IRC log of owl on 2009-05-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:53:37 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:53:37 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/05/06-owl-irc
16:53:45 [Rinke]: Zakim, this will be owlwg
16:53:45 [Zakim]: ok, Rinke; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
16:53:54 [Rinke]: rrsagent, make records public
16:54:14 [bmotik]: bmotik has joined #owl
16:54:24 [bmotik]: Zakim, this will be owl
16:54:24 [Zakim]: ok, bmotik; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
16:56:58 [IanH]: IanH has joined #owl
16:57:06 [bcuencagrau]: bcuencagrau has joined #owl
16:57:43 [Zakim]: SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
16:57:49 [Zakim]: +??P0
16:57:55 [IanH]: IanH has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.05.06/Agenda
16:57:58 [bmotik]: Zakim, ??P0 is bmotik
16:57:58 [Zakim]: +bmotik; got it
16:58:05 [IanH]: Zakim, this will be owlwg
16:58:05 [Zakim]: ok, IanH; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
16:58:10 [bmotik]: Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:58:10 [Zakim]: I notice SW_OWL()1:00PM has restarted
16:58:11 [Zakim]: On the phone I see bmotik
16:58:12 [IanH]: RRSAgent, make records public
16:58:16 [bmotik]: Zakim, mute me
16:58:16 [Zakim]: sorry, bmotik, muting is not permitted when only one person is present
16:58:31 [MarkusK_]: MarkusK_ has joined #owl
16:58:42 [Zakim]: +Aliman
16:58:46 [pfps]: pfps has joined #owl
16:58:50 [bmotik]: Zakim, mute me
16:58:50 [Zakim]: bmotik should now be muted
16:59:05 [Zakim]: +Ian_Horrocks
16:59:18 [IanH]: zakim, Ian_Horrocks is IanH
16:59:18 [Zakim]: +IanH; got it
16:59:34 [Zakim]: +Peter_Patel-Schneider
16:59:35 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
16:59:37 [Zakim]: + +2
16:59:45 [zimmer]: zimmer has joined #owl
16:59:49 [Zakim]: - +2
16:59:56 [IanH]: zakim, who is here?
16:59:56 [Zakim]: On the phone I see bmotik (muted), Aliman, IanH, Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_
17:00:00 [Zakim]: On IRC I see zimmer, pfps, MarkusK_, bcuencagrau, IanH, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, Rinke, sandro, trackbot
17:00:02 [Zakim]: -Aliman
17:00:22 [Zakim]: +??P1
17:00:26 [Rinke]: zakim, +??P1 is me
17:00:27 [Zakim]: sorry, Rinke, I do not recognize a party named '+??P1'
17:00:32 [IanH]: Boris -- you are scribing, yes?
17:00:34 [Zakim]: -??P1
17:00:34 [Rinke]: zakim, ??P1 is me
17:00:36 [Zakim]: I already had ??P1 as ??P1, Rinke
17:00:44 [Zakim]: +Aliman
17:00:52 [bcuencagrau]: Zakim, Aliman is bcuencagrau
17:00:52 [Zakim]: +bcuencagrau; got it
17:00:52 [IanH]: ScribeNick: bmotik
17:00:56 [bcuencagrau]: Zakim, mute me
17:00:56 [Zakim]: bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:01:02 [bmotik]: Zakim, unmute me
17:01:02 [Zakim]: bmotik should no longer be muted
17:01:33 [Zhe]: Zhe has joined #owl
17:01:36 [Zakim]: +??P1
17:01:39 [IanH]: zakim, who is here?
17:01:39 [Zakim]: On the phone I see bmotik, IanH, Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, bcuencagrau (muted), ??P1
17:01:41 [Rinke]: zakim, ??P1 is me
17:01:42 [Zakim]: On IRC I see Zhe, zimmer, pfps, MarkusK_, bcuencagrau, IanH, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, Rinke, sandro, trackbot
17:01:44 [Zakim]: +Rinke; got it
17:01:45 [Rinke]: zakim, mute me
17:01:45 [Zakim]: Rinke should now be muted
17:01:53 [bmotik]: Topic: Agenda amendments
17:02:02 [bmotik]: IanH: Any admendments?
17:02:03 [IanH]: ack Rinke
17:02:03 [Rinke]: sorry
17:02:08 [Rinke]: just checking
17:02:13 [bmotik]: Ianh: No amendments
17:02:19 [bmotik]: Topic: Previous minutes
17:02:21 [Rinke]: zakim, mute me
17:02:21 [Zakim]: Rinke should now be muted
17:02:23 [Zakim]: +Zhe
17:02:25 [bmotik]: Ianh: Anyone looked at that?
17:02:25 [Zakim]: +Sandro
17:02:27 [Zhe]: zakim, mute me
17:02:27 [Zakim]: Zhe should now be muted
17:02:28 [MarkusK_]: the minutes are okay, but have some "FIXME"s
17:02:30 [pfps]: minutes looked acceptable to me
17:02:31 [bmotik]: Ianh: seemed alright to me.
