or not.
17:36:58 [msmith]
... in RL it is *not* syntactic sugar, they can't be expressed in other ways
17:37:02 [ivan_]
17:37:05 [pfps]
jjc's message is
17:37:13 [Zakim]
17:37:16 [IanH]
ack JeffP
17:37:19 [bijan]
zakim, ??p1 is me
17:37:19 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
17:37:58 [msmith]
jeffp: bmotik's point that it is not syntactic sugar in RL is important
17:38:01 [bmotik]
17:38:06 [pfps]
q+ to ask what the problem is
17:38:17 [msmith]
... folks at HP Bristol confirmed jjc's claim that the RDF will be problematic
17:38:29 [msmith]
ianh: do you have any better information about what the problem is?
17:38:40 [uli]
clarification: do we talk about negative property or negative class assertions?
17:38:57 [ivan_]
17:38:58 [bmotik]
This is not correct.
17:39:06 [msmith]
jeffp: if you have negative property assertions, you are negating triples, which is not specified in RDF
17:39:16 [bmotik]
Negative property assertions are accompanied by a set of semantic conditions just like any other construct.
17:39:20 [bmotik]
There is *no* problem here.
17:39:21 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:39:24 [msmith]
... we need an agreement with the RDF working group
17:39:59 [IanH]
17:40:09 [ivan_]
17:40:10 [schneid]
17:40:10 [msmith]
bijan: that argument doesn't make sense because there are alternative encodings. the encoding we're using is intention revealing
17:40:10 [pfps]
q+ to say that functional properties already permits negative triples
17:40:15 [IanH]
17:40:47 [msmith]
ianh: how long should we discuss this given that we're unlikely to change this now?
17:41:03 [msmith]
ianh: we voted for them to be in already.
17:41:04 [alanr]
17:41:07 [pfps]
no will from me to chuck them out.
17:41:08 [bmotik]
Absolutely not!
17:41:27 [IanH]
17:41:34 [msmith]
jeffp: I think we voted that they were in, unless I found problems. This is a problem.
17:41:42 [msmith]
bijan: I disagree, this is not a new problem.
17:41:48 [bijan]
It's not a problem!
17:41:52 [alanr]
17:41:56 [uli]
Jeff, where exactly/technically is the problem?
17:42:05 [alanr]
zakim, unmute me
17:42:05 [Zakim]
alanr should no longer be muted
17:42:06 [bijan]
A problem would be that it wouldn't be implementable on a rules system
17:42:12 [schneid]
let's straw poll on "at risk"!
17:42:14 [msmith]
ianh: I agree with bijan, it would take massive changes to revise current decision
17:42:18 [bijan]
That was explicitly the issue raised last time
17:42:52 [bmotik]
Let's work off the queue first.
17:42:56 [msmith]
alanr: we can straw poll specifically for at risk, to solicit comments just for n.p.a.
17:43:05 [IanH]
17:43:07 [alanr]
17:43:08 [pfps]
17:43:13 [schneid]
we heard that the jena team things there is a problem for their implementation - so at risk seems reasonable
17:43:24 [IanH]
17:43:27 [schneid]
(i don't think there is a problem in jena)
17:43:31 [bijan]
But we don't know what the problem is
17:43:36 [bijan]
I'm very skeptical about the report
17:43:44 [uli]
schneid, "thinks" that there is a problem is different from 'has found a problem'!
17:43:45 [schneid]
+1 to boris
17:43:50 [pfps]
+1 to boris
17:43:54 [bijan]
+1 to boris
17:44:02 [Zakim]
17:44:10 [IanH]
17:44:10 [pfps]
note that functional properties have exactly the same effect as negative property assertions
17:44:17 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:44:20 [JeffP]
we lost ivan
17:44:20 [msmith]
bmotik: all of this is fabricated. we are not negating parts of rdf graphs. the statements are positive and accompanied by a set of semantic conditions. I don't see a need to further discussion or vote.
17:44:20 [schneid]
17:44:28 [msmith]
ack ivan_+
17:44:37 [pfps]
ack ivan_
17:44:52 [MarkusK_]
+1 to Boris
17:44:59 [ivan]
ivan has joined #owl
17:45:03 [uli]
Jeff, who asked for this?
17:45:08 [msmith]
ianh: jeffp, are you suggesting removal from OWL 2 or OWL 2 RL?
17:45:12 [bijan]
q+ to ask if jeff is going to lie in the road
17:45:18 [IanH]
17:45:18 [Rinke]
But it would still be in full right?
