IRC log of owl on 2009-05-20

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:55:44 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:55:44 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:55:52 [IanH]
zakim, this will be owl
16:55:52 [Zakim]
ok, IanH; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
16:55:58 [zimmer]
zimmer has joined #owl
16:56:02 [alanr]
alanr has changed the topic to:
16:56:51 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
16:56:58 [Zakim]
16:57:36 [ekw]
ekw has joined #owl
16:57:41 [elisa]
elisa has joined #owl
16:58:15 [Zakim]
16:58:18 [Zakim]
16:58:19 [Zakim]
16:58:34 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
16:58:47 [Zakim]
16:59:06 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
16:59:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH
16:59:08 [Zakim]
On IRC I see pfps, elisa, ekw, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, IanH, sandro, trackbot
16:59:10 [Zakim]
16:59:15 [bcuencagrau]
bcuencagrau has joined #owl
16:59:30 [IanH]
ScribeNick: elisa
16:59:49 [IanH]
17:00:02 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
17:00:20 [Zakim]
17:00:25 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:00:25 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau
17:00:26 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, mute me
17:00:28 [Zakim]
On IRC I see msmith, bcuencagrau, pfps, elisa, ekw, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, IanH, sandro, trackbot
17:00:30 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:01:05 [Zakim]
17:01:08 [IanH]
Topic: Admin
17:01:13 [alanr]
zakim, mute me
17:01:13 [Zakim]
sorry, alanr, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:01:21 [Zakim]
17:01:26 [alanr]
zakim, Alan is alanr
17:01:26 [Zakim]
+alanr; got it
17:01:30 [MarkusK_]
MarkusK_ has joined #owl
17:01:30 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
17:01:32 [alanr]
zakim, mute me
17:01:32 [Zakim]
alanr should now be muted
17:01:36 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:01:36 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau (muted), alanr (muted), msmith
17:01:39 [Zakim]
On IRC I see bmotik, MarkusK_, msmith, bcuencagrau, pfps, elisa, ekw, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, IanH, sandro, trackbot
17:01:41 [baojie]
baojie has joined #owl
17:02:01 [Zakim]
17:02:02 [elisa]
agenda amendments?
17:02:05 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??P1 is me
17:02:05 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
17:02:09 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:02:09 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:02:09 [uli]
uli has joined #owl
17:02:15 [IanH]
17:02:30 [Zakim]
17:02:38 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
17:02:39 [elisa]
previous minutes --
17:02:39 [Zakim]
17:02:43 [Zhe]
zakim, mute me
17:02:43 [Zakim]
Zhe should now be muted
17:02:44 [pfps]
acceptable - could be fixed a bit, but no real reason to make them *perfect*
17:03:00 [Zakim]
17:03:06 [baojie]
zakim, mut me
17:03:06 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'mut me', baojie
17:03:10 [baojie]
zakim, mute me
17:03:10 [Zakim]
baojie should now be muted
17:03:15 [elisa]
RESOLVED: Accept the previous minutes (
17:03:29 [elisa]
Pending Action Items Status
17:03:34 [Zakim]
+ +1.301.351.aaaa
17:03:38 [Zakim]
17:03:38 [bijan]
bijan has joined #owl
17:03:45 [uli]
zakim, ??P25 us me
17:03:46 [Zakim]
I don't understand '??P25 us me', uli
17:03:50 [uli]
zakim, ??P25 is me
17:03:50 [Zakim]
+uli; got it
17:04:03 [elisa]
Action 336 complete
17:04:03 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - 336
17:04:37 [elisa]
Topic: Documents and Reviewing
17:04:48 [Zakim]
17:04:49 [uli]
zakim, mute me
17:04:50 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
17:04:53 [schneid]
schneid has joined #owl
17:04:53 [bijan]
zakim, ??p0 is me
17:04:53 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
17:05:05 [IanH]
17:05:14 [ekw]
zakim, 1.301.351.aaaa is me
17:05:14 [Zakim]
sorry, ekw, I do not recognize a party named '1.301.351.aaaa'
17:05:20 [elisa]
Ian: may want to reorder the discussion -- want to mark rdf:text as an at risk feature
17:05:30 [Zakim]
17:05:30 [IanH]
17:05:35 [schneid]
zakim, ??P3 is me
17:05:35 [Zakim]
+schneid; got it
17:05:37 [elisa]
... this potentially gives us the flexibility to do something with rdf:text in the future.
17:05:39 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
17:05:39 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
17:05:40 [pfps]
zakim, who is on the phone?
17:05:40 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau (muted), alanr (muted), msmith, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), baojie (muted), MarkusK_,
17:05:43 [Zakim]
... +1.301.351.aaaa, uli (muted), bijan, schneid (muted)
17:05:59 [pfps]
zakim, aaaa is ekw
17:05:59 [Zakim]
+ekw; got it
17:06:07 [ekw]
zakim, +1.301.351.aaaa is me
17:06:07 [Zakim]
sorry, ekw, I do not recognize a party named '+1.301.351.aaaa'
17:06:08 [uli]
fine with me
17:06:09 [elisa]
Ian: suggest we have the discussion on rdf:text after some of the other more pressing discussions
17:06:28 [elisa]
Ian: OWL LC comments and responses --
17:06:30 [IanH]
17:06:43 [IanH]
17:06:45 [elisa]
... people have been sending comments and responding but there are still some outstanding
17:07:09 [schneid]
I also sent two
17:07:14 [elisa]
Ian: Peter has sent some, Bijan too
17:07:27 [elisa]
Ian: next item: status of the documents
17:07:54 [elisa]
Ian: In response to a comment from Jeremy, we agreed to change the vocabulary used for annotations
17:08:02 [elisa]
Ian: need to make a formal resolution to do so
17:08:06 [IanH]
PROPOSED: The RDF vocabulary for annotations should be changed from owl:subject, owl:predicate and owl:object to, respectively, owl:annotatedSource, owl:annotatedProperty and owl:annotatedTarget.