17:02:54 [bmotik]: Ianh: Can be accept them but ask Michael to do a bit more of tidying up
17:02:59 [bmotik]: s/be/we
17:03:05 [baojie]: baojie has joined #owl
17:03:06 [pfps]: I think that even the FIXMEs were mostly OK - none of them were related to what I said, however,
17:03:13 [bmotik]: Topic: Pending review actions
17:03:17 [Zakim]: +zimmer
17:03:25 [MarkusK_]: +1 most FIXMEs could just be deleted
17:03:34 [bmotik]: Ianh: ACTION-333 seems to be completed
17:03:37 [IanH]: q?
17:03:48 [IanH]: zakim, who is here?
17:03:48 [Zakim]: On the phone I see bmotik, IanH, Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, bcuencagrau (muted), Rinke (muted), Zhe (muted), Sandro, zimmer
17:03:50 [Zakim]: On IRC I see baojie, Zhe, zimmer, pfps, MarkusK_, bcuencagrau, IanH, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, Rinke, sandro, trackbot
17:03:50 [bmotik]: Inah: ACTION-335 is on Bijan, but he is not on the call
17:03:59 [Zakim]: +baojie
17:04:01 [bmotik]: s/inah/ianh
17:04:11 [bmotik]: Ianh: Let's push it off to next week
17:04:13 [alanr]: alanr has joined #owl
17:04:17 [uli]: uli has joined #owl
17:04:17 [bmotik]: Topic: Documents and reviewing
17:04:17 [msmith]: msmith has joined #owl
17:04:32 [bmotik]: Ianh: I see that the comment to rdf:text has been agreed to and sent
17:04:35 [Zakim]: +Jonathan_Rees
17:04:39 [pfps]: +1 to say that the response wasn't completely positive
17:04:48 [alanr]: zakim, Jonathan_Rees is alanr
17:04:48 [Zakim]: +alanr; got it
17:04:50 [Zakim]: +msmith
17:04:57 [alanr]: zakim, mute me
17:04:57 [Zakim]: alanr should now be muted
17:05:23 [Zakim]: +??P12
17:05:27 [schneid]: schneid has joined #owl
17:05:32 [IanH]: q?
17:05:38 [uli]: zakim, ??P12 is me
17:05:38 [Zakim]: +uli; got it
17:05:42 [uli]: zakim, mute me
17:05:42 [Zakim]: uli should now be muted
17:05:58 [pfps]: +1 to let Boris fight this out with the commenter
17:06:00 [sandro]: boris: michael sperberg-mcqueen seemed okay with all of our comment except one part, where he seems to disagree. I've asked him on the rdf-text list if it's okay for us to just explain better the scope of what we're doing. I've also asked him for more information on what rdf:text doesn't handle.
17:06:42 [alanr]: ruby is annotation
17:06:47 [IanH]: sandro: e.g., directions of languages (c.f. Ruby)
17:06:56 [alanr]: didn't seem to me to be part of the utterance
17:07:15 [bmotik]: Sandro: For example, in Japanese, one might need additional markup for direction and so on
17:07:21 [alanr]: q+
17:07:22 [bmotik]: Sandro: I agree that we should not handle that
17:07:39 [pfps]: saying that rdf:text is just about language tagging sounds like the right solution to me
17:07:47 [bmotik]: Sandro: I am hoping that someone from the i18n community will be able to provide a response
17:07:58 [Zakim]: +??P10
17:08:06 [bmotik]: Ianh: So Boris is going to continue handling this with Axel?
17:08:10 [alanr]: zakim, unmute me
17:08:10 [Zakim]: alanr should no longer be muted
17:08:12 [schneid]: zakim, ??P10 is me
17:08:12 [Zakim]: +schneid; got it
17:08:12 [bmotik]: bmotik: yes
17:08:15 [schneid]: zakim, mute me
17:08:15 [Zakim]: schneid should now be muted
17:08:15 [IanH]: q?
17:08:19 [IanH]: ack alanr
17:08:57 [bmotik]: alanr: We could say a bit more about the Ruby text and the direction. The distinction seems to be about layout and annotation. I could draft something that explains this.
17:08:59 [bmotik]: q+
17:09:08 [IanH]: ack bmotik
17:09:28 [alanr]: +1, document shouldn't say. Response should
17:09:39 [alanr]: will do
17:10:08 [pfps]: the suggested text should be produced ASAP
17:10:08 [alanr]: action, alanr to draft some text for rdf:text or response re unhandled features mentioned by sperber
17:10:25 [bmotik]: bmotik: If you can provide some text for the introduction about what we handle and what we don't handle, that would be appreciated. We should not start speculating as to how one might want to handle these problems.
17:10:26 [alanr]: understood, peter
17:10:35 [bmotik]: ianh: Other comments: there was one with a typo.
17:10:38 [pfps]: q+
17:10:38 [alanr]: zakim, mute me
17:10:39 [Zakim]: alanr should now be muted
17:10:42 [IanH]: q?
17:10:42 [bmotik]: ianh: This was fixed.
17:10:46 [IanH]: ack pfps
17:10:59 [bmotik]: ianh: There was a comment about the use of the word "axiom" in the Priner.
17:11:05 [bmotik]: s/Priner/Primer
17:11:07 [bmotik]: q+
17:11:12 [IanH]: ack bmotik
17:11:29 [MarkusK_]: no, the response does not entail changes to the Syntax
17:11:34 [bmotik]: bmotik: Does this entail any change to the Syntax?
