edit

OWL Working Group

Minutes of 10 September 2008

Present
Martin Dzbor, Sandro Hawke, Ian Horrocks, Boris Motik, Zhe Wu, Michael Schneider, Achille Fokoue, Uli Sattler, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Jie Bao, Alan Ruttenberg, Michael Smith, Bijan Parsia, Peter Patel-Schneider
Regrets
Markus Krötzsch
Chair
Ian Horrocks
Scribe
Martin Dzbor
IRC Log
Original
Resolutions
  1. Accepted Previous Minutes from 3 September 2008 (as available from http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-09-03) link
  2. Issue 133 (DL-Lite Profile modified to include UNA) per Mike's email (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0017.html) link
  3. Issue 119 (OWL 2 Full may become inconsistent due to self restrictions) per Ian's email (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0033.html) link
Topics
16:52:00 <scribenick> PRESENT: Martin Dzbor, Sandro Hawke, Ian Horrocks, Boris Motik, Zhe Wu, Michael Schneider, Achille Fokoue, Uli Sattler, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Jie Bao, Alan Ruttenberg, Mike Smith, Bijan Parsia, Peter Patel-Schneider
16:52:00 <scribenick> REGRETS: Markus Krötzsch
16:52:00 <scribenick> CHAIR: Ian Horrocks
16:52:00 <scribenick> SCRIBE: Martin Dzbor

(Scribe set to Martin Dzbor)

16:52:21 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/10-owl-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/10-owl-irc

16:52:34 <MartinD> RRSAgent, make records public

RRSAgent, make records public

16:56:42 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started

16:56:49 <Zakim> + +0190827aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +0190827aaaa

16:57:01 <MartinD> zakim, aaaa is me

zakim, aaaa is me

16:57:01 <Zakim> +MartinD; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +MartinD; got it

16:58:00 <Zakim> +Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro

16:58:02 <MartinD> MartinD has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.09.10/Agenda

MartinD has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.09.10/Agenda

16:58:36 <Zakim> +Ian_Horrocks

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ian_Horrocks

16:58:51 <IanH> zakim, Ian_Horrocks is IanH

Ian Horrocks: zakim, Ian_Horrocks is IanH

16:58:51 <Zakim> +IanH; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +IanH; got it

16:58:52 <bmotik> Zakim, this will be OWL

Boris Motik: Zakim, this will be OWL

16:58:53 <Zakim> ok, bmotik, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM already started

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, bmotik, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM already started

16:59:24 <IanH> RRSAgent, make records public

Ian Horrocks: RRSAgent, make records public

16:59:28 <Zakim> +??P6

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P6

16:59:31 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P6 is me

Boris Motik: Zakim, ??P6 is me

16:59:31 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +bmotik; got it

16:59:34 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me

16:59:34 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted

16:59:34 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

16:59:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see MartinD, Sandro, IanH, bmotik (muted)

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MartinD, Sandro, IanH, bmotik (muted)

16:59:36 <Zakim> On IRC I see bmotik, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, baojie, sandro, alanr, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see bmotik, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, baojie, sandro, alanr, trackbot

16:59:59 <IanH> omit: Martin, are you all set for scribing?
17:00:06 <MartinD> omit: hope so... :-)
17:00:16 <MartinD> zakim, mute me

zakim, mute me

17:00:16 <Zakim> MartinD should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: MartinD should now be muted

17:00:40 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

17:00:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Sandro, IanH, bmotik (muted)

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Sandro, IanH, bmotik (muted)

17:00:41 <Zakim> On IRC I see Zhe, bcuencagrau, m_schnei, bmotik, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, baojie, sandro, alanr, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Zhe, bcuencagrau, m_schnei, bmotik, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, baojie, sandro, alanr, trackbot

17:01:00 <Zakim> + +1.603.897.aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.603.897.aabb

17:01:12 <Zhe> zakim, +1.603.897.aabb is me

Zhe Wu: zakim, +1.603.897.aabb is me

17:01:15 <Zakim> +??P13

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P13

17:01:19 <Zakim> +Zhe; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Zhe; got it

17:01:22 <m_schnei> zakim, ??P13 is me

Michael Schneider: zakim, ??P13 is me

17:01:23 <Zhe> zakim, mute me

Zhe Wu: zakim, mute me

17:01:27 <Zakim> +m_schnei; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +m_schnei; got it

17:01:29 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Zhe should now be muted

17:01:32 <Zakim> +[IBM]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM]

17:01:37 <Achille> Zakim, IBM is me

Achille Fokoue: Zakim, IBM is me

17:01:37 <Zakim> +Achille; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Achille; got it

17:01:41 <Zakim> +??P14

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14

17:01:48 <uli> zakim, ??P14 is me

Uli Sattler: zakim, ??P14 is me

17:01:48 <Zakim> +uli; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +uli; got it

17:01:52 <uli> zakim, mute me

Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me

17:01:52 <Zakim> uli should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted

17:01:58 <Zakim> +??P16

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P16

17:02:00 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me

17:02:00 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should now be muted

17:02:05 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, ??P16 is me

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, ??P16 is me

17:02:05 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +bcuencagrau; got it

17:02:11 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me

17:02:11 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should now be muted

17:02:14 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

17:02:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Sandro, IanH, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), m_schnei (muted), Achille, uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted)

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Sandro, IanH, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), m_schnei (muted), Achille, uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted)

17:02:16 <Zakim> On IRC I see Achille, uli, Zhe, bcuencagrau, m_schnei, bmotik, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, baojie, sandro, alanr, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Achille, uli, Zhe, bcuencagrau, m_schnei, bmotik, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, baojie, sandro, alanr, trackbot

17:02:35 <MartinD> IanH: Let us start with today's agenda

Ian Horrocks: Let us start with today's agenda

17:02:45 <MartinD> Topic: Administrative points

1. Administrative points

17:02:58 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aacc

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.518.276.aacc

17:03:00 <MartinD> IanH: Any agenda amendments?

Ian Horrocks: Any agenda amendments?

17:03:15 <baojie> Zakim, aacc is baojie

Jie Bao: Zakim, aacc is baojie

17:03:15 <Zakim> +baojie; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +baojie; got it

17:03:29 <MartinD> IanH: Previous minutes (available from http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-09-03)

Ian Horrocks: Previous minutes (available from http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-09-03)

17:04:04 <MartinD> PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (3 September)

PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (3 September)

17:04:07 <IanH> +1

Ian Horrocks: +1

17:04:12 <MartinD> MartinD: +1

Martin Dzbor: +1

17:04:15 <Zhe> +1

Zhe Wu: +1

17:04:22 <uli> +1 ;)

Uli Sattler: +1 ;)

17:04:34 <MartinD> RESOLVED: Accepted Previous Minutes from 3 September 2008 (as available from http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-09-03)

RESOLVED: Accepted Previous Minutes from 3 September 2008 (as available from http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-09-03)

17:04:47 <MartinD> Subtopic: Pending actions

1.1. Pending actions

17:05:01 <Zakim> +Alan

Zakim IRC Bot: +Alan

17:05:09 <MartinD> IanH: Usual procedure, let's see how actions were completed, people may say why not completed, what is the status...

Ian Horrocks: Usual procedure, let's see how actions were completed, people may say why not completed, what is the status...

17:05:21 <MartinD> IanH: if no objections, we assume actions are done...

Ian Horrocks: if no objections, we assume actions are done...

17:05:26 <alanr> Action 189 not done yet

Alan Ruttenberg: ACTION-189 not done yet

17:05:31 <m_schnei> omit: he did
17:05:42 <MartinD> IanH: Action 179 seems to be complete

Ian Horrocks: ACTION-179 seems to be complete

17:05:55 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:06:15 <MartinD> IanH: Action 172 - Achille suggests next Tuesday as a day to complete the action

Ian Horrocks: ACTION-172 - Achille suggests next Tuesday as a day to complete the action

17:06:24 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:06:33 <MartinD> IanH: Action 189 - Alan says this is not done

Ian Horrocks: ACTION-189 - Alan says this is not done

17:06:46 <MartinD> Alanr: action 189 should be next week

Alan Ruttenberg: ACTION-189 should be next week

17:07:01 <MartinD> IanH: Action 185 - should be done, if I remember correctly

Ian Horrocks: ACTION-185 - should be done, if I remember correctly

17:07:17 <MartinD> IanH: yes, it is done

Ian Horrocks: yes, it is done

17:07:28 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:07:29 <MartinD> IanH: Action 202 - was on Alan

Ian Horrocks: ACTION-202 - was on Alan

17:07:53 <MartinD> AlanR: It is still pending, will provide update in the near future

Alan Ruttenberg: It is still pending, will provide update in the near future

17:07:53 <m_schnei> Zhe also finished his action

Michael Schneider: Zhe also finished his action

17:07:58 <Zhe> yes, it has been done

Zhe Wu: yes, it has been done

17:08:07 <MartinD> IanH: Action 181 done by Zhe

Ian Horrocks: ACTION-181 done by Zhe

17:08:16 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:08:51 <Zakim> + +1.202.408.aadd

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.202.408.aadd

17:08:56 <MartinD> Sandro: Action 207, publication plan (as created last week) - join publication by RIF and OWL groups?