17:08:20 [elisa]
Ian: any discussion?
17:08:36 [bijan]
17:08:39 [MarkusK_]
17:08:40 [uli]
17:08:42 [bmotik]
17:08:43 [alanr]
17:08:44 [bcuencagrau]
17:08:44 [pfps]
+1 ALU
17:08:44 [baojie]
17:08:45 [ekw]
17:08:45 [sandro]
17:08:46 [elisa]
17:08:47 [baojie]
17:08:47 [Zhe]
17:08:48 [schneid]
17:08:49 [msmith]
17:09:01 [baojie]
it is typo
17:09:19 [IanH]
RESOLVED: # The RDF vocabulary for annotations should be changed from owl:subject, owl:predicate and owl:object to, respectively, owl:annotatedSource, owl:annotatedProperty and owl:annotatedTarget.
17:09:30 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
17:09:38 [Zakim]
17:09:49 [Achille]
zakim, ibm is me
17:09:49 [Zakim]
+Achille; got it
17:10:08 [IanH]
17:10:20 [elisa]
Ian: with respect to the primer, whether or not we should refer to OWL 1 docs, and in general whether or not we should do so
17:10:22 [pfps]
17:10:52 [ekw]
NF&R have to refer to
17:11:04 [elisa]
PFPS: In general, it's not such a great idea. There are places where one wants to do this in the old technical documents, it's perfectly acceptable
17:11:09 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:11:09 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau (muted), alanr (muted), msmith, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), baojie (muted), MarkusK_, ekw, uli
17:11:12 [Zakim]
... (muted), bijan, schneid (muted), Achille
17:11:14 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Achille, schneid, bijan, Zhe, uli, baojie, bmotik, MarkusK_, msmith, bcuencagrau, pfps, elisa, ekw, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, IanH, sandro, trackbot
17:11:15 [ekw]
17:11:41 [elisa]
... if we're thinking about it with respect to users, and contrasting OWL 2 with OWL 1, in general it's not a good idea
17:11:43 [bijan]
Be forward looking!
17:11:44 [uli]
+1 to pfps: we have 1 document 'backwards', NF&R, and all others in general 'forwards'
17:11:50 [MarkusK_]
+1 to pfps: referring back is not a good idea in general
17:11:51 [schneid]
RDF-Based Semantics has a non-normative section on technical differences with old OWL 1 Full
17:12:09 [IanH]
17:12:11 [elisa]
Ian: what I wrote in the agenda is too general -- basically in the primer there was a bit of an impasse with one of the reviewers (Deb)
17:12:14 [MarkusK_]
17:12:15 [elisa]
and others
17:12:19 [IanH]
ack pfps
17:12:27 [IanH]
ack MarkusK_
17:12:39 [MarkusK_]
oops, technical issue
17:12:42 [MarkusK_]
17:12:48 [MarkusK_]
no idea what happened
17:12:56 [bijan]
17:12:58 [MarkusK_]
I can type: we do not have a strong oppinion
17:12:59 [pfps]
q+ me?
17:13:04 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:13:05 [pfps]
q- me?
17:13:11 [IanH]
17:13:11 [MarkusK_]
... but I would prefer to not refer to the old documents
17:13:48 [elisa]
Bijan: this is just an old difference of opinion - how much should our documents target users who were transitioning to OWL 2, who made heavy use of the documents
17:13:49 [MarkusK_]
... in particular since the "backward looking" aspect was already an important reason for dropping an earlier appendix from the Primer.
17:14:07 [MarkusK_]
17:14:11 [IanH]
17:14:45 [IanH]
ack MarkusK_
17:14:51 [elisa]
... Deb wanted to include a number of pointers back to the older docs, and we should have a forward eye rather than backwards eye to these documents
17:15:29 [elisa]
Markus: would also prefer not to have references to the older documents, aside from in NF&R - we already dropped lots of text because of similar issues
17:15:48 [alanr]
could an example be presented?
17:15:49 [elisa]
Ian: any other support for backwards-looking links
17:16:08 [alanr]
how does she want to cite ?
17:16:15 [pfps]
The proposed change to Primer is the canonical example, I guess.
17:16:19 [alanr]
zakim, unmute me
17:16:19 [Zakim]
alanr should no longer be muted
17:16:26 [IanH]
17:16:39 [elisa]
Alan: I can imagine a number of cases, some more objectionable than others ...
17:16:47 [elisa]
Ian: wasn't there a specific place ...
17:17:04 [bijan]
17:17:06 [Zakim]
+ +03539149aabb
17:17:21 [zimmer]
Zakim, +03539149aabb is me
17:17:21 [Zakim]
+zimmer; got it
17:17:25 [pfps]
5. On “For readers already familiar with OWL 1, [OWL 2 New Features
17:17:27 [pfps]
and Rationale
17:17:28 [pfps]
17:17:29 [elisa]
Markus: will paste it in to the IRC -- this was a general reference to the old primer
17:17:30 [pfps]
provides a comprehensive overview of what has changed in OWL 2.”
17:17:31 [pfps]
1. Change to “For readers already familiar with OWL 1, [OWL 2
17:17:33 [pfps]
New Features and Rationale
17:17:35 [pfps]
17:17:36 [pfps]
provides a comprehensive overview of what has changed in OWL
17:17:38 [pfps]
2. This document also replaces the OWL Guide
17:17:39 [bijan]
17:17:39 [pfps]
<> provided
17:17:39 [elisa]
Alan: of the two cases that seems less harmful
17:17:41 [pfps]
for OWL 1.