17:11:38 [IanH]: q?
17:11:42 [bmotik]: ianh: No, it is only in the Primer.
17:11:48 [MarkusK_]: we stick to "axiom" but avoid some unfortunate formulations about "deriving axioms"
17:12:21 [MarkusK_]: peter: I looked at the response draft and I think it is good as it is
17:12:37 [bmotik]: inah: I have checked with Richard about the comment of "Class" as is used in the documents, and he does want to consider his e-mail to be a LC comment. We need to produce a response, probably about the lines of "that's standard in our world".
17:13:00 [alanr]: sandro: could you please fix my action item syntax?
17:13:07 [bmotik]: Topic: Various documents
17:13:17 [bmotik]: ianh: There has been quite a lot of activity on QRG
17:13:21 [ewallace]: ewallace has joined #owl
17:13:31 [IanH]: q?
17:13:34 [bmotik]: ianh: Jie implemented the resolution regarding the three-column format.
17:13:49 [bmotik]: ianh: There has been discussion about other aspects of the document.
17:13:59 [bmotik]: ianh: Can the people who are working on the document fill us in?
17:14:09 [bmotik]: ianh: Jie, what's left to figure out?
17:14:15 [baojie]: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Talk:Quick_Reference_Guide#May_5.2C_2009
17:14:19 [bmotik]: baojie: THere are a couple of pending issues/
17:14:24 [Zakim]: +Evan_Wallace
17:14:39 [bmotik]: baojie: The first thing is how do we list OWL 2 Full vocabulary in the reference.
17:15:01 [baojie]: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Talk:Quick_Reference_Guide#Additional_Vocabulary_in_OWL_2_Full
17:15:03 [bmotik]: baojie: I have an initial proposal that we have an additional table.
17:15:18 [schneid]: jie talks about vocabulary terms, that are exclusively used in the RDF-Based Semantics
17:15:23 [bmotik]: baojie: This table would list all vocabulary that is not used in the syntax.
17:15:50 [bmotik]: ianh: I looked at the link but didn't understand it.
17:15:53 [pfps]: Section name is fine, as long as it is in the Appendix section.
17:16:03 [bmotik]: baojie: The additional vocabulary in OWL 2 Full
17:16:13 [bmotik]: ianh: Which of the ones do you think are used in OWL 2 Full?
17:16:18 [bmotik]: baojie: The second column.
17:16:27 [schneid]: /all/ of these terms occur in the reverse Mapping, I believe!
17:16:40 [bmotik]: baojie: I find that there is a mismatch in the syntax and and the RDF semantics.
17:16:58 [pfps]: They have to, as they show up in OWL 1 ontologies
17:17:20 [bmotik]: baojie: The second thing is that there is an issue of naming: shall we call things "onotlogy properties" or "annotation properties">
17:17:21 [schneid]: call them annotation properties, and don't talk about owl:OntologyProperty at all in the QRG
17:17:31 [schneid]: it will only confuse people
17:17:34 [Rinke]: +1 to michael
17:17:38 [bmotik]: baojie: Peter suggested to remove n-ary features.
17:17:45 [pfps]: q+ to say that Uli suggested a reorganization of the sections
17:17:46 [bmotik]: baojie: I don't see a strong reason to do that.
17:17:59 [IanH]: q?
17:18:06 [bmotik]: baojie: Peter had some other comments that I haven't had the chance to look at.
17:18:07 [IanH]: ack pfps
17:18:07 [Zakim]: pfps, you wanted to say that Uli suggested a reorganization of the sections
17:18:16 [uli]: done
17:18:22 [schneid]: q+
17:18:27 [schneid]: zakim, unmute me
17:18:27 [Zakim]: schneid should no longer be muted
17:18:27 [bmotik]: pfps: Fourth thing: Uli suggested a reorganization of the sections.
17:18:31 [IanH]: q?
17:18:33 [bmotik]: baojie: I've already done that.
17:18:33 [uli]: that was very speedy indeed!
17:19:01 [baojie]: OWL 2 Full Vocabulary in QRG
17:19:12 [IanH]: ack schneid
17:19:23 [bmotik]: ianh: So what do we want to do about OWL 2 vocabulary?
17:19:23 [pfps]: also organization of 2.7 and 2.8 (Annotations and Ontologies)
17:19:52 [IanH]: q?
17:20:06 [bmotik]: schneid: Some of this vocabulary should go to a separate table.
17:20:21 [bmotik]: schneid: Ignore ontology properties in QRG and call them annotation properties as in the Syntax.
17:20:54 [IanH]: q?
17:20:54 [schneid]: zakim, mute me
17:20:55 [Zakim]: schneid should now be muted
17:20:56 [bmotik]: schneid: For me, this is the RDF semantics feature.
17:20:59 [IanH]: q?
17:21:35 [pfps]: I'm all *for* it
17:21:38 [bmotik]: baojie: Michael seems to believe that we should just leave this vocabulary out. Jie, are you OK with that?
17:21:45 [bmotik]: s/baojie/ianh
17:21:52 [bmotik]: baojie: I'm OK with that.
