IRC log of owl on 2009-05-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:49:14 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:49:14 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/05/13-owl-irc
16:49:25 [pfps]
Zakim, this will be owlwg
16:49:25 [Zakim]
ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes
16:49:42 [pfps]
RRSAgent, make records public
16:56:07 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
16:56:08 [Zakim]
+Peter_Patel-Schneider
16:56:21 [Zakim]
+ +49.721.aaaa
16:56:21 [Zakim]
- +49.721.aaaa
16:56:21 [Zakim]
+ +49.721.aaaa
16:56:54 [sebastian]
Zakim, +49.721.aaaa is sebastian
16:56:54 [Zakim]
+sebastian; got it
16:57:10 [sebastian]
Zakim, mute me.
16:57:10 [Zakim]
sebastian should now be muted
16:58:59 [Zakim]
+Sandro
16:59:05 [baojie]
baojie has joined #owl
16:59:13 [uli]
uli has joined #owl
16:59:50 [Zakim]
+Alan
16:59:57 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
16:59:57 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, sebastian (muted), Sandro, Alan
17:00:00 [Zakim]
On IRC I see uli, baojie, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, sebastian, alanr, sandro, trackbot
17:00:07 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
17:00:29 [alanr]
Hi Achille, are you scribing today?
17:00:46 [Zakim]
+[IBM]
17:00:52 [Zakim]
+??P11
17:00:58 [Achille]
yes
17:01:01 [uli]
zakim, ?P11 is me
17:01:01 [Zakim]
sorry, uli, I do not recognize a party named '?P11'
17:01:07 [uli]
zakim, ??P11 is me
17:01:08 [Zakim]
+uli; got it
17:01:14 [Achille]
zakim, IBM is me
17:01:14 [Zakim]
+Achille; got it
17:01:20 [uli]
zakim, mute me
17:01:20 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
17:01:52 [ewallace]
ewallace has joined #owl
17:02:02 [bijan]
bijan has joined #owl
17:02:14 [Achille]
ScribeNick: Achille
17:02:33 [schneid]
schneid has joined #owl
17:02:55 [alanr]
known not to be joining?
17:02:57 [Zakim]
+Evan_Wallace
17:03:06 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
17:03:15 [Zakim]
+Zhe
17:03:23 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
17:03:28 [Zhe]
zakim, mute me
17:03:28 [Zakim]
Zhe should now be muted
17:03:35 [Zakim]
+??P17
17:03:36 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
17:03:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, sebastian (muted), Sandro, Alan, Achille, uli (muted), Evan_Wallace, Zhe (muted), ??P17
17:03:39 [Zakim]
On IRC I see bmotik, Zhe, schneid, bijan, ewallace, Achille, uli, baojie, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, sebastian, alanr, sandro, trackbot
17:03:53 [schneid]
zakim, ??P17 is me
17:03:53 [Zakim]
+schneid; got it
17:03:58 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
17:03:58 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
17:04:01 [alanr]
q?
17:04:11 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
17:04:14 [Achille]
alan: agenda amendments?
17:04:15 [Zakim]
+??P18
17:04:19 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??P18 is me
17:04:19 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
17:04:22 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:04:22 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:04:23 [Achille]
alan: no agenda amendments
17:04:38 [Zakim]
+msmith
17:04:39 [Zakim]
+??P21
17:04:40 [pfps]
22 is acceptable (just missing a formal OK)
17:04:41 [Achille]
alan: minutes reviews
17:04:48 [pfps]
29 is acceptable (again, just missing a formal OK)
17:04:51 [bijan]
zakim, ??P31 is me
17:04:51 [Zakim]
I already had ??P31 as jkangash, bijan
17:05:01 [bijan]
zakim, ??P21 is me
17:05:03 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
17:05:05 [alanr]
Minutes of the 22, 29th accepted
17:05:11 [pfps]
6 is OK
17:05:20 [alanr]
minutes of 6th accepted
17:05:39 [Achille]
RESOLVED: Accept Minutes of 22 April?, Minutes of 29 April
17:05:48 [alanr]
q?