17:17:55 [alanr]
seems harmless
17:18:06 [bijan]
I don't see how that helps anyone, so I don't see why we should include it
17:18:11 [alanr]
zakim, mute me
17:18:11 [Zakim]
alanr should now be muted
17:18:23 [alanr]
helps deb ;-)
17:18:27 [alanr]
editorial change
17:18:31 [elisa]
Ian: this seems to be kind of a trivial issue -- we just need to help get this resolved, perhaps we should have a straw poll
17:18:36 [alanr]
17:18:44 [elisa]
Ian: this is editorial, so it could be dealt with after LC
17:18:48 [MarkusK_]
+1 to this being editorial
17:18:58 [bijan]
Ok, it doesn't seem to help any of the target audience in anyway, so I don't see why we should include it
17:19:00 [elisa]
... quick straw poll to see how people feel about this
17:19:03 [bijan]
+1 to it being editorial
17:19:56 [IanH]
STRAW POLL: Primer should not use references to OWL 1 guide to explain differences between OWL 1 and OWL 2
17:20:15 [bmotik]
17:20:21 [bcuencagrau]
17:20:24 [pfps]
17:20:25 [zimmer]
17:20:27 [bijan]
17:20:28 [Zhe]
17:20:30 [Achille]
17:20:30 [MarkusK_]
17:20:31 [elisa]
17:20:31 [sandro]
17:20:31 [alanr]
17:20:31 [uli]
17:20:34 [ekw]
17:20:34 [msmith]
17:20:35 [baojie]
0 (need to consult Deb)
17:20:40 [schneid]
17:20:53 [baojie]
Zakim, unmute me
17:20:53 [Zakim]
baojie should no longer be muted
17:21:04 [baojie]
17:21:10 [IanH]
ack baojie
17:21:15 [elisa]
Ian: most people seem to think that we shouldn't be backwards looking
17:21:21 [bijan]
Technically, most people either are indifferent or hostile
17:21:36 [elisa]
Jie: for the record, in general Deb will want a reference to the OWL 1 Guide
17:21:50 [elisa]
Ian: this is just general guidance - we can come back to this after last call
17:22:10 [elisa]
Topic: Advancing documents to Last Call and Candidate Recommendation
17:22:50 [elisa]
Ian: you all have seen the discussion on exit criteria ... the suggestion is that we can vote on progressing the docs, and this only affects the CR docs
17:23:14 [IanH]
17:23:16 [elisa]
... we can vote on the docs being ready pending a resolution on the exit criteria, which we could vote on next week
17:23:18 [pfps]
go for it!
17:23:20 [IanH]
17:23:28 [uli]
i am happy
17:23:45 [pfps]
17:23:49 [elisa]
Ian: any discussion on proposals
17:23:50 [IanH]
ack pfps
17:24:23 [elisa]
PFPS: just a general comment, it would be nice to have very few changes to the documents at this stage
17:24:41 [elisa]
Ian: hopefully there would be very few other than what we have to do for publication
17:24:46 [IanH]
17:25:10 [sandro]
Ian: We don't expect any changes to the documents after this decision (if approved) other than necessary to publish them (eg fixing links)
17:25:14 [IanH]
PROPOSED: Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax, Mapping to RDF Graphs, Direct Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics, Conformance, Profiles and XML Serialization are ready for publication as Candidate Recommendations, pending a decision on the precise terms of the exit criteria
17:25:16 [ekw]
i am here
17:25:31 [bmotik]
17:25:32 [pfps]
+7 ALU (seven votes for seven documents)
17:25:37 [sandro]
+1 W3C
17:25:39 [baojie]
0 (RPI)
17:25:42 [MarkusK_]
+1 (FZI)
17:25:43 [uli]
+1 (Manchester)
17:25:43 [Achille]
+1 (IBM)
17:25:44 [zimmer]
+1 (DERI)
17:25:46 [ekw]
+1 (NIST)
17:25:47 [msmith]
+1 C&P
17:25:47 [Zhe]
17:25:50 [alanr]
+1 (Science Commons)
17:25:51 [bcuencagrau]
17:25:57 [elisa]
+1 (Sandpiper Software)
17:26:26 [IanH]
+1 UVSQ (proxy from Christine)
17:26:35 [pfps]
17:26:37 [IanH]
+1 UvA (proxy from Rinke)
17:26:42 [IanH]
ack pfps
17:27:04 [elisa]
PFPS: just wondering why RPI ... what quibble do they ...
17:27:30 [pfps]
17:27:36 [elisa]
Jie: I talked with Jim this morning, and his main concern is with regard to the profiles - he thinks that there is more work do do before they are ready
17:27:48 [pfps]
17:27:49 [elisa]
... we don't have problems with the other documents
17:27:58 [IanH]
17:28:02 [IanH]
ack pfps
17:28:19 [IanH]
17:28:38 [elisa]
PFPS: I am uneasy / unhappy that a working group member didn't air their problems before the vote
17:28:51 [IanH]
17:28:56 [elisa]
Jie: I think Jim has been clear over the last couple of days - this should not be surprising
17:29:06 [bijan]
17:29:12 [IanH]
17:29:21 [bijan]
17:29:23 [elisa]
PFPS: It may be that there is confusion between the profiles document and exit criteria, but ...
17:29:30 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:29:43 [sandro]
pfps: I am surprised and very unhappy to learn here and now that RPI has a problem with the Profiles document (as opposed to the Exit Criteria -- that part doesn't surprise me).
17:30:06 [IanH]
RESOLVED: Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax, Mapping to RDF Graphs, Direct Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics, Conformance, Profiles and XML Serialization are ready for publication as Candidate Recommendations, pending a decision on the precise terms of the exit criteria
17:30:12 [schneid]
I would be surprised to hear that the Exit Criterium stuff has to do with the profiles, given that the /profiles/ won't probably have problems to meet the exit criteriums...
