IRC log of owl on 2009-08-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:51:41 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:51:41 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/08/05-owl-irc
16:52:05 [IanH]
IanH has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.08.05/Agenda
16:52:15 [alanr]
alanr has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.08.05/Agenda
16:52:18 [IanH]
Zakim, this will be owlwg
16:52:18 [Zakim]
ok, IanH; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
16:52:30 [IanH]
RRSAgent, make records public
16:54:58 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
16:57:25 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
16:57:25 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()1:00PM has not yet started, alanr
16:57:26 [Zakim]
On IRC I see bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ewallace, alanr, sandro, trackbot
16:57:33 [bcuencagrau]
bcuencagrau has joined #owl
16:57:40 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
16:57:48 [Zakim]
+ +8686527aaaa
16:58:06 [IanH]
Zakim, aaaa is IanH
16:58:06 [Zakim]
+IanH; got it
16:58:13 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
16:58:13 [Zakim]
On the phone I see IanH
16:58:14 [Zakim]
On IRC I see bcuencagrau, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ewallace, alanr, sandro, trackbot
16:58:31 [IanH]
ScribeNick: bcuencagrau
16:58:39 [Zakim]
+Jonathan_Rees
16:58:41 [Zakim]
+bglimm
16:58:42 [zimmer]
zimmer has joined #owl
16:58:49 [bmotik]
Zakim, blimm is me
16:58:49 [Zakim]
sorry, bmotik, I do not recognize a party named 'blimm'
16:58:50 [IanH]
Bernardo, you are scribing?
16:58:57 [alanr]
zakim, Jonathan_Rees is alanr
16:58:57 [Zakim]
+alanr; got it
16:58:57 [bmotik]
Zakim, bglimm is me
16:58:58 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
16:59:03 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
16:59:03 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
16:59:04 [bijan]
bijan has joined #owl
16:59:17 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #owl
16:59:31 [Zakim]
+ +3539149aabb
16:59:42 [zimmer]
Zakim, +3539149aabb is me
16:59:42 [Zakim]
+zimmer; got it
16:59:57 [Zakim]
+bmotik.a
17:00:00 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:00:00 [Zakim]
On the phone I see IanH, alanr, bmotik (muted), zimmer, bmotik.a
17:00:02 [Zakim]
On IRC I see JeffP, bijan, zimmer, bcuencagrau, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ewallace, alanr, sandro, trackbot
17:00:05 [Zakim]
+Sandro
17:00:06 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, bmotik.a is bcuencagrau
17:00:06 [Zakim]
+bcuencagrau; got it
17:00:15 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, mute me
17:00:16 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:00:16 [JeffP]
[I am on IRC only]
17:00:26 [MarkusK_]
MarkusK_ has joined #owl
17:00:31 [Zakim]
+??P22
17:00:38 [bijan]
zakim, ??p22 is me
17:00:38 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
17:00:47 [schneid]
schneid has joined #owl
17:01:05 [Zakim]
+??P19
17:01:12 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.276.aacc
17:01:24 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:01:24 [Zakim]
On the phone I see IanH, alanr, bmotik (muted), zimmer, bcuencagrau (muted), Sandro, bijan, ??P19, +1.518.276.aacc
17:01:26 [Zakim]
On IRC I see schneid, MarkusK_, JeffP, bijan, zimmer, bcuencagrau, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ewallace, alanr, sandro, trackbot
17:01:30 [alanr]
are we expecting peter today?
17:01:41 [IanH]
I hope Peter will join.
17:01:50 [alanr]
give him a minute or two
17:01:55 [IanH]
Although I do know that he is travelling.
17:02:03 [alanr]
has anyone been in touch with Zhe recently?
17:02:04 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
17:02:20 [IanH]
Zhe has been submitting test results very recently.
17:02:28 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
17:02:28 [Zakim]
On the phone I see IanH, alanr, bmotik (muted), zimmer, bcuencagrau (muted), Sandro, bijan, ??P19, +1.518.276.aacc
17:02:30 [Zakim]
On IRC I see pfps, schneid, MarkusK_, JeffP, bijan, zimmer, bcuencagrau, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ewallace, alanr, sandro, trackbot
17:02:34 [baojie]
baojie has joined #owl
17:02:34 [IanH]
I don't know if he will join the teleconf though.
17:02:35 [bcuencagrau]
Yes, i am scribing
17:02:45 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
17:02:51 [bcuencagrau]
Ian, I am scribing
17:02:51 [alanr]
couple of unidentified callers - please identify yourselves
17:02:57 [schneid]
zakim, [IPcaller] is me
17:02:57 [Zakim]
+schneid; got it
17:03:01 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
17:03:01 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
17:03:13 [IanH]
Someone is calling from area code 518?
17:03:17 [baojie]
baojie
17:03:19 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
17:03:27 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
17:03:27 [Zakim]
On the phone I see IanH, alanr, bmotik (muted), zimmer, bcuencagrau (muted), Sandro, bijan, ??P19 (muted), +1.518.276.aacc, schneid (muted)
17:03:29 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Zhe, baojie, pfps, schneid, JeffP, bijan, zimmer, bcuencagrau, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ewallace, alanr, sandro, trackbot
17:03:32 [Zhe]
what is the zakim ID?