Sandro Hawke: ACTION-207, publication plan (as created last week) - join publication by RIF and OWL groups?

17:08:56 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:09:15 <MartinD> Sandro: This action should be made a bit clearer

Sandro Hawke: This action should be made a bit clearer

17:09:57 <MartinD> IanH: Last week we agreed a rough plan how this publication can happen and there is an action on how this should be implemented

Ian Horrocks: Last week we agreed a rough plan how this publication can happen and there is an action on how this should be implemented

17:10:04 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:10:07 <msmith> Sandro, the context is at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-09-03#Pending_actions

Michael Smith: Sandro, the context is at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-09-03#Pending_actions

17:10:11 <MartinD> IanH: Probably this week's deadline was a bit optimistic

Ian Horrocks: Probably this week's deadline was a bit optimistic

17:10:46 <MartinD> Sandro: apparently, a joint recommendation is a good thing, if it can be achieved

Sandro Hawke: apparently, a joint recommendation is a good thing, if it can be achieved

17:10:49 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:11:03 <MartinD> Sandro: There need to be two resolutions to publish (from the two groups) and the join publication can go ahead...

Sandro Hawke: There need to be two resolutions to publish (from the two groups) and the join publication can go ahead...

17:11:36 <MartinD> IanH: If Sandro is the contact on both groups, it might be good to watch that the process is moving ahead, a kind of monitoring

Ian Horrocks: If Sandro is the contact on both groups, it might be good to watch that the process is moving ahead, a kind of monitoring

17:11:51 <MartinD> IanH: we will fix the action text later

Ian Horrocks: we will fix the action text later

17:12:01 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:12:04 <MartinD> IanH: Action 174 is on Bijan

Ian Horrocks: ACTION-174 is on Bijan

17:12:06 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

17:12:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Sandro, IanH, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), m_schnei (muted), Achille, uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), baojie, Alan, msmith

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Sandro, IanH, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), m_schnei (muted), Achille, uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), baojie, Alan, msmith

17:12:09 <Zakim> On IRC I see msmith, Achille, uli, Zhe, bcuencagrau, m_schnei, bmotik, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, baojie, sandro, alanr, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see msmith, Achille, uli, Zhe, bcuencagrau, m_schnei, bmotik, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, baojie, sandro, alanr, trackbot

17:12:21 <uli> ...I will go down the corridor and knock...

Uli Sattler: ...I will go down the corridor and knock...

17:12:34 <MartinD> IanH: No Bijan yet, so we need to check later with him what is the status of this action

Ian Horrocks: No Bijan yet, so we need to check later with him what is the status of this action

17:12:51 <MartinD> Subtopic: Reviewing of the current documents

1.2. Reviewing of the current documents

17:13:08 <MartinD> IanH: Thank you to all who reviewed documents and gave feedback, good job!

Ian Horrocks: Thank you to all who reviewed documents and gave feedback, good job!

17:13:24 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:13:32 <MartinD> IanH: One exception is the Profile - not a fault of reviewers, but there is still some discussion ongoing

Ian Horrocks: One exception is the Profile - not a fault of reviewers, but there is still some discussion ongoing

17:13:40 <MartinD> IanH: We hope to conclude this within a few days

Ian Horrocks: We hope to conclude this within a few days

17:14:03 <MartinD> IanH: According to the schedule from the last F2F meeting, we should publish the drafts by September 15...

Ian Horrocks: According to the schedule from the last F2F meeting, we should publish the drafts by September 15...

17:14:04 <m_schnei> q+

Michael Schneider: q+

17:14:06 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider

Zakim IRC Bot: +Peter_Patel-Schneider

17:14:09 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:14:13 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me

17:14:13 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should no longer be muted

17:14:20 <MartinD> IanH: Perhaps people working on the documents may say if this is still realistic? Shall we go for each document?

Ian Horrocks: Perhaps people working on the documents may say if this is still realistic? Shall we go for each document?

17:14:21 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:14:55 <bijan> I'm nowhere near done my review, but I'm comfortable publishing without it (Syntax is a big document!)

Bijan Parsia: I'm nowhere near done my review, but I'm comfortable publishing without it (Syntax is a big document!)

17:14:55 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:15:04 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me

17:15:04 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should now be muted

17:15:05 <MartinD> m_schnei: Let's wait for the next stage, in my case we will finish the review by Friday... but there will be some potential points that may need further discussion

Michael Schneider: Let's wait for the next stage, in my case we will finish the review by Friday... but there will be some potential points that may need further discussion

17:15:08 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:15:17 <m_schnei> q-

Michael Schneider: q-

17:15:21 <MartinD> IanH: We can wait a few days to give people time to review things properly

Ian Horrocks: We can wait a few days to give people time to review things properly

17:15:36 <MartinD> IanH: Any objections to delaying the publication by a few days?

Ian Horrocks: Any objections to delaying the publication by a few days?

17:15:44 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:15:46 <bmotik> I'll try to handle the reviews of Syntax this weekend

Boris Motik: I'll try to handle the reviews of Syntax this weekend

17:15:58 <MartinD> IanH: What about syntax? Do we have a doc that reflects reviews by next week?

Ian Horrocks: What about syntax? Do we have a doc that reflects reviews by next week?

17:16:00 <pfps> It's done.

Peter Patel-Schneider: It's done.

17:16:03 <bmotik> (Syntax is) done

Boris Motik: (Syntax is) done

17:16:10 <MartinD> IanH: Model theoretic semantics is done too

Ian Horrocks: Model theoretic semantics is done too

17:16:13 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:16:17 <MartinD> IanH: What about RDF?

Ian Horrocks: What about RDF?

17:16:24 <pfps> (RDF is) essentially done, needs a little bit more work

Peter Patel-Schneider: (RDF is) essentially done, needs a little bit more work

17:16:38 <MartinD> IanH: is it realistic to publish it next week?

Ian Horrocks: is it realistic to publish it next week?

17:16:42 <pfps> Yes, I expect it to be done later today

Peter Patel-Schneider: Yes, I expect it to be done later today

17:16:42 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:17:00 <pfps> q+

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+

17:17:05 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:17:09 <IanH> ack pfps

Ian Horrocks: ack pfps

17:17:09 <MartinD> Alan: (?) Is there some proposal in there on importing?

Alan Ruttenberg: (?) Is there some proposal in there on importing?

17:17:34 <sandro> omit: that wasn't me, MartinD
17:17:42 <Zakim> -Alan

Zakim IRC Bot: -Alan

17:17:47 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:18:02 <MartinD> IanH: We still have some open issues, there will be editorial comments that would clarify parts that can change

Ian Horrocks: We still have some open issues, there will be editorial comments that would clarify parts that can change

17:18:06 <bmotik> I think it's done

Boris Motik: I think it's done

17:18:09 <MartinD> IanH: What about XML serialization document?

Ian Horrocks: What about XML serialization document?

