There are some format problems with the chatlog. Please correct them and reload this page. They are labeled on this page in a red box, like this message.
It may be helpful to
00:00:00 <scribenick> PRESENT: IanH, Ivan, bmotik (muted), m_schnei (muted), Sandro, Zhe (muted), MarkusK, uli, bcuencagrau (muted), pfps, baojie, JeffP, Achille, bparsia, msmith, bcuencagrau, JeffP, ewallace, Carsten, bmotik
Scribe problem: the name 'Carsten' does not match any of the 50 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Achille Fokoue Alan Ruttenberg Anne Cregan Bernardo Cuenca Grau Bijan Parsia Boris Motik Christine Golbreich Conrad Bock Deborah McGuinness Diego Calvanese Doug Lenat Elisa Kendall Enrico Franconi Evan Wallace Evren Sirin Fabian Neuhaus Fabien Gandon Giorgos Stamou Giorgos Stoilos Héctor Pérez Urbina Ian Horrocks Ivan Herman Jeff Pan Jie Bao Joanne Luciano Jonathan Rees Kendall Clark Markus Krötzsch Markus Stocker Martin Dzbor Michael Sintek Michael Smith Michael Schneider Michel Dumontier Olivier Corby Pascal Hitzler Peter Haase Peter Patel-Schneider Ratnesh Sahay Rinke Hoekstra Rob Shearer Sandro Hawke Suzette Stoutenburg Tommie Meyer Uli Sattler Vassilis Tzouvaras Vipul Kashyap Vit Novacek Vojtech Svatek Zhe Wu
00:00:00 <scribenick> REGRETS: Rinke, Elisa
00:00:00 <scribenick> CHAIR: IanH
17:00:34 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/08/27-owl-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/08/27-owl-irc ←
17:00:45 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
17:08:24 <bparsia> Topic: Admin -- Roll call and agenda amendments
(No events recorded for 7 minutes)
17:08:31 <bparsia> No amendments
Bijan Parsia: No amendments ←
17:08:43 <bparsia> Topic: Minutes approval
17:09:08 <IanH> PROPOSED: accept 13th August minutes
PROPOSED: accept 13th August minutes ←
17:09:11 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
17:09:11 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
17:09:12 <msmith> +1
Michael Smith: +1 ←
17:09:13 <baojie> +1
17:09:13 <bparsia> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
17:09:18 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:09:23 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: +Evan_Wallace ←
17:09:23 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
17:09:24 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
17:09:26 <IanH> RESOLVED: accept 13th August minutes
RESOLVED: accept 13th August minutes ←
17:09:44 <bparsia> PROPOSED: accept 20th August minutes
PROPOSED: accept 20th August minutes ←
17:10:09 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
17:10:10 <bparsia> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
17:10:11 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
17:10:12 <Carsten> Zakim UK gives me a busy signal after entering the passcode, and Zakim France says that the key is not valid (both do that repeatedly) sigh.
Unknown Carsten: Zakim UK gives me a busy signal after entering the passcode, and Zakim France says that the key is not valid (both do that repeatedly) sigh. ←
17:10:14 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
17:10:31 <bparsia> RESOLVED: accept 20th August minutes
RESOLVED: accept 20th August minutes ←
17:10:40 <bparsia> Topic: Action Item status
17:10:44 <sandro> Carsten, can you try to US number, or is that not practical?
Sandro Hawke: Carsten, can you try to US number, or is that not practical? ←
17:11:05 <Zakim> +??P0
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P0 ←
17:11:11 <Carsten> zakim, p0 is me
Unknown Carsten: zakim, p0 is me ←
17:11:11 <Zakim> sorry, Carsten, I do not recognize a party named 'p0'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, Carsten, I do not recognize a party named 'p0' ←
17:11:15 <bparsia> IanH: Long list of pending review action. I've reviewd. Let's accept them.
Ian Horrocks: Long list of pending review action. I've reviewd. Let's accept them. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:11:17 <Carsten> zakim, ??p0 is me
Unknown Carsten: zakim, ??p0 is me ←
17:11:17 <Zakim> +Carsten; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Carsten; got it ←
17:11:23 <Carsten> aaaaahhhh
Unknown Carsten: aaaaahhhh ←
17:11:25 <bparsia> IanH: They are done.
Ian Horrocks: They are done. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:11:29 <Carsten> zakim, mute me
Unknown Carsten: zakim, mute me ←
17:11:29 <Zakim> Carsten should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Carsten should now be muted ←
17:11:38 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
17:11:38 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should no longer be muted ←
17:12:14 <bparsia> ACTION 168: postponed for 2 weeks
Bijan Parsia: ACTION-168: postponed for 2 weeks ←
17:12:14 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 168
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - 168 ←
17:13:06 <bparsia> Bijan: actiosn 168, 170, and 174 postpone for 2, 1, and 1 weeks respectively
Bijan Parsia: actiosn 168, 170, and 174 postpone for 2, 1, and 1 weeks respectively [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:13:32 <bparsia> JieBao: 150 needs another week
Jie Bao: 150 needs another week [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:13:41 <bmotik> Shouldn't we close ACTION-150? After all, the discussion with RIF has been initiated.