17:03:36 [baojie]
Zakim, aacc is baojie
17:03:36 [Zakim]
+baojie; got it
17:03:41 [pfps]
I have no idea which number I'm dialling from, and DTMF may not work for me
17:03:42 [Zakim]
+ +1.914.356.aadd
17:04:03 [IanH]
Zakim access code is 69594#
17:04:15 [Zakim]
+ +1.603.897.aaee
17:04:18 [pfps]
zakim, ??p19 is me
17:04:18 [Zakim]
+pfps; got it
17:04:29 [Zhe]
zakim, +1.603.897.aaee is me
17:04:29 [Zakim]
+Zhe; got it
17:04:32 [Zhe]
thanks Ian!
17:04:47 [baojie]
Zakim, mute me
17:04:47 [Zakim]
baojie should now be muted
17:04:52 [alanr]
zakim, aadd is achille
17:04:52 [Zakim]
+achille; got it
17:04:59 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
17:04:59 [Zakim]
On the phone I see IanH, alanr, bmotik (muted), zimmer, bcuencagrau (muted), Sandro, bijan, pfps (muted), baojie (muted), schneid (muted), achille, Zhe
17:05:02 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Zhe, baojie, pfps, schneid, JeffP, bijan, zimmer, bcuencagrau, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ewallace, alanr, sandro, trackbot
17:05:21 [bcuencagrau]
Roll call
17:05:26 [bcuencagrau]
Agenda amendments?
17:05:52 [bcuencagrau]
Previous minutes
17:05:54 [alanr]
PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (15 July)
17:05:58 [MarkusK_]
MarkusK_ has joined #owl
17:06:19 [Zhe]
Markus, thanks for all the help with test cases
17:06:34 [IanH]
They look OK to me
17:06:35 [bcuencagrau]
pfps: minutes look ok, but not completely there
17:06:35 [JeffP]
indeed; thanks Markus
17:06:47 [IanH]
They look OK to me
17:06:50 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: anyone else looked at them?
17:06:59 [alanr]
PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (15 July)
17:07:03 [Zakim]
+Evan_Wallace
17:07:03 [pfps]
+1
17:07:05 [IanH]
+1
17:07:10 [Zhe]
+1
17:07:10 [MarkusK_]
my Skype fails :-( I cannot yet calll in
17:07:28 [alanr]
RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes (15 July)
17:07:49 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: Action items
17:08:06 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: Action 344
17:08:17 [alanr]
q?
17:08:21 [pfps]
I'm very comfortable with the current state of the documents
17:08:29 [Rinke]
Rinke has joined #owl
17:08:30 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: Anyone wants to say something?
17:08:34 [alanr]
ack ??P19
17:08:41 [alanr]
zakim, who is here?
17:08:41 [Zakim]
On the phone I see IanH, alanr, bmotik (muted), zimmer, bcuencagrau (muted), Sandro, bijan, pfps, baojie (muted), schneid (muted), achille, Zhe, Evan_Wallace
17:08:42 [bijan]
seems ok to me
17:08:45 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Rinke, MarkusK_, Zhe, baojie, pfps, schneid, JeffP, bijan, zimmer, bcuencagrau, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ewallace, alanr, sandro, trackbot
17:09:02 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: let's consider it done
17:09:07 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: Action 347
17:09:17 [IanH]
Done
17:09:27 [pfps]
Done, done, done
17:09:43 [bijan]
q+
17:09:48 [alanr]
ack bijan
17:09:52 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: Action 345
17:10:15 [Zakim]
+??P18
17:10:19 [Rinke]
zakim, ??P18 is me
17:10:19 [Zakim]
+Rinke; got it
17:10:21 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: still primer and overview to do
17:10:23 [Rinke]
zakim, mute me
17:10:23 [Zakim]
Rinke should now be muted
17:10:54 [bcuencagrau]
bijan: structural specification, primer and overview are the important docs for this action
17:11:26 [bcuencagrau]
bijan: accessibility is hard for technical documents
17:11:49 [bcuencagrau]
bijan: the documents seem pretty good in general
17:12:04 [IanH]
AMIA Symposium is here: http://symposium2009.amia.org/
17:12:17 [IanH]
Doesn't mention Panel yet as it has only just been accepted.
17:12:42 [IanH]
Panel is on "Medical Vocabularies, Knowledge Representation and the
17:12:42 [IanH]
Semantic Web – Best of Breed or a Recipe for Failure?"
17:13:06 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: should we ask someone like Robert for feedback?
17:13:22 [bcuencagrau]
bajan: My feedback is based on what I did, but didn't ask Robert
17:14:19 [bcuencagrau]
bijan: It takes a while to do each of the documents
17:14:58 [Zakim]
+??P11
17:15:00 [bcuencagrau]
bijan: Examples need to be translated into Manchester syntax
17:15:17 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: what needs to be done before PR?
17:15:29 [bcuencagrau]
bijan: nothing needs to be done before PR
17:15:52 [bcuencagrau]
bijan: nobody would do a more thorough accessibility audit than what I did
17:15:58 [bcuencagrau]
bijan: so we are fine
17:16:19 [IanH]
Thanks Bijan!
17:16:28 [bcuencagrau]
sandro: thanks to Bijan for doing this
17:16:58 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: Ian, can you talk about the panel?
