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