17:22:04 [bmotik]: ianh: So then we've decided what to do about Item 1
17:22:08 [schneid]: schneid: there are two groups: the group of terms that are mapped by the reverse RDF mapping (DataRange, distinctMembers, DeprecatedClass|Property)
17:22:27 [bmotik]: baojie: Can we specify what is *this* vocabulary?
17:22:29 [schneid]: schneid: the other "group" is the term owl:OntologyProperty
17:22:49 [bmotik]: ianh: If I understood Micahel, I presume that he thinks the OWL 2 vocabulary should not be listed in the QRG
17:23:00 [schneid]: q+
17:23:01 [bmotik]: pfps: Precisely that
17:23:09 [IanH]: q?
17:23:14 [baojie]: DataRange, distinctMembers, DeprecatedClass|Property owl:OntologyProperty
17:23:15 [schneid]: zakim, unmute me
17:23:15 [Zakim]: schneid should no longer be muted
17:23:24 [IanH]: ack schneid
17:23:41 [bmotik]: schneid: Don't talk about OWL 2 ontology properties; just call them annotation properties
17:24:02 [bmotik]: baojie: Peter suggested to move the ontology properties into the annotations section
17:24:05 [IanH]: q?
17:24:08 [schneid]: zakim, mute me
17:24:08 [Zakim]: schneid should now be muted
17:24:11 [bmotik]: schneid: Yes, do that
17:24:16 [bmotik]: Ianh: All clear?
17:24:20 [bmotik]: baojie: Yes
17:24:26 [baojie]: n-ary datatype
17:24:34 [IanH]: q?
17:24:39 [bmotik]: ianh: About the third point (n-ary)... opinions?
17:24:40 [pfps]: -0.1
17:24:47 [bmotik]: -0.5
17:24:53 [pfps]: q+
17:24:57 [bmotik]: ianh: It seems unnecessary because they are not a part of the language
17:25:05 [alanr]: -1
17:25:08 [schneid]: schneid: (1) don't talk about owl:OntologyProperty, (2) talk about the actual ontology properties as annotation properties, because they are called so in all other documents except the RDF-based Semantics
17:25:26 [ewallace]: since it's not a "real" feature of OWL2 it seems a good sacrifice for shortening QRG
17:25:26 [msmith]: unnecessary since they can't be used
17:25:32 [pfps]: n-ary some and all are in the syntax, but are not useful unless you have the DRE
17:25:35 [bmotik]: baojie: But they do add something to the syntax, so if we leave them out, this is the only construct that we leave out
17:25:38 [IanH]: q?
17:25:42 [pfps]: q+
17:25:43 [IanH]: ack pfps
17:25:46 [bmotik]: ianh: But in Syntax, you are allowed to have only one property in Syntax
17:25:55 [bmotik]: pfps: We are talking about n-ary some and all
17:26:16 [IanH]: q?
17:26:26 [bmotik]: pfps: They are in the Syntax, but they are not useful if you don't have the n-ary extension. And this extension is not a part of the OWL 2 language.
17:26:31 [msmith]: an nary extension that might have its own qrg
17:26:52 [IanH]: q?
17:26:58 [bmotik]: pfps: Nobody should be writing this unless they also take into account the n-ary extension.
17:27:03 [ewallace]: So this is not "Quick Reference" material
17:27:30 [pfps]: we are talking about DataAllValuesFrom(:age :height drs:greater)
17:27:30 [IanH]: q?
17:27:31 [bmotik]: baojie: So we could not have it in the expression table, but we should have it in the new features list
17:27:37 [bmotik]: baojie: It is mentioned in NF&R
17:27:39 [schneid]: q+
17:27:55 [schneid]: zakim, unmute me
17:27:55 [Zakim]: schneid should no longer be muted
17:27:56 [pfps]: a pointer to NF&R is OK
17:27:58 [IanH]: ack schneid
17:28:02 [bmotik]: inah: So everybody seems to agree that we shouldn't have it in the syntax table, OK?
17:28:04 [bmotik]: baojie: OK
17:28:07 [pfps]: q-
17:28:14 [bmotik]: ianh: We should see about the new features table
17:28:26 [IanH]: q?
17:28:33 [msmith]: yes is not OWL 2 DL
17:28:36 [bmotik]: schneid: A document that uses an n-ary datatype is not a conformant OWL 2 ontology document
17:28:42 [IanH]: q?
17:29:11 [bmotik]: schneid: When we use n-ary properties, we need to use an n-ary datatype; this datatype is not in the list in the Syntax; ergo, the containing document is not an OWL 2 document.
17:30:05 [bmotik]: schneid: Implementors should not support these terms and should still create conformant OWL 2 reasoners.
17:30:08 [IanH]: q?
17:30:14 [schneid]: zakim, mute me
17:30:14 [Zakim]: schneid should now be muted
17:30:40 [IanH]: q?
17:30:45 [bmotik]: ianh: The question left open is whether we should mention n-ary in the "new features" section. It seems to me that we shouldn't.
17:30:57 [bmotik]: baojie: I'd like to be consistent with the NF&R document.
17:31:23 [IanH]: q?
17:31:28 [Rinke]: I think the NF&R doc needs to be changed...