17:17:23 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Christine is one of the panelist, but does not have the funding to go
17:17:36 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: there is an FMA meeting
17:18:07 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: Issues
17:18:15 [bcuencagrau]
alanr; OWL dot OWL
17:18:15 [schneid]
q+
17:18:19 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
17:18:19 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
17:19:02 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: I have a chapter in the RDF Semantics about axiomatic triples
17:19:28 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: I wanted the OWL dot OWL document to be a conformant document
17:19:28 [schneid]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Owl2DotOwlDevel
17:20:35 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: I added comments with suggestion to change certain blocks
17:20:54 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: So that we can have an extension of the old OWL dot OWL
17:21:26 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: I tried to mimick the structure of the old OWL dot OWL
17:21:32 [schneid]
"#?"
17:22:20 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: did you get feedback from Holger?
17:22:28 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: he did pose a few questions
17:22:40 [alanr]
q?
17:22:45 [alanr]
ack schneid
17:23:05 [Zakim]
-MarkusK_
17:23:16 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: he made a few suggestions
17:23:43 [Zakim]
+??P7
17:24:12 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: The document is not OWl DL, but it is closer to it
17:24:25 [alanr]
q?
17:24:52 [MarkusK_]
MarkusK_ has joined #owl
17:24:57 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: how is the status of the new version?
17:25:00 [IanH]
It looks fine to me
17:25:13 [bijan]
As long as it has big ass disclaimers then I don't care what's in it
17:25:20 [pfps]
+1
17:25:47 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: Are people happy with the document?
17:26:05 [schneid]
note: the set of QUESTIONS are pretty outdated now
17:26:27 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: is the status of OWl dot OWL a blocker to PR?
17:26:28 [bijan]
It's unnecesary
17:26:30 [bijan]
q+
17:26:39 [alanr]
ack bijan
17:26:41 [schneid]
I believe owl.owl has nothing to do with PR transistion
17:26:47 [bcuencagrau]
bijan: I don't see why could it be a blocker. It is not in the charter
17:26:50 [schneid]
NO!
17:27:01 [bcuencagrau]
sandro: the previous OWL dot OWL was a part of the spec
17:27:06 [ewallace]
It was in OWL Reference
17:27:07 [bcuencagrau]
bijan: not clear to me
17:27:22 [bcuencagrau]
sandro: it was a response to a CR comment
17:27:30 [schneid]
ow.owl was part of the OWL References document, but was informative
17:27:34 [IanH]
q+
17:27:41 [bcuencagrau]
bijan: it is not part of a doc that is going to PR
17:27:57 [bcuencagrau]
sandro: We could add it as a nonnormative appendix
17:27:58 [schneid]
q+
17:28:00 [alanr]
q?
17:28:11 [alanr]
ack IanH
17:28:13 [bijan]
whcih document is it in
17:28:32 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Ivan thought that it is not a blocker
17:28:35 [bijan]
reference
17:28:40 [alanr]
ack schneid
17:28:40 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: so did other people
17:28:44 [bijan]
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#AppendixList
17:28:51 [bijan]
maybe?
17:29:00 [alanr]
q+ to offer comment on desired tweak
17:29:01 [sandro]
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#appB Appendix B. RDF Schema of OWL
17:29:03 [schneid]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF-Based_Semantics#A_Set_of_Axiomatic_Triples
17:29:23 [bijan]
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#appB
17:29:23 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: We have the RDF semantics were we could have the OWL dot OWL file
17:29:28 [alanr]
q?
17:29:51 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: this is the best we can do
17:30:08 [pfps]
q+
17:30:15 [alanr]
ACK ALANR
17:30:15 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to offer comment on desired tweak
17:30:20 [alanr]
ack pfps
17:30:36 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
17:30:37 [Zakim]
schneid was not muted, schneid
17:30:37 [ewallace]
I don't understand Alan's proposal.
17:30:47 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, unmute me
17:30:47 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should no longer be muted
17:31:04 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, mute me
17:31:04 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:31:29 [alanr]
suggesting adding seeAlso links to our specifications as being useful to help people find documentation
17:31:33 [pfps]
I don't see any purpose to add seeAlso links, and I worry what happens if they are wrong.
17:31:38 [schneid]
q+
17:31:43 [alanr]
ack schneid
17:31:45 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
17:31:45 [Zakim]
schneid was not muted, schneid
17:32:00 [bijan]
I would prefer in the comment s/This file should not, in general, be imported into OWL ontologies./This file SHOULD NOT be imported into OWL ontologies./ (SHOULD NOT in the RFC 2119 sense)
17:32:11 [schneid]
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
17:32:47 [pfps]
I am also against the addition of isDefinedBy triples - they are not in the current owl.owl file
17:33:12 [bijan]
q+
17:33:15 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: the question is whether the OWLdotOWL doc is an annex to one of ou docs
17:33:32 [alanr]
ack bijan
17:33:33 [schneid]
yes, I don't see a need for making owl2.owl into a document or a part of an existing document
17:33:33 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: Michael has a different proposal and mentioned the RDF based semantics doc
17:33:58 [sandro]
q+
17:34:03 [alanr]
ack sandro
17:34:38 [bcuencagrau]
sandro: Michael you want to put triples in the RDF Semantics so that one could extract the OWLdotOWL file
17:35:14 [bcuencagrau]
sondro: I am happy with michael's solution
17:35:42 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: we will respond to Holger according to Michael's suggestion
17:35:45 [bijan]
That works for me
17:35:46 [sandro]
sandro: I'm happy with Michael solution, where the owl.owl file is constructed from the axiomatic triples in rdf-based semantics, plus some TBD nonessential stuff like the ontology header, and seeAlso stuff.