17:45:23 [msmith]
jeffp: just OWL 2 RL, which is considered more RDF friendly
17:45:27 [IanH]
17:45:30 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:45:30 [Zakim]
bijan, you wanted to ask if jeff is going to lie in the road
17:45:34 [IanH]
17:45:35 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:45:35 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
17:45:35 [Zakim]
17:45:55 [IanH]
17:45:58 [msmith]
bijan: I think jeff would need to file a formal objection at this point.
17:46:25 [uli]
+1 to Ivan's understanding
17:46:31 [JeffP]
17:46:38 [IanH]
17:46:43 [msmith]
ivan: I think this discussion is not specific to RL. JJC's comment is about n.p.a. in general.
17:47:00 [msmith]
ianh: I agree, jjc was talking about n.p.a in OWL 2
17:47:15 [bijan]
q+ to oppose at risking!
17:47:23 [IanH]
17:47:27 [bmotik]
I really don't see a need for an "at risk" label. We should not emasculate the spec because some people have fixations.
17:47:30 [msmith]
ivan: I support making it at risk to get additional feedback. if jjc is the only negative feedback, we can move on
17:47:37 [bmotik]
I strongly oppose an "at risk" label.
17:47:41 [uli]
+1 to bmotik
17:47:54 [bijan]
+1 to bmotik
17:47:55 [sebastian]
+1 to boris
17:47:58 [IanH]
17:48:01 [msmith]
msmith: I also oppose "at risk" label
17:48:02 [schneid]
I thought "at Risk" targets to CR ?
17:48:08 [IanH]
ack JeffP
17:48:42 [ivan]
17:48:42 [msmith]
jeffp: to ivan, jjc's comment is whole spec, but n.p.a is also in RL. I proposed removing it just from RL.
17:48:57 [IanH]
17:49:00 [schneid]
In the RL rules it is simply: NPA(s p o) + s p o = false
17:49:05 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:49:05 [Zakim]
bijan, you wanted to oppose at risking!
17:49:12 [IanH]
17:49:22 [msmith]
ianh: ok, it's acceptable to comment on decision from last week. less acceptable to revisit long standing decisions
17:49:35 [IanH]
17:49:37 [bmotik]
I *strongly* oppose labeling any part of the spec with "at risk" for exactly the reasons that Bijan mentions now.
17:49:45 [msmith]
bijan: I oppose "at risk" because there is not a technical problem with supporting it.
17:49:50 [IanH]
17:50:00 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
17:50:00 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
17:50:02 [msmith]
... I think an "at risk" label would punt a difficult decision that we should make now.
17:50:04 [IanH]
ack ivan
17:50:23 [bmotik]
+1000 to Ivan
17:50:33 [msmith]
ivan: I don't understand why focusing on RL would make any difference. I added these rules to my RL implementation this afternoon and they were trivial
17:50:39 [JeffP]
we are talking about existing RDF APIs but not just one implementation
17:50:47 [msmith]
ianh: we're going to do some polls
17:51:01 [bijan]
JeffP, there's no change to any api
17:51:04 [IanH]
STRAWPOLL: we mark as "at risk" negative property assertions in general
17:51:08 [Rinke]
17:51:09 [bmotik]
17:51:09 [msmith]
msmith: -1
17:51:10 [baojie]
17:51:10 [pfps]
17:51:11 [MarkusK_]
17:51:12 [sebastian]
17:51:13 [bijan]
17:51:13 [Zhe]
17:51:13 [ivan]
17:51:16 [alanr]
17:51:17 [ewallace]
17:51:18 [JeffP]
17:51:19 [uli]
17:51:19 [schneid]
17:51:20 [bcuencagrau]
17:51:25 [christine]
17:51:51 [alanr]
zakim, mute me
17:51:51 [Zakim]
alanr should now be muted
17:52:03 [msmith]
ianh: jeffp, this vote is in conflict with your previous comment that you were only concerned with RL
17:52:12 [JeffP]
17:52:12 [msmith]
jeffp: I misread the vote, make it -1
17:52:37 [msmith]
ivan: I will not push for "at risk" in general
17:52:37 [uli]
ivan, but you just implemented them?!