17:18:09 <pfps> (XML Serialization is) done

Peter Patel-Schneider: (XML Serialization is) done

17:18:18 <MartinD> IanH: OK, review of this document is done

Ian Horrocks: OK, review of this document is done

17:18:32 <pfps> q+

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+

17:18:36 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:18:38 <MartinD> IanH: We're in a good shape, so we should be in position to vote on the publication of these documents next week

Ian Horrocks: We're in a good shape, so we should be in position to vote on the publication of these documents next week

17:18:41 <IanH> ack pfps

Ian Horrocks: ack pfps

17:19:02 <MartinD> pfps: Those people who did reviews should perhaps check that their comments are adequately resolved/addressed

Peter Patel-Schneider: Those people who did reviews should perhaps check that their comments are adequately resolved/addressed

17:19:18 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:19:35 <Zakim> +Alan

Zakim IRC Bot: +Alan

17:19:39 <MartinD> IanH: Typically, these reactions and checks are happening on the mailing lists, but reviewers should perhaps explicitly check that their comments and suggestion are making it into the revisions

Ian Horrocks: Typically, these reactions and checks are happening on the mailing lists, but reviewers should perhaps explicitly check that their comments and suggestion are making it into the revisions

17:19:40 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:19:51 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:20:37 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:20:49 <MartinD> IanH: When editors finish updates according to the reviews, they should send a message to the whole WG mailing list to alert (other) people who want to re-check...

Ian Horrocks: When editors finish updates according to the reviews, they should send a message to the whole WG mailing list to alert (other) people who want to re-check...

17:20:59 <MartinD> IanH: So that we can hold the vote next week

Ian Horrocks: So that we can hold the vote next week

17:21:07 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:21:19 <MartinD> IanH: Let us agree then that the editors should let Ian know about the status

Ian Horrocks: Let us agree then that the editors should let Ian know about the status

17:21:22 <uli> Yes

Uli Sattler: Yes

17:21:29 <MartinD> IanH: All seem to be in principle happy with doc publication

Ian Horrocks: All seem to be in principle happy with doc publication

17:21:41 <MartinD> Subtopic: SKOS last call draft

1.3. SKOS last call draft

17:21:43 <pfps> q+

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+

17:21:48 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:21:53 <IanH> ack pfps

Ian Horrocks: ack pfps

17:21:55 <MartinD> IanH: There were no volunteers last week to review this last call draft recommendation, so it is still on agenda

Ian Horrocks: There were no volunteers last week to review this last call draft recommendation, so it is still on agenda

17:22:02 <MartinD> pfps: There is a review by me...

Peter Patel-Schneider: There is a review by me...

17:22:22 <MartinD> pfps: I am not quite sure what to do with my review, but it might act as a basis for the WG review/position?

Peter Patel-Schneider: I am not quite sure what to do with my review, but it might act as a basis for the WG review/position?

17:22:25 <sandro> Want to talk also about the RIF Review on behalf of OWL2

Sandro Hawke: Want to talk also about the RIF Review on behalf of OWL2

17:22:25 <alanr> Goal would be to see what can/can't be represented in OWL2

Alan Ruttenberg: Goal would be to see what can/can't be represented in OWL2

17:22:28 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:22:32 <MartinD> pfps: There are more than one document in the SKOS draft

Peter Patel-Schneider: There are more than one document in the SKOS draft

17:22:38 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:22:38 <m_schnei> AFAIK, only the SKOS reference is in the Last Call

Michael Schneider: AFAIK, only the SKOS reference is in the Last Call

17:22:38 <MartinD> IanH: Are there any volunteers now to take on this review?

Ian Horrocks: Are there any volunteers now to take on this review?

17:22:53 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:23:01 <IanH> ack sandro

Ian Horrocks: ack sandro

17:23:01 <Zakim> omit: Sandro, you wanted to ask about RIF Review for  OWL 2
17:23:05 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:23:11 <m_schnei> I'm working on my own review (work in progress)

Michael Schneider: I'm working on my own review (work in progress)

17:23:30 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me

17:23:30 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should no longer be muted

17:23:30 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:23:37 <MartinD> IanH: Can Jie perhaps check if someone from there wouldn't do it?

Ian Horrocks: Can Jie perhaps check if someone from there wouldn't do it?

17:23:38 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:23:58 <MartinD> m_schnei: As I said I am also working on a review, but not sure if there should be an "OWL WG" official version

Michael Schneider: As I said I am also working on a review, but not sure if there should be an "OWL WG" official version

17:24:14 <alanr> q+

Alan Ruttenberg: q+

17:24:17 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:24:21 <IanH> ack alanr

Ian Horrocks: ack alanr

17:24:23 <MartinD> IanH: If Peter and Michael finish their reviews, we may consider them both and discuss (if needed) what can be reused in the OWL WG position

Ian Horrocks: If Peter and Michael finish their reviews, we may consider them both and discuss (if needed) what can be reused in the OWL WG position

17:24:48 <MartinD> Alan: What aspects are you focusing on? E.g. to what extent SKOS relates to OWL profile(s)?

Alan Ruttenberg: What aspects are you focusing on? E.g. to what extent SKOS relates to OWL profile(s)?

17:25:00 <MartinD> pfps: This has been partly done, details to follow later

Peter Patel-Schneider: This has been partly done, details to follow later

17:25:18 <MartinD> m_schnei: I'm more interrested in RDF semantics and those factors

Michael Schneider: I'm more interrested in RDF semantics and those factors

17:25:30 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:25:47 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me

17:25:47 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should now be muted

17:25:49 <MartinD> Alan: If you are willing to contribute your reviews, we can see if we agree on a common statement/review

Alan Ruttenberg: If you are willing to contribute your reviews, we can see if we agree on a common statement/review

17:26:03 <MartinD> IanH: Let's see what comes from Peter and Michael and act later

Ian Horrocks: Let's see what comes from Peter and Michael and act later

17:26:10 <MartinD> Subtopic: Next F2F meeting

1.4. Next F2F meeting

17:26:23 <MartinD> IanH: May I ask you to indicate your status on the page of the next F2F meeting on the wiki?

Ian Horrocks: May I ask you to indicate your status on the page of the next F2F meeting on the wiki?

17:26:37 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:26:40 <MartinD> MartinD: The URI of the meeting is  http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F4 and the registration to TPAC is also available from there...

Martin Dzbor: The URI of the meeting is http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F4 and the registration to TPAC is also available from there...

17:26:50 <MartinD> Subtopic: Review of RIF by OWL WG (agenda amendment)

1.5. Review of RIF by OWL WG (agenda amendment)

17:26:54 <MartinD> Sandro: I have had suggestion for agenda amendment. It is about that RIF review from the OWL2 perspective

Sandro Hawke: I have had suggestion for agenda amendment. It is about that RIF review from the OWL2 perspective

17:27:16 <pfps> Actually, I helped write it, so I'm not sure that I *reviewed* it

Peter Patel-Schneider: Actually, I helped write it, so I'm not sure that I *reviewed* it

17:27:38 <MartinD> Sandro: RIF document review was done mostly with OWL1 focus, maybe there can be a check on whether OWL WG is still happy with it; in the light of OWL2?

Sandro Hawke: RIF document review was done mostly with OWL1 focus, maybe there can be a check on whether OWL WG is still happy with it; in the light of OWL2?

17:27:41 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:27:49 <pfps> At first blush, I can't think of any changes required (but don't let me bias the review)  :-)

Peter Patel-Schneider: At first blush, I can't think of any changes required (but don't let me bias the review) :-)

17:27:50 <MartinD> Sandro: Ideally, we should have someone other than Peter who helped writing it

Sandro Hawke: Ideally, we should have someone other than Peter who helped writing it

17:28:09 <sandro> See details on http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/

Sandro Hawke: See details on http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/

17:28:14 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:28:29 <MartinD> IanH: Are there timelines?

Ian Horrocks: Are there timelines?

17:28:46 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:29:02 <MartinD> Sandro: It's about next few days, so it may be a bit tough to do it within deadlines

Sandro Hawke: It's about next few days, so it may be a bit tough to do it within deadlines

17:29:24 <MartinD> IanH: Not many people volunteering, perhaps we need an email to reach to other people in the whole WG?

Ian Horrocks: Not many people volunteering, perhaps we need an email to reach to other people in the whole WG?

17:29:45 <MartinD> IanH: Administrative points are now concluded

Ian Horrocks: Administrative points are now concluded

17:29:49 <MartinD> Topic: Discussion on Issues

2. Discussion on Issues

17:29:58 <MartinD> IanH: There are two resolution proposals

Ian Horrocks: There are two resolution proposals

17:30:01 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:30:09 <msmith> q+

Michael Smith: q+

17:30:12 <MartinD> IanH: Issue 133 on DL-Lite profile

Ian Horrocks: ISSUE-133 on DL-Lite profile

17:30:15 <MartinD> Subtopic: Issue 133 (DL-Lite Profile modifications to include UNA)

2.1. ISSUE-133 (DL-Lite Profile modifications to include UNA)

17:30:25 <IanH> zakim, who is on the call?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is on the call?