17:35:50 [IanH]
Works for me too.
17:36:01 [pfps]
no seeAlso
17:36:04 [bijan]
Please see my friendly amendment to the rdfs:comment in owl.owl above
17:36:33 [Rinke]
I support Bijan's amendment to the rdfs:comment
17:36:48 [schneid]
q
17:36:50 [schneid]
q+
17:36:55 [alanr]
ack schneid
17:37:08 [sandro]
PROPOSED: The owl.owl file (the owl namespace document) will be constructed by turning the RDF-Based Semantics axiomatic triples table into RDF/XML and possible adding some other stuff (like seeAlso and ontology header). We'll decide later about that "other stuff".
17:37:13 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: there is still the question of which triples exactly to use
17:37:59 [IanH]
I prefer the simpler one that is aligned with RDF-based semantics.
17:38:03 [sandro]
PROPOSED: The owl.owl file (the owl namespace document) will be constructed by turning the RDF-Based Semantics axiomatic triples table into RDF/XML and possibly adding some other stuff (like seeAlso and ontology header). We'll decide later (after PR) about that "other stuff".
17:38:39 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
17:38:39 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
17:38:54 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: let's vote
17:39:09 [sandro]
+1
17:39:11 [schneid]
+1
17:39:14 [pfps]
+0
17:39:17 [zimmer]
+1
17:39:20 [ewallace]
+1
17:39:25 [Zhe]
:)
17:39:26 [sandro]
achille: +1
17:39:28 [JeffP]
+0
17:39:30 [Zhe]
+1
17:39:31 [alanr]
+1
17:39:31 [bijan]
+0
17:39:33 [MarkusK_]
+0
17:39:33 [baojie]
+1
17:39:37 [Rinke]
+0
17:39:39 [bmotik]
+0 (Oxford)
17:39:49 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: resolved
17:40:00 [sandro]
RESOLVED: The owl.owl file (the owl namespace document) will be constructed by turning the RDF-Based Semantics axiomatic triples table into RDF/XML and possibly adding some other stuff (like seeAlso and ontology header). We'll decide later (after PR) about that "other stuff".
17:40:20 [schneid]
q+
17:40:25 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
17:40:25 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
17:40:28 [alanr]
ack schneid
17:40:47 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: in the old OWldotOWL there was a lot of references to the OWL vocabulary
17:40:51 [ewallace]
I am in favor of Michael's current direction for this.
17:40:53 [zimmer]
zimmer has joined #owl
17:41:01 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: there was OWL:Class and not rdfs:Class
17:41:17 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: there was a tendency to use the OWL namespace
17:41:19 [IanH]
q+
17:41:26 [alanr]
ack IanH
17:41:39 [schneid]
orignally, but now not anymore
17:41:41 [bijan]
My principle: The only think *I* want is the disclaimer. Beyond the disclaimer I think whatever makes Holger minimally happy should be included and I'd prefer nothing else :)
17:41:44 [schneid]
q+
17:41:46 [ewallace]
That is not what I heard Michael to say.
17:41:51 [bijan]
And I'd like it to be easiest for us
17:41:54 [pfps]
+1 to bijan
17:42:01 [alanr]
ack schneid
17:42:02 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: we dedided to use the axiomatic triples?
17:42:39 [sandro]
I understood that decision to be based on SOME axiomatic triples, but perhaps not the current ones.
17:42:56 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: I could make some changes in the RDF based semantics
17:43:00 [ewallace]
Agree with Sandro.
17:43:44 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: there seems to be a risk in your last proposal. The safe way is to use the rdfs: namespace
17:44:05 [bcuencagrau]
alanr; why does Holger think it would be helpful?
17:44:24 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: because the basic idea was to start from OWldotOWL and extend it
17:44:53 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: Strawpoll
17:45:08 [alanr]
STRAW POLL: 1 = Prefer RDFS style, 2= Prefer more OWLish style
17:45:11 [sandro]
2
17:45:15 [bmotik]
2
17:45:18 [ewallace]
2
17:45:19 [zimmer]
0
17:45:20 [MarkusK_]
2
17:45:21 [baojie]
0
17:45:25 [pfps]
3 = prefer what is the in the current owl.owl
17:45:26 [schneid]
2
17:45:34 [alanr]
achille votes 1
17:45:37 [bijan]
I don't know the difference
17:45:45 [JeffP]
0
17:45:46 [Zhe]
1
17:45:55 [alanr]
1
17:45:58 [Rinke]
0
17:45:58 [IanH]
1
17:46:21 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: even tie
17:46:25 [IanH]
but I don't care that much!
17:46:31 [ewallace]
Can we get to Bijan's concern?
17:46:39 [alanr]
q?