17:30:14 [sandro]
woo hoo
17:30:20 [pfps]
a test publication run would help (to discover bad links) -as they can't be done in the Wiki
17:30:39 [elisa]
Ian: next item is progressing the next set of docs to last call
17:30:45 [sandro]
yep, it's high on my list, Peter.
17:30:54 [IanH]
PROPOSED: Document Overview, Primer, New Features and Rationale and Quick Reference Guide are ready for publication as Last Call Working Drafts
17:30:59 [msmith]
q+ about primer
17:31:01 [MarkusK_]
+1 (FZI)
17:31:10 [bmotik]
+1 (Oxford)
17:31:12 [zimmer]
+1 (DERI)
17:31:14 [IanH]
ack msmith
17:31:14 [ekw]
+1 (NIST)
17:31:23 [baojie]
17:31:26 [Achille]
+1 (IBM)
17:31:27 [baojie]
17:31:31 [MarkusK_]
17:31:32 [Zhe]
17:31:33 [uli]
+1 (Manchester)
17:31:34 [sandro]
q+ about rdf:text
17:31:41 [elisa]
msmith: regarding the primer, there was discussion on the OWL DL and OWL Full section of the primer, and I don't think that discussion is concluded
17:31:57 [elisa]
... we went back and forth on the mailing list, and I don't think that was resolved
17:32:06 [elisa]
Ian: is this really editorial or crucial
17:32:09 [IanH]
17:32:13 [msmith]
17:32:18 [elisa]
msmith: I think we can resolve to publish and work this out
17:32:25 [sandro]
RRSAgent, make records public
17:32:31 [IanH]
17:32:37 [baojie]
+1 (RPI)
17:32:38 [elisa]
Ian: then we can work this out during the last call period
17:32:38 [MarkusK_]
17:32:39 [pfps]
q- about
17:32:42 [pfps]
q- primer
17:32:45 [IanH]
17:32:48 [pfps]
q- rdf:text
17:32:53 [sandro]
thanks peter
17:32:58 [MarkusK_]
q+ to answer Mike
17:33:02 [IanH]
ack baojie
17:33:36 [elisa]
Jie: just for the record, for the primer, Deborah still has comments that she does not believe were fully incorporated; editors did acknowledge her suggestions
17:33:55 [IanH]
17:33:56 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
17:33:56 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau (muted), alanr (muted), msmith, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), baojie, MarkusK_, ekw (muted), uli
17:33:59 [Zakim]
... (muted), bijan, schneid (muted), Achille, zimmer
17:34:10 [elisa]
... from Jim on the QRG - he believes that we should mention the OWL Full features, in an appendix, with the additional vocabulary
17:34:13 [schneid]
17:34:34 [IanH]
17:34:41 [IanH]
ack MarkusK_
17:34:41 [Zakim]
MarkusK_, you wanted to answer Mike
17:34:47 [IanH]
17:35:11 [msmith]
great! my +1 vote stands, thank you.
17:35:21 [elisa]
Markus: to Mike -- I'm aware of the comment regarding OWL DL/OWL Full -- will do as suggested and sort this out, it's on the list for addressing very soon
17:35:36 [IanH]
17:35:49 [elisa]
... also from Mike about turtle syntax - had a response and is looking for Mike's ack
17:36:09 [elisa]
... from Deborah -- there is an additional open issue that can be fixed quickly
17:36:19 [elisa]
Ian: so are these really editorial in nature?
17:36:57 [elisa]
Markus: yes -- two of them are editorial, plus the issue Mike raised, which is reverting to prior
17:36:58 [pfps]
17:37:04 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
17:37:04 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
17:37:06 [IanH]
ack schneid
17:37:47 [elisa]
schneid: I know that there are some terms that are not in the mapping from functional to RDF graphs, but to call them OWL Full -- these should go at least from RDF to functional syntax
17:38:14 [elisa]
... this has nothing to do with OWL Full -- the mapping document isn't about OWL Full, and so calling it this way is confusing
17:38:21 [baojie]
i agree
17:38:30 [IanH]
ack pfps
17:38:34 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
17:38:34 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
17:38:34 [elisa]
Ian: basically, if we agree that these issues are editorial, then we can vote and come back to them later
17:39:04 [elisa]
PFPS: there is this matter of section 4.2 in the QRG, there is an outstanding disagreement on what it should say; there may be a more serious disagreement
17:39:24 [elisa]
... all of this should be put into the earlier sections, depending on what Jim wants ...
17:39:24 [IanH]
17:39:56 [elisa]
... that things like distinctMembers should show up in section 2 or 3
17:40:21 [elisa]
Ian: if this isn't worked out during last call, then in principle you could make an objection that would send it back to last call again
17:40:31 [elisa]
PFPS: I'm happy with the current state of the document
17:40:32 [baojie]
17:40:46 [IanH]
ack baojie
17:40:53 [elisa]
Ian: for this to change, we would have to have the discussion
17:41:14 [elisa]
Jie: we could add an editors note
17:42:03 [elisa]
Ian: we would be voting on the documents in their current state, so we could pull the document from the list of those going to last call
17:42:44 [bijan]
Bit strange that a main editor is voting against the document :)
17:42:46 [IanH]
17:42:54 [elisa]
... if you want me to split this out from the proposal, we could do so
17:43:08 [IanH]
PROPOSED: Document Overview, Primer, New Features and Rationale are ready for publication as Last Call Working Drafts
17:43:12 [alanr]
voting against document in current form, with constructive proposal on how to resolve.