17:30:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Sandro, IanH, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), m_schnei (muted), Achille, uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), baojie, msmith, Peter_Patel-Schneider,

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Sandro, IanH, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), m_schnei (muted), Achille, uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), baojie, msmith, Peter_Patel-Schneider,

17:30:28 <Zakim> ... Alan

Zakim IRC Bot: ... Alan

17:30:39 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:30:43 <IanH> ack msmith

Ian Horrocks: ack msmith

17:30:46 <MartinD> msmith: The proposal is to move functional property and key axioms from OWL 2 QL profile

Michael Smith: The proposal is to move functional property and key axioms from OWL 2 QL profile

17:31:09 <MartinD> msmith: We should also remove the existing global restrictions from the OWL 2 QL profile and there should be a core DL-Lite that does not have all those extensions ; DL-Lite_A seen as an extension which adds functional properties and keys but requires the UNA

Michael Smith: We should also remove the existing global restrictions from the OWL 2 QL profile and there should be a core DL-Lite that does not have all those extensions ; DL-Lite_A seen as an extension which adds functional properties and keys but requires the UNA

17:31:15 <bcuencagrau> omit: +q
17:31:31 <MartinD> IanH: There might be some text in the profile document mentioning about these exceptions?

Ian Horrocks: There might be some text in the profile document mentioning about these exceptions?

17:31:34 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:31:44 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, unmute me

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, unmute me

17:31:44 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should no longer be muted

17:31:47 <MartinD> msmith: Yes, this should happen and Diego was also happy with the proposal (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0017.html)

Michael Smith: Yes, this should happen and Diego was also happy with the proposal (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0017.html)

17:31:51 <IanH> ack bcuencagrau

Ian Horrocks: ack bcuencagrau

17:32:00 <MartinD> bcuencagrau: I am unclear what was proposed...

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: I am unclear what was proposed...

17:32:23 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:32:27 <MartinD> bcuencagrau: Do we have DL-Lite and then concerning assertions will we still have sameAs and differentFrom?

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Do we have DL-Lite and then concerning assertions will we still have sameAs and differentFrom?

17:32:51 <MartinD> msmith: differentFrom is acceptable, sameAs probably not

Michael Smith: differentFrom is acceptable, sameAs probably not

17:33:02 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:33:21 <MartinD> bcuencagrau: We have basic features in the profile

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: We have basic features in the profile

17:33:29 <uli> "the intersection" of the choices is how I see it

Uli Sattler: "the intersection" of the choices is how I see it

17:33:34 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:33:52 <MartinD> msmith: There are only axioms, no unique axioms...

Michael Smith: There are only axioms, no unique axioms...

17:34:14 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me

17:34:14 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should now be muted

17:34:17 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:34:18 <MartinD> msmith: what we have in the document has been proposed a few months ago

Michael Smith: what we have in the document has been proposed a few months ago

17:34:28 <uli> Looks good to me

Uli Sattler: Looks good to me

17:34:42 <bcuencagrau> I am fine with it too

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: I am fine with it too

17:34:48 <MartinD> IanH: Given there were no objections in emails, we propose to resolve this issue

Ian Horrocks: Given there were no objections in emails, we propose to resolve this issue

17:35:01 <MartinD> PROPOSED: Resolve Issue 133 (DL-Lite Profile modified to include UNA) per Mike's email

PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-133 (DL-Lite Profile modified to include UNA) per Mike's email

17:35:04 <pfps> +1

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1

17:35:07 <bcuencagrau> +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

17:35:07 <msmith> +1

Michael Smith: +1

17:35:08 <IanH> +1

Ian Horrocks: +1

17:35:10 <bmotik> +1

Boris Motik: +1

17:35:13 <MartinD> MartinD: +1

Martin Dzbor: +1

17:35:14 <Zhe> +1

Zhe Wu: +1

17:35:17 <m_schnei> +1

Michael Schneider: +1

17:35:22 <IanH> Mike's email = http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0017.html

Ian Horrocks: Mike's email = http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0017.html

17:35:35 <uli> +1

Uli Sattler: +1

17:35:46 <MartinD> RESOLVED:  Issue 133 (DL-Lite Profile modified to include UNA) per Mike's email (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0017.html)

RESOLVED: ISSUE-133 (DL-Lite Profile modified to include UNA) per Mike's email (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0017.html)

17:36:03 <MartinD> Subtopic: Issue 119 (OWL 2 Full may become inconsistent due to self restrictions)

2.2. ISSUE-119 (OWL 2 Full may become inconsistent due to self restrictions)

17:36:04 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me

17:36:04 <Zakim> bcuencagrau was already muted, bcuencagrau

Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau was already muted, bcuencagrau

17:36:11 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:36:17 <MartinD> IanH: This seems to be resolved by RDF semantics

Ian Horrocks: This seems to be resolved by RDF semantics

17:36:34 <MartinD> IanH: Due to self-restrictions this could have been a problem, but it was resolved by Mike

Ian Horrocks: Due to self-restrictions this could have been a problem, but it was resolved by Mike

17:36:39 <MartinD> IanH: It does not seem to be really controversial

Ian Horrocks: It does not seem to be really controversial

17:36:42 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:36:58 <MartinD> PROPOSED: Resolve Issue 119 (OWL 2 Full may become inconsistent due to self restrictions) per Ian's email

PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-119 (OWL 2 Full may become inconsistent due to self restrictions) per Ian's email

17:37:03 <m_schnei> +1

Michael Schneider: +1

17:37:06 <IanH> +1

Ian Horrocks: +1

17:37:09 <bcuencagrau> +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

17:37:09 <uli> +1

Uli Sattler: +1

17:37:10 <msmith> +1

Michael Smith: +1

17:37:12 <Achille> +1

Achille Fokoue: +1

17:37:14 <MartinD> MartinD: Ian's email = http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0033.html

Martin Dzbor: Ian's email = http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0033.html

17:37:17 <MartinD> MartinD: +1

Martin Dzbor: +1

17:37:18 <pfps> +1

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1

17:37:25 <bmotik> +1

Boris Motik: +1

17:37:29 <baojie> +1

Jie Bao: +1

17:37:36 <Zhe> +1

Zhe Wu: +1

17:37:45 <MartinD> RESOLVED: Issue 119 (OWL 2 Full may become inconsistent due to self restrictions) per Ian's email (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0033.html)

RESOLVED: ISSUE-119 (OWL 2 Full may become inconsistent due to self restrictions) per Ian's email (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0033.html)

17:38:18 <MartinD> Subtopic: Issue 130 (Conformance, warnings, errors)

2.3. ISSUE-130 (Conformance, warnings, errors)

17:38:31 <MartinD> IanH: This has been discussed last week, there were a few emails in the meantime...

Ian Horrocks: This has been discussed last week, there were a few emails in the meantime...

17:38:35 <sandro> omit: q+
17:38:36 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:38:43 <IanH> ack sandro

Ian Horrocks: ack sandro

17:38:43 <MartinD> IanH: Shall we spend a few minutes to get a resolution?

Ian Horrocks: Shall we spend a few minutes to get a resolution?

17:38:54 <MartinD> Sandro: We exchanged some emails and mostly we're happy

Sandro Hawke: We exchanged some emails and mostly we're happy

17:39:09 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:39:10 <MartinD> Sandro: There was a proposal to amend some text, I liked that proposal

Sandro Hawke: There was a proposal to amend some text, I liked that proposal

17:39:29 <MartinD> IanH: Shall we then make a change agreed in the email; summarized in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0107.html?

Ian Horrocks: Shall we then make a change agreed in the email; summarized in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0107.html?

17:39:32 <Zhe> omit: q+
17:39:33 <pfps> Make change and produce a proposal

Peter Patel-Schneider: Make change and produce a proposal

17:39:39 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:39:41 <Zhe> zakim, unmute me

Zhe Wu: zakim, unmute me

17:39:41 <Zakim> Zhe should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Zhe should no longer be muted

17:39:43 <MartinD> IanH: OK, let's assume we go for the change

Ian Horrocks: OK, let's assume we go for the change

17:39:52 <IanH> ack Zhe

Ian Horrocks: ack Zhe

17:39:54 <alanr> pointer

Alan Ruttenberg: pointer

17:40:10 <alanr> omit: q+
17:40:19 <sandro> Details can be found in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0029.html

Sandro Hawke: Details can be found in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0029.html

17:40:22 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:40:31 <sandro> In particular, the text starting "An OWL 2 RL...."