17:31:31 [bmotik]: baojie: If this feature is in NF&R, then it should be in QR, and vice versa.
17:31:44 [uli]: say again, please
17:31:59 [bmotik]: s/QR/QRG
17:32:04 [pfps]: I'm happy leaving the entry under 4.1 class expressions on n-ary. I think that the entry under 4.1 / data ranges should go.
17:32:16 [alanr]: seems inconsistent to have one and not the other.
17:32:40 [alanr]: prefer not, but can live with it if there are strong opinions
17:32:43 [pfps]: They both point to the same place - but they both *can* stay
17:33:02 [pfps]: QRG is now *much* better!
17:33:09 [baojie]: thanks!
17:33:11 [bmotik]: (An aside: we have got a response from Philipps Addison regarding rdf:text. Can we discuss this again?)
17:33:16 [pfps]: q+
17:33:22 [IanH]: ack pfps
17:33:49 [pfps]: Work might be needed on Annotations and Ontologies
17:33:50 [bmotik]: pfps: Jie and I can argue the changes regarding the annotations between us.
17:33:54 [bmotik]: q+
17:33:59 [IanH]: q?
17:34:03 [IanH]: ack bmotik
17:34:27 [uli]: Boris, where is the response?
17:34:58 [ewallace]: Is this about rdf:statements?
17:34:59 [IanH]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009May/0007.html
17:35:49 [uli]: Boris, does he understand the difference between 'internationalised text' and 'internationalised utterances'?
17:35:54 [bmotik]: bmotik: The response by Phlips Addison is not as we want it.
17:36:06 [alanr]: I have sent analysis of ruby text and bidi issue to list, dispatching my earlier action
17:36:06 [bmotik]: ACTION: sando to Look at the response for rdf:text
17:36:06 [trackbot]: Sorry, couldn't find user - sando
17:36:09 [IanH]: q?
17:36:13 [bmotik]: ACTION: sandro to Look at the response for rdf:text
17:36:13 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-336 - Look at the response for rdf:text [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-05-13].
17:36:34 [bmotik]: bmotik: So I'm off the hook for this?
17:36:40 [bmotik]: ianh: For the moment...
17:36:44 [bmotik]: Topic: NF&R
17:36:46 [IanH]: q?
17:36:49 [pfps]: q+
17:36:52 [bmotik]: ianh: Christine is not on the call today
17:36:55 [IanH]: ack pfps
17:36:59 [bmotik]: ianh: I saw a detailed review from Rinke
17:37:10 [Rinke]: zakim, unmute me
17:37:10 [Zakim]: Rinke should no longer be muted
17:37:12 [bmotik]: pfps: I think the document is getting close.
17:37:12 [pfps]: I think that NF&R is getting close.
17:37:12 [IanH]: q?
17:37:31 [bmotik]: rinke: My suggestions are editorial-ish, but might be controversial.
17:37:31 [pfps]: q+
17:37:41 [ewallace]: Christine finds Rinke's comments controversial.
17:37:43 [IanH]: q?
17:37:48 [IanH]: ack pfps
17:38:07 [bmotik]: pfps: I'm not sure I agree with Rinke's probles of appendix vs. non-appendix.
17:38:09 [IanH]: q?
17:38:17 [bmotik]: pfps: Maybe I'll respond to Rinke's message.
17:38:27 [bmotik]: ianh: I'd like to minimize changes if possible.
17:38:41 [bmotik]: rinke: I don't advocate a large change.
17:39:01 [Rinke]: zakim, mute me
17:39:01 [Zakim]: Rinke should now be muted
17:39:04 [bmotik]: ianh: So Peter and Rinke and Christine are dealing with that?
17:39:07 [bmotik]: pfps: Yes
17:39:10 [MarkusK_]: Primer is ready for review
17:39:17 [bmotik]: Topic: Primer
17:39:19 [alanr]: who are reviewers?
17:39:26 [bmotik]: ianh: It is getting close to reviewing.
17:39:26 [msmith]: I am one of the reviewers
17:39:31 [bmotik]: ianh: Mike volunteered to review it.
17:39:40 [alanr]: +1
17:39:43 [IanH]: q?
17:39:44 [bmotik]: ianh: Michelle offered to review it and Deborrah.
17:39:57 [bmotik]: ianh: I don't think there is lots more to say aobut it.
17:39:58 [MarkusK_]: +1 Primer is ready, nothing more to be said
17:40:11 [bmotik]: Topic: Overview and Manchester Syntax
17:40:17 [bmotik]: ianh: They are ready a while ago
17:40:25 [IanH]: q?
17:40:34 [bmotik]: ianh: They were held bak because of keeping the UFD back because of the schedule
17:40:41 [bmotik]: Topic: Data-range Extension
17:40:44 [uli]: yes
17:40:45 [IanH]: q?
17:40:49 [bmotik]: ianh: It might need further work
17:40:53 [uli]: zakim, unmute me
17:40:53 [Zakim]: uli should no longer be muted
17:40:54 [IanH]: ack uli
17:41:08 [bmotik]: Ianh: Uli, ETA?
17:41:15 [bmotik]: Uli: ETA?
17:41:24 [bmotik]: Uli: There is not much to do on it.