17:52:44 [IanH]
STRAWPOLL: we mark as "at risk" negative property assertions in RL profile
17:52:51 [Rinke]
17:52:52 [msmith]
17:52:52 [bmotik]
-1E72 (this time shorter)
17:52:55 [pfps]
17:52:56 [MarkusK_]
17:52:56 [bijan]
17:52:57 [Zhe]
17:52:57 [bcuencagrau]
17:52:58 [sebastian]
17:52:58 [ivan]
17:52:59 [uli]
17:53:00 [baojie]
17:53:00 [schneid]
17:53:01 [JeffP]
17:53:01 [alanr]
17:53:07 [ewallace]
17:53:42 [msmith]
ianh: jeffp, are you lying in the road?
17:53:55 [bijan]
17:53:56 [msmith]
jeffp: I will stick to my opinion
17:53:59 [IanH]
17:54:00 [alanr]
17:54:00 [bmotik]
Jeff should formally object if he wants
17:54:10 [IanH]
17:54:15 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:54:18 [msmith]
ianh: you can formally object I guess?
17:54:38 [msmith]
bijan: I don't think he can object to it being "at risk", he can object to it being in the language
17:54:47 [IanH]
17:54:51 [IanH]
ack alanr
17:55:17 [bijan]
17:55:20 [bmotik]
17:55:33 [IanH]
17:55:45 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:56:00 [msmith]
alanr: I don't see that much down side to saying it is at risk in RL. I don't think many people in the WG are thinking about RL and jeff is, that should be noted.
17:56:15 [alanr]
I didn't hear that. He wants it at risk.
17:56:19 [alanr]
that's what's on the table.
17:56:31 [IanH]
17:56:37 [bijan]
alanr, he said that
17:56:40 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:56:43 [msmith]
bijan: I don't think jeff is in a privileged position, many of us are thinking about RL. he is not advocating for at risk, he is advocating for removal.
17:57:00 [JeffP]
17:57:08 [uli]
+1 to bmotik, again!
17:57:09 [MarkusK_]
+1 to Boris, again; there is no problem, it's done, let's keep it
17:57:15 [IanH]
17:57:21 [IanH]
ack JeffP
17:57:23 [msmith]
bmotik: there is no implementation problem.
17:57:27 [bijan]
17:57:38 [IanH]
17:57:41 [Rinke]
if the problem really really is RDF-compatibility, then not including it in RL, but including it in Full is really nonsensical
17:57:55 [msmith]
jeffp: the problem is not implementation, it is with compatibility. we should hear from people building RDF APIs, an area about which we're not experts
17:58:00 [ivan]
JeffP, the problem is _not_ with RL... (in my view)
17:58:01 [bijan]
I've build RDF apis
17:58:06 [bijan]
I've contribtuted to them
17:58:09 [IanH]
17:58:12 [bijan]
17:58:13 [bijan]
17:58:28 [msmith]
ianh: I don't think we can propose to overturn previous decision. the only think is to decide if we mark at risk.
17:58:33 [bijan]
You can look at the design and see it has no effect on the RDF level
17:58:34 [IanH]
17:58:43 [IanH]
17:59:06 [ivan]
17:59:09 [IanH]
17:59:15 [bmotik]
I'll formally object to removing it!
17:59:18 [bijan]
What a strange belief
17:59:28 [IanH]
17:59:31 [IanH]
17:59:37 [IanH]
ack ivan
17:59:39 [msmith]
jeffp: I would like to remove it from RL altogether, if not mark it "at risk"
17:59:55 [alanr]
zakim, mute me
17:59:55 [Zakim]
alanr should now be muted
18:00:05 [bijan]
Yes, you don't have to add a "addNegativeTriple"
18:00:06 [JeffP]
18:00:12 [bijan]
Thus, no change to *any* rdf api
18:00:17 [IanH]
18:00:24 [msmith]
ivan: if there is a problem with n.p.a. , the issue is not specific to RL. this is why I voted to make "at risk" in general
18:00:58 [msmith]
jeffp: if RDF people are going to support OWL 2, then OWL 2 RL will be their initial target.
18:01:02 [bijan]
18:01:02 [msmith]
ivan: I agree.
18:01:13 [schneid]
and also no problem in OWL 2 Full: NPAs are expressible in OWL 1 Full
18:01:29 [IanH]
PROPOSAL: We will mark as "at risk" negative property assertions in OWL RL
18:01:31 [bmotik]
-1 (I'll formally object to this decision if this goes through.)