Sandro Hawke: In particular, the text starting "An OWL 2 RL...."

17:40:33 <MartinD> IanH: I will update the conformance document with the modified text and I will send an email how was this implemented, so that people can comment

Ian Horrocks: I will update the conformance document with the modified text and I will send an email how was this implemented, so that people can comment

17:40:56 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:40:59 <IanH> ack alanr

Ian Horrocks: ack alanr

17:41:02 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:41:05 <MartinD> IanH: Proposals from the author regarding words like "could", "should",... will be made into the text too

Ian Horrocks: Proposals from the author regarding words like "could", "should",... will be made into the text too

17:41:06 <MartinD> Alan: Yesterday we discussed with Sandro - there are two meanings of "unknown"

Alan Ruttenberg: Yesterday we discussed with Sandro - there are two meanings of "unknown"

17:41:07 <MartinD> Alan: "unable to complete", e.g. due to resource limitations

Alan Ruttenberg: "unable to complete", e.g. due to resource limitations

17:41:08 <MartinD> Alan: Another is due to finished but "not guaranteed entailment" algorithm

Alan Ruttenberg: Another is due to finished but "not guaranteed entailment" algorithm

17:41:10 <MartinD> Alan: And then, if the answer "doesn't make sense", we may not have a terminating message

Alan Ruttenberg: And then, if the answer "doesn't make sense", we may not have a terminating message

17:41:19 <sandro>        UNKNOWN, Reason =

Sandro Hawke: UNKNOWN, Reason =

17:41:19 <sandro>        - Resource Limits Reached

Sandro Hawke: - Resource Limits Reached

17:41:19 <sandro>        - Finished Incomplete Algorithm

Sandro Hawke: - Finished Incomplete Algorithm

17:41:19 <sandro>        - Unexpected Error

Sandro Hawke: - Unexpected Error

17:41:50 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:42:22 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:42:36 <sandro> omit: q+ is this a test case question or an API question?
17:42:40 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:42:45 <sandro> Want to ask - is this a test case question or an API question?

Sandro Hawke: Want to ask - is this a test case question or an API question?

17:42:56 <MartinD> Alan: A proposal for something that would make it clear(er) that an algorithm ran out of resources vs. not knowing the answer

Alan Ruttenberg: A proposal for something that would make it clear(er) that an algorithm ran out of resources vs. not knowing the answer

17:43:09 <m_schnei> "Out of Resource" sounds pretty technical for a formal spec...

Michael Schneider: "Out of Resource" sounds pretty technical for a formal spec...

17:43:16 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:43:21 <IanH> ack sandro

Ian Horrocks: ack sandro

17:43:21 <Zakim> omit: sandro, you wanted to ask is this a test case question or an API question?
17:43:23 <MartinD> Alan: Even if these messages ("UNKNOWN") are present in OWL1, there is no reason why to keep previous language

Alan Ruttenberg: Even if these messages ("UNKNOWN") are present in OWL1, there is no reason why to keep previous language

17:43:37 <MartinD> Sandro: I pasted the three meanings of "unknown" above

Sandro Hawke: I pasted the three meanings of "unknown" above

17:44:05 <MartinD> Sandro: But not sure how useful this is; it probably does not help in test cases, so not sure how valuable this would be in API

Sandro Hawke: But not sure how useful this is; it probably does not help in test cases, so not sure how valuable this would be in API

17:44:05 <m_schnei> {True, False, Unknown} is better than {True,False} in Prolog

Michael Schneider: {True, False, Unknown} is better than {True,False} in Prolog

17:44:27 <sandro> omit: I DON'T think it helps in the test cases.
17:44:29 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:44:38 <alanr> omit: q+
17:44:39 <MartinD> IanH: One can perhaps distinguish even more cases to complement values of true and false

Ian Horrocks: One can perhaps distinguish even more cases to complement values of true and false

17:44:41 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:44:46 <IanH> ack alanr

Ian Horrocks: ack alanr

17:44:50 <MartinD> IanH: Any opinions from the implementers?

Ian Horrocks: Any opinions from the implementers?

17:45:30 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:45:35 <MartinD> IanH: One case where it makes sense is when the check has been done, so it may be undesirable to return just unknown (?)

Ian Horrocks: One case where it makes sense is when the check has been done, so it may be undesirable to return just unknown (?)

17:45:49 <sandro> Something like: "Completed-Unknown"...

Sandro Hawke: Something like: "Completed-Unknown"...

17:45:54 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:46:21 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:46:22 <m_schnei> omit: q+
17:46:25 <MartinD> IanH: Say {True, False, UnexpectedError, CompletedComputationButNoAnswer }

Ian Horrocks: Say {True, False, UnexpectedError, CompletedComputationButNoAnswer }

17:46:26 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me

17:46:26 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should no longer be muted

17:46:27 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:46:32 <sandro> +1 to four cases for OWL RL

Sandro Hawke: +1 to four cases for OWL RL

17:46:36 <pfps> +0

Peter Patel-Schneider: +0

17:47:03 <MartinD> m_schnei: One can put comments re conformance, e.g. for OWL Full it cannot be avoided that "unknown" will come out

Michael Schneider: One can put comments re conformance, e.g. for OWL Full it cannot be avoided that "unknown" will come out

17:47:11 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:47:21 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me

17:47:21 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should now be muted

17:47:33 <uli> Perhaps we can see the different alternatives in writing?

Uli Sattler: Perhaps we can see the different alternatives in writing?

17:47:39 <Zhe> +1 to Ian's suggestion of possible values

Zhe Wu: +1 to Ian's suggestion of possible values

17:47:44 <IanH> ack m_schnei

Ian Horrocks: ack m_schnei

17:47:47 <MartinD> IanH: I will have another pass on the document and see if people like it

Ian Horrocks: I will have another pass on the document and see if people like it

17:47:49 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:48:22 <MartinD> Sandro: We should say that, in general, one "could" be returning "unknown" (there is nothing wrong with returning this value), otherwise there may be a conflict with an OWL test case?

Sandro Hawke: We should say that, in general, one "could" be returning "unknown" (there is nothing wrong with returning this value), otherwise there may be a conflict with an OWL test case?

17:48:35 <MartinD> Sandro: What about query answering issues?

Sandro Hawke: What about query answering issues?

17:49:10 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:49:25 <MartinD> IanH: We can mention something like XML query answering and show how these entailment checks would impact on QA... rather than having a complete new section on QA

Ian Horrocks: We can mention something like XML query answering and show how these entailment checks would impact on QA... rather than having a complete new section on QA

17:49:40 <MartinD> Subtopic: Issue 144 (Missing base triple in serialization of axioms with annotations)

2.4. ISSUE-144 (Missing base triple in serialization of axioms with annotations)

17:49:41 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:49:48 <Zhe> q+

Zhe Wu: q+

17:49:53 <sandro> omit: SCRIBE-CORRECTION: No, what I said was that there is nothing wrong with returning "unknown" in OWL RL.
17:49:55 <MartinD> IanH: This is an issue raised by Zhe, so perhaps he could summarize the point...

Ian Horrocks: This is an issue raised by Zhe, so perhaps he could summarize the point...

17:49:58 <IanH> ack Zhe

Ian Horrocks: ack Zhe

17:50:05 <alanr> Also note the message here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2008Jul/0002.html

Alan Ruttenberg: Also note the message here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2008Jul/0002.html

17:50:12 <MartinD> Zhe: We discussed this in the WG before...

Zhe Wu: We discussed this in the WG before...

17:50:32 <MartinD> Zhe: If we don't include the base triple to the annotated axioms we may put unnecessary burden on implementations

Zhe Wu: If we don't include the base triple to the annotated axioms we may put unnecessary burden on implementations

17:50:33 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:50:33 <bmotik> omit: q+
17:50:35 <m_schnei> q+

Michael Schneider: q+

17:50:39 <pfps> q+

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+

17:50:42 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me

17:50:42 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted

17:50:48 <MartinD> Zhe: We are suggesting to simply include it, which makes life easier

Zhe Wu: We are suggesting to simply include it, which makes life easier

17:50:50 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:50:54 <IanH> ack bmotik

Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik

17:50:55 <alanr> q+

Alan Ruttenberg: q+

17:51:20 <MartinD> Boris: It seems like reasonable thing to do but the problem is that an axiom is not represented as one thing vs. two things

Boris Motik: It seems like reasonable thing to do but the problem is that an axiom is not represented as one thing vs. two things

17:51:39 <MartinD> Boris: What if you find both - base axiom and the reified one... then what?