17:46:46 [schneid]
zakim, mute me
17:46:46 [Zakim]
schneid should now be muted
17:47:05 [bcuencagrau]
Bijan: only two systems use OWLdotOWL: TopBraid and SWI Prolog
17:47:21 [schneid]
Holger wants clearly 2
17:47:25 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: Holger wants 2
17:47:29 [pfps]
q+
17:47:41 [bcuencagrau]
bijan: why not, i don't see a big difference
17:48:17 [bijan]
This is why I don't understand 1 vs. 2
17:48:25 [bcuencagrau]
ewallace: Holger wants it the way it was in OWL 1
17:48:28 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
17:48:28 [Zakim]
schneid should no longer be muted
17:48:46 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: the RDFS style is what you can see in my proposal.
17:49:21 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: the use of the RDFS namespace is preferred when there is a choice
17:50:01 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: in the OWL style, we would use the owl namespace
17:50:21 [pfps]
q+
17:51:32 [bcuencagrau]
pfps: The difference is what is transitive property a subclass of?
17:51:43 [bijan]
Oooo
17:51:53 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: in the old proposal is rdf:property: in the new one it is
17:51:58 [Rinke]
Then I'm voting 2 as well
17:51:58 [bijan]
I'm for 2 as well
17:52:00 [IanH]
I'll change my vote and go for 2
17:52:07 [IanH]
I wan't the least change possible
17:52:13 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: a subproperty of Objectproperty
17:52:19 [pfps]
:-)
17:52:50 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: the consequence is that one needs to change the proposal and also the document
17:52:57 [bijan]
Is that a normative change in the rdf semantics?
17:53:17 [pfps]
I believe that for the RDFS-based semantics the change to the triples does not change any entailments (as ObjectProperty and Property are the same there).
17:53:28 [bijan]
Right
17:53:29 [bijan]
Cool
17:53:31 [bijan]
Good enoughf or me
17:54:08 [pfps]
I also seem to remember some fairly heated discussion in WebOnt on this, before settling on the owl.owl file.
17:54:22 [schneid]
PROPOSED: the proposal for owl.owl in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Owl2DotOwlDevel will be changed according to all the comments starting with "#?"; the RDF-Based Semantics, Section 6.4 will be adjusted in exactly the same way
17:54:36 [bijan]
+1
17:54:36 [pfps]
+1
17:54:38 [bmotik]
+1 (Oxford)
17:54:40 [schneid]
+1
17:54:41 [ewallace]
+1
17:54:41 [Rinke]
+1
17:54:42 [alanr]
+1
17:54:43 [MarkusK_]
+1
17:54:45 [baojie]
+1
17:54:48 [Zhe]
+1
17:54:54 [JeffP]
+1
17:55:09 [sandro]
+1
17:55:28 [alanr]
achille votes 0
17:55:35 [zimmer]
+0
17:56:00 [IanH]
RESOLVED: the proposal for owl.owl in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Owl2DotOwlDevel will be changed according to all the comments starting with "#?"; the RDF-Based Semantics, Section 6.4 will be adjusted in exactly the same way
17:56:49 [pfps]
I'm against this - the stuff is in the current owl.owl
17:57:46 [alanr]
PROPOSED: Remove assertions related to rdfs:annotation properties that were previously in owl.owl
17:58:56 [schneid]
PROPOSED: Remove treatment of terms rdfs:comment, rdfs:isDefinedBy, rdfs:seeAlso, rdfs:label from owl.owl; they have been in owl.owl in the original version
17:59:15 [bmotik]
0 (Oxford)
17:59:16 [zimmer]
+1
17:59:17 [Zhe]
0
17:59:17 [baojie]
0
17:59:18 [sandro]
+0
17:59:21 [MarkusK_]
+0
17:59:21 [Rinke]
0
17:59:21 [pfps]
-1 ALU, I'm against changes to owl.owl
17:59:22 [JeffP]
0
17:59:31 [schneid]
+1
17:59:32 [ewallace]
0
17:59:33 [bijan]
+themajoritythatleadstofastresolution
17:59:34 [alanr]
achille votes + 1
18:00:05 [pfps]
I'm not laying down in the road on *anything* to do with owl.owl
18:00:16 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: Are you going to formally object?
18:00:56 [IanH]
RESOLVED: Remove treatment of terms rdfs:comment, rdfs:isDefinedBy, rdfs:seeAlso, rdfs:label from owl.owl; they have been in owl.owl in the original version
18:01:21 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: i will write to Holger so that he can comment on it
18:02:11 [alanr]
Action sandro to copy text from RIF mime type application
18:02:12 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-349 - Copy text from RIF mime type application [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-08-12].
18:02:41 [alanr]
q?
18:02:55 [pfps]
q-
18:03:58 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: most rules in the OWL 2 RL spec are very simple, except for a table
18:04:10 [schneid]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profiles#dt-type1
18:04:12 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: the table on datatypes and literals
18:04:39 [pfps]
I thought that this was extensively discussed when the rules were put together, and the stance was (as Ian has said) that the rules say what needs to be inferred, but not necessarily how the inferences are to be performed. This seems like an eminently suitable solution, and change is neither warranted nor desired nor useful.
18:04:59 [IanH]
It was extensively discussed already.
18:05:05 [bmotik]
q+
18:05:20 [IanH]
What Peter says is exactly the case.