Boris Motik: Shouldn't we close ACTION-150? After all, the discussion with RIF has been initiated. ←
17:14:24 <bparsia> IanH: Action 192 is a bit stalled due to Italian hols. Postponed a week.
Ian Horrocks: ACTION-192 is a bit stalled due to Italian hols. Postponed a week. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:14:35 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
17:14:35 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should no longer be muted ←
17:14:59 <bparsia> IanH: 181 was delayed to due Michael illness, but seems done now?
Ian Horrocks: 181 was delayed to due Michael illness, but seems done now? [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:15:19 <bparsia> m_schnei: I think I can finish tomorrow. Will send email.
Michael Schneider: I think I can finish tomorrow. Will send email. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:15:44 <bparsia> IanH: Peter said he wouldn't be able to review in a timely manner due to vacation...Peter?
Ian Horrocks: Peter said he wouldn't be able to review in a timely manner due to vacation...Peter? [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:16:10 <bparsia> pfps: I can two it in two weeks from today if its ready by the end of this week
Peter Patel-Schneider: I can two it in two weeks from today if its ready by the end of this week [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:16:20 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:16:20 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should now be muted ←
17:16:59 <bparsia> IanH: all core documents (except Profiles) are in good shape and I sent notification to the reviewerss
Ian Horrocks: all core documents (except Profiles) are in good shape and I sent notification to the reviewerss [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:17:08 <msmith> I'm able to meet schedule
Michael Smith: I'm able to meet schedule ←
17:17:08 <bparsia> ...Are reviewers able to meet the schedule.
Bijan Parsia: ...Are reviewers able to meet the schedule. ←
17:17:11 <bparsia> I'm fine
Bijan Parsia: I'm fine ←
17:17:11 <uli> sure
Uli Sattler: sure ←
17:17:17 <Achille> sure
Achille Fokoue: sure ←
17:17:19 <MarkusK> sure
Markus Krötzsch: sure ←
17:17:55 <bparsia> IanH: Reviewing seems in good shape.
Ian Horrocks: Reviewing seems in good shape. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:18:09 <bparsia> IanH: 202 postponed
Ian Horrocks: 202 postponed [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:18:15 <bparsia> Topic: Issues
17:18:28 <bparsia> Topic: Proposal to Resolve
17:18:39 <bmotik> ZAkim, unmute me
Boris Motik: ZAkim, unmute me ←
17:18:39 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted ←
17:18:42 <bparsia> Topic: Proposal to resolve Issue 118
17:19:07 <bparsia> bmotik: We align bnodes exactly with RDF and impose syntactic restrictions (i.e., tree like patterns only)
Boris Motik: We align bnodes exactly with RDF and impose syntactic restrictions (i.e., tree like patterns only) [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:19:10 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
17:19:10 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
17:19:23 <bparsia> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:19:31 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:19:35 <IanH> ack bparsia
Ian Horrocks: ack bparsia ←
17:19:42 <bmotik> bparsia: I accept it is a workable solution, I don't think it is the best one
Bijan Parsia: I accept it is a workable solution, I don't think it is the best one [ Scribe Assist by Boris Motik ] ←
17:19:46 <ivan> bijan: I accept it as a workable, I am not sure it is best solution, let us see what comes from last call
Bijan Parsia: I accept it as a workable, I am not sure it is best solution, let us see what comes from last call [ Scribe Assist by Ivan Herman ] ←
17:20:11 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
17:20:16 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:20:19 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
17:21:30 <bparsia> PROPOSED: resolve Issue 118 (anonymous individual semantics), per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0188.html
PROPOSED: resolve ISSUE-118 (anonymous individual semantics), per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0188.html ←
17:21:35 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
17:21:36 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
17:21:38 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
17:21:40 <ewallace> +1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
17:21:41 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:21:41 <MarkusK> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
17:21:42 <Zhe> +1
17:21:42 <bparsia> +0.1
Bijan Parsia: +0.1 ←
17:21:42 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
17:21:46 <baojie> +1
17:21:50 <msmith> +1
Michael Smith: +1 ←
17:21:50 <Carsten> +1
Unknown Carsten: +1 ←
17:22:08 <bparsia> RESOLVED: resolve Issue 118 (anonymous individual semantics), per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0188.html
RESOLVED: resolve ISSUE-118 (anonymous individual semantics), per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0188.html ←
17:22:25 <bmotik> ACTION to bmotik: Implement ISSUE-118
Boris Motik: ACTION to bmotik: Implement ISSUE-118 ←
17:22:25 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - to ←
17:22:33 <bmotik> ACTION bmotik: to Implement ISSUE-118
Boris Motik: ACTION bmotik: to Implement ISSUE-118 ←
17:22:33 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - bmotik
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - bmotik ←
17:22:37 <bmotik> ACTION bmotik2: to Implement ISSUE-118
Boris Motik: ACTION bmotik2: to Implement ISSUE-118 ←
17:22:38 <trackbot> Created ACTION-203 - Implement ISSUE-118 [on Boris Motik - due 2008-09-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-203 - Implement ISSUE-118 [on Boris Motik - due 2008-09-03]. ←
17:23:06 <bparsia> Topic: Proposal to resolve Issue 139
17:23:22 <bparsia> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:23:34 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:24:36 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
17:24:41 <ivan> ack bparsia
Ivan Herman: ack bparsia ←
17:24:43 <sandro> to get it off the issue list
Sandro Hawke: to get it off the issue list ←
17:24:45 <uli> perhaps the benefit would be for the authors to know that they are not working in vain?