Boris Motik: What if you find both - base axiom and the reified one... then what?

17:52:00 <MartinD> Boris: We may decide, e.g. on forgeting the base one if a reified axiom is found...

Boris Motik: We may decide, e.g. on forgeting the base one if a reified axiom is found...

17:52:06 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:52:08 <MartinD> Boris: However, this may cause some mapping issues!

Boris Motik: However, this may cause some mapping issues!

17:52:35 <MartinD> Boris: Then there is another issue = including the triple does not tell you what to do with it or if it is not found, what to do with it

Boris Motik: Then there is another issue = including the triple does not tell you what to do with it or if it is not found, what to do with it

17:53:00 <MartinD> Boris: ideally we would need something along lines "from reified triple define the original"

Boris Motik: ideally we would need something along lines "from reified triple define the original"

17:53:05 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:53:11 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me

17:53:11 <Zakim> m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei

Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei

17:53:23 <MartinD> Boris: Should we start adding original triples if we find a reified one?

Boris Motik: Should we start adding original triples if we find a reified one?

17:53:39 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me

17:53:39 <Zakim> bcuencagrau was already muted, bcuencagrau

Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau was already muted, bcuencagrau

17:53:48 <MartinD> Boris: Finally, I don't think this will occur often enough, so that it can cause problems with efficiency and performance...

Boris Motik: Finally, I don't think this will occur often enough, so that it can cause problems with efficiency and performance...

17:53:54 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:54:09 <IanH> ack m_schnei

Ian Horrocks: ack m_schnei

17:54:25 <MartinD> m_schnei: Without the added triples it seems more stable...

Michael Schneider: Without the added triples it seems more stable...

17:54:39 <pfps> Boris has made my points

Peter Patel-Schneider: Boris has made my points

17:54:41 <pfps> q-

Peter Patel-Schneider: q-

17:54:52 <MartinD> m_schnei: Would current RDF serialization help with this?

Michael Schneider: Would current RDF serialization help with this?

17:55:31 <MartinD> m_schnei: If it is not always avoidable to have triple in (if you want to annotate the triple without having access to the orig. ontology), would you define new ontology?

Michael Schneider: If it is not always avoidable to have triple in (if you want to annotate the triple without having access to the orig. ontology), would you define new ontology?

17:55:33 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:55:47 <MartinD> m_schnei: There might arise problems with axiom closure in such a scenario

Michael Schneider: There might arise problems with axiom closure in such a scenario

17:55:58 <MartinD> m_schnei: I would not be in favour, not necessary IMHO

Michael Schneider: I would not be in favour, not necessary IMHO

17:56:07 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:56:17 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me

17:56:17 <Zakim> m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei

Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei

17:56:22 <bmotik> omit: q+
17:56:39 <MartinD> Alan: What about missing base triple -- there is a syntax for it, so no major issue...

Alan Ruttenberg: What about missing base triple -- there is a syntax for it, so no major issue...

17:57:08 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:57:12 <pfps> omit: q+
17:57:13 <MartinD> Alan: Regarding Michael's comment, not sure this would be a really problem, perhaps only in some profiles?

Alan Ruttenberg: Regarding Michael's comment, not sure this would be a really problem, perhaps only in some profiles?

17:57:18 <IanH> ack alanr

Ian Horrocks: ack alanr

17:57:18 <m_schnei> Of course, you can have two ontology files, one having the spo, the other having the reification, and then having the second import the first

Michael Schneider: Of course, you can have two ontology files, one having the spo, the other having the reification, and then having the second import the first

17:57:20 <Zhe> omit: q+
17:57:33 <MartinD> Alan: Issues are not really with performance, more about monotonicity...

Alan Ruttenberg: Issues are not really with performance, more about monotonicity...

17:57:35 <pfps> Want to ask why Alan's example is non-monotonic

Peter Patel-Schneider: Want to ask why Alan's example is non-monotonic

17:57:41 <IanH> ack bmotik

Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik

17:58:00 <msmith> omit: q+
17:58:27 <alanr> Last statement (SCRIBE NOTE: from Michael re inferring SPO-s?) re OWL RL seems wrong. OWL RL has specific syntax.

Alan Ruttenberg: Last statement (SCRIBE NOTE: from Michael re inferring SPO-s?) re OWL RL seems wrong. OWL RL has specific syntax.

17:58:31 <MartinD> Boris: If triple is not there, one can reverse-parse it... but what would OWL-RL parser do with this? If you have RDF graph without this triple, you are missing on some inferences

Boris Motik: If triple is not there, one can reverse-parse it... but what would OWL-RL parser do with this? If you have RDF graph without this triple, you are missing on some inferences

17:58:43 <alanr> Conformance allows OWL RL entailment checker to take and RDF

Alan Ruttenberg: Conformance allows OWL RL entailment checker to take and RDF

17:58:49 <MartinD> Boris: There is no guarantee the triple will be included (as it should)...

Boris Motik: There is no guarantee the triple will be included (as it should)...

17:58:53 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:59:18 <m_schnei> Yes, OWL Full infers the spo

Michael Schneider: Yes, OWL Full infers the spo

17:59:28 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:59:33 <MartinD> Boris: Then about monotonicity, we already have in OWL Full semantics, there is a possibility to get to non-reified version by means of reasoning...

Boris Motik: Then about monotonicity, we already have in OWL Full semantics, there is a possibility to get to non-reified version by means of reasoning...

17:59:34 <alanr> Where is there that reification implies base triple?

Alan Ruttenberg: Where is there that reification implies base triple?

17:59:36 <alanr> It wasn't in RDF

Alan Ruttenberg: It wasn't in RDF

17:59:57 <MartinD> pfps: I don't think Alan's example is non-mononotonic

Peter Patel-Schneider: I don't think Alan's example is non-mononotonic

18:00:00 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:00:03 <IanH> ack pfps

Ian Horrocks: ack pfps

18:00:03 <Zakim> omit: pfps, you wanted to ask why Alan's example is monotonic
18:00:06 <bmotik> omit: q+
18:00:08 <IanH> ack Zhe

Ian Horrocks: ack Zhe

18:00:09 <MartinD> Zhe: I still want to stress the performance issue

Zhe Wu: I still want to stress the performance issue

18:00:11 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:00:23 <MartinD> Zhe: If an application wants to use this type of annotation

Zhe Wu: If an application wants to use this type of annotation

18:00:49 <MartinD> Zhe: ...you can imagine this is an additional burden to keep checking on information on every single triple

Zhe Wu: ...you can imagine this is an additional burden to keep checking on information on every single triple

18:00:51 <pfps> Want to say something about doing a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the relative costs

Peter Patel-Schneider: Want to say something about doing a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the relative costs

18:01:19 <MartinD> Zhe: If base triple is out, it's possible, but it's not efficient... if there is a mix of annotated and non-annotated axioms, what should we do?

Zhe Wu: If base triple is out, it's possible, but it's not efficient... if there is a mix of annotated and non-annotated axioms, what should we do?

18:01:20 <uli> Zhe, perhaps this can be overcome by some clever data structures?

Uli Sattler: Zhe, perhaps this can be overcome by some clever data structures?

18:01:26 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:01:37 <MartinD> Zhe: Should we accept axiom with annotation and forget the ones without annotation?

Zhe Wu: Should we accept axiom with annotation and forget the ones without annotation?

18:01:50 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:01:57 <IanH> ack msmith

Ian Horrocks: ack msmith

18:02:05 <MartinD> msmith: Axiom with and without annotation are structurally different

Michael Smith: Axiom with and without annotation are structurally different

18:02:12 <bmotik> +1 to msmith

Boris Motik: +1 to msmith

18:02:18 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:02:22 <MartinD> msmith: This is already in the specification

Michael Smith: This is already in the specification

18:02:26 <IanH> ack bmotik

Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik

18:02:51 <MartinD> Boris: We can address the concerns with performance without altering the core spec

Boris Motik: We can address the concerns with performance without altering the core spec

18:03:27 <MartinD> Boris: People may produce RDF graphs... it is safer to assume that one gets RDF graph that needs checking if things are in it

Boris Motik: People may produce RDF graphs... it is safer to assume that one gets RDF graph that needs checking if things are in it

18:03:40 <MartinD> Boris: We can think about ways to handle certain common cases

Boris Motik: We can think about ways to handle certain common cases

18:03:42 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:04:05 <alanr>  Question: How does RDF semantics 4.18 avoid asserting positive triple for negative property assertion?