17:05:54 [Achille]
RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes (6 May)
17:05:54 [alanr]
Action 335Talk with owlapi people about strict rdf/xml parsing / Bijan Parsia
17:05:54 [trackbot]
Sorry, bad ACTION syntax
17:06:06 [zimmer]
zimmer has joined #owl
17:06:18 [Achille]
topic: Actions
17:06:31 [Achille]
subtopic: Action 335
17:06:41 [Achille]
bijan: on going
17:06:51 [Achille]
alan: action to be closed
17:06:53 [Rinke]
Rinke has joined #owl
17:07:03 [Achille]
subtopic: action 336
17:07:21 [Zakim]
+zimmer
17:07:48 [Zakim]
+??P1
17:07:52 [Rinke]
zakim, ??P1 is me
17:07:52 [Zakim]
+Rinke; got it
17:07:55 [Rinke]
zakim, mute me
17:07:56 [Zakim]
Rinke should now be muted
17:08:04 [Achille]
sandro: sandro talked to the chair of the internationalization on a text that should satisfy MSM but have not heard back from him yet
17:08:17 [Achille]
sandro: will ping MSM today
17:08:57 [Achille]
alan: we should try to get a formal response from the group if we do not hear back from sandro
17:09:22 [Achille]
topic: Documents and Reviewing
17:09:33 [Achille]
subtopic: LC Working Drafts
17:09:58 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:09:58 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
17:10:01 [alanr]
q?
17:10:09 [Achille]
alan: on going discussion with boris on LC comments
17:10:20 [alanr]
q?
17:10:24 [pfps]
q+
17:10:28 [alanr]
ack pfps
17:11:33 [Achille]
pfps: the rdf:text doc could lag
17:11:37 [uli]
q+
17:11:45 [alanr]
ack uli
17:11:45 [uli]
zakim, unmute me
17:11:48 [Zakim]
uli should no longer be muted
17:12:05 [bmotik]
q+
17:12:15 [alanr]
ack bmotik
17:12:17 [Achille]
uli: wondering if any body has started dealing with the rdf:text issues
17:12:25 [uli]
zakim, mute me
17:12:25 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
17:12:29 [trackbot]
trackbot has joined #owl
17:12:30 [alanr]
q?
17:12:42 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:12:42 [Zakim]
bmotik was not muted, bmotik
17:12:50 [sandro]
some weird echo effect making boris unintelligible
17:13:02 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:13:02 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:13:09 [sandro]
like there was nothing BUT echo cancellation. :-)
17:13:16 [sebastian]
That one is ready to go from my POV.
17:13:19 [pfps]
I think that RHM1 can be send.
17:13:33 [Achille]
alan: comment 6, we have a draft and it is ready to go
17:13:55 [Achille]
alan: comment 7, Peter drafted some text and it is ready to go
17:13:56 [bmotik]
In accordance with the discussion between Axel and some other people, I'll modify the rdf:text specification and produce a draft response. People can then see whether they have anything to add to it.
17:14:36 [pfps]
I think that Boris should be free to put together a draft.
17:14:43 [Achille]
alan: we have 6 comments from Jerry from the last F2F
17:15:01 [Achille]
alan: some have a draft written by Peter
17:15:12 [bmotik]
I wanted to change the document, but not very much.
17:15:23 [bmotik]
I think it would be easier it people saw what I want to do.
17:15:27 [Achille]
pfps: boris is just talking about putting together a draft response
17:15:38 [Achille]
s/Jerry/Jeremy
17:16:27 [Achille]
alan: our goal is to response quickly and a way that does not make the situation worsen
17:17:04 [Achille]
alan: JC1 is minor and is ready to go
17:17:20 [Achille]
sandro: I do not like the wording of the 1st sentence
17:17:41 [Achille]
... I will send a final edit Peter
17:18:20 [pfps]
q+
17:18:27 [alanr]
ack pfps
17:18:27 [Achille]
sandro: I expect the mgt of W3C to review this exchange
17:18:41 [bijan]
q+
17:18:54 [Achille]
pfps: the phrase formal objection shows on some of these comments
17:19:01 [msmith]
yes. it says, "I register a formal objection on behalf of TopQuadrant, based on our comments"
17:19:08 [alanr]
ack bijan
17:19:48 [Achille]
bijan: I do not know if it matters when they say formal objection
17:20:22 [alanr]
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#WGArchiveMinorityViews
17:20:40 [Achille]
bijan: at this point, we are writing for mgt, not to convince them
17:21:12 [Achille]
alan: they may be some cases where it is not just for mgt
17:21:36 [Achille]
... sandro on rely on you to figure out what will play well and address what won't
17:21:50 [alanr]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC2_Responses/JC3
17:22:13 [Achille]
alan: on JC3, is it ready to go?