Uli Sattler: perhaps the benefit would be for the authors to know that they are not working in vain? ←
17:25:13 <bparsia> bparsia: Why do a predecision when we won't be publish it as a note until after the core language is done
Bijan Parsia: Why do a predecision when we won't be publish it as a note until after the core language is done [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:25:20 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
17:25:29 <ivan> ack ivan
Ivan Herman: ack ivan ←
17:25:43 <bparsia> ivan: We need to do some wg level publication but it's just a working draft, not saying anything about its terminal status
Ivan Herman: We need to do some wg level publication but it's just a working draft, not saying anything about its terminal status [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:25:45 <IanH> ack sandro
Ian Horrocks: ack sandro ←
17:26:10 <bparsia> sandro: People reviewing a working draft deserve to know whether something is rec track or not
Sandro Hawke: People reviewing a working draft deserve to know whether something is rec track or not [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:27:33 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:29:08 <bparsia> sandro: I don't care if we say that it *is not* a rec track or it's not clear, but we should be indicate
Sandro Hawke: I don't care if we say that it *is not* a rec track or it's not clear, but we should be indicate [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:29:10 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:30:11 <bparsia> [some discussion involving the scribe, but mostly scribe confusion so not critical]
Bijan Parsia: [some discussion involving the scribe, but mostly scribe confusion so not critical] ←
17:30:15 <sandro> PROPOSED: Authors are encouraged are prepare a WD on Manchester Syntax, which the WG expects to publish. At some point in the future we will figure out if this is REC-track or not.
PROPOSED: Authors are encouraged are prepare a WD on Manchester Syntax, which the WG expects to publish. At some point in the future we will figure out if this is REC-track or not. ←
17:30:23 <bparsia> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
17:30:28 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
17:30:28 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
17:30:29 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
17:30:31 <baojie> +1
17:30:31 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
17:30:33 <msmith> +1
Michael Smith: +1 ←
17:30:33 <MarkusK> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
17:30:34 <Zhe> +1
17:30:39 <uli> ivan, sure!
Uli Sattler: ivan, sure! ←
17:30:41 <ewallace> +1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
17:30:50 <Carsten> +1
Unknown Carsten: +1 ←
17:30:50 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:30:55 <bparsia> RESOLVED: Authors are encouraged are prepare a WD on Manchester Syntax, which the WG expects to publish. At some point in the future we will figure out if this is REC-track or not (issue-139).
RESOLVED: Authors are encouraged are prepare a WD on Manchester Syntax, which the WG expects to publish. At some point in the future we will figure out if this is REC-track or not (ISSUE-139). ←
17:31:13 <sandro> that closes issue-139
Sandro Hawke: that closes ISSUE-139 ←
17:31:51 <bparsia> Topic: Other Issue discussion
17:31:52 <ewallace> flights can't be reflexive?
Evan Wallace: flights can't be reflexive? ←
17:32:30 <bparsia> IanH: 130 and 131 deal with the profile document
Ian Horrocks: 130 and 131 deal with the profile document [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:32:42 <Zakim> -Peter
Zakim IRC Bot: -Peter ←
17:32:43 <bparsia> Topic: 130 and 131
17:33:15 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:33:17 <bparsia> IanH: Alan and Sandro and I decided to produce a draft of profile and conformance as a basis of discussion for unification
Ian Horrocks: Alan and Sandro and I decided to produce a draft of profile and conformance as a basis of discussion for unification [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:33:31 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:33:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:33:41 <bparsia> I have and I think it's a good move.
Bijan Parsia: I have and I think it's a good move. ←
17:33:46 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
17:33:47 <Zhe> zakim, unmute me
17:33:47 <Zakim> Zhe should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Zhe should no longer be muted ←
17:33:49 <Zhe> q+
17:33:50 <uli> yes, me too
Uli Sattler: yes, me too ←
17:34:03 <m_schnei> I did not find the time yet to read the new texts
Michael Schneider: I did not find the time yet to read the new texts ←
17:34:05 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
17:34:42 <uli> ...this is not possible?
Uli Sattler: ...this is not possible? ←
17:35:09 <bparsia> ivan: Checking my understanding --- what happens when you get a graph that doesn't match the syntax but the rules are happy to run with them and michael's example
Ivan Herman: Checking my understanding --- what happens when you get a graph that doesn't match the syntax but the rules are happy to run with them and michael's example [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:35:32 <bparsia> ...the conformance are silent on both these cases?
Bijan Parsia: ...the conformance are silent on both these cases? ←
17:36:46 <bparsia> IanH: no, for Case 1 it certainly does. If you have a graph outside the syntactic subset, if the rule set finds an entailment then it's valid, but if it doesn't, you don't know if it's a non-entailment. If a system generates all the entailments the rule system does then it is conforment
Ian Horrocks: no, for Case 1 it certainly does. If you have a graph outside the syntactic subset, if the rule set finds an entailment then it's valid, but if it doesn't, you don't know if it's a non-entailment. If a system generates all the entailments the rule system does then it is conforment [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:36:52 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:37:46 <bparsia> ivan: Editorial point -- [[which the scribe didn't catch]] Is it possible to give a more precise description of what the rules do.