17:43:15 [baojie]
+1 (RPI)
17:43:16 [pfps]
+1 ALU
17:43:16 [msmith]
+1 (C&P)
17:43:16 [Achille]
+1 (IBM)
17:43:17 [alanr]
jie is
17:43:17 [MarkusK_]
+1 (FZI)
17:43:18 [alanr]
17:43:20 [zimmer]
+1 (DERI)
17:43:23 [Zhe]
17:43:24 [uli]
+1 (Manchester)
17:43:26 [ekw]
+1 (NIST)
17:43:26 [bmotik]
+1 (Oxford)
17:43:33 [elisa]
+1 (Sandpiper Software)
17:43:39 [sandro]
+1 (W3C)
17:43:43 [alanr]
oops +1 on these
17:43:53 [pfps]
I wonder what SC thinks is lacking in these documents.
17:43:59 [pfps]
17:44:19 [IanH]
+1 UVSQ (proxy from Christine)
17:44:32 [IanH]
+1 UvA (proxy from Rinke)
17:44:47 [IanH]
RESOLVED: Document Overview, Primer, New Features and Rationale are ready for publication as Last Call Working Drafts
17:45:14 [pfps]
Just a note that there are one or two agreed-on changes to go into Primer.
17:45:27 [IanH]
PROPOSED: Quick Reference Guide is ready for publication as Last Call Working Draft
17:45:31 [pfps]
+1 ALU
17:45:37 [uli]
+1 (Manchester)
17:45:45 [alanr]
0 Science Commons
17:45:45 [ekw]
17:45:48 [msmith]
+1 (C&P)
17:45:53 [elisa]
+1 (Sandpiper Software)
17:45:53 [Achille]
+1 (IBM)
17:45:53 [baojie]
-1 (RPI) (need to mention OWL full features in some way)
17:45:53 [zimmer]
+1 (DERI)
17:45:56 [bmotik]
+1 (Oxford)
17:45:56 [Zhe]
17:45:59 [MarkusK_]
+1 (FZI)
17:46:00 [IanH]
+1 UVSQ (proxy from Christine)
17:46:03 [ekw]
17:46:11 [IanH]
+1 UvA (proxy from Rinke)
17:46:46 [bijan]
Will he lie down in the road
17:46:58 [pfps]
17:47:01 [alanr]
Do we need to do that, or can we give it the week to resolve?
17:47:04 [elisa]
Ian: procedure on how to handle objection?
17:47:11 [IanH]
17:47:20 [elisa]
Sandro: Jie - are you firmly opposed to this happening today?
17:47:42 [elisa]
... would you be willing to ... if we have this vote next week, would you be ok?
17:47:45 [bijan]
17:47:50 [pfps]
17:47:59 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:48:01 [elisa]
Jie: if OWL Full features are mentioned in some way, I'll have no objection
17:48:05 [pfps]
I suggest that this be ironed out *quickly*.
17:48:14 [elisa]
Ian: so we will postpone this vote to next week
17:48:38 [alanr]
17:48:52 [elisa]
Bijan: if it goes this way next week, then we should give it up - not have a quick reference quide, and would anyone else be deadlocking
17:48:54 [pfps]
17:49:01 [IanH]
ack alanr
17:49:18 [elisa]
Ian: would others vote against it going to last call if it contains something about OWL Full?
17:49:19 [pfps]
17:49:20 [alanr]
zakim, mute me
17:49:20 [Zakim]
alanr should now be muted
17:49:26 [IanH]
17:49:32 [elisa]
Alan: we could vote on this issue without taking the whole document down
17:49:39 [bijan]
It's not speculation. If no one will oppose the other way we should decide now
17:49:48 [IanH]
17:49:53 [elisa]
Ian: yes, we should discuss this over the week and see if it can be resolved
17:50:03 [elisa]
Ian: any issues on the third proposal?
17:50:03 [schneid]
I would like to state that I do not consider this as a discussion about "somthing about OWL Full"
17:50:22 [schneid]
I said it before
17:50:23 [bijan]
Moving on
17:50:25 [bijan]
Back to email
17:50:26 [IanH]
PROPOSED: Manchester Syntax is ready for publication as a Working Group note
17:50:29 [alanr]
noted - take it to email
17:50:32 [pfps]
+1 ALU
17:50:33 [baojie]
+1 (RPI)
17:50:34 [uli]
+1 (Manchester)
17:50:35 [alanr]
0 Science Commons
17:50:38 [bmotik]
+1 (Oxford)
17:50:39 [msmith]
+1 (C&P)
17:50:40 [zimmer]
+1 (DERI)
17:50:41 [ekw]
+1 (NIST)
17:50:42 [Zhe]
17:50:43 [sandro]
+1 (W3C)
17:50:43 [Achille]
0 (IBM)
17:50:46 [elisa]
+1 (Sandpiper Software)
17:50:48 [MarkusK_]
+1 (FZI)
17:50:48 [Zakim]
17:50:54 [IanH]
+1 UVSQ (proxy from Christine)
17:50:56 [bijan]
q+ to ask about abstainers
17:51:05 [IanH]
+1 UvA (proxy from Rinke)
17:51:07 [Zakim]
17:51:09 [IanH]
17:51:15 [schneid]
zakim, ??P3 is me
17:51:15 [Zakim]
+schneid; got it
17:51:19 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
17:51:19 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
17:51:30 [IanH]
17:51:33 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:51:33 [Zakim]
bijan, you wanted to ask about abstainers
17:51:46 [alanr]
I abstained because the issue of labels was not resolved in a way I was comfortable
17:51:48 [elisa]
Bijan: about the abstainers -- in general it's better if we don't have abstentions ... is there anything that would change their position
17:52:10 [IanH]
17:52:23 [alanr]
zakim, mute me
17:52:23 [Zakim]
alanr was already muted, alanr
17:52:28 [elisa]
Achille: I'm still not convinced that we need yet another syntax
17:52:59 [pfps]
This is not a REC document, just a Note, so I think that we have already taken care of Achille's issue.