17:22:40 [Achille]
alan: yes ready to go
17:23:06 [alanr]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC2_Responses/JC4
17:23:07 [Achille]
alan : Rinke had a comment on JC4
17:23:48 [Achille]
alan: let's sort it out on email
17:23:52 [pfps]
NF&R doesn't mention the new versioning stuff - I agree to delay until we figure this out
17:24:13 [schneid]
I'm happy with Peter's draft as it is at the moment
17:24:26 [alanr]
"throw a bone"
17:24:30 [Achille]
alan: JC5, some discussion on it with Bijan arguing that it should be taken seriously
17:24:34 [schneid]
no way, indeed
17:24:45 [Achille]
bijan: I do not think we should take it seriously
17:24:45 [alanr]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC2_Responses/JC5
17:24:58 [Achille]
... just that it has more weight compared to others
17:26:05 [Achille]
sandro: formal objections inside the working group and objection in the mailing list go through the same process at the end
17:26:33 [Achille]
alan: anything that is unresolved will go in front of the directior ?
17:26:40 [bijan]
q+
17:26:42 [Achille]
sandro: yes, thisis true
17:26:45 [schneid]
q+
17:26:56 [alanr]
q+ to ask too
17:27:03 [Achille]
sandro: i think we should spend some time reconsidering some of his objections
17:27:31 [Achille]
bijan: i hope that the mgt will look at the situation appropriately
17:27:37 [ewallace]
I prefer responding as the draft does. Let's not use the reification vocab.
17:27:48 [Achille]
... i'm not too concerned I think they will see it as a denial of service
17:27:59 [alanr]
evan, want to go on queue to explain your thoughts?
17:28:04 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
17:28:04 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
17:28:05 [alanr]
ack schneid
17:28:18 [pfps]
There is a technical change involved here having to do with inferences supported.
17:28:25 [Achille]
bijan: on the second. I do not think there is a considerable change beside on a parser
17:29:01 [bijan]
Can I reply?
17:29:05 [alanr]
in q
17:29:07 [alanr]
please
17:29:14 [bijan]
q+
17:29:25 [alanr]
ack bijan
17:29:31 [alanr]
q+ bijan
17:29:55 [Achille]
schneid: we should not have our process determined by Jeremy
17:30:28 [alanr]
ack bijan
17:30:32 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
17:30:32 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
17:30:57 [schneid]
if in doubt, then DONT change!
17:31:04 [schneid]
at least so late in the process
17:31:10 [pfps]
The arguments in JC5 are so weak as to be non-existent. The technical issues of using the RDF reification vocabulary are not so great, but there may be problems in using it, given the problems associated with the RDF reification vocabulary.
17:31:27 [alanr]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/67
17:31:32 [Achille]
bijan: social issue are not irrelevant so we can make minor changes to address his concern
17:31:34 [schneid]
not yours was ridiculous, but JJC's
17:31:59 [bijan]
I know :)
17:32:06 [bijan]
Sorry, that's what I meant
17:32:11 [Achille]
alan: I did not get the argument made in our response
17:32:27 [Achille]
... not sure that this is the right way to argue it with them
17:32:51 [alanr]
is thus not technically possible to use rdf:subject, rdf:predicate, and rdf:object in place of owl:subject, owl:predicate, and owl:object
17:32:54 [schneid]
?
17:32:55 [pfps]
The strangeness of this request is that Jeremy initally argued against using the RDF reification vocabulary, in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Nov/0369.html
17:33:07 [Achille]
alan: the draft response says there is a technical issue
17:33:17 [Achille]
bijan: I will remove it from the draft
17:33:35 [Achille]
alan: wasn't that issue resolved whne he was on the WG?
17:33:39 [Achille]
bijan: yes
17:33:55 [schneid]
I think he had already left the WG at that time, but not sure
17:34:14 [schneid]
q+
17:34:18 [alanr]
ack alanr
17:34:18 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to ask too
17:34:22 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
17:34:22 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
17:34:23 [Achille]
alan: should we make this change bc it is reasonable? how is it going to affect us? finally how should we respond?
17:34:23 [alanr]
ack schneid
17:35:38 [alanr]
"in a semantic extension"
17:35:57 [Achille]
schneid: diff intensions for the two vocabularies. The situation for rdf and the reification voc is not very clear. RDF Semantics has a long section about how the voc "may" be interpreted
17:36:11 [alanr]
q?
17:36:40 [sandro]
q+ to ask for a guide about how the two should be used differently.
17:36:57 [alanr]
ack sandro
17:36:57 [Zakim]
sandro, you wanted to ask for a guide about how the two should be used differently.