18:01:34 [pfps]
-0.5 ALU
18:01:38 [ivan]
18:01:40 [msmith]
18:01:40 [bcuencagrau]
18:01:41 [MarkusK_]
-1 (FZI)
18:01:41 [uli]
-1 (Manchester)
18:01:41 [schneid]
18:01:42 [alanr]
18:01:42 [baojie]
18:01:43 [sebastian]
18:01:43 [Zhe]
18:01:45 [Rinke]
-1 (Amsterdam)
18:01:45 [JeffP]
+1 (Aberdeen)
18:01:45 [christine]
18:01:49 [ewallace]
18:02:26 [JeffP]
18:02:39 [msmith]
ianh: jeff, are you satisfied that we've exhausted this issue
18:02:51 [alanr]
indeed - can get comments at lc and cr
18:03:02 [ivan]
+10000 to Ian
18:03:04 [alanr]
Yes, Jeff - please do explain this clearly!
18:03:11 [JeffP]
I will try
18:03:14 [alanr]
18:03:36 [IanH]
18:03:44 [IanH]
ack JeffP
18:03:48 [msmith]
topic: test cases
18:03:58 [alanr]
q+ perhaps discuss syntax translation test criteria?
18:04:13 [pfps]
+1 to default approval of test cases
18:04:16 [alanr]
q+ to perhaps discuss syntax translation test criteria?
18:04:23 [msmith]
ianh: previous approval procedure required action. I think we should switch to defaul approval of test cases
18:04:24 [IanH]
18:04:28 [IanH]
ack alanr
18:04:29 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to perhaps discuss syntax translation test criteria?
18:04:32 [pfps]
... or someone could notice a structural problem with a test
18:04:33 [IanH]
18:05:08 [uli]
18:05:12 [msmith]
alanr: the only unresolved issue regarding tests was criteria for translation tests. should we discuss this now?
18:05:15 [IanH]
18:05:17 [pfps]
Umm, bi-entailment does not actually check that the models are the same
18:05:27 [msmith]
... clarification on default. what would be subject to default?
18:05:33 [bijan]
Syntax translation should be in terms of..e.r..syntax, thus structure,yes?
18:05:38 [msmith]
q+ to comment on default approval
18:05:42 [alanr]
ok. pfps - what would the test be?
18:05:42 [uli]
zakim, unmute me
18:05:42 [Zakim]
uli was not muted, uli
18:05:44 [IanH]
ack uli
18:06:20 [msmith]
uli: regarding syntax translation criteria, we can't test model equivalence because you would need to run infinite tests
18:06:29 [IanH]
18:06:32 [msmith]
alanr: so we have statement in RDF mapping that is untestable?
18:06:35 [bijan]
It's demonstratable
18:06:45 [msmith]
uli: yes, but untestable is different from demonstrable
18:06:50 [pfps]
we have lots of untestable stuff in our documents - most of the theorems are "untestable"
18:06:59 [bijan]
But you can't check it in specific cases
18:07:03 [bijan]
18:07:04 [IanH]
18:07:06 [msmith]
uli: if you had such a test, you can test the implementation of a translator
18:07:45 [alanr]
The mappings presented in this document are backwards-compatible with that of OWL 1 DL: every OWL 1 DL ontology encoded as an RDF graph can be mapped into a valid OWL 2 DL ontology using the mapping from Section 3 such that the resulting OWL 2 DL ontology has exactly the same set of models as the original OWL 1 DL ontology
18:07:49 [IanH]
ack msmith
18:07:49 [Zakim]
msmith, you wanted to comment on default approval
18:07:50 [uli]
zakim, mute me
18:07:51 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
18:08:12 [uli]
sure, let's do this by email
18:08:33 [IanH]
18:08:38 [msmith]
ianh: uli was saying there are properties that exist which we can't necessarily test.
18:08:45 [msmith]
alanr: I will follow-up on email.
18:08:48 [uli]
18:09:01 [alanr]
zakim, mute me
18:09:01 [Zakim]
alanr should now be muted
18:09:02 [IanH]
18:09:47 [bmotik]
18:09:48 [IanH]
18:09:59 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:10:00 [msmith]
msmith: I think we should have some quick oversight before approval.
18:10:09 [msmith]
bmotik: I don't want default approval.
18:10:21 [msmith]
... one or two tools should pass test before approval
18:10:22 [alanr]
had to step away from phone - back now
18:10:30 [IanH]
18:10:52 [msmith]
bmotik: suggestion, two tools should pass the test. then default approval.
18:11:03 [alanr]
18:11:07 [msmith]
... then the whole test ssuite should be run periodically.