17:41:49 [bmotik]: Uli: I could say "next week", but then it might not be the case
17:42:04 [bmotik]: ianh: Since it is a note only, it will not impact on our schedule
17:42:06 [uli]: zakim, mute me
17:42:06 [Zakim]: uli should now be muted
17:42:09 [pfps]: q+
17:42:09 [bmotik]: Topic: References in the documents
17:42:21 [bmotik]: ianh: Sandro has some magic method that we used on the Overview
17:42:23 [IanH]: ack peter
17:42:28 [IanH]: q?
17:42:28 [bmotik]: pfps: I don't like Sandro's solution
17:42:36 [IanH]: ack pfps
17:42:38 [schneid]: q+
17:42:38 [bmotik]: pfps: It doesn't show up in the Wiki
17:42:42 [IanH]: q?
17:42:50 [bmotik]: pfps: I like Michaels solution, which is based on templates.
17:42:58 [MarkusK_]: +1 to use templates for references
17:43:01 [bmotik]: s/Michaels/Michael's
17:43:13 [schneid]: zakim, unmute me
17:43:13 [Zakim]: schneid should no longer be muted
17:43:14 [IanH]: q?
17:43:18 [bmotik]: ianh: Yes, I used this in Comformance
17:43:21 [IanH]: ack schneid
17:43:42 [schneid]: zakim, mute me
17:43:42 [Zakim]: schneid should now be muted
17:43:44 [pfps]: see http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/References
17:43:46 [ewallace]: Reference template solution sounds cool.
17:43:51 [pfps]: q+
17:43:55 [pfps]: q-
17:43:57 [IanH]: q?
17:44:03 [pfps]: q+
17:44:04 [bmotik]: ianh: Sandro, do you want to defend your solution?
17:44:12 [bmotik]: ianh: What is your solution actually?
17:44:34 [bmotik]: Sandro: You can do all that at publication time
17:45:02 [ewallace]: Fix once, correct everywhere!
17:45:04 [bmotik]: Sandro: You can do it anyway you want as long as you get it right for the publication time
17:45:23 [bmotik]: ianh: The point is to ensure consistency among references
17:45:33 [schneid]: true, there is a lot of manual work in the documents to always write the correct citation marks!
17:45:46 [pfps]: q+
17:45:48 [schneid]: q+
17:45:58 [bmotik]: Sandro: We haven't decided what the text in square brackets should be, and I tried to automate that
17:46:01 [IanH]: ack pfps
17:46:09 [bmotik]: pfps: We could have another template for the pointer.
17:46:10 [schneid]: yes, peter, this was my idea too
17:46:16 [bmotik]: pfps: I don't think I want to go there.
17:46:17 [bmotik]: q+
17:46:20 [schneid]: q-
17:46:28 [bmotik]: pfps: Of course, what we need is LaTeX
17:46:39 [bmotik]: ianh: But we don't have that
17:46:41 [IanH]: ack bmotik
17:46:44 [alanr]: blahdeblahde will help with wiki issues
17:47:00 [alanr]: meaning *I* will help with them if I'm made aware of issue
17:47:01 [schneid]: there should always be a /pair/ of templates for each reference
17:47:18 [MarkusK_]: Boris: My impression is that templates slow down page creation.
17:47:22 [IanH]: q?
17:47:32 [pfps]: What should the citations in the text really look like? RIght now we generally use "FooLong [FooShort]" or something like that.
17:47:33 [bmotik]: bmotik: The Wiki is slow and this is because of the many templates
17:47:33 [MarkusK_]: -1 to Boris: pages are cahced unless you edit them
17:47:49 [IanH]: q?
17:47:49 [bmotik]: Sandro: The pages should be caches
17:47:54 [pfps]: Wiki is just slow
17:47:57 [bmotik]: s/caches/cached
17:48:08 [bmotik]: bmotik: Then Wiki is just a *bad* tool
17:48:42 [sandro]: (the load average on the wiki server is currently: top - 17:48:33 up 235 days, 22:54, 1 user, load average: 12.88, 6.58, 3.78 ) :-( :-( :-(
17:49:12 [bmotik]: ianh: So we are using templates
17:49:25 [bmotik]: Sandro: It is the Wiki server that is overloaded; it is not the technology
17:49:36 [IanH]: q?
17:49:48 [bmotik]: Topic: Implementation & Testing
17:49:51 [pfps]: Editors should (sometime) try to templatize their references!
17:49:54 [alanr]: q+
17:49:55 [bmotik]: ianh: Anything interesting happening?
17:49:57 [IanH]: q?
17:50:00 [alanr]: ack alanr
17:50:02 [IanH]: ack alanr
17:50:03 [MarkusK_]: I have nothing interesting to report on tests
17:50:19 [schneid]: q+
17:50:20 [msmith]: difference since last week in test suite http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Test_Suite_Status&diff=23288&oldid=22789
17:50:30 [bmotik]: alanr: I sent a note out about some syntax tests that I have up and running. I've proposed a suggestion as to how a reasoner might handle them.
17:51:05 [bmotik]: alanr: I suggest we check these tests in two ways. (1) We check that the tripes are isomorpic. (2) We do a bidirectional entailment test.