17:37:02 [Achille]
schneid: i would like to see some changes in the next version of RDF to address the issue. OWL should go its own way and let the reification on the side to the RDF people
17:37:03 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
17:37:03 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
17:37:14 [bijan]
Jeremy left after the decision wrt reification: <
17:37:14 [bijan]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008May/0192.html> (leaving
17:37:20 [bijan]
Decision: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0317.html
17:37:26 [alanr]
thanks bijan
17:37:30 [Achille]
sandro: we need a guide as to when to use RDF reification or OWL reification
17:37:33 [schneid]
there is no OWL reification, there are OWL axiom annotations
17:37:39 [bijan]
+1 to michael
17:37:51 [bijan]
q+
17:38:00 [Achille]
schneid, thanks for the correction
17:38:19 [alanr]
q?
17:38:21 [alanr]
ack bijan
17:38:30 [Achille]
sandro: I do not understand all the issues, but the choice should be made clear and simple for the users
17:38:42 [schneid]
+1 to bijan
17:38:46 [ewallace]
+1 to Bijan
17:39:10 [pfps]
Part of Bijan's point is that no one knows what RDF reification is really supposed to be used for.
17:39:43 [Achille]
alan: we need a different response from the one drafted now, at a minimum
17:39:44 [sandro]
Bijan: No one should ever use these, except as part of serializing the owl syntax.
17:39:57 [schneid]
q+
17:40:00 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
17:40:00 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
17:40:01 [alanr]
ack schneid
17:40:10 [Achille]
alan: I'd like to ask Michael to draft an alternative response
17:40:49 [bijan]
q+
17:41:14 [Achille]
sandro: my point could be addressed by having a note in the draft to say "although it looks as RDF reification , it shoul dbe used only for serialization"
17:41:37 [Achille]
sandro: i want that change in the spec
17:41:41 [alanr]
q?
17:41:52 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
17:41:56 [Achille]
schneid: it could be in the Mapping document
17:42:08 [alanr]
ack bijan
17:42:12 [Achille]
alan: we will document somewhere the rationale for it in a note
17:42:19 [Zhe]
q+
17:42:21 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
17:42:21 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
17:42:30 [Zhe]
zakim, unmute me
17:42:30 [Zakim]
Zhe should no longer be muted
17:42:53 [alanr]
fwiw, I have sympathies in Bijan's direction
17:43:01 [Achille]
bijan: concerned that this could provide an opportunity to argue against the usefulness of annotation
17:43:09 [schneid]
q+
17:43:29 [Achille]
alan: the response could be that we have clarified the wording, are u satisfied ?
17:43:34 [schneid]
+1 to rename the vocabulary
17:43:40 [uli]
i think it's useful as well
17:44:22 [schneid]
the current terms indeed LOOK like RDF reification
17:44:25 [alanr]
ack zhe
17:44:30 [schneid]
q-
17:44:44 [pfps]
I'm happy with changing the names (to protect the guilty), but we have to agree on the names.
17:44:53 [Achille]
zhe: does it make sense to rename them to make them yes confusing
17:45:00 [pfps]
wait
17:45:04 [schneid]
q+
17:45:08 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
17:45:08 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
17:45:09 [alanr]
ack schneid
17:45:20 [Achille]
... annotationSubject, annotationObject, annoationPredicate
17:45:44 [pfps]
can't use annotation... as this is also used for axioms!
17:45:54 [schneid]
... annotation(Source|Property|Target)
17:46:00 [schneid]
q-
17:46:05 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
17:46:05 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
17:46:20 [pfps]
Consider _:x rdf:type owl:Axiom .
17:46:22 [pfps]
_:x owl:subject a:hasAunt .
17:46:23 [pfps]
_:x owl:predicate owl:propertyChainAxiom .
17:46:25 [pfps]
_:x owl:object _:y1 .
17:46:26 [pfps]
_:x rdfs:comment "An aunt is a mother's sister." .
17:46:31 [Achille]
alan: there is support for changing the name
17:46:58 [bijan]
subj pred obj
17:46:59 [Achille]
pfps: u can use annotation bc there are already used for axioms
17:47:17 [bijan]
or aSub aPred aObj
17:47:40 [pfps]
If the row of Table 1 corresponding to the type of ax' contains a single main triple s p xlt ., then the axiom ax is translated into the following triples:
17:47:42 [pfps]
s p xlt .
17:47:43 [pfps]
_:x rdf:type owl:Axiom .
17:47:45 [pfps]
_:x owl:subject s .
17:47:46 [pfps]
_:x owl:predicate p .