Ivan Herman: Editorial point -- [[which the scribe didn't catch]] Is it possible to give a more precise description of what the rules do. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:37:58 <bparsia> ...e.g., document everything the rules do and do not do.
Bijan Parsia: ...e.g., document everything the rules do and do not do. ←
17:38:24 <sandro> Test Cases!
Sandro Hawke: Test Cases! ←
17:38:28 <bparsia> IanH: I'm not sure what you want....you mean examples? But I don't see how useful that is.
Ian Horrocks: I'm not sure what you want....you mean examples? But I don't see how useful that is. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:38:32 <uli> good idea, Sandro
Uli Sattler: good idea, Sandro ←
17:38:36 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:38:42 <IanH> ack Zhe
Ian Horrocks: ack Zhe ←
17:39:29 <bparsia> Zhe: I read the conformance carefully and update profiles. I think Ian has done a great job. Conformance is defined in such a way so a vendor using the rule set can claim conformance. Yay! And they can add additional rules! Double yay! Ian is my oxfordian hero!
Zhe Wu: I read the conformance carefully and update profiles. I think Ian has done a great job. Conformance is defined in such a way so a vendor using the rule set can claim conformance. Yay! And they can add additional rules! Double yay! Ian is my oxfordian hero! [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:39:39 <sandro> q+ to make minor editorial suggestion re "An OWL 2 RL entailment checker MAY report a warning unless..."
Sandro Hawke: q+ to make minor editorial suggestion re "An OWL 2 RL entailment checker MAY report a warning unless..." ←
17:39:48 <bparsia> ...that's everything oracle wants.
Bijan Parsia: ...that's everything oracle wants. ←
17:40:09 <bparsia> IanH: so you're happy with the unification as described
Ian Horrocks: so you're happy with the unification as described [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:40:22 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:40:28 <bparsia> Zhe: yes.
Zhe Wu: yes. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:40:34 <bparsia> IanH: boris helped a lot too.
Ian Horrocks: boris helped a lot too. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:40:38 <msmith> +100 to Sandro
Michael Smith: +100 to Sandro ←
17:40:47 <bparsia> Zhe: Then I deeply admire his Oxfordian grace as well.
Zhe Wu: Then I deeply admire his Oxfordian grace as well. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:41:11 <Zhe> :)
17:41:22 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
17:41:26 <sandro> ack sandro
Sandro Hawke: ack sandro ←
17:41:26 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to make minor editorial suggestion re "An OWL 2 RL entailment checker MAY report a warning unless..."
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to make minor editorial suggestion re "An OWL 2 RL entailment checker MAY report a warning unless..." ←
17:41:28 <ivan> ack sandro
Ivan Herman: ack sandro ←
17:41:52 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:42:01 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
17:42:21 <bparsia> ivan: I'm very happy with what you guys did. Unification now. Unification tomorrow. Unification FOREVER!
Ivan Herman: I'm very happy with what you guys did. Unification now. Unification tomorrow. Unification FOREVER! [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:42:30 <sandro> sandro: change to something like "An OWL 2 RL entailment checker MAY warn the user about any of these situations: (1) ... (2) .... (3) .... "
Sandro Hawke: change to something like "An OWL 2 RL entailment checker MAY warn the user about any of these situations: (1) ... (2) .... (3) .... " [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:42:41 <sandro> Isn't there some big meeting in Denver about unification?
Sandro Hawke: Isn't there some big meeting in Denver about unification? ←
17:42:43 <m_schnei> not yet, yes!
Michael Schneider: not yet, yes! ←
17:43:18 <JeffP> OK
17:43:27 <bparsia> IanH: If everyone is happy, we can propose a resolution for next time...how do people feel
Ian Horrocks: If everyone is happy, we can propose a resolution for next time...how do people feel [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:43:30 <bparsia> I love it!
Bijan Parsia: I love it! ←
17:43:35 <bparsia> Super love it!
Bijan Parsia: Super love it! ←
17:44:14 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:44:19 <bparsia> sandro: Has RPI had a chance to look at it? Jie?
Sandro Hawke: Has RPI had a chance to look at it? Jie? [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:44:48 <bparsia> Jie: not sure
Jie Bao: not sure [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:44:57 <bparsia> sandro: we're curious about Jim.
Sandro Hawke: we're curious about Jim. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:45:05 <bparsia> Jie: I'll talk with jim to clarify.
Jie Bao: I'll talk with jim to clarify. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:45:29 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:45:33 <msmith> I will look at aligning the test doc to this
Michael Smith: I will look at aligning the test doc to this ←
17:45:35 <bparsia> ivan: More editorialness
Ivan Herman: More editorialness [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:45:44 <bparsia> ...which document will have the conformance
Bijan Parsia: ...which document will have the conformance ←
17:45:55 <bparsia> IanH: In the test document as with OWL 1.