17:53:08 [IanH]
RESOLVED: Manchester Syntax is ready for publication as a Working Group note
17:53:18 [bijan]
17:53:22 [Zhe]
17:53:22 [alanr]
17:53:54 [IanH]
17:53:57 [Zakim]
17:54:00 [elisa]
Topic: back to the discussion on rdf:text
17:54:08 [alanr]
we said we would put it at risk
17:54:08 [Zakim]
17:54:16 [alanr]
17:54:20 [Zakim]
17:54:22 [alanr]
beginning of the meeting
17:54:28 [schneid]
zakim, ??P3 is me
17:54:28 [Zakim]
+schneid; got it
17:54:30 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
17:54:30 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
17:54:34 [alanr]
no resolution. Ian said we will do. No one had comments.
17:55:04 [alanr]
issue: vote not announced before meeting...
17:55:05 [trackbot]
Created ISSUE-151 - Vote not announced before meeting... ; please complete additional details at .
17:55:05 [MarkusK_]
Update on Primer: the two open concerns of Mike have been settled and confirmed by email: and (sorry for this late addon to the earlier discussion)
17:55:08 [IanH]
17:55:13 [elisa]
Sandro: we should have a resolution on the rdf:text issue with an action to have someone make the changes to the documents
17:55:30 [elisa]
Ian: so let's have discussion on making rdf:text at risk
17:55:33 [IanH]
17:56:02 [elisa]
Sandro: high-level summary - there seem to be strong positions on several sides;
17:56:04 [pfps]
17:56:24 [bmotik]
17:56:34 [alanr]
reduces change of having an LC if things go back
17:56:35 [elisa]
... several people from SPARQL, Pat Hayes have positions that are not clear in terms of how to reconcile
17:56:39 [alanr]
17:56:52 [IanH]
ack pfps
17:56:54 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:56:54 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
17:56:57 [elisa]
... we still might have to go back to last call, but this increases the odds of being able to proceed
17:57:06 [Zakim]
17:57:10 [IanH]
17:57:12 [sandro]
sandro: Putting rdf:text At Risk reduced the odds of us needing to go back to Last Call if rdf:text changes.
17:57:37 [Zakim]
17:57:41 [elisa]
PFPS: I was thinking about what needs to be changed - the direct semantics is in the worst shape; as far as implementations go, very little would need to be changed to take out rdf:text, as long as implementers
17:57:47 [alanr]
alan +1 to peter's assessment
17:57:50 [elisa]
... agree to put in a switch somewhere
17:57:59 [IanH]
17:58:03 [alanr]
17:58:11 [schneid]
zakim, [IPcaller] is me
17:58:11 [Zakim]
+schneid; got it
17:58:12 [elisa]
Sandro: if we can flag those points now
17:58:14 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
17:58:14 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
17:58:14 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:58:38 [elisa]
PFPS: direct semantics will be the most difficult
17:59:03 [bmotik]
Oh crap.
17:59:13 [bmotik]
I'll try
17:59:24 [bmotik]
I'm surprised with the option of removing rdf:text.
17:59:30 [bmotik]
What would have put into the documents then?
17:59:39 [bmotik]
We'd need to change Syntax quite a bit
17:59:47 [pfps]
It would be a mess, I agree.
17:59:51 [bmotik]
And the facets should go away.
17:59:56 [bmotik]
We should *NOT* go there.
18:00:03 [bmotik]
WE should make these people see the light.
18:00:14 [bmotik]
In fact, I think that only Pat is entrneched.
18:00:19 [alanr]
Let's hope for the best, but document our current state well to protect ourselves
18:00:20 [pfps]
One option would be to have owl:text!
18:00:29 [bmotik]
I had an impression that Andy and Eric were more of less conceding.
18:00:30 [pfps]
18:00:38 [bmotik]
But this might have been just my impression.
18:00:43 [IanH]
ack pfps
18:00:58 [bmotik]
Pat is the only one with a really strong opinion about it.
18:00:59 [IanH]
18:01:02 [elisa]
PFPS: Let's make it owl:text
18:01:14 [elisa]
Sandro: it might help, it's hard to say
18:01:34 [elisa]
PFPS: owl:text would make it internal to our documents, and we could arrange to emit the right things
18:01:49 [bmotik]
But that's already there!
18:02:10 [bmotik]
Well, there was a MUST in the documents,
18:02:10 [elisa]
Sandro: if we can be careful enough about what we emit, then that's one option
18:02:11 [pfps]
I can write up a CM - what needs to be change to make various things work.
18:02:16 [bmotik]
and people changed it to SHOULD.
18:02:25 [IanH]
18:02:35 [alanr]
we are not going to solve this now.
18:02:36 [bmotik]
I'm open to this.
18:02:43 [elisa]
Sandro: it didn't handle the lang function -- is it just wordsmithing about how we emit the triples, or is there some other solution
18:02:45 [alanr]
at hand is dealing with putting at risk.
18:03:07 [pfps]
An "at risk" statement has to give the fallback position!
18:03:08 [christine]
christine has joined #owl
18:03:14 [bmotik]
I need more fire power.
18:03:14 [IanH]
18:03:26 [elisa]
Ian: is there anything we can really do aside from this at risk position
18:03:34 [alanr]
fallback position is remove rdf:text from OWL 2
18:03:42 [uli]
Boris, how can we help with fire power?