17:47:48 [pfps]
_:x owl:object xlt .
17:47:50 [pfps]
TANN(annotation1, _:x)
17:47:52 [pfps]
...
17:47:53 [pfps]
TANN(annotationm, _:x)
17:47:58 [pfps]
:-)
17:48:14 [msmith]
q+ to say it's not used for npas
17:48:22 [msmith]
nope
17:48:36 [alanr]
ack msmith
17:48:36 [Zakim]
msmith, you wanted to say it's not used for npas
17:48:47 [bijan]
Damnit!
17:48:49 [pfps]
used for, e.g., annotations on SubClassOf
17:48:50 [bijan]
I got that wrong :)
17:49:28 [pfps]
They are only used when an axiom or annotation is itself annotated!
17:49:29 [alanr]
_:x rdf:type owl:Axiom .
17:49:29 [alanr]
_:x owl:subject *:y .
17:49:29 [alanr]
_:x owl:predicate rdf:type .
17:49:29 [alanr]
_:x owl:object owl:ObjectProperty . Declaration( ObjectProperty( *:y ) )
17:49:43 [Achille]
alan: this should be addressed by email
17:49:56 [msmith]
+1 to pfps, only for annotations
17:50:15 [Achille]
alan: reification vocubulary is not ready to go
17:50:19 [alanr]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC2_Responses/JC2
17:50:29 [Achille]
alan: JC is the question of OWL real
17:50:39 [schneid]
q+
17:50:41 [Achille]
... there is no draft response yet
17:50:43 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
17:50:43 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
17:50:47 [uli]
what about declarations, in table 7?
17:50:49 [alanr]
ack schneid
17:51:04 [bijan]
q+
17:51:19 [alanr]
ack bijna
17:51:23 [alanr]
ack bijan
17:51:40 [alanr]
q?
17:52:07 [schneid]
schneid: doesn't RIF has just adopted owl:real? Would be bad to now drop it from OWL, IMHO
17:52:28 [Achille]
alan: JEremy is just worry about the complexity of handling real
17:52:52 [Achille]
alan: bijan, could u draft a response
17:52:54 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
17:52:54 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
17:52:56 [Achille]
bijan: yes
17:53:12 [bijan]
q+
17:53:18 [alanr]
ack bijan
17:54:11 [pfps]
+1 to replying to JC6 as Bijan is stating (but I would abide by more-is-less here)
17:54:18 [bijan]
Me too
17:54:25 [bijan]
less is more?
17:54:27 [Achille]
bijan: JC6 (negative property assertion), it should not be a problem, we can easily implement it even w/o nominal as in RL
17:54:31 [alanr]
q?
17:54:32 [pfps]
more is less!
17:54:50 [bijan]
I can
17:54:51 [schneid]
I'll take it on me
17:54:54 [Achille]
alan: who wants to write a draft response?
17:55:24 [Achille]
alan: done with Jeremy's comments
17:55:49 [Achille]
subtopic: status of documents
17:56:08 [Rinke]
zakim, unmute me
17:56:08 [Zakim]
Rinke should no longer be muted
17:57:06 [pfps]
NF&R should include something about ontology versioning. I think that it doesn't need to say *much*.
17:57:07 [Achille]
alan: we are planning to have the user facing documents go to last call
17:57:39 [pfps]
It is acceptable.
17:57:39 [Achille]
alan: is NF&R ready?
17:57:47 [Rinke]
zakim, mute me
17:57:47 [Zakim]
Rinke should now be muted
17:57:59 [Achille]
alan: status of the Primer?
17:58:04 [sebastian]
Zakim, unmute me
17:58:04 [Zakim]
sebastian should no longer be muted
17:58:40 [Achille]
Sebastian: we have started addressing all the comments and reviews
17:58:50 [Achille]
... they are mostly editorial
17:59:07 [sebastian]
Zakim, mute me
17:59:07 [Zakim]
sebastian should now be muted
17:59:11 [Rinke]
sure
17:59:13 [Achille]
.. we should send a email by the week-end about our changes
17:59:31 [Achille]
alan: status of data range extension?
17:59:51 [bmotik]
I'm fine with that.
17:59:59 [Achille]
bijan: sent an email to response to issues raised by Boris, but have not heard back from him
18:00:08 [Achille]
... so i assume he is ok with it
18:00:24 [pfps]
I'm happy with QRG.
18:00:26 [Achille]
alan: quick reference guide?