Alan Ruttenberg: Question: How does RDF semantics 4.18 avoid asserting positive triple for negative property assertion?

18:04:07 <MartinD> Boris: The biggest problem with reifications is their occurrence in different part of file = problem for parsers that need to trace this

Boris Motik: The biggest problem with reifications is their occurrence in different part of file = problem for parsers that need to trace this

18:04:10 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:04:31 <MartinD> Boris: My potential suggestion - implementation could/should put reified triples together, one after another...

Boris Motik: My potential suggestion - implementation could/should put reified triples together, one after another...

18:04:40 <alanr> We don't have control of this in the RDF world

Alan Ruttenberg: We don't have control of this in the RDF world

18:04:45 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:04:46 <MartinD> Boris: This would allow more efficient handling...

Boris Motik: This would allow more efficient handling...

18:05:27 <alanr> What about RDF pipes, etc?

Alan Ruttenberg: What about RDF pipes, etc?

18:05:31 <MartinD> Boris: Of course, we don't have any control over this... but OWL things are written in files, so we may recommend it?

Boris Motik: Of course, we don't have any control over this... but OWL things are written in files, so we may recommend it?

18:05:41 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:05:46 <IanH> ack pfps

Ian Horrocks: ack pfps

18:05:46 <Zakim> omit: pfps, you wanted to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the relative costs
18:05:50 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:05:57 <MartinD> Peter: There was a point about performance issue,

Peter Patel-Schneider: There was a point about performance issue,

18:06:09 <MartinD> pfps: Reading a triple is expensive, even compared to running rules

Peter Patel-Schneider: Reading a triple is expensive, even compared to running rules

18:06:19 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:06:21 <alanr> A whole lot? 1/3 of # axioms that are annotated

Alan Ruttenberg: A whole lot? 1/3 of # axioms that are annotated

18:06:23 <alanr> http://pipes.deri.org/

Alan Ruttenberg: http://pipes.deri.org/

18:06:29 <bmotik> omit: q+
18:06:40 <MartinD> pfps: If we had more triples, we are likely to increase the amount of I/O required, right?

Peter Patel-Schneider: If we had more triples, we are likely to increase the amount of I/O required, right?

18:06:41 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:06:49 <MartinD> Zhe: Maybe by 20-30%

Zhe Wu: Maybe by 20-30%

18:07:15 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:07:21 <MartinD> Peter: Yes, but that's quite substantial... unless we do an actual analysis, I am not prepared to support that we would save actual resources

Peter Patel-Schneider: Yes, but that's quite substantial... unless we do an actual analysis, I am not prepared to support that we would save actual resources

18:08:05 <MartinD> Zhe: If annotation axioms do not include the base triple, we need to do additional joins in the tables...

Zhe Wu: If annotation axioms do not include the base triple, we need to do additional joins in the tables...

18:08:08 <alanr> Table joins are more expensive than I/O

Alan Ruttenberg: Table joins are more expensive than I/O

18:08:38 <pfps> I'm not prepared to admit that in a decent implementation rule processing is more expensive than adding triples

Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm not prepared to admit that in a decent implementation rule processing is more expensive than adding triples

18:08:43 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:08:47 <MartinD> IanH: It seems to be hard to establish what takes more time - loading triples into table or doing joins....

Ian Horrocks: It seems to be hard to establish what takes more time - loading triples into table or doing joins....

18:09:18 <MartinD> Boris: I want briefly about RDF pipes... unlikely that you cannot ship related triples

Boris Motik: I want briefly about RDF pipes... unlikely that you cannot ship related triples

18:09:24 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:09:29 <IanH> ack bmotik

Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik

18:09:37 <alanr> Re pipes: not if they go through some hash table as part of their processing

Alan Ruttenberg: Re pipes: not if they go through some hash table as part of their processing

18:09:46 <alanr> ...which is likely

Alan Ruttenberg: ...which is likely

18:10:17 <alanr> Anyways, implementation has to handle worse case

Alan Ruttenberg: Anyways, implementation has to handle worse case

18:10:22 <MartinD> Boris: If we are processing arbitrary RDF graph, if we have guarantees that in reasonable cases the triples would be close, one can implement a thing that would basically read X triples and replace them with the base triple (if that's needed)

Boris Motik: If we are processing arbitrary RDF graph, if we have guarantees that in reasonable cases the triples would be close, one can implement a thing that would basically read X triples and replace them with the base triple (if that's needed)

18:10:38 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:10:39 <Zakim> -Alan

Zakim IRC Bot: -Alan

18:10:44 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:10:56 <MartinD> Boris: If we make sure the triples are close to each, we can leave the spec as it is, and you have control over your implementations

Boris Motik: If we make sure the triples are close to each, we can leave the spec as it is, and you have control over your implementations

18:11:22 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:11:29 <MartinD> IanH: What about doing the thing in tables, in a similar way as you said, filling tables once?

Ian Horrocks: What about doing the thing in tables, in a similar way as you said, filling tables once?

18:11:35 <Zakim> +Alan

Zakim IRC Bot: +Alan

18:11:55 <MartinD> Boris: True but one may actually save on filling and re-filling the table because the axiom comes later...

Boris Motik: True but one may actually save on filling and re-filling the table because the axiom comes later...

18:11:59 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:12:02 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me

18:12:02 <Zakim> m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei

Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei

18:12:26 <MartinD> IanH: Sounds interesting... appropriate to take discussion offline for the interested parties, so that they come up with a proposal to resolve this...

Ian Horrocks: Sounds interesting... appropriate to take discussion offline for the interested parties, so that they come up with a proposal to resolve this...

18:12:35 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:12:37 <MartinD> IanH: Ideally by not having to have base triples?

Ian Horrocks: Ideally by not having to have base triples?

18:12:42 <IanH> ack m_schnei

Ian Horrocks: ack m_schnei

18:12:50 <MartinD> m_schnei: I/O is perhaps not interesting

Michael Schneider: I/O is perhaps not interesting

18:13:11 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:13:20 <MartinD> m_schnei: If we find the version of the triple but not the original triple... what is *wrong* with this (disregarding I/O performance)

Michael Schneider: If we find the version of the triple but not the original triple... what is *wrong* with this (disregarding I/O performance)

18:13:37 <MartinD> IanH: There is no reverse mapping for OWL Full though

Ian Horrocks: There is no reverse mapping for OWL Full though

18:13:44 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:13:48 <MartinD> m_schnei: I mean OWL DL

Michael Schneider: I mean OWL DL

18:13:53 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:14:00 <m_schnei> q-

Michael Schneider: q-

18:14:04 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me

18:14:04 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should now be muted

18:14:14 <MartinD> IanH: But the discussion is now about OWL RL, so ... let's take this offline and see if things are resolved this way

Ian Horrocks: But the discussion is now about OWL RL, so ... let's take this offline and see if things are resolved this way

18:14:21 <MartinD> Subtopic: Issue 109 (Namespace for elements and attributes in the XML serialization)

2.5. ISSUE-109 (Namespace for elements and attributes in the XML serialization)

18:14:34 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:14:37 <MartinD> IanH: Last time we were close to resolving namespaces in this issue, right?

Ian Horrocks: Last time we were close to resolving namespaces in this issue, right?

18:14:49 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:14:49 <MartinD> IanH: No conclusions have been reached yet

Ian Horrocks: No conclusions have been reached yet

18:15:31 <MartinD> Sandro: We are waiting for getting some objective opinion on the conflicting points... we need to find technical differences to rule one way or another

Sandro Hawke: We are waiting for getting some objective opinion on the conflicting points... we need to find technical differences to rule one way or another

18:16:11 <MartinD> IanH: So at the end of discussion we will somehow need to flip the coin, unless there is an agreement between protagonists

Ian Horrocks: So at the end of discussion we will somehow need to flip the coin, unless there is an agreement between protagonists

18:16:19 <MartinD> Sandro: Do we have pros and cons of the two proposals?