Ian Horrocks: In the test document as with OWL 1. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:46:24 <bparsia> ivan: That's not such a great idea. Test document isn't a very public place. Let's make it more public and acceptable. But where, I don't know.
Ivan Herman: That's not such a great idea. Test document isn't a very public place. Let's make it more public and acceptable. But where, I don't know. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:46:28 <sandro> +1 ivan Conformance is kind of misplaced being in Test Cases
Sandro Hawke: +1 ivan Conformance is kind of misplaced being in Test Cases ←
17:46:33 <bparsia> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:46:36 <ewallace> I used the test document from OWL 1 and I'm not an implementer
Evan Wallace: I used the test document from OWL 1 and I'm not an implementer ←
17:46:54 <m_schnei> but the testcases document looks the "least wrong" document to me
Michael Schneider: but the testcases document looks the "least wrong" document to me ←
17:46:59 <bparsia> IanH: It's not clear where to put it without splitting nup
Ian Horrocks: It's not clear where to put it without splitting nup [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:47:03 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:47:04 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
17:47:10 <sandro> Sandro: what about in Profiles?
Sandro Hawke: what about in Profiles? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:47:14 <IanH> ack bparsia
Ian Horrocks: ack bparsia ←
17:47:37 <MarkusK> +1 to bijan's proposal
Markus Krötzsch: +1 to bijan's proposal ←
17:47:38 <sandro> Bijan: How about calling the document "OWL 2 Conformance" which includes this stuff plus test cases
Bijan Parsia: How about calling the document "OWL 2 Conformance" which includes this stuff plus test cases [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:47:42 <ewallace> +1 to calling test, conformance
Evan Wallace: +1 to calling test, conformance ←
17:47:45 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:47:49 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
17:48:15 <bparsia> ivan: I like Bijan's proposal. he's great! But I also want to put it in the semantics document?
Ivan Herman: I like Bijan's proposal. he's great! But I also want to put it in the semantics document? [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:48:23 <bparsia> IanH: But *which* semantics document
Ian Horrocks: But *which* semantics document [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:48:28 <bparsia> ivan: You win
Ivan Herman: You win [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:48:43 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:49:36 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:50:01 <sandro> Sandro: It might make sense to keep the test cases out of any printable document.
Sandro Hawke: It might make sense to keep the test cases out of any printable document. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:50:38 <bparsia> Topic: 116 Axiomatic triples
17:50:39 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:50:44 <bparsia> Kill them!
Bijan Parsia: Kill them! ←
17:50:56 <bparsia> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:51:03 <Zhe> q+
17:51:08 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:51:14 <IanH> ack bparsia
Ian Horrocks: ack bparsia ←
17:51:34 <sandro> Ian: You don't have to have them to be conformant, but you can add them if you want and still be conformant.
Ian Horrocks: You don't have to have them to be conformant, but you can add them if you want and still be conformant. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:51:58 <sandro> Bijan: So far, people have had to sort through to figure out which rules make sense to have, in practice.
Bijan Parsia: So far, people have had to sort through to figure out which rules make sense to have, in practice. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:52:09 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:52:32 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
17:52:37 <ivan> ack Zhe
Ivan Herman: ack Zhe ←
17:53:14 <bparsia> Zhe: Now that conformance rocks, I agree with Bijan. We have all the rules, even the dumb ones, in RDFS, but we tell users to turn them off!
Zhe Wu: Now that conformance rocks, I agree with Bijan. We have all the rules, even the dumb ones, in RDFS, but we tell users to turn them off! [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:53:15 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:53:19 <m_schnei> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
17:53:36 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:53:39 <bparsia> IanH: If we include them, then you *have* add them to be conformant!
Ian Horrocks: If we include them, then you *have* add them to be conformant! [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:53:43 <ivan> ack ivan
Ivan Herman: ack ivan ←
17:54:07 <m_schnei> and one for Simple Entailment
Michael Schneider: and one for Simple Entailment ←
17:54:12 <m_schnei> and one for D entailment
Michael Schneider: and one for D entailment ←
17:54:17 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:54:18 <bparsia> ivan: The issue (as I've raised it) is imprecise, because we have two RDF rulesets (one for RDF and one for RDFS and one for Simple Entailment)
Ivan Herman: The issue (as I've raised it) is imprecise, because we have two RDF rulesets (one for RDF and one for RDFS and one for Simple Entailment) [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:54:59 <bparsia> ...So I'm inclined to agree with Zhe [and BIJAN!] that these should be optional. Editorially, we should say something about these extra ones e.g., in the Primer.
Bijan Parsia: ...So I'm inclined to agree with Zhe [and BIJAN!] that these should be optional. Editorially, we should say something about these extra ones e.g., in the Primer. ←
17:55:21 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
17:55:21 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should no longer be muted ←
17:55:21 <bparsia> IanH: It'd be better to have opt-in rather than opt-out
Ian Horrocks: It'd be better to have opt-in rather than opt-out [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:55:22 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:55:30 <IanH> ack m_schnei
Ian Horrocks: ack m_schnei ←
17:55:56 <bparsia> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:56:10 <bparsia> m_schnei: I agree we shouldn't make them part of the spec (for the above reasons) but there may be people who want this.