18:05:36 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: this causes difficulties for implementors of forward chaining rule engines
18:05:42 [IanH]
This is just re-visiting stuff that was extensively discussed already.
18:05:50 [bijan]
No new information
18:05:58 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: I have a proposal to improve the rules
18:06:04 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:06:04 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:06:07 [alanr]
ack bmotik
18:06:31 [bcuencagrau]
bmotik: this is late in the game. Moreover, these rules are not meant to be directly implementable
18:06:49 [bcuencagrau]
bmotik: but there are technical reasons why we shouldn't change these rules
18:07:11 [bcuencagrau]
bmotik: it does not suffice to look at the original graph
18:07:21 [bijan]
This was discussed before
18:07:23 [bcuencagrau]
bmotik: there could be technical problems with the change
18:07:33 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:07:33 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:07:37 [bcuencagrau]
bmotik: Implementors have to think about how to implement these rules
18:08:27 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: let's ove on
18:08:53 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: Let us discuss the two at risk features
18:09:18 [bijan]
But no objection
18:09:27 [alanr]
PROPOSED: implementation support for rdf:XMLLiteral support has been adequately demonstrated and the feature is no longer considered at-risk
18:09:38 [pfps]
+0 ALU
18:09:40 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: Most people were favorable to have XML literal
18:09:47 [baojie]
0
18:09:47 [ewallace]
+0
18:09:49 [bmotik]
+1
18:09:49 [Zhe]
+0
18:09:55 [MarkusK_]
+1
18:09:58 [bijan]
+1 Manchester
18:10:00 [Rinke]
+1 Amsterdam
18:10:01 [sandro]
+1
18:10:02 [schneid]
+1
18:10:03 [zimmer]
+-
18:10:06 [zimmer]
+0
18:11:01 [IanH]
HermiT does pass the relevant test(s)
18:11:04 [bmotik]
HermiT implements rdf:XMLLiteral
18:11:13 [IanH]
We do have tests for it.
18:11:14 [bmotik]
We do
18:11:30 [MarkusK_]
test results: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test_results
18:11:44 [JeffP]
+1 aAberdeen
18:12:08 [Rinke]
(I know SWI Prolog uses rdf:XMLLiteral)
18:12:39 [bcuencagrau]
sandro: the implementation in Aberdeen does not support XMliteral
18:12:48 [alanr]
achille votes +1
18:13:19 [IanH]
RESOLVED: implementation support for rdf:XMLLiteral support has been adequately demonstrated and the feature is no longer considered at-risk
18:13:23 [bijan]
Pellet just reported supportin both xmlliteral nd owl;rational
18:13:28 [bijan]
See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Aug/0005.html
18:13:29 [bcuencagrau]
The second feature at rist is owl:rational
18:13:40 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
18:13:40 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2009/08/05-owl-irc#T18-13-40
18:13:48 [pfps]
q+
18:13:57 [bijan]
Manchester would object to its removal
18:14:09 [alanr]
ack pfps
18:14:13 [bijan]
Given that no implementor found a problem...I'd say the at risk has been met
18:14:20 [Rinke]
I think the key point is that it has been shown to be implementable
18:14:45 [bcuencagrau]
pfps: i thought that the meaning of "at risk" is to determine whether the feature is implementable
18:14:51 [bmotik]
I've removed the at-risk note in the Syntax document.
18:14:54 [bcuencagrau]
pfps: not whether people want to implement it
18:15:00 [bmotik]
for rdf:XMLLiteral
18:15:12 [bijan]
I think we're in clear
18:15:12 [MarkusK_]
HermiT currently is the only DL reasoner succeeding in the owl:rational tests
18:15:13 [bcuencagrau]
sandro: we don't want people to say "we don't implement it because it is too hard"
18:15:30 [bcuencagrau]
sandro: but this doesn't seem to be the case
18:15:37 [bmotik]
q+
18:15:38 [sandro]
s/we don't want people to say/I don't see anyone saying/
18:15:45 [alanr]
ack bmotik
18:15:49 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:15:49 [Zakim]
bmotik was not muted, bmotik
18:16:04 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
18:16:04 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
18:16:07 [bcuencagrau]
bmotik: the implemetation of owl:rational in HermiT was easy
18:16:09 [alanr]
PROPOSED: implementation support for owl:rational has been adequately demonstrated and the feature is no longer considered at-risk
18:16:13 [pfps]
+1
18:16:13 [bmotik]
+1
18:16:21 [ewallace]
+1
18:16:22 [baojie]
0
18:16:30 [bijan]
+1
18:16:37 [Rinke]
+1 Amsterdam
18:16:41 [JeffP]
0
18:16:42 [zimmer]
+1
18:16:43 [Zhe]
0
18:16:52 [pfps]
Is owl:rational in the smaller profiles?
18:16:54 [schneid]
note, RL does not support owl:rational
18:16:56 [MarkusK_]
Pellet did not report test results for owl:rational yet
18:17:01 [MarkusK_]
+1
18:17:03 [schneid]
+1
18:17:33 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: no objection
18:17:34 [sandro]
+1 (given it's not in RL)
18:17:38 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: resolved
18:17:42 [alanr]
achille votes +1
18:17:42 [sandro]
achille: +1
18:17:49 [IanH]
RESOLVED: implementation support for owl:rational has been adequately demonstrated and the feature is no longer considered at-risk
18:18:11 [bcuencagrau]
alanr; move to PR
18:18:11 [bmotik]
And I've now removed the at-risk note for owl:rational.