Sandro Hawke: Do we have pros and cons of the two proposals?

18:16:28 <Zakim> +??P5

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P5

18:16:31 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:16:38 <MartinD> IanH: We looked at it from different angles and the point is purely in different opinions

Ian Horrocks: We looked at it from different angles and the point is purely in different opinions

18:17:04 <MartinD> Alan: Is this an architectural issue?

Alan Ruttenberg: Is this an architectural issue?

18:17:16 <bijan> I won't accept TAG arbitration

Bijan Parsia: I won't accept TAG arbitration

18:17:22 <MartinD> Alan: If this is on stake, why not bringing someone else in?

Alan Ruttenberg: If this is on stake, why not bringing someone else in?

18:17:25 <bijan> zakim, who is here

Bijan Parsia: zakim, who is here

18:17:25 <Zakim> bijan, you need to end that query with '?'

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan, you need to end that query with '?'

18:17:35 <bijan> zakim, who is here?

Bijan Parsia: zakim, who is here?

18:17:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Sandro, IanH, bmotik, Zhe, m_schnei (muted), Achille, uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), baojie, msmith, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Alan, ??P5

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Sandro, IanH, bmotik, Zhe, m_schnei (muted), Achille, uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), baojie, msmith, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Alan, ??P5

18:17:38 <Zakim> On IRC I see bijan, pfps, ewallace, msmith, Achille, uli, Zhe, bcuencagrau, m_schnei, bmotik, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, baojie, sandro, alanr, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see bijan, pfps, ewallace, msmith, Achille, uli, Zhe, bcuencagrau, m_schnei, bmotik, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, baojie, sandro, alanr, trackbot

18:17:44 <bijan> zakim, ??p5 is me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, ??p5 is me

18:17:44 <Zakim> +bijan; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +bijan; got it

18:17:46 <bijan> omit: q+
18:17:51 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:18:12 <MartinD> Alan: Is there a suggestion where we can ask for ideas? e.g. XML WG

Alan Ruttenberg: Is there a suggestion where we can ask for ideas? e.g. XML WG

18:18:35 <IanH> I would listen to TAG opinion

Ian Horrocks: I would listen to TAG opinion

18:18:38 <MartinD> Alan: do we need more time to this? Perhaps next week?

Alan Ruttenberg: do we need more time to this? Perhaps next week?

18:18:54 <alanr> omit: yes
18:18:58 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:19:02 <IanH> ack bijan

Ian Horrocks: ack bijan

18:19:37 <MartinD> Bijan: I am curious about these situations, there should be some evidence which we don't have at the moment... mere judgments are not really making much difference here. One more person will have an opinion, but we should go for some evidence...

Bijan Parsia: I am curious about these situations, there should be some evidence which we don't have at the moment... mere judgments are not really making much difference here. One more person will have an opinion, but we should go for some evidence...

18:19:53 <MartinD> IanH: In the end, there will have to be a vote on this in WG

Ian Horrocks: In the end, there will have to be a vote on this in WG

18:20:52 <MartinD> IanH: ...so it's really about other members of WG to make up their minds and in voting go one way or another... so far it's mainly W3C and Manchester objecting (with most being indifferent)

Ian Horrocks: ...so it's really about other members of WG to make up their minds and in voting go one way or another... so far it's mainly W3C and Manchester objecting (with most being indifferent)

18:21:02 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:21:07 <MartinD> IanH: So what about that coin idea = if no decision reached

Ian Horrocks: So what about that coin idea = if no decision reached

18:21:14 <alanr> I object to that

Alan Ruttenberg: I object to that

18:21:51 <MartinD> IanH: When do we expect to make this decision?

Ian Horrocks: When do we expect to make this decision?

18:22:04 <MartinD> Alan: Why don't we see what happens next week?

Alan Ruttenberg: Why don't we see what happens next week?

18:22:29 <MartinD> Bijan: The issue is that one can hardly expect to get any new information to change mind

Bijan Parsia: The issue is that one can hardly expect to get any new information to change mind

18:22:41 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:22:58 <MartinD> Alan: It's not about changing minds but about other people getting information to understand what's going on

Alan Ruttenberg: It's not about changing minds but about other people getting information to understand what's going on

18:23:26 <MartinD> IanH: Let's wait until the next week if additional information appears, if not, just call for a vote

Ian Horrocks: Let's wait until the next week if additional information appears, if not, just call for a vote

18:23:38 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:23:43 <alanr> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

18:23:44 <pfps> omit: q+
18:23:46 <MartinD> Subtopic: Issue 138 (Name of dateTime datatype)

2.6. ISSUE-138 (Name of dateTime datatype)

18:23:47 <MartinD> IanH: The next issue is about a new datatype proposed for dateTime...

Ian Horrocks: The next issue is about a new datatype proposed for dateTime...

18:23:48 <bijan> +1 to owl:datetime

Bijan Parsia: +1 to owl:datetime

18:23:51 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me

18:23:51 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted

18:24:15 <pfps> q?

Peter Patel-Schneider: q?

18:24:19 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:24:20 <MartinD> IanH: We are waiting for the response to Peter's email

Ian Horrocks: We are waiting for the response to Peter's email

18:24:22 <IanH> ack pfps

Ian Horrocks: ack pfps

18:24:33 <MartinD> Peter: Perhaps we should put this in some documents...

Peter Patel-Schneider: Perhaps we should put this in some documents...

18:24:52 <bmotik> Yes

Boris Motik: Yes

18:24:58 <MartinD> Peter: Not as a resolved decision but just to make sure it's not forgotten and IMHO, owl:dateTime would be the safe choice

Peter Patel-Schneider: Not as a resolved decision but just to make sure it's not forgotten and IMHO, owl:dateTime would be the safe choice

18:24:58 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:25:01 <bmotik> There is aleady an editor's note

Boris Motik: There is aleady an editor's note

18:25:19 <MartinD> Peter: This would be in syntax, Boris says it would there

Peter Patel-Schneider: This would be in syntax, Boris says it would there

18:25:55 <MartinD> Alan: (?) What is the definition of punning at the moment?

Alan Ruttenberg: (?) What is the definition of punning at the moment?

18:25:58 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:26:10 <bijan> I think it's what peter says it was

Bijan Parsia: I think it's what peter says it was

18:26:11 <m_schnei> Shouldn't there be an email discussion in the past about the "which punning" question?

Michael Schneider: Shouldn't there be an email discussion in the past about the "which punning" question?

18:26:28 <MartinD> Alan: There are a few definitions going, so which is the one we subscribe to? To explain it to people

Alan Ruttenberg: There are a few definitions going, so which is the one we subscribe to? To explain it to people

18:26:40 <MartinD> IanH: Alright, these other issues are probably longer to discuss

Ian Horrocks: Alright, these other issues are probably longer to discuss

18:26:42 <MartinD> Topic: AOB

3. AOB

18:26:53 <MartinD> IanH: There are no proposal for additional items on agenda, so let's conclude

Ian Horrocks: There are no proposal for additional items on agenda, so let's conclude

18:26:54 <Zakim> -msmith

Zakim IRC Bot: -msmith

18:26:55 <m_schnei> omit: bye
18:26:56 <Zakim> -bmotik

Zakim IRC Bot: -bmotik

18:26:56 <uli> omit: bye bye
18:27:01 <Zakim> -uli

Zakim IRC Bot: -uli

18:27:01 <IanH> omit: bye
18:27:02 <Zakim> -baojie

Zakim IRC Bot: -baojie

18:27:02 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider

Zakim IRC Bot: -Peter_Patel-Schneider

18:27:04 <Zakim> -bijan

Zakim IRC Bot: -bijan

18:27:04 <Zakim> -Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro

18:27:05 <Zakim> -Achille

Zakim IRC Bot: -Achille

18:27:07 <sandro> Thanks, Ian  :-)

Sandro Hawke: Thanks, Ian :-)

18:27:08 <Zakim> -IanH

Zakim IRC Bot: -IanH

18:27:09 <Zakim> -Alan

Zakim IRC Bot: -Alan

18:27:10 <Zakim> -m_schnei

Zakim IRC Bot: -m_schnei

18:27:13 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau

Zakim IRC Bot: -bcuencagrau

18:27:25 <MartinD> IanH: And thanks to you all for participation too

Ian Horrocks: And thanks to you all for participation too



Formatted by CommonScribe