Michael Schneider: I agree we shouldn't make them part of the spec (for the above reasons) but there may be people who want this. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:56:13 <ivan> informational annex?
Ivan Herman: informational annex? ←
17:56:19 <bparsia> ...And we should tell them.
Bijan Parsia: ...And we should tell them. ←
17:56:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:56:50 <ivan> ack bparsia
Ivan Herman: ack bparsia ←
17:56:59 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:56:59 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should now be muted ←
17:58:05 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
17:58:07 <bparsia> bparsia: I'm against a note, but some discussion is ok
Bijan Parsia: I'm against a note, but some discussion is ok [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:58:15 <ivan> ack ivan
Ivan Herman: ack ivan ←
17:58:17 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
17:58:26 <bparsia> IanH: but it'd be ok to have a little discussion including implementation costs.
Ian Horrocks: but it'd be ok to have a little discussion including implementation costs. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:58:28 <sandro> Ian: It would be okay to have a statement like "here are some extra rules you might want, but they have drawbacks", right?
Ian Horrocks: It would be okay to have a statement like "here are some extra rules you might want, but they have drawbacks", right? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:58:36 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:58:39 <Zhe> +1 to ivan
17:58:42 <bparsia> ivan: Don't even include the rules. Just point them to the RDF sematntics document
Ivan Herman: Don't even include the rules. Just point them to the RDF sematntics document [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
17:59:05 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:59:29 <sandro> +1 to having these extra rules in an appendix or something
Sandro Hawke: +1 to having these extra rules in an appendix or something ←
17:59:32 <bparsia> "Please note, the current rule set do not include *all* the rules necessary for RDF, or RDFS enatilment (see RDF semantics). The rules not included generally are not very useful and complicate the implementation unduely."
Bijan Parsia: "Please note, the current rule set do not include *all* the rules necessary for RDF, or RDFS enatilment (see RDF semantics). The rules not included generally are not very useful and complicate the implementation unduely." ←
18:00:15 <m_schnei> please no suggestions in the technical documents
Michael Schneider: please no suggestions in the technical documents ←
18:00:46 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:01:41 <bparsia> ivan: we should wait until the rest of the document finalized first.
Ivan Herman: we should wait until the rest of the document finalized first. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
18:01:46 <uli> +1 to Ian
Uli Sattler: +1 to Ian ←
18:01:49 <msmith> it seems very odd to make a note to ourselves but not put that note in the document
Michael Smith: it seems very odd to make a note to ourselves but not put that note in the document ←
18:02:05 <sandro> uli, not that when you do that as you did, with "/me" your nice words don't end up in the minutes.
Sandro Hawke: uli, Note that when you do that as you did, with "/me" your nice words don't end up in the minutes. ←
18:02:07 <bparsia> IanH: isn't this orthogonal to the unification? Shouldn't we proceed.
Ian Horrocks: isn't this orthogonal to the unification? Shouldn't we proceed. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
18:02:10 <sandro> s/not/Note/
18:02:24 <bmotik> The Profiles document is not that far away from being finished
Boris Motik: The Profiles document is not that far away from being finished ←
18:02:30 <uli> thanks, Sandro
Uli Sattler: thanks, Sandro ←
18:02:45 <bmotik> We could easily add this remark at the end of the rules section
Boris Motik: We could easily add this remark at the end of the rules section ←
18:03:07 <bparsia> I prefer concrete examples
Bijan Parsia: I prefer concrete examples ←
18:03:11 <bmotik> I can send an e-mail proposing resolution and then we can vote next week
Boris Motik: I can send an e-mail proposing resolution and then we can vote next week ←
18:03:44 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me ←
18:03:44 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted ←
18:04:30 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:04:32 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
18:04:32 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
18:04:41 <bparsia> IanH: We'll make changes to the draft and then discuss and resolve the issues at once.
Ian Horrocks: We'll make changes to the draft and then discuss and resolve the issues at once. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
18:05:15 <bmotik> ACTION bmotik2: to Insert some text into the Profiles document regarding axiomatic triples
Boris Motik: ACTION bmotik2: to Insert some text into the Profiles document regarding axiomatic triples ←
18:05:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-204 - Insert some text into the Profiles document regarding axiomatic triples [on Boris Motik - due 2008-09-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-204 - Insert some text into the Profiles document regarding axiomatic triples [on Boris Motik - due 2008-09-03]. ←
18:05:32 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:05:34 <bparsia> Topic: 141 Rogue Literals
18:06:21 <m_schnei> +1 to generalized RDF graphs
Michael Schneider: +1 to generalized RDF graphs ←
18:06:22 <sandro> +1 it's okay since these are just instances of t/3 predicate
Sandro Hawke: +1 it's okay since these are just instances of t/3 predicate ←
18:06:22 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:06:25 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
18:06:25 <bparsia> IanH: Peter says that it's not a problem since we need a slight generaliation of triples
Ian Horrocks: Peter says that it's not a problem since we need a slight generaliation of triples [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
18:06:33 <bparsia> ...appears in the rif document
Bijan Parsia: ...appears in the rif document ←
18:06:38 <bparsia> and the SPARQL document.