18:00:41 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
18:00:41 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, sebastian (muted), Sandro, Alan, Achille, uli (muted), Evan_Wallace, Zhe, schneid (muted), bmotik (muted), msmith, bijan, zimmer, Rinke
18:00:44 [uli]
I can't see him in irc
18:00:45 [Zakim]
... (muted)
18:00:57 [sandro]
baojie...?
18:01:07 [uli]
oups
18:01:08 [Achille]
alan: jie does not appear to be here, peter is ok about the QRG
18:01:20 [Achille]
bijan: I have not looked at QRG recently
18:01:25 [uli]
I also think that the structure is fine now
18:01:32 [Achille]
bijan: I'm also happy about it
18:01:52 [Achille]
... if peter is happy about it
18:02:27 [pfps]
We could vote in stages!
18:02:30 [pfps]
q+
18:02:34 [alanr]
ack pfps
18:02:55 [Achille]
pfps: we need to respond to Jeremy as soon as possible
18:03:14 [msmith]
q+ to provide brief test suite and results status update
18:03:20 [Achille]
alan: yes I agree. let's try to get drafts in reasonable state by friday
18:03:21 [alanr]
ack msmith
18:03:21 [Zakim]
msmith, you wanted to provide brief test suite and results status update
18:03:21 [Achille]
topic: implementation and testcase
18:03:46 [Achille]
msmith: since last teleconf, I was unable to update the wiki
18:04:03 [Achille]
... I'll add test results from the api this week
18:04:03 [alanr]
q+
18:04:06 [schneid]
q+
18:04:09 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
18:04:09 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
18:04:11 [alanr]
ack alanr
18:04:11 [msmith]
msmith: Since last telecon, 12 test cases were approved and 18 moved from no status to proposed. Progress is picking up. I will be adding profile test results this week. Tools for RDF semantics tests are needed.
18:04:38 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
18:04:38 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
18:04:42 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
18:04:42 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
18:04:45 [alanr]
ack schneid
18:06:12 [msmith]
q+
18:06:16 [alanr]
q+ to ask how to do tests that should return "ERROR" or "UNKNOWN"
18:06:20 [Achille]
schneid: not clear how the owl api behaves on arbitrary rdf graphs
18:06:25 [alanr]
ack msmith
18:07:49 [msmith]
ok
18:07:50 [alanr]
ack alanr
18:07:50 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to ask how to do tests that should return "ERROR" or "UNKNOWN"
18:07:50 [Achille]
schneid: an owl api will not do any repair on the parse of an arbitrary rdf graph?
18:07:56 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
18:07:56 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
18:07:58 [Achille]
msmith: yes this is right
18:08:35 [msmith]
ok
18:08:57 [alanr]
action: alanr to talk to mike about tests that return ERROR
18:08:57 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - alanr
18:10:08 [schneid]
q+
18:10:11 [Achille]
topic: features at risk
18:10:12 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
18:10:12 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
18:10:14 [alanr]
ack schneid
18:10:15 [Achille]
alan: no comments so far on rational
18:10:44 [bijan]
q+
18:10:48 [bijan]
q-
18:10:53 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
18:10:53 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
18:10:55 [bijan]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC2_Responses/JC2 is done sandro
18:10:57 [pfps]
Do we have the formal objection in hand?
18:11:19 [Zakim]
-Evan_Wallace
18:11:21 [alanr]
adjourned
18:11:22 [Zakim]
-msmith
18:11:25 [uli]
bye
18:11:25 [Zhe]
thanks.
18:11:26 [Zakim]
-Zhe
18:11:27 [Rinke]
bye
18:11:28 [Zakim]
-Sandro
18:11:28 [Zakim]
-Alan
18:11:29 [Zakim]
-Peter_Patel-Schneider
18:11:29 [Zakim]
-uli
18:11:31 [Zakim]
-Achille
18:11:32 [sebastian]
Bye.
18:11:33 [Zakim]
-bmotik
18:11:34 [Zakim]
-Rinke
18:11:43 [Zakim]
-sebastian
18:11:47 [Zakim]
-schneid
18:11:57 [Zakim]
-zimmer
18:12:55 [Zakim]
-bijan
18:12:56 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
18:12:58 [Zakim]
Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, sebastian, Sandro, Alan, uli, Achille, Evan_Wallace, Zhe, schneid, bmotik, msmith, bijan, zimmer, Rinke
18:50:49 [baojie]
baojie has left #owl
20:20:45 [msmith]
msmith has left #owl
20:24:51 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl
20:50:49 [sebastian]
sebastian has joined #owl