17:51:05 [IanH]: q?
17:51:24 [bmotik]: alanr: I am in the process of figuring out how to transfer these tests into the WIki.
17:51:26 [pfps]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Apr/0440.html ???
17:51:28 [msmith]: q+ to comment about the "no status" tests
17:51:30 [IanH]: q?
17:51:33 [schneid]: zakim, unmute me
17:51:33 [Zakim]: schneid should no longer be muted
17:51:35 [pfps]: q+ to comment about process
17:51:36 [IanH]: ack schneid
17:51:38 [alanr]: peter, yes
17:51:43 [bmotik]: alanr: We don't have a category for syntax tests. I need to talk about this to Mike.
17:52:04 [bmotik]: schneid: I've started the work on test cases. Currently, evertyhing is in the FZI SVN.
17:52:18 [bmotik]: schneid: The RDF semantics will be covered.
17:52:34 [bmotik]: ianh: This will involve you pouring at some stange a large number of tests, right?
17:52:48 [MarkusK_]: q+
17:52:52 [bmotik]: schneid: The best I can do is produce the page code and then put it into the Wiki.
17:52:57 [pfps]: q-
17:52:58 [alanr]: q+ to ask opinion on syntax test granularity
17:53:01 [bmotik]: scheind: I would like to see bulk-upload if possible.
17:53:09 [bmotik]: s/scheind/scheid
17:53:29 [bmotik]: ianh: So you don't need any structural change of the tests; it is just the upload question?
17:53:47 [bmotik]: schneid: There are some bugs.
17:54:02 [bmotik]: schneid: Other than that, I'm fine.
17:54:06 [alanr]: q+ to also mention translation expect correct/ translation expect incorrect categories
17:54:15 [IanH]: q?
17:54:25 [IanH]: ack msmith
17:54:25 [Zakim]: msmith, you wanted to comment about the "no status" tests
17:54:31 [schneid]: zakim, mute me
17:54:31 [Zakim]: schneid should now be muted
17:54:36 [pfps]: The pointer to svn.mumble.net doesn't appear to be working
17:55:02 [MarkusK_]: q-
17:55:03 [alanr]: just clicked on it successfully. FIrewall issue?
17:55:12 [alanr]: http://svn.mumble.net:8080/svn/lsw/trunk/owl/owl2/tests/fs2rdf/
17:55:13 [bmotik]: msmith: There are 182 tests with no status. The vast majority of those are incomplete. E.g., these tests miss the species, the profile, or something.
17:55:24 [schneid]: Just to be clear, I will create the final test case format automatically, so they should be fine structurally
17:55:27 [bmotik]: msmith: I'll try to pour over these next week and ask people to finish tests.
17:55:45 [bmotik]: msmith: This is a bunch of tests for a few people.
17:55:51 [schneid]: schneid: I suggest to have a "OPTIONAL" marker
17:55:53 [IanH]: q?
17:56:00 [schneid]: q+
17:56:07 [MarkusK_]: schneid: feel free to contact me regarding possible bulk upload
17:56:17 [schneid]: ok, markus
17:56:20 [bmotik]: ianh: The two Michaels should have a discussion about the "OPTIONAL" feature
17:56:22 [IanH]: q?
17:56:23 [MarkusK_]: ... there are options, but I need to knwo what is convenient to you
17:56:26 [alanr]: ack alanr
17:56:26 [Zakim]: alanr, you wanted to ask opinion on syntax test granularity and to also mention translation expect correct/ translation expect incorrect categories
17:56:28 [bmotik]: inah: Coming back to the syntactic tests...
17:56:32 [schneid]: q-
17:56:41 [bmotik]: ianh: Alan, does syntactic tests require some change of the structure?
17:56:50 [IanH]: ack alan
17:56:53 [pfps]: q?
17:56:54 [IanH]: q?
17:56:58 [bmotik]: s/of the structure/ to the structure of the test harness
17:57:28 [IanH]: q?
17:57:37 [uli]: I am not sure understood
17:57:45 [pfps]: I also did not understand what was wanted.
17:57:52 [alanr]: test categories: give functional, rdf expect correct
17:57:56 [uli]: Alan, are those test like the ones you described in earlier emails?
17:57:59 [alanr]: give function, rdf expect incorrect
17:58:09 [alanr]: give rdf, expect rejection (syntax error)
17:58:25 [schneid]: schneid: I am in the process of writing a suite of test cases for the RDF-Based Semantics, but currently everything is locally stored at FZI
17:58:48 [IanH]: q?
17:58:50 [msmith]: q+
17:58:50 [pfps]: Are these tests? I don't understand what is supposed to be going on.
17:58:57 [schneid]: schneid: I have just look through the TestCases section of Conformance, and found a few issues, will report them soon
17:59:00 [bmotik]: alanr: THe tests in the earlier e-mails were only where you specify functional and you want to get a correct translation. The new tests also contain syntax errors that a parser should detect.
17:59:00 [IanH]: ack msmith
17:59:15 [IanH]: q?
17:59:25 [bmotik]: msmith: What is the difference between an RDF graph that a parser rejects as incorrect or an RDF graph that a parser says "It is not an OWL 2 DL ontology"?