Bijan Parsia: and the SPARQL document. ←
18:06:41 <Zhe> q+
18:06:49 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:06:51 <Carsten> Have to leave, sorry.
Unknown Carsten: Have to leave, sorry. ←
18:06:59 <ivan> ack ivan
Ivan Herman: ack ivan ←
18:07:03 <Zakim> -Carsten
Zakim IRC Bot: -Carsten ←
18:07:04 <bparsia> ivan: RIF says that they act on generalize graphs/triples
Ivan Herman: RIF says that they act on generalize graphs/triples [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
18:07:18 <bparsia> IanH: Yeah, that's basically what the T predicate does.
Ian Horrocks: Yeah, that's basically what the T predicate does. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
18:07:19 <IanH> ack Zhe
Ian Horrocks: ack Zhe ←
18:07:39 <bparsia> Zhe: Does this mean that implementors must filter out illegal triples.
Zhe Wu: Does this mean that implementors must filter out illegal triples. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
18:07:59 <bparsia> q+ to talk about sparql
Bijan Parsia: q+ to talk about sparql ←
18:08:09 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:08:21 <bparsia> IanH: conformance only talks about ground triples so the rogue ones never get in
Ian Horrocks: conformance only talks about ground triples so the rogue ones never get in [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
18:08:33 <bmotik> No
Boris Motik: No ←
18:08:35 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
18:08:37 <bparsia> ...If they return the rogue triples they might be unsound for owl full?
Bijan Parsia: ...If they return the rogue triples they might be unsound for owl full? ←
18:08:51 <ivan> ack bparsia
Ivan Herman: ack bparsia ←
18:08:51 <Zakim> bparsia, you wanted to talk about sparql
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia, you wanted to talk about sparql ←
18:09:38 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
18:10:26 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me ←
18:10:26 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted ←
18:10:52 <bparsia> bparsia: You might have to filter (or might not) to conform with SPARQL...further investigation further.
Bijan Parsia: You might have to filter (or might not) to conform with SPARQL...further investigation further. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
18:11:27 <bparsia> bmotik: I don't think you'd *want* to filter them. They aren't unsound, but the question is how to *represent* the consequence in RDF, but they are *definitely* consequences.
Boris Motik: I don't think you'd *want* to filter them. They aren't unsound, but the question is how to *represent* the consequence in RDF, but they are *definitely* consequences. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
18:11:38 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:11:41 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
18:11:41 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
18:11:43 <ivan> ack bmotik
Ivan Herman: ack bmotik ←
18:11:53 <bparsia> more from bparsia: The problem is construct vs. select, potentially
Bijan Parsia: more from bparsia: The problem is construct vs. select, potentially ←
18:11:55 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
18:11:55 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
18:12:15 <bparsia> IanH: My conclusion is that this isn't a problem with our spec.
Ian Horrocks: My conclusion is that this isn't a problem with our spec. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
18:12:25 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:12:28 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
18:12:58 <bparsia> ivan: To muddy the water: There's another illegal triple: blank node as properties, can those come up?
Ivan Herman: To muddy the water: There's another illegal triple: blank node as properties, can those come up? [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
18:13:45 <bparsia> IanH: Even that isn't an issue for our spec since we don't say what to return.
Ian Horrocks: Even that isn't an issue for our spec since we don't say what to return. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
18:14:00 <bparsia> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:14:20 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:14:23 <ivan> ack bparsia
Ivan Herman: ack bparsia ←
18:14:56 <m_schnei> _:p inverse q . x q y --> y _:p x
Michael Schneider: _:p inverse q . x q y --> y _:p x ←
18:15:35 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:15:40 <bmotik> Note that our spec doesn't say anything about what triples you should return to answers of queries
Boris Motik: Note that our spec doesn't say anything about what triples you should return to answers of queries ←
18:15:55 <uli> sounds fine to me
Uli Sattler: sounds fine to me ←
18:16:01 <bparsia> bparsia: I yield to IanH awesomeness
Bijan Parsia: I yield to IanH awesomeness [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
18:16:19 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:16:36 <bparsia> IanH: Everyone comfy? ivan?
Ian Horrocks: Everyone comfy? ivan? [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
18:16:41 <bparsia> ivan: Yes.
Ivan Herman: Yes. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
18:16:51 <bparsia> IanH: We'll aim for a resolution in the next week or so.
Ian Horrocks: We'll aim for a resolution in the next week or so. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
18:16:58 <bparsia> Topic: 109 namespaces
18:17:01 <bparsia> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:17:13 <IanH> ack bparsia
Ian Horrocks: ack bparsia ←
18:17:49 <sandro> Bijan: There are local names common to the XML syntax and the RDF serialization. I forget which ones. So there would be qnames where if you concat'd both parts you'd get something else with the same URI.
Bijan Parsia: There are local names common to the XML syntax and the RDF serialization. I forget which ones. So there would be qnames where if you concat'd both parts you'd get something else with the same URI. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:18:12 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:18:14 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
18:18:18 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:18:19 <ivan> ack ivan
Ivan Herman: ack ivan ←
18:18:22 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
18:18:34 <bparsia> ivan: I disagree but I have no new evidence.