18:04:01 [Zakim]
18:04:05 [IanH]
18:04:08 [elisa]
Sandro: this gives us a little more cover for some changes that might happen - at risk is more of a comment allowing us to refactor how owl:text is handled
18:04:11 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
18:04:11 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau (muted), alanr (muted), msmith, bmotik, Zhe (muted), baojie, MarkusK_, ekw (muted), uli (muted),
18:04:14 [Zakim]
... Achille, zimmer, schneid (muted), ??P2
18:04:15 [Zakim]
On IRC I see christine, Achille, schneid, Zhe, uli, baojie, bmotik, MarkusK_, msmith, bcuencagrau, pfps, elisa, ekw, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, IanH, sandro, trackbot
18:04:27 [christine]
zakim, ??P2 is christine
18:04:27 [Zakim]
+christine; got it
18:04:28 [elisa]
PFPS: that may be the best worst we can do
18:04:54 [elisa]
Ian: we could propose to mark rdf:text as being at risk - is that reasonable at this point?
18:04:55 [pfps]
Reasonable is not the word to use. :-(
18:05:04 [IanH]
PROPOSED: rdf:text should be marked as being "at risk"
18:05:20 [pfps]
18:05:21 [sandro]
+1 (W3C)
18:05:26 [baojie]
0 (RPI)
18:05:29 [elisa]
+1 (Sandpiper Software)
18:05:30 [alanr]
+1 (Science Commons)
18:05:31 [Achille]
+1 (IBM)
18:05:31 [bmotik]
+1 (Oxford)
18:05:31 [ekw]
+1 (NIST)
18:05:37 [MarkusK_]
+1 (FZI)
18:05:40 [Zhe]
18:05:50 [zimmer]
0 (DERI)
18:05:56 [msmith]
18:05:58 [uli]
+0 (Manchester)
18:06:19 [elisa]
Ian: any more on this?
18:06:30 [IanH]
RESOLVED: rdf:text should be marked as being "at risk"
18:06:57 [bmotik]
18:07:02 [IanH]
18:07:03 [bmotik]
I could use some more fire power.
18:07:06 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:07:15 [bmotik]
18:07:16 [pfps]
I'll take a look.
18:07:27 [alanr]
"oh no"
18:07:28 [elisa]
Ian: so more of us will try to look at this and join in the discussion
18:07:57 [pfps]
Any *discussion* on CR exit?
18:08:03 [elisa]
Ian: did not really cover last call comments
18:08:12 [IanH]
18:08:27 [elisa]
Ian: any utility in discussing LC comments and responses?
18:08:27 [schneid]
I am still waiting for Jeremy to answer the NPA reply
18:08:34 [sandro]
18:08:42 [pfps]
I've been following the (d)evolution of the page.
18:08:43 [IanH]
18:08:51 [pfps]
18:08:52 [elisa]
Ian: CR exit criteria -- has anyone had a chance to look at the proposal and have comments?
18:08:52 [IanH]
18:08:56 [IanH]
ack pfps
18:09:10 [IanH]
18:09:51 [elisa]
PFPS: in particular, the four profiles -- look just right; the only change I might make - we might be able to get away with one implementation that shows benefits, and the other shows interoperability
18:09:51 [alanr]
seems reasonable
18:10:00 [IanH]
18:10:15 [msmith]
q+ to ask about benefit
18:10:20 [elisa]
Ian: yes, what we have may be a bit strong - one that shows benefit and one that shows interoperability might be enough,
18:10:21 [IanH]
ack msmith
18:10:21 [Zakim]
msmith, you wanted to ask about benefit
18:10:27 [elisa]
... we might get some pushback on that
18:10:42 [pfps]
In my opinion Pellet works as a native EL reasoner.
18:10:46 [alanr]
that works
18:10:55 [elisa]
msmith: what do you mean by shows benefit -- demonstrating that the benefit comes from EL vs DL comes down to run time
18:10:57 [pfps]
18:11:02 [alanr]
performance is a feature
18:11:02 [MarkusK_]
18:11:19 [msmith]
18:11:19 [sandro]
yeah, that works. Pellet can count as both DL and EL (given having this special EL processor in it).
18:11:23 [elisa]
Ian: Pellet is a perfect example - using a different algorithm to demonstrate EL
18:11:24 [IanH]
ack pfps
18:11:46 [elisa]
PFPS: Pellet is not only acceptable EL exemplar, but exemplary EL exemplar
18:12:15 [pfps]
18:12:17 [elisa]
Sandro: we might want to change the language to make this clear
18:12:23 [pfps]
q+ to ask about process
18:12:43 [IanH]
ack MarkusK_
18:12:44 [elisa]
Ian: should make this clear that multiple examples could be supported by the same implementation
18:12:45 [IanH]
18:13:30 [elisa]
Markus: benefit in the fact that you have it implemented
18:13:51 [IanH]
18:13:54 [IanH]
ack pfps
18:13:54 [Zakim]
pfps, you wanted to ask about process
18:14:12 [elisa]
Ian: we are really dependent on the integrity of implementers that their implementation supports this, which is ok
18:14:14 [uli]
18:14:18 [IanH]
18:14:38 [uli]
can you repeat the question, peter?
18:14:41 [elisa]
PFPS: so if we don't have an implementation for OWL2 QL, does that throw OWL2 under the bus, or the profiles under the bus?
18:14:58 [alanr]
but we shouldn't have any trouble finding QL implementations - quonto/owlgres
18:15:13 [elisa]
... I would hope that we could claim that we can only yank that profile rather than the whole profile section
18:15:18 [IanH]
18:15:28 [elisa]
PFPS: what happens if we flunk the OWL Full test?