18:11:11 [msmith]
ianh: what is status
18:11:15 [IanH]
18:11:21 [msmith]
18:11:27 [pfps]
+1 to some intermediate status
18:11:44 [IanH]
ack alanr
18:12:11 [msmith]
alanr: this sounds fine. there should be a mechanism for tests that fail to be approved.
18:12:52 [msmith]
ianh: yes, I was thinking 3 statuses. no state. reasonable. approved.
18:12:56 [IanH]
ack msmith
18:12:59 [alanr]
18:13:35 [IanH]
18:13:36 [alanr]
submitted, proposed, approved-default, approved-explicit, rejected-explicit
18:14:03 [MarkusK_]
+1 to Mike
18:14:06 [IanH]
ack alanr
18:14:13 [pfps]
+1 to Mike
18:14:22 [pfps]
18:14:25 [msmith]
msmith: the test framework can support this process.
18:14:45 [pfps]
q+ to say that approved-default is more likely to be correct than approved-explicit
18:14:50 [msmith]
alanr: we need an easy way to see approved default vs. approved by wg action
18:14:56 [IanH]
ack pfps
18:14:56 [Zakim]
pfps, you wanted to say that approved-default is more likely to be correct than approved-explicit
18:15:17 [IanH]
18:15:25 [msmith]
alanr: we also need support for submitted tests that are never satisfied by tools. what happens then?
18:15:34 [IanH]
18:15:39 [bijan]
18:16:01 [IanH]
ack bijan
18:16:48 [IanH]
18:16:52 [msmith]
bijan: tests that are wrong will get resolved by the tools.
18:16:58 [IanH]
18:17:05 [alanr]
+1 on "too-hard" tests according to bijan
18:17:10 [pfps]
+1 to Mike's suggestion
18:17:14 [msmith]
... perhaps a new category for tests that no one will pass
18:17:36 [IanH]
18:17:51 [msmith]
ianh: we're all pretty much in agreement with "ready for testing" status
18:18:16 [IanH]
18:18:32 [msmith]
yes, I would like primer examples, when primer is stablized to become test cases
18:18:35 [IanH]
18:18:53 [msmith]
18:18:59 [IanH]
ack msmith
18:20:11 [uli]
18:20:16 [MarkusK_]
msmith: There was an open issue on how to organize tests that use the same input but produce different outcomes for direct semantics and RDF-based semantics. This is solved now and we can handle this.
18:20:23 [msmith]
msmith: we can clean up test cases on future agendas
18:20:27 [msmith]
ianh: agreed.
18:20:29 [uli]
bye bye
18:20:29 [JeffP]
thanks, bye
18:20:29 [Zakim]
18:20:29 [Zhe]
18:20:30 [ivan]
we can talk about grddl
18:20:30 [alanr]
thanks Ian!
18:20:32 [Zakim]
18:20:33 [MarkusK_]
18:20:33 [Rinke]
thanks, bye!
18:20:33 [Zakim]
- +1.603.897.aadd
18:20:34 [Zakim]
18:20:37 [Zakim]
18:20:39 [Zakim]
18:20:39 [Zakim]
18:20:39 [ivan]
18:20:40 [Zakim]
18:20:41 [Zakim]
18:20:43 [schneid]
18:20:43 [Zakim]
18:20:45 [Zakim]
18:20:46 [Zakim]
18:20:46 [Zakim]
18:20:50 [Zakim]
18:20:52 [ivan]
ivan has left #owl
18:20:52 [Zakim]
18:20:52 [Zakim]
18:20:58 [IanH]
RRSAgent, make records public
18:21:14 [msmith]
thanks ian
18:21:16 [Zakim]
18:21:17 [IanH]
Thanks Mike for scribing!
18:21:18 [msmith]
18:21:22 [msmith]
msmith has left #owl
19:04:31 [uli]
uli has left #owl
19:35:01 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, msmith, in SW_OWL()1:00PM
19:35:05 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
19:35:06 [Zakim]
Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, +1.202.408.aaaa, msmith, +86528aabb, bijan, +2, +1.603.897.aadd, bcuencagrau, IanH, Rinke, MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, +1.518.276.aaee, christine,
19:35:08 [Zakim]
... baojie, uli, +22427aaff, Alan_Ruttenberg, JeffP, Evan_Wallace, bmotik, sebastian, schneid, alanr
20:37:44 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl
22:59:01 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
23:08:10 [IanH_]
IanH_ has joined #owl