Ivan Herman: I disagree but I have no new evidence. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
18:18:35 <m_schnei> there was no discussion on this at F2F§
Michael Schneider: there was no discussion on this at F2F3 ←
18:18:49 <m_schnei> s/F2F§/F2F3/
18:19:03 <bparsia> ...It'd be repeating the mistake of RDF.
Bijan Parsia: ...It'd be repeating the mistake of RDF. ←
18:19:15 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:19:42 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:21:48 <bparsia> Sandro: I'm with Ivan on borderline objecting
Sandro Hawke: I'm with Ivan on borderline objecting [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
18:21:59 <bparsia> bparsia: bparsia: I'd probably object
Bijan Parsia: bparsia: I'd probably object [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
18:22:25 <bparsia> IanH: Could you (sandro) check with the w3c.
Ian Horrocks: Could you (sandro) check with the w3c. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
18:22:35 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:23:54 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:24:11 <bparsia> bparsia: Do actual users matter more?
Bijan Parsia: Do actual users matter more? [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
18:24:27 <bparsia> sandro: There is a tag finding saying it's ok and I'd have trouble objecting in light of that.
Sandro Hawke: There is a tag finding saying it's ok and I'd have trouble objecting in light of that. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
18:24:58 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:24:59 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
18:25:05 <bparsia> sandro: And I get Bijan's point that the users of the XML syntax are critical here.
Sandro Hawke: And I get Bijan's point that the users of the XML syntax are critical here. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
18:25:11 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
18:25:50 <bparsia> ivan: I don't fully agree with sandro, but I am extrapolating from the RDF/XML experience when people have had confusion.
Ivan Herman: I don't fully agree with sandro, but I am extrapolating from the RDF/XML experience when people have had confusion. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
18:26:06 <bparsia> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:26:12 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:26:20 <ivan> ack bparsia
Ivan Herman: ack bparsia ←
18:26:24 <m_schnei> rdf:ID, rdf:about, ...
Michael Schneider: rdf:ID, rdf:about, ... ←
18:27:10 <sandro> Bijan: Ivan, in my experience, that's not a prevalent error -- most people understand the situation okay. Is it big in your judgement?
Bijan Parsia: Ivan, in my experience, that's not a prevalent error -- most people understand the situation okay. Is it big in your judgement? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:27:31 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:27:39 <bparsia> ivan: I see it as a problem for learning.
Ivan Herman: I see it as a problem for learning. [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
18:27:42 <sandro> ivan: I have seen it a lot. It's a learning problem. They do understand it eventually.
Ivan Herman: I have seen it a lot. It's a learning problem. They do understand it eventually. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:28:03 <sandro> Bijan: So it's ease-of-learning vs ease-of-use.
Bijan Parsia: So it's ease-of-learning vs ease-of-use. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:28:25 <m_schnei> funny is "rdf:resource" and "rdfs:Resource" :-)
Michael Schneider: funny is "rdf:resource" and "rdfs:Resource" :-) ←
18:28:32 <uli> throw a dice?
Uli Sattler: throw a dice? ←
18:29:02 <sandro> http://www.flip-coin.com/
Sandro Hawke: http://www.flip-coin.com/ ←
18:29:11 <uli> can we have Bijan and Ivan discuss during this week and then report back?
Uli Sattler: can we have Bijan and Ivan discuss during this week and then report back? ←
18:29:17 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: -Evan_Wallace ←
18:29:21 <JeffP> thanks, bye
18:29:22 <Zakim> -msmith
Zakim IRC Bot: -msmith ←
18:29:22 <Zhe> bye
18:29:23 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
Zakim IRC Bot: -bcuencagrau ←
18:29:23 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
18:29:24 <MarkusK> bye
Markus Krötzsch: bye ←
18:29:25 <Zakim> -bmotik
Zakim IRC Bot: -bmotik ←
18:29:25 <Zakim> -Achille
Zakim IRC Bot: -Achille ←
18:29:28 <uli> bye
Uli Sattler: bye ←
18:29:29 <Zakim> -JeffP
Zakim IRC Bot: -JeffP ←
18:29:30 <Zakim> -Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: -Zhe ←
18:29:32 <bparsia> How about uli and sandro :)_
Bijan Parsia: How about uli and sandro :)_ ←
18:29:32 <Zakim> -MarkusK
Zakim IRC Bot: -MarkusK ←
18:29:36 <sandro> :-)
Sandro Hawke: :-) ←
18:29:39 <Zakim> -uli
Zakim IRC Bot: -uli ←
18:29:43 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
18:29:44 <Zakim> -m_schnei
Zakim IRC Bot: -m_schnei ←
18:29:45 <Zakim> -bparsia
Zakim IRC Bot: -bparsia ←
18:29:46 <Zakim> -IanH
Zakim IRC Bot: -IanH ←
18:29:47 <sandro> flip-coin.com said "same ns".
Sandro Hawke: flip-coin.com said "same ns". ←
18:29:56 <bparsia> YAY!
Bijan Parsia: YAY! ←
18:30:14 <sandro> (but I should still check with some of my co-workers. :-( )
Sandro Hawke: (but I should still check with some of my co-workers. :-( ) ←
Formatted by CommonScribe