18:18:28 [pfps]
Ah yes, the documents need to be changed.
18:18:30 [bijan]
q+
18:18:31 [sandro]
q+
18:18:32 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: we should discuss which are the pros and cons
18:18:36 [alanr]
ack bijan
18:18:41 [bcuencagrau]
bijan: we are ready for PR
18:19:12 [bcuencagrau]
bijan: we have plenty of support
18:19:27 [bcuencagrau]
bijan: we have two objections
18:20:03 [alanr]
ack sandro
18:20:09 [bcuencagrau]
bijan: I would be surprised if the ACC insists on them
18:20:20 [alanr]
q?
18:20:46 [bcuencagrau]
sandro: I am a bit uncorfortable with the status of the implementation exit criteria
18:21:09 [bcuencagrau]
sandro: we need to OWL Full implentations
18:21:12 [pfps]
There are still some i's to cross and t's to dot before taking things to PR, but I think that we are in a good shape.
18:21:21 [bcuencagrau]
sandro: nobody is claiming to have and OWL 2 Full implementation
18:21:32 [alanr]
q+ alanr
18:21:36 [bcuencagrau]
sandro: the Jena people may say that they do have one
18:21:46 [bcuencagrau]
Bijan: Pellet does do some OWL Full
18:22:03 [pfps]
+1 to Sandro's concern - but Jena was a Full implementation, so I think that it is just a matter of labelling
18:22:04 [bcuencagrau]
Bijan: there is some of the RDF-based semantics
18:22:13 [JeffP]
The RL reasoners do some OWL Full too
18:22:22 [bcuencagrau]
sandro: I am ok if someone says that has an OWl Full implementation
18:22:24 [MarkusK_]
+1 the RL reasoners are all doing OWL Full already
18:22:37 [bmotik]
q+
18:22:52 [MarkusK_]
OWL Full test status: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test_results#OWL_2_Full_Test_Cases
18:23:15 [IanH]
We had some of that kind of stuff in LC comments.
18:23:25 [alanr]
ack alanr
18:23:59 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: we are in very good shape. An issue is that GRDLL has not been published yet
18:23:59 [sandro]
q+ to answer about GRDDL
18:24:25 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: some tests did not passed the "two reasoners" approval
18:24:35 [alanr]
q?
18:24:37 [IanH]
q?
18:24:37 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:24:39 [alanr]
ack bmotik
18:24:40 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:24:58 [bcuencagrau]
bmotik: what does it mean to have an OWl Full implementation?
18:25:22 [bcuencagrau]
bmotik: in principle, RL implementations do count as OWl Full implementation
18:25:32 [MarkusK_]
+1 to Boris: RL tools implement OWL Full
18:25:49 [alanr]
q?
18:25:49 [bcuencagrau]
sandro: the question is whether the provider of the system wants to claim that they have an OWL 2 Full implementation
18:26:23 [bcuencagrau]
Zhe: Oracle is close to have RL, and it is an OWl Full implementation
18:26:31 [JeffP]
I see no problem
18:26:37 [bcuencagrau]
Zhe: I am willing to go on the record and claim it
18:26:42 [alanr]
ack sandro
18:26:42 [Zakim]
sandro, you wanted to answer about GRDDL
18:27:02 [bcuencagrau]
sandro: the GRRDL issue. It was harder than what I thought. my mistake
18:27:06 [bmotik]
But Ivan is likely to follow suit, won't he? So could we have a vote on transition to PR soon?
18:27:14 [bcuencagrau]
sandro: it is in good shape, but does not have annotations
18:27:16 [bmotik]
isn't he -- sorry
18:27:45 [IanH]
q-
18:27:55 [bijan]
q+
18:28:03 [alanr]
ack bijan
18:28:07 [bcuencagrau]
sandro: I can spend some time on it once back from vacation
18:28:20 [bcuencagrau]
Bijan: we do not need the final version of the GRDLL before PR
18:28:31 [IanH]
It's at least a proof of concept.
18:28:51 [sandro]
sandro: a 0.1 release, or something.
18:28:59 [pfps]
GRDDL is probably at 0.5 release
18:28:59 [bcuencagrau]
alanr: should we vote now?
18:29:03 [IanH]
q?
18:29:11 [IanH]
q+
18:29:13 [bmotik]
I'd like to vote now. People will be on vacation, so this will just go on.
18:29:25 [bcuencagrau]
I agree with Boris
18:29:31 [Zhe]
I will be on vacation on Aug 17th week
18:29:40 [bmotik]
No problem to stay 10 minutes
18:30:00 [bcuencagrau]
achille: we are ready so we should move forward
18:30:20 [IanH]
q+
18:30:23 [JeffP]
should vote before holiday
18:30:23 [Zakim]
-achille
18:30:27 [alanr]
ack ianh
18:30:34 [bijan]
Are there any objections? or serious qualms?
18:30:35 [sandro]
achille votes +1 on moving to PR, before dropping off call.
18:30:41 [pfps]
I'm happy to vote to move forward and have the chairs do the things that are necessary.