18:15:31 [alanr]
deliberately loose for the owl full language
18:15:41 [schneid]
18:15:45 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
18:15:45 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
18:15:47 [IanH]
ack schneid
18:16:43 [IanH]
18:16:49 [elisa]
schneid: should the test suite -- there will be no hope for reaching the 80% mark - there are some tests that are not as hard as the special tests from OWL 1, but they are crafted in a way such that certain reasoners will have no chance
18:17:07 [elisa]
Sandro: the question here is whether there will be tests that no reasoner can pass
18:17:36 [elisa]
schneid: I can look at it and say that these tests are probably handled by general reasoners and these are probably not
18:17:48 [ekw]
Gotta go! Bye.
18:17:54 [Zakim]
18:18:03 [elisa]
Ian: do you think it would be possible to develop a reasoner that would pass those tests?
18:18:34 [alanr]
18:18:38 [IanH]
18:18:52 [sandro]
Possible clause (that I DON'T support): Every OWL 2 Full test case must be passed by at least two entailment checkers
18:18:57 [elisa]
schneid: I don't know what was done in the past - it would take time to produce it; perhaps 40% would go through Jena
18:19:03 [IanH]
ack alanr
18:19:33 [elisa]
Alan: you can do that, but do you think that the exit criteria would be strengthen by having some number of tests
18:19:43 [alanr]
zakim, mute me
18:19:43 [Zakim]
alanr should now be muted
18:20:21 [elisa]
schneid: we have a number of really good reasoners - could we create a system in the next few weeks that would do most of our test cases ...
18:20:39 [elisa]
Ian: what we have to determine is whether the current wording in the exit criteria is reasonable
18:20:59 [alanr]
Michael - can you send email suggesting a proposal?
18:21:15 [alanr]
and we can discuss this on email this week
18:21:26 [elisa]
schneid: we should completely rethink this, because we're just lucky that we have existing reasoners that can do this, but you can't compare OWL to HTML
18:21:52 [IanH]
18:21:54 [elisa]
Ian: I sympathize, but this kind of exit criteria ... is at least strongly expected
18:22:06 [elisa]
Sandro: we need to prove that the specification is implementable
18:22:38 [elisa]
Ian: why would we not just say that it is obviously implementable
18:22:47 [elisa]
schneid: it should at least be realistic
18:22:55 [elisa]
Sandro: aside from OWL Full
18:23:11 [elisa]
schneid: we can meet all the other profiles and OWL DL easily ...
18:23:16 [IanH]
18:23:16 [sandro]
18:23:21 [elisa]
Ian: so we're only discussing OWL Full
18:24:01 [elisa]
schneid: all I want is ... I will do what I can in the time that I have, but it is unrealistic to reach 80%
18:24:11 [sandro]
"# Two different implementations of an OWL 2 Full entailment checker implementing useful subsets of OWL Full and taking advantage of at least some of the claimed benefits of OWL 2 Full† "
18:24:31 [uli]
so where is the problem then?
18:24:44 [elisa]
schneid: if something like a significant part is enough,
18:25:03 [elisa]
Ian: I'm not really understanding your objection/suggestion
18:25:21 [elisa]
Sandro: he may be talking about the 80% text that has been removed
18:25:28 [alanr]
18:25:34 [uli]
Michael, you worry about things you shouldn't worry about!
18:25:35 [elisa]
schneid: a useful subset is fine -- that's what Jena already does
18:25:39 [IanH]
18:25:39 [alanr]
18:25:40 [msmith]
exactly! we're in agreement. :)
18:26:33 [elisa]
Ian: would you prefer if we put in that implementations should pass some tests
18:26:45 [IanH]
18:26:46 [elisa]
... we can take that into email discussion
18:26:54 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
18:26:54 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
18:27:12 [elisa]
Ian: we're really out of time
18:27:16 [msmith]
msmith: Two notable changes to test results...
18:27:16 [msmith]
msmith: 1) Test suite results now include OWLAPI profile checking results. Some failures for profile checks, for which I will follow up to determine if the tester or the test is wrong.
18:27:16 [msmith]
msmith: 2) All RDF vocab is now used in at least one test case (with an exception for property used with nary datatype restrictions).
18:27:37 [elisa]
... we'll be coming back to talk about test suites over the next few weeks, in CR we will be doing much more testing
18:27:42 [elisa]
Ian: AOB?
18:27:53 [uli]
18:28:15 [elisa]
Ian: congratulations for progressing almost all of our documents;
18:28:18 [alanr]
18:28:19 [Zakim]
18:28:21 [Zakim]
18:28:21 [Zhe]
18:28:22 [Zakim]
18:28:22 [Zakim]
18:28:23 [Zakim]
18:28:24 [Zakim]
18:28:26 [Zakim]
18:28:26 [Zakim]
18:28:28 [Zakim]
18:28:32 [Zakim]
18:28:35 [zimmer]
good bye
18:28:40 [Zakim]
18:28:45 [MarkusK_]
MarkusK_ has left #owl
18:28:50 [IanH]
RRSAgent, make records public
18:29:06 [Zakim]
18:29:14 [Zakim]
18:29:16 [IanH]
18:29:31 [sandro]
18:29:58 [bmotik]
bmotik has left #owl
18:30:09 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
18:30:09 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall
18:30:10 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Achille, Zhe, baojie, msmith, bcuencagrau, pfps, elisa, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, sandro, trackbot
18:33:00 [Zakim]
18:33:10 [IanH]
18:37:04 [Zakim]
18:37:05 [Zakim]
18:37:07 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
18:37:08 [Zakim]
Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau, msmith, alanr, bmotik, Zhe, baojie, MarkusK_, +1.301.351.aaaa, uli, bijan, schneid, ekw, Achille,
18:37:10 [Zakim]
... zimmer, christine
20:06:39 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl
20:20:39 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl
20:28:49 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl
20:43:03 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl
20:43:49 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl
20:51:33 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl
20:52:19 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl
20:59:56 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl
21:00:03 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl
21:01:33 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl
21:02:19 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl
21:41:37 [baojie]
baojie has joined #owl