17:59:41 [IanH]: q?
17:59:51 [bmotik]: alanr: If we have at the end of the RDF mapping we have excess triples -- that's the thing I want to test for.
18:00:04 [bmotik]: msmith: But that graph is also not an OWL 2 DL ontology.
18:00:22 [pfps]: I want to see a proposal for what needs to be changed.
18:00:24 [bmotik]: alanr: It's a different case because you can not be an OWL 2 DL ontology because you've violated something else.
18:00:32 [IanH]: q?
18:00:42 [bmotik]: ianh: I think we should hold off further discussion until we see some tests from Alan.
18:00:45 [alanr]: "Prefix(: = <http://example.com/>)
18:00:46 [alanr]: Prefix(rdf: = <http://example.com/>)
18:00:46 [alanr]: Ontology(
18:00:46 [alanr]: DataPropertyRange(:p1 rdf:text)
18:00:46 [alanr]: DataPropertyDomain(:p2 :c1)
18:00:47 [alanr]: ObjectPropertyRange(:p3 :c2)
18:00:47 [bmotik]: pfps: I didn't see any examples.
18:00:49 [alanr]: ObjectPropertyDomain(:p4 :c4)
18:00:50 [alanr]: AnnotationPropertyDomain(:p5 :c5)
18:00:52 [alanr]: AnnotationPropertyRange(:p6 :c6))"
18:00:54 [alanr]: _:b1 <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Ontology> .
18:00:56 [alanr]: <http://example.com/p1> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#range> <http://example.com/text> .
18:00:58 [alanr]: <http://example.com/p2> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#domain> <http://example.com/c1> .
18:01:00 [alanr]: <http://example.com/p3> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#range> <http://example.com/c2> .
18:01:03 [alanr]: <http://example.com/p4> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#domain> <http://example.com/c4> .
18:01:04 [alanr]: <http://example.com/p5> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#domain> <http://example.com/c5> .
18:01:07 [alanr]: <http://example.com/p6> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#range> <http://example.com/c6> .
18:01:22 [msmith]: alanr's previous link did work for me http://svn.mumble.net:8080/svn/lsw/trunk/owl/owl2/tests/fs2rdf/
18:02:05 [bmotik]: pfps: I'm happy to wait until I see some proposal as to what needs to be changed in the test set up.
18:02:07 [pfps]: still not working for me
18:02:09 [IanH]: q?
18:02:23 [bmotik]: Topic: Features at risk
18:02:29 [bmotik]: ianh: That's just a standard reminder
18:02:38 [bmotik]: Topic: Any other business
18:02:49 [bmotik]: inah: Let's go to the pub
18:02:51 [alanr]: peter, try http://www.zend2.com/go.php?u=Oi8vc3ZuLm11bWJsZS5uZXQ6ODA4MC9zdm4vbHN3L3RydW5rL293bC9vd2wyL3Rlc3RzL2ZzMnJkZi8%3D&b=13&f=norefer
18:02:55 [msmith]: thanks all, bye
18:02:55 [Zakim]: -Evan_Wallace
18:02:57 [Zhe]: bye
18:02:58 [Rinke]: bye
18:02:59 [MarkusK_]: bye
18:02:59 [Zakim]: -msmith
18:02:59 [uli]: bye
18:03:01 [Zakim]: -bcuencagrau
18:03:01 [Zakim]: -Zhe
18:03:03 [Zakim]: -Sandro
18:03:04 [Zakim]: -Rinke
18:03:05 [Zakim]: -uli
18:03:07 [Zakim]: -MarkusK_
18:03:30 [Zakim]: -schneid
18:04:07 [alanr]: erg. hotlink doesn't work. Proxy is at http://www.zend2.com/ and you can paste in the URL
18:04:07 [Zakim]: -Peter_Patel-Schneider
18:04:28 [Zakim]: -zimmer
18:04:31 [Zakim]: -alanr
18:04:38 [Zakim]: -baojie
18:06:06 [Achille]: Achille has joined #owl
18:06:40 [Zakim]: +[IBM]
18:06:48 [Zakim]: -bmotik
18:06:57 [Achille]: Zakim, IBM is me
18:06:57 [Zakim]: +Achille; got it
18:07:02 [bmotik]: We got cut off
18:07:14 [IanH]: OK
18:07:14 [Zakim]: -IanH
18:07:24 [IanH]: Anyway, Sandro is dealing with it now!
18:07:32 [msmith]: msmith has left #owl
18:08:20 [uli]: uli has left #owl
18:11:23 [Zakim]: -Achille
18:11:25 [Zakim]: SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
18:11:26 [Zakim]: Attendees were bmotik, IanH, Peter_Patel-Schneider, +2, MarkusK_, bcuencagrau, Rinke, Zhe, Sandro, zimmer, baojie, alanr, msmith, uli, schneid, Evan_Wallace, Achille
18:12:24 [Zakim]: SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
18:12:30 [Zakim]: +[IBM]
18:12:44 [Achille]: Zakim, IBM is me
18:12:44 [Zakim]: +Achille; got it
18:14:42 [Zakim]: -Achille
18:14:43 [Zakim]: SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
18:14:43 [Zakim]: Attendees were Achille