18:31:01 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: we are in a good position to vote. We have good attendance
18:31:10 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: and it is not clear when we could vote
18:31:36 [MarkusK_]
+1 to Ian: let us vote now
18:31:49 [schneid]
q+
18:32:02 [bijan]
q+
18:32:29 [alanr]
ack schneid
18:32:33 [schneid]
zakim, unmute me
18:32:33 [Zakim]
schneid was not muted, schneid
18:32:37 [bcuencagrau]
sandro: I am not sure what the vote would mean if the docs can change
18:32:43 [pfps]
We may have to have an affirmation of "really done", but let's say "done" now.
18:32:48 [bmotik]
Well then, let's just vote -- it can't hurt, can it?
18:32:58 [MarkusK_]
+1 to bmotik
18:33:00 [bmotik]
It seems like everyone would vote positively anyway/
18:33:01 [alanr]
we have to be clear on what we are voting on , boris
18:33:22 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: there is a small part of a proof in the RDF semantics that I haven't finished
18:33:26 [alanr]
q?
18:33:37 [bcuencagrau]
schneid: it is non-normative anyway, but I know what to do
18:33:40 [schneid]
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF-Based_Semantics#Proof_for_the_Correspondence_Theorem
18:33:44 [alanr]
ack bijan
18:34:02 [IanH]
We did exactly the same thing for moving to CR.
18:34:25 [bcuencagrau]
bijan: we say that we are ready to move to PR and let the chairs check the changes
18:34:25 [pfps]
+1 to Bijan
18:34:35 [sandro]
PROPOSED: All of our Rec-Track documents are ready for Proposed Recommendation (given satisfactory completion of edits discussed so far, approved by chairs).
18:35:13 [schneid]
I guess we vote by institution?
18:35:19 [MarkusK_]
informative documents were included in the announced vote in the minutes
18:35:28 [MarkusK_]
s /minutes/agenda/
18:36:11 [schneid]
RDF-Based Semantics has a list of all changes
18:36:32 [sandro]
PROPOSED: All of our Rec-Track documents are ready for Proposed Recommendation (given satisfactory completion of edits discussed so far, and admin stuff like changes, subject to approval by chairs).
18:36:36 [pfps]
+1 ALU
18:36:41 [JeffP]
+1 Aberdeen
18:36:42 [bmotik]
+1 (Oxford)
18:36:42 [MarkusK_]
+1 FZI
18:36:44 [baojie]
+1 RPI
18:36:45 [Zhe]
+1 ORACLE
18:36:46 [ewallace]
+1 NIST
18:36:47 [bijan]
+1 Manchester
18:36:48 [sandro]
+1 W3C
18:36:49 [Rinke]
+1 Amsterdam
18:37:02 [zimmer]
+1 DERI
18:37:11 [sandro]
achille: +1 (IBM)
18:37:33 [alanr]
+1 (Science Commons)
18:37:34 [sandro]
RESOLVED: All of our Rec-Track documents are ready for Proposed Recommendation (given satisfactory completion of edits discussed so far, and admin stuff like changes, subject to approval by chairs).
18:37:46 [bcuencagrau]
cool
18:37:48 [IanH]
AWESOME!!!
18:37:53 [Zhe]
:)
18:37:55 [Rinke]
cool, bye
18:37:56 [Zakim]
-Evan_Wallace
18:37:56 [IanH]
Thanks all
18:37:57 [Zakim]
-Sandro
18:37:59 [bijan]
OWL 3 anyone?
18:37:59 [Zakim]
-alanr
18:38:01 [Zakim]
-bmotik
18:38:01 [Zakim]
-Zhe
18:38:03 [Zakim]
-baojie
18:38:03 [Zakim]
-Rinke
18:38:03 [JeffP]
thanks, bye :)
18:38:04 [Zakim]
-bcuencagrau
18:38:04 [Zakim]
-bijan
18:38:06 [Zakim]
-IanH
18:38:10 [sandro]
ha ha ha bijan
18:38:13 [bijan]
;)
18:38:16 [Zakim]
-MarkusK_
18:38:21 [Zakim]
-schneid
18:38:26 [Zakim]
-zimmer
18:38:32 [alanr]
alanr has left #owl
18:38:48 [Zakim]
-pfps
18:38:49 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
18:38:50 [Zakim]
Attendees were +8686527aaaa, IanH, alanr, bmotik, zimmer, Sandro, bcuencagrau, bijan, +1.518.276.aacc, schneid, baojie, +1.914.356.aadd, pfps, Zhe, achille, Evan_Wallace, Rinke,
18:38:52 [Zakim]
... MarkusK_
19:00:51 [DanC]
DanC has joined #owl
19:02:11 [sandro]
he stopped chairing the OWL (PR-decision) telecon about 20 minutes. Hopefully he's out doing something very relaxing and self-congratulating.
19:02:45 [sandro]
er, 20 minutes AGO.
19:03:09 [DanC]
he said he was free to talk to me about http://svn.mumble.net:8080/svn/lsw/trunk/xpath/ after 2:30pET. hmm.
19:03:45 [sandro]
and he may well be around.... I'm just sharing.
19:06:05 [sandro]
i keeping [leaving] out words today.
19:09:29 [DanC]
DanC has left #owl
20:07:32 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
20:36:12 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl
20:55:05 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
22:36:16 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl