edit

OWL Working Group

Minutes of 04 February 2009

Present
Bijan Parsia, Rinke Hoekstra, Boris Motik, Evan Wallace, Ian Horrocks, Sandro Hawke, Achille Fokoue, Markus Krötzsch, Michael Schneider, Uli Sattler, Alan Ruttenberg, Ivan Herman, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Christine Golbreich, Jie Bao, Michael Smith, Peter Patel-Schneider, Zhe Wu, Martin Dzbor
Scribe
Rinke Hoekstra
IRC Log
Original
Resolutions
  1. Accept Previous Minutes (28 January) link
  2. Changes described in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1 are an adequate response to comment MS1 link
  3. the response to MD1 is appropriate, http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1 link
  4. http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1 is an appropriate response to MD1 link
Topics
00:00:00 <scribenick> PRESENT: bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, Michael Schneider (muted), uli (muted), Alan Ruttenberg, Ivan, Bernardo, Christine, Jie, Mike Smith, Peter Patel-Schneider, zhe, Martin
17:52:54 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/02/04-owl-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/02/04-owl-irc

17:53:14 <Rinke> ScribeNick: Rinke

(Scribe set to Rinke Hoekstra)

17:54:48 <bijan> zakim, who is here?

Bijan Parsia: zakim, who is here?

17:54:48 <Zakim> sorry, bijan, I don't know what conference this is

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, bijan, I don't know what conference this is

17:54:49 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace

17:54:54 <bijan> zakim, this is owl

Bijan Parsia: zakim, this is owl

17:54:55 <Zakim> ok, bijan; that matches SW_OWL()1:00PM

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, bijan; that matches SW_OWL()1:00PM

17:55:05 <bijan> zakim, who is here?

Bijan Parsia: zakim, who is here?

17:55:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P1

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ??P1

17:55:07 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace

17:55:12 <bijan> zakim, ??p1 is me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, ??p1 is me

17:55:13 <Zakim> +bijan; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +bijan; got it

17:55:32 <bmotik> Zakim, this will be owl

Boris Motik: Zakim, this will be owl

17:55:32 <Zakim> ok, bmotik, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM already started

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

17:56:29 <Zakim> +??P0

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P0

17:56:37 <Zakim> + +86528aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +86528aaaa

17:56:43 <Rinke> zakim, ??P0 is me

zakim, ??P0 is me

17:56:43 <Zakim> +Rinke; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Rinke; got it

17:56:50 <bmotik> Zakim, +86528aaaa is me

Boris Motik: Zakim, +86528aaaa is me

17:56:50 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +bmotik; got it

17:56:54 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me

17:56:54 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted

17:57:00 <Rinke> zakim, mute me

zakim, mute me

17:57:00 <Zakim> Rinke should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Rinke should now be muted

17:57:26 <bijan> zakim, mute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me

17:57:26 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted

17:57:48 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace

Zakim IRC Bot: +Evan_Wallace

17:58:07 <alanr> FYI I am traveling and a promised spot for me to chair from did not materialize. I have contacted Ian, who I expect to be here. If not I will chair using sometimes flakey skype connection in hotel room.

Alan Ruttenberg: FYI I am traveling and a promised spot for me to chair from did not materialize. I have contacted Ian, who I expect to be here. If not I will chair using sometimes flakey skype connection in hotel room.

17:58:18 <alanr> ah, there you are Ian

Alan Ruttenberg: ah, there you are Ian

17:58:39 <IanH> yes

Ian Horrocks: yes

17:58:56 <alanr> did you get my text/email?

Alan Ruttenberg: did you get my text/email?

17:58:58 <Zakim> +Ian_Horrocks

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ian_Horrocks

17:59:07 <IanH> about chairing? yes

Ian Horrocks: about chairing? yes

17:59:12 <Zakim> +Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro

17:59:29 <Rinke> rrsagent, make records public

rrsagent, make records public

17:59:30 <alanr> ok. apologies for the late notice (which is less than I got when they didn't cough up the promised room)

Alan Ruttenberg: ok. apologies for the late notice (which is less than I got when they didn't cough up the promised room)

17:59:41 <IanH> no prob

Ian Horrocks: no prob

18:00:05 <Zakim> +[IBM]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM]

18:00:12 <Achille> Zakim, IBM is me

Achille Fokoue: Zakim, IBM is me

18:00:12 <Zakim> +Achille; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Achille; got it

18:00:17 <IanH> IanH has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.02.04/Agenda

Ian Horrocks: IanH has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.02.04/Agenda

18:00:32 <IanH> ScribeNick: Rinke
18:00:51 <IanH> zakim, Ian_Horrocks is IanH

Ian Horrocks: zakim, Ian_Horrocks is IanH

18:00:51 <Zakim> +IanH; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +IanH; got it

18:01:00 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

18:01:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille

18:01:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace

18:01:14 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

18:01:21 <Zakim> +??P13

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P13

18:01:29 <schneid> zakim, ??P13 is me

Michael Schneider: zakim, ??P13 is me

18:01:29 <Zakim> +schneid; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +schneid; got it

18:01:32 <Zakim> + +0186528aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: + +0186528aabb

18:01:33 <schneid> zakim, mute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me

18:01:33 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted

18:01:37 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

18:01:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), +0186528aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), +0186528aabb

18:01:47 <Zakim> On IRC I see uli_, uli, schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see uli_, uli, schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace

18:01:52 <Zakim> +??P15

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P15

18:01:54 <Zakim> - +0186528aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: - +0186528aabb

18:02:01 <uli> zakim, ??P15 is me

Uli Sattler: zakim, ??P15 is me

18:02:01 <Zakim> +uli; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +uli; got it

18:02:03 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

18:02:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), uli

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), uli

18:02:05 <uli> zakim, mute me

Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me

18:02:11 <Zakim> uli should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted

18:02:13 <Zakim> On IRC I see uli_, uli, schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see uli_, uli, schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace

18:02:19 <Rinke> topic: Admin

1. Admin

18:02:27 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

18:02:27 <Rinke> Roll call

Roll call

18:02:28 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), uli (muted)

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), uli (muted)

18:02:35 <Zakim> On IRC I see uli_, uli, schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see uli_, uli, schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace

18:02:37 <Rinke> subtopic: agenda amendments?

1.1. agenda amendments?

18:02:40 <Zakim> + +0186528aacc

Zakim IRC Bot: + +0186528aacc

18:02:46 <bijan> me!

Bijan Parsia: me!

18:02:49 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, +0186528aacc is me

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, +0186528aacc is me

18:02:49 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +bcuencagrau; got it

18:02:51 <Rinke> no amendments

no amendments

18:02:53 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me

18:02:53 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should now be muted

18:02:57 <bijan> I ahve an agenda amendment

Bijan Parsia: I ahve an agenda amendment

18:02:57 <Rinke> PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (28 January)

PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (28 January)

18:03:12 <MarkusK_> +1

Markus Krötzsch: +1

18:03:17 <bijan> zakim, unmute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me

18:03:18 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted

18:03:19 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip

Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip

18:03:19 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made

18:03:21 <Zakim> +Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan

18:03:23 <Rinke> RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes (28 January)

RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes (28 January)

18:03:30 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:03:44 <Zakim> +??P9

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P9

18:03:48 <Rinke> Bijan finished action-275, move to pending

Bijan finished ACTION-275, move to pending

18:03:53 <alanr> zakim, ??P9 is alanr

Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, ??P9 is alanr

18:03:53 <Zakim> +alanr; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +alanr; got it

18:03:57 <Rinke> subtopic: action item status

1.2. action item status

18:04:09 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:04:25 <Rinke> IanH: Action-271, Action-276, and Action-277 done?

Ian Horrocks: ACTION-271, ACTION-276, and ACTION-277 done?

18:04:35 <Rinke> bijan: Action-265 is done as well...

Bijan Parsia: ACTION-265 is done as well...

18:04:35 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:04:44 <Rinke> bijan: looking at the wrong agenda

Bijan Parsia: looking at the wrong agenda

18:04:59 <Rinke> IanH: all of these are done

Ian Horrocks: all of these are done

18:05:10 <Rinke> due and overdue actions

due and overdue actions

18:05:26 <alanr> 247 done. 264 not (scheduling issues)

Alan Ruttenberg: 247 done. 264 not (scheduling issues)

18:05:31 <Rinke> bijan: with regard to action-276, I drafted a response, should I send it?

Bijan Parsia: with regard to ACTION-276, I drafted a response, should I send it?

18:05:44 <Rinke> IanH: discuss this with the last call comments

Ian Horrocks: discuss this with the last call comments

18:05:45 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:06:08 <alanr> the action is done - a proposal has been made

Alan Ruttenberg: the action is done - a proposal has been made

18:06:17 <Zakim> + +1.202.408.aadd

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.202.408.aadd

18:06:22 <Rinke> ianh: Action-247 leave it there, lots of conclusion.

Ian Horrocks: ACTION-247 leave it there, lots of conclusion.

18:06:28 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me

18:06:28 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted

18:06:29 <Rinke> IanH: agree, proposal has been made, consider that done

Ian Horrocks: agree, proposal has been made, consider that done

18:06:31 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:06:33 <Rinke> action-264

ACTION-264

18:06:40 <alanr> 264 scheduling snafus

Alan Ruttenberg: 264 scheduling snafus

18:06:41 <Rinke> IanH: any progress on that one? Alan?

Ian Horrocks: any progress on that one? Alan?

18:06:41 <alanr> not done

Alan Ruttenberg: not done

18:06:52 <Rinke> IanH: ok, push that till next week

Ian Horrocks: ok, push that till next week

18:06:55 <Rinke> action-269

ACTION-269

18:07:00 <bijan> It was mooted long agao

Bijan Parsia: It was mooted long agao

18:07:05 <bijan> It's moot

Bijan Parsia: It's moot

18:07:07 <bijan> Kill it

Bijan Parsia: Kill it

18:07:10 <alanr> closed last week

Alan Ruttenberg: closed last week

18:07:13 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:07:20 <ewallace> +1

Evan Wallace: +1

18:07:22 <Rinke> bijan: moot after we assigned it

Bijan Parsia: moot after we assigned it

18:07:27 <Rinke> IanH: consider it closed

Ian Horrocks: consider it closed

18:07:29 <Rinke> action-270

ACTION-270

18:07:50 <Rinke> bmotik: would prefer a revision of the whole document, will be a bunch of other changes. Prefer to do them all at once

Boris Motik: would prefer a revision of the whole document, will be a bunch of other changes. Prefer to do them all at once

18:07:53 <alanr> this makes tracking much harder.

Alan Ruttenberg: this makes tracking much harder.

18:08:00 <alanr> Better to do them incrementally where possible.

Alan Ruttenberg: Better to do them incrementally where possible.

18:08:03 <Zakim> + +1.603.897.aaee

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.603.897.aaee

18:08:07 <Rinke> bmotik: decide at F2F, one action, and I'll do it.

Boris Motik: decide at F2F, one action, and I'll do it.

18:08:19 <alanr> q+

Alan Ruttenberg: q+

18:08:26 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:08:29 <Rinke> IanH: hm, ok, we'll leave it until you build up the necessary amendments that need to be made

Ian Horrocks: hm, ok, we'll leave it until you build up the necessary amendments that need to be made

18:08:31 <IanH> ack alanr

Ian Horrocks: ack alanr

18:08:36 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

18:08:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan, Rinke (muted), bmotik, Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), Ivan, alanr, msmith,

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see bijan, Rinke (muted), bmotik, Evan_Wallace, IanH, Sandro, Achille, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), Ivan, alanr, msmith,

18:08:42 <Zakim> ... +1.603.897.aaee

Zakim IRC Bot: ... +1.603.897.aaee

18:08:44 <Zakim> On IRC I see Zhe, baojie, msmith, ivan, uli_, uli, schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Zhe, baojie, msmith, ivan, uli_, uli, schneid, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Achille, IanH, bmotik, Zakim, RRSAgent, Rinke, bijan, alanr, sandro, trackbot, ewallace

18:08:51 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

18:08:53 <bmotik> q+

Boris Motik: q+

18:08:56 <Rinke> alanr: there are items that can be incrementally done, more easily, that would make identifying changes to people more easy

Alan Ruttenberg: there are items that can be incrementally done, more easily, that would make identifying changes to people more easy

18:09:00 <alanr> q-

Alan Ruttenberg: q-

18:09:03 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:09:07 <alanr> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q?

18:09:33 <Zakim> +??P4

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4

18:09:39 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:09:43 <IanH> ack bijan

Ian Horrocks: ack bijan

18:09:49 <Rinke> IanH: I take that point as well. I see Boris' point as well. Where there are clear isolated changes, doing them directly can be done as well

Ian Horrocks: I take that point as well. I see Boris' point as well. Where there are clear isolated changes, doing them directly can be done as well

18:09:56 <Christine> zakim, ??P4 is christine

Christine Golbreich: zakim, ??P4 is christine

18:09:56 <Zakim> +christine; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +christine; got it

18:10:09 <Rinke> bijan: these are not at odds, we can do them incrementally in one go.

Bijan Parsia: these are not at odds, we can do them incrementally in one go.

18:10:29 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aaff

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.518.276.aaff

18:10:33 <Rinke> bijan: editorial changes... would be more sensible to make them part of one big rereview

Bijan Parsia: editorial changes... would be more sensible to make them part of one big rereview

18:10:41 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:10:44 <baojie> Zakim, aaff is baojie

Jie Bao: Zakim, aaff is baojie

18:10:44 <Zakim> +baojie; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +baojie; got it

18:11:03 <Rinke> IanH: we can take it on a case-by-case basis. The key-thing can be done, respond to jim, cross it of the list

Ian Horrocks: we can take it on a case-by-case basis. The key-thing can be done, respond to jim, cross it of the list

18:11:08 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:11:10 <bmotik> q-

Boris Motik: q-

18:11:13 <Rinke> IanH: it doesn't make sense to do global comments in isolation

Ian Horrocks: it doesn't make sense to do global comments in isolation

18:11:14 <IanH> ack boris

Ian Horrocks: ack boris

18:11:20 <Rinke> bmotik: exactly

Boris Motik: exactly

18:11:39 <alanr> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

18:11:42 <Rinke> IanH: case-by-case basis. For this particular comment, doing it right now does not make much sense

Ian Horrocks: case-by-case basis. For this particular comment, doing it right now does not make much sense

18:11:49 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me

18:11:49 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted

18:11:49 <Rinke> IanH: we'll leave it open

Ian Horrocks: we'll leave it open

18:12:03 <bmotik> -)

Boris Motik: -)

18:12:07 <Rinke> IanH: would be good for you to have the pressure of an open action

Ian Horrocks: would be good for you to have the pressure of an open action

18:12:09 <alanr> "it will do you good"

Alan Ruttenberg: "it will do you good"

18:12:10 <Rinke> aciton-275

aciton-275

18:12:21 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:12:22 <Rinke> IanH: that's done, bijan?

Ian Horrocks: that's done, bijan?

18:12:28 <Rinke> bijan: all parts of it are done

Bijan Parsia: all parts of it are done

18:12:36 <Rinke> action-273

ACTION-273

18:12:42 <Rinke> IanH: have not finished it yet

Ian Horrocks: have not finished it yet

18:12:50 <Rinke> IanH: (that's me slapping my own wrist)

Ian Horrocks: (that's me slapping my own wrist)

18:12:53 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:12:54 <Rinke> IanH: done by next week

Ian Horrocks: done by next week

18:13:00 <Rinke> bijan: would you like to reassign it?

Bijan Parsia: would you like to reassign it?

18:13:07 <Rinke> IanH: would be happy to work with you on it

Ian Horrocks: would be happy to work with you on it

18:13:15 <Rinke> action-272

ACTION-272

18:13:25 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:13:33 <Rinke> IanH: wiki page by christine to deal with comments on new features and rationale. Is christine here?

Ian Horrocks: wiki page by christine to deal with comments on new features and rationale. Is christine here?

18:13:40 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:13:46 <Rinke> Christine: it was too early to do it, I changed the due date

Christine Golbreich: it was too early to do it, I changed the due date

18:13:52 <Rinke> IanH: ok, fine.

Ian Horrocks: ok, fine.

18:14:07 <Rinke> subtopic: f2f5

1.3. f2f5

18:14:23 <Rinke> IanH: make clear participation and non-participation wrt f2f5

Ian Horrocks: make clear participation and non-participation wrt f2f5

18:14:28 <Zakim> -Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan

18:14:37 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip

Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip

18:14:37 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made

18:14:38 <Zakim> +Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan

18:14:50 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:14:53 <Rinke> IanH: 14 people in all, that's not a lot. There should be more people who know whether they can make it or not

Ian Horrocks: 14 people in all, that's not a lot. There should be more people who know whether they can make it or not

18:14:57 <Rinke> topic: last call comments

2. last call comments

18:15:32 <Rinke> IanH: some responses have already been drafted, for us to say yay or nay

Ian Horrocks: some responses have already been drafted, for us to say yay or nay

18:15:49 <Rinke> Subtopic: MS1

2.1. MS1

18:15:49 <Rinke> IanH: MSI just a bug, changes were made to fix the bug

Ian Horrocks: MSI just a bug, changes were made to fix the bug

18:15:52 <ivan> pointer to the entry?

Ivan Herman: pointer to the entry?

18:15:56 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:16:00 <IanH> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1

Ian Horrocks: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1

18:16:09 <alanr> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

18:16:13 <alanr> to close

Alan Ruttenberg: to close

18:16:16 <msmith> +1

Michael Smith: +1

18:16:16 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider

Zakim IRC Bot: +Peter_Patel-Schneider

18:16:19 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

18:16:23 <Rinke> IanH: happy to accept the change?

Ian Horrocks: happy to accept the change?

18:16:31 <bijan> +1

Bijan Parsia: +1

18:16:41 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:16:51 <IanH> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1

Ian Horrocks: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1

18:16:54 <Rinke> IanH: peter, perhaps you can briefly explain the changes you made in response to MS1

Ian Horrocks: peter, perhaps you can briefly explain the changes you made in response to MS1

18:17:37 <Rinke> pfps: under the last call version of the mapping from RDF back to the  FS, it did not check for lists that shared tails, or crossed or looped. I changed the wording to forbid these kinds of situations.

Peter Patel-Schneider: under the last call version of the mapping from RDF back to the FS, it did not check for lists that shared tails, or crossed or looped. I changed the wording to forbid these kinds of situations.

18:17:47 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:17:55 <Rinke> pfps: requires all lists to be separate

Peter Patel-Schneider: requires all lists to be separate

18:18:10 <msmith> I'm ok without getting an email :)

Michael Smith: I'm ok without getting an email :)

18:18:11 <alanr> right

Alan Ruttenberg: right

18:18:18 <Rinke> IanH: given that this is an internal LC comment... do we need to send an official message to msmith

Ian Horrocks: given that this is an internal LC comment... do we need to send an official message to msmith

18:18:28 <Rinke> pfps: but we should list it as a post LC change

Peter Patel-Schneider: but we should list it as a post LC change

18:18:48 <uli> +1

Uli Sattler: +1

18:18:49 <alanr> emoting positively towards Mike for finding a bug.

Alan Ruttenberg: emoting positively towards Mike for finding a bug.

18:18:50 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

18:18:50 <Zhe> +1

Zhe Wu: +1

18:18:52 <alanr> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

18:19:01 <baojie> +1

Jie Bao: +1

18:19:13 <alanr> and peter for fixing :)

Alan Ruttenberg: and peter for fixing :)

18:19:18 <msmith> +1

Michael Smith: +1

18:19:20 <sandro> :-)

Sandro Hawke: :-)

18:20:03 <IanH> PROPOSED: Changes described in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1 are an adequate response to comment MS1

PROPOSED: Changes described in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1 are an adequate response to comment MS1

18:20:05 <Achille> +1

Achille Fokoue: +1

18:20:06 <MarkusK_> +1

Markus Krötzsch: +1

18:20:08 <ewallace> +1

Evan Wallace: +1

18:20:15 <bijan> +1

Bijan Parsia: +1

18:20:15 <Rinke> Rinke: +1

Rinke Hoekstra: +1

18:20:19 <uli> +1

Uli Sattler: +1

18:20:23 <Zhe> +1

Zhe Wu: +1

18:20:23 <schneid> +1

Michael Schneider: +1

18:20:23 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

18:20:30 <bcuencagrau> +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

18:20:33 <IanH> RESOLVED: Changes described in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1 are an adequate response to comment MS1

RESOLVED: Changes described in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MS1 are an adequate response to comment MS1

18:20:37 <pfps> +1

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1

18:20:47 <pfps> q+

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+

18:20:54 <Rinke> IanH: now MD1 (unicode), comment from Martin Duerr

Ian Horrocks: now MD1 (unicode), comment from Martin Duerst

18:21:03 <IanH> ack pfps

Ian Horrocks: ack pfps

18:21:11 <Rinke> pfps: backtrack a sec, do we now send out a response?

Peter Patel-Schneider: backtrack a sec, do we now send out a response?

18:21:39 <schneid> I think, people from outside watching this list will wait for a response

Michael Schneider: I think, people from outside watching this list will wait for a response

18:21:49 <Rinke> IanH: no, not on this one. Actually this was sent to public-owl-comments. It might be good to send an official response to public-owl-comments.

Ian Horrocks: no, not on this one. Actually this was sent to public-owl-comments. It might be good to send an official response to public-owl-comments.

18:22:01 <ivan> s/Duerr/Duerst/
18:22:26 <Rinke> IanH: peter, can you take the task of sending a response to mike on the public-owl-comments list

Ian Horrocks: peter, can you take the task of sending a response to mike on the public-owl-comments list

18:23:20 <Rinke> (some discussion on where the response will be archived)

(some discussion on where the response will be archived)

18:23:52 <Rinke> IanH: if decide we should try to respond "in thread" then we should modify the page..

Ian Horrocks: if decide we should try to respond "in thread" then we should modify the page..

18:24:33 <Rinke> sandro: don't know whether it's worth making changes to the ones we already responded to.

Sandro Hawke: don't know whether it's worth making changes to the ones we already responded to.

18:25:07 <Rinke> bijan: isn't it enough to have everything in one place (Rinke: rough paraphrase)

Bijan Parsia: isn't it enough to have everything in one place (Rinke: rough paraphrase)

18:25:15 <Rinke> IanH: we should decide whether we respond in thread

Ian Horrocks: we should decide whether we respond in thread

18:25:23 <Rinke> sandro: people should, but not must, respond in thread

Sandro Hawke: people should, but not must, respond in thread

18:25:38 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:25:40 <Rinke> IanH: if you can respond in thread, that's a good thing. Ok, we're done with that?

Ian Horrocks: if you can respond in thread, that's a good thing. Ok, we're done with that?

18:26:04 <Rinke> bijan: I think that's just dumb. I like having straightforward directions for sending responses.

Bijan Parsia: I think that's just dumb. I like having straightforward directions for sending responses.

18:26:39 <Rinke> sandro: there's only one done that was not done in thread

Sandro Hawke: there's only one done that was not done in thread

18:26:54 <Rinke> IanH: if anything else went wrong, then there was something wrong with the list

Ian Horrocks: if anything else went wrong, then there was something wrong with the list

18:27:10 <Rinke> IanH: then we come back to MD1 (unicode) Martin Duerst

Ian Horrocks: then we come back to MD1 (unicode) Martin Duerst

18:27:25 <ivan> +1 to the response

Ivan Herman: +1 to the response

18:27:27 <alanr> +1 to respond

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 to respond

18:27:29 <Rinke> IanH: response drafted by bijan, discussed by email. Anyone would like to object?

Ian Horrocks: response drafted by bijan, discussed by email. Anyone would like to object?

18:27:43 <alanr> yes, already agreed to be formal

Alan Ruttenberg: yes, already agreed to be formal

18:27:45 <Rinke> IanH: do we need to do formal proposals, sandro, ivan?

Ian Horrocks: do we need to do formal proposals, sandro, ivan?

18:27:51 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:27:56 <Rinke> sandro: we don't need to vote on it, if nobody cares

Sandro Hawke: we don't need to vote on it, if nobody cares

18:28:04 <alanr> remember peter's discussion ?

Alan Ruttenberg: remember peter's discussion ?

18:28:08 <Rinke> sandro: if hearing no objections, it's resolved

Sandro Hawke: if hearing no objections, it's resolved

18:28:13 <Rinke> IanH: you wanted to be formal?

Ian Horrocks: you wanted to be formal?

18:28:39 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

18:28:43 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:28:52 <IanH> ack bijan

Ian Horrocks: ack bijan

18:28:56 <Rinke> alanr: if I remember correctly, peter asked that any changes we made to the documents should be formally approved. There should be something in the record. Hearing no objections, but putting a resolved in would be good.

Alan Ruttenberg: if I remember correctly, peter asked that any changes we made to the documents should be formally approved. There should be something in the record. Hearing no objections, but putting a resolved in would be good.

18:29:07 <alanr> I'll go with what pfps thinks on this issue

Alan Ruttenberg: I'll go with what pfps thinks on this issue

18:29:23 <pfps> no document change (so far) so no need to vote, I think

Peter Patel-Schneider: no document change (so far) so no need to vote, I think

18:29:23 <Rinke> bijan: are we voting on the text I sent in? I only located the references, and sent an email: no documents have been changed yet. What are we voting on?

Bijan Parsia: are we voting on the text I sent in? I only located the references, and sent an email: no documents have been changed yet. What are we voting on?

18:29:25 <schneid> q+

Michael Schneider: q+

18:29:26 <alanr> ok

Alan Ruttenberg: ok

18:29:29 <schneid> zakim, unmute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me

18:29:29 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should no longer be muted

18:29:29 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:29:32 <IanH> ack schneid

Ian Horrocks: ack schneid

18:29:52 <schneid> zakim, mute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me

18:29:52 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted

18:29:54 <Rinke> schneid: I suggest we vote or not, but keep it on the list, on the queue, and flush the queue in one go.

Michael Schneider: I suggest we vote or not, but keep it on the list, on the queue, and flush the queue in one go.

18:30:04 <Rinke> bijan: not send the response before the work has been done

Bijan Parsia: not send the response before the work has been done

18:30:18 <ivan> we need to action the editors

Ivan Herman: we need to action the editors

18:30:19 <Rinke> IanH: we are happy with the response, but we need to make the changes in question

Ian Horrocks: we are happy with the response, but we need to make the changes in question

18:30:26 <Rinke> bijan: we need to action people appropriately

Bijan Parsia: we need to action people appropriately

18:30:30 <ivan> :-) with the response

Ivan Herman: :-) with the response

18:30:31 <bijan> I am!

Bijan Parsia: I am!

18:30:33 <Rinke> IanH: are we happy with the response? I was happy

Ian Horrocks: are we happy with the response? I was happy

18:30:35 <schneid> +1

Michael Schneider: +1

18:30:59 <Rinke> RESOLVED: the response to MD1 is appropriate, http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1

RESOLVED: the response to MD1 is appropriate, http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1

18:31:14 <bijan> +1

Bijan Parsia: +1

18:31:17 <IanH> RESOLVED: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1 is an appropriate response to MD1

RESOLVED: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1 is an appropriate response to MD1

18:31:32 <Zhe> noise

Zhe Wu: noise

18:31:38 <ivan> noise noise noise

Ivan Herman: noise noise noise

18:31:38 <bijan> zakim, who is talking?

Bijan Parsia: zakim, who is talking?

18:31:39 <sandro> zakim, who is talking?

Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is talking?

18:31:44 <uli> pfew!

Uli Sattler: pfew!

18:31:45 <ivan> yes

Ivan Herman: yes

18:31:51 <Zakim> bijan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: IanH (59%), Sandro (5%)

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: IanH (59%), Sandro (5%)

18:31:53 <schneid> for comparison, I got a whole bunch of answers to my SKOS LC comments all on the same day

Michael Schneider: for comparison, I got a whole bunch of answers to my SKOS LC comments all on the same day

18:31:56 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:32:03 <Zakim> sandro, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: bijan (46%), IanH (47%), Sandro (5%)

Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: bijan (46%), IanH (47%), Sandro (5%)

18:32:06 <Rinke> IanH: bijan, which documents need changing here?

Ian Horrocks: bijan, which documents need changing here?

18:32:32 <Rinke> bijan: syntax, I can do that... actually there's an issue. I know what to do for the unicode reference.

Bijan Parsia: syntax, I can do that... actually there's an issue. I know what to do for the unicode reference.

18:32:50 <Rinke> bijan: but for XML and RDF there is still the question on how to draft what we're going to do

Bijan Parsia: but for XML and RDF there is still the question on how to draft what we're going to do

18:33:14 <Rinke> bijan: for unicode, syntax, ms, and internationalized string, and ... needs changing

Bijan Parsia: for unicode, syntax, ms, and internationalized string, and ... needs changing

18:33:44 <Rinke> bijan: i believe we're inconsistent with references to unicode.

Bijan Parsia: i believe we're inconsistent with references to unicode.

18:34:01 <Rinke> IanH: if we are happy with that, and it answers his actual comment, then we should do that

Ian Horrocks: if we are happy with that, and it answers his actual comment, then we should do that

18:34:33 <Rinke> bijan: we now have syntax pointing to XML 1.1, which I think is wrong. And then it also refers to the RDF syntax, which it shouldn't. Everything else is actually fine

Bijan Parsia: we now have syntax pointing to XML 1.1, which I think is wrong. And then it also refers to the RDF syntax, which it shouldn't. Everything else is actually fine

18:34:38 <Rinke> IanH: only syntax?

Ian Horrocks: only syntax?

18:35:01 <Rinke> bijan: no, all the ones I mentioned before, and rdf:text

Bijan Parsia: no, all the ones I mentioned before, and rdf:text

18:35:03 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

18:35:06 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

18:35:14 <Rinke> bijan: just give me a global action to do all the unicode changes

Bijan Parsia: just give me a global action to do all the unicode changes

18:35:19 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:35:27 <bijan> Unicode The Unicode Consortium, The Unicode Standard, Version  5.1.0, ISBN 0-321-48091-0, as updated from time to time by the publication of new versions. (See http://www.unicode.org/unicode/standard/versions for the latest version and additional information on versions of the standard and of the Unicode Character Database).

Bijan Parsia: Unicode The Unicode Consortium, The Unicode Standard, Version 5.1.0, ISBN 0-321-48091-0, as updated from time to time by the publication of new versions. (See http://www.unicode.org/unicode/standard/versions for the latest version and additional information on versions of the standard and of the Unicode Character Database).

18:35:35 <Rinke> ivan: just a very small issue on the rdf:text, please contact the RIF person to take on this.

Ivan Herman: just a very small issue on the rdf:text, please contact the RIF person to take on this.

18:35:43 <Rinke> bijan: could Jie take this on?

Bijan Parsia: could Jie take this on?

18:36:14 <Rinke> IanH: are you able to take on the action to take on the change to the rdf:text document.

Ian Horrocks: are you able to take on the action to take on the change to the rdf:text document.

18:36:26 <Rinke> baojie: I can do that

Jie Bao: I can do that

18:36:41 <Rinke> yes

yes

18:37:15 <Rinke> ACTION, baojie to make the necessary changes to the rdf:text document, given the response to MD1 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1)

ACTION, baojie to make the necessary changes to the rdf:text document, given the response to MD1 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1)

18:38:20 <Rinke> action: baojie to make the necessary changes to the rdf:text document, given the response to MD1 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1)

ACTION: baojie to make the necessary changes to the rdf:text document, given the response to MD1 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1)

18:38:20 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - baojie

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - baojie

18:38:30 <Rinke> action: jie to make the necessary changes to the rdf:text document, given the response to MD1 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1)

ACTION: jie to make the necessary changes to the rdf:text document, given the response to MD1 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1)

18:38:31 <trackbot> Created ACTION-278 - Make the necessary changes to the rdf:text document, given the response to MD1 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1) [on Jie Bao - due 2009-02-11].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-278 - Make the necessary changes to the rdf:text document, given the response to MD1 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1) [on Jie Bao - due 2009-02-11].

18:39:00 <Rinke> subtopic: JH1

2.2. JH1

18:39:00 <Rinke> IanH: JH1 (keys), where bijan drafted a proposed response

Ian Horrocks: JH1 (keys), where bijan drafted a proposed response

18:39:02 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:39:15 <Rinke> IanH: needed an additional example to the document

Ian Horrocks: needed an additional example to the document

18:39:25 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:39:27 <Christine> +q

Christine Golbreich: +q

18:39:31 <IanH> ack ivan

Ian Horrocks: ack ivan

18:39:31 <ivan> ack ivan

Ivan Herman: ack ivan

18:39:32 <Rinke> bijan: Jim was happy with the additional line to the document, that I sent to the mailing list

Bijan Parsia: Jim was happy with the additional line to the document, that I sent to the mailing list

18:39:37 <IanH> ack Christine

Ian Horrocks: ack Christine

18:40:01 <Rinke> ACTION: bijan to make the necessary changes to the documents given the response to MD1  (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1)

ACTION: bijan to make the necessary changes to the documents given the response to MD1 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1)

18:40:01 <trackbot> Created ACTION-279 - Make the necessary changes to the documents given the response to MD1  (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1) [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-11].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-279 - Make the necessary changes to the documents given the response to MD1 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MD1) [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-11].

18:40:21 <Rinke> IanH: no general agreement on whether this is the appropriate response

Ian Horrocks: no general agreement on whether this is the appropriate response

18:40:37 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:40:38 <Rinke> IanH: I don't want that discussion on the teleconf (waste of time). Bring this back next week.

Ian Horrocks: I don't want that discussion on the teleconf (waste of time). Bring this back next week.

18:40:41 <alanr> recommend discuss on chairs before that

Alan Ruttenberg: recommend discuss on chairs before that

18:40:48 <alanr> q+

Alan Ruttenberg: q+

18:40:55 <Rinke> IanH: after we have discussed the response via email

Ian Horrocks: after we have discussed the response via email

18:41:02 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:41:07 <Rinke> bijan: can I add the change to the document?

Bijan Parsia: can I add the change to the document?

18:41:09 <IanH> ack alanr

Ian Horrocks: ack alanr

18:41:16 <Rinke> IanH: is this affected by the critique on the response?

Ian Horrocks: is this affected by the critique on the response?

18:41:16 <uli> "Please note that we have added more extensive documentation of hasKey feature in the Syntax,  a better explanation in the RDF-Based Semantics, and more documentation in the N"

Uli Sattler: "Please note that we have added more extensive documentation of hasKey feature in the Syntax, a better explanation in the RDF-Based Semantics, and more documentation in the N"

18:41:25 <uli> ...is the suggested rephrasing

Uli Sattler: ...is the suggested rephrasing

18:41:56 <bijan> Current text: """Please note that we will have a more extensive documentation of the rationale behind this design in the NF&R as well as some discussion in the primer. The working group will contact you when they reach last call to see if the overall solution meets your concerns. "

Bijan Parsia: Current text: """Please note that we will have a more extensive documentation of the rationale behind this design in the NF&R as well as some discussion in the primer. The working group will contact you when they reach last call to see if the overall solution meets your concerns. "

18:41:57 <Christine> +q

Christine Golbreich: +q

18:42:07 <Rinke> alanr: discuss on chairs list

Alan Ruttenberg: discuss on chairs list

18:42:12 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:42:28 <Rinke> bijan: I don't agree. We only need to say that the response is acceptable. The new features and rationale doc is not in LC

Bijan Parsia: I don't agree. We only need to say that the response is acceptable. The new features and rationale doc is not in LC

18:42:32 <IanH> ack Christine

Ian Horrocks: ack Christine

18:43:00 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

18:43:01 <alanr> q+

Alan Ruttenberg: q+

18:43:05 <Rinke> Christine: there was one point in the draft that I did not agree, is the notion of feature. but we make change in the feature document. The change has already been done in the document. The rationale as well.

Christine Golbreich: there was one point in the draft that I did not agree, is the notion of feature. but we make change in the feature document. The change has already been done in the document. The rationale as well.

18:43:18 <Rinke> IanH: your point is that the text can be changed to state that we /have/ made some changes.

Ian Horrocks: your point is that the text can be changed to state that we /have/ made some changes.

18:43:26 <IanH> ack bijan

Ian Horrocks: ack bijan

18:43:29 <alanr> there is certainly not consensus on that. I disagree  concurring with Bijan

Alan Ruttenberg: there is certainly not consensus on that. I disagree concurring with Bijan

18:44:00 <Rinke> bijan: the changes thusfar do not address the comment. They do not even take notice of the comment. I would object to doing that. I already explained this to christine on the list.

Bijan Parsia: the changes thusfar do not address the comment. They do not even take notice of the comment. I would object to doing that. I already explained this to christine on the list.

18:44:03 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:44:06 <IanH> ack alanr

Ian Horrocks: ack alanr

18:44:20 <Rinke> IanH: I understand what the dispute there is then.

Ian Horrocks: I understand what the dispute there is then.

18:44:33 <Rinke> alanr: this is why I think we should moderate it.

Alan Ruttenberg: this is why I think we should moderate it.

18:44:34 <Christine> +q

Christine Golbreich: +q

18:44:39 <alanr> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

18:44:45 <Rinke> IanH: I don't really see the usefulnes of carrying on with this discussion right now

Ian Horrocks: I don't really see the usefulnes of carrying on with this discussion right now

18:44:47 <Christine> +1

Christine Golbreich: +1

18:45:07 <Rinke> IanH: push this on the mailinglist for discussion.

Ian Horrocks: push this on the mailinglist for discussion.

18:45:13 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:45:15 <Rinke> IanH: let's do this via email, and move on.

Ian Horrocks: let's do this via email, and move on.

18:45:17 <IanH> ack Christine

Ian Horrocks: ack Christine

18:45:43 <Rinke> bijan: can we just decide? this is the smallest wordsmithing... if this is the level of detail we're taking in then it's going to take forever.

Bijan Parsia: can we just decide? this is the smallest wordsmithing... if this is the level of detail we're taking in then it's going to take forever.

18:45:54 <Rinke> bijan: I don't want to have this discussion. I want it to be over.

Bijan Parsia: I don't want to have this discussion. I want it to be over.

18:46:03 <Rinke> bijan: my text doesn't say anything wrong.

Bijan Parsia: my text doesn't say anything wrong.

18:46:03 <Christine> +q

Christine Golbreich: +q

18:46:04 <alanr> Bijan, I don't think you need to participate in the discussion further. I understand your point.

Alan Ruttenberg: Bijan, I don't think you need to participate in the discussion further. I understand your point.

18:46:07 <alanr> I care

Alan Ruttenberg: I care

18:46:10 <Rinke> bijan: why not just vote.

Bijan Parsia: why not just vote.

18:46:27 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:46:34 <Rinke> IanH: I've got sympathy with what you say. this is going to produce more heat than light.

Ian Horrocks: I've got sympathy with what you say. this is going to produce more heat than light.

18:46:43 <ivan> ack Christine

Ivan Herman: ack Christine

18:46:44 <IanH> ack Christine

Ian Horrocks: ack Christine

18:46:45 <Rinke> Christine: I agree to move on.

Christine Golbreich: I agree to move on.

18:46:52 <alanr> I vote +1

Alan Ruttenberg: I vote +1

18:46:58 <Rinke> bijan: can I add my sentence to the syntax document?

Bijan Parsia: can I add my sentence to the syntax document?

18:46:58 <alanr> for Bijan to take this action

Alan Ruttenberg: for Bijan to take this action

18:47:06 <Rinke> IanH: this additional explanation-thing that Jim wanted

Ian Horrocks: this additional explanation-thing that Jim wanted

18:47:12 <alanr> there is no contest on that

Alan Ruttenberg: there is no contest on that

18:47:26 <Rinke> IanH: why don't you go ahead on that

Ian Horrocks: why don't you go ahead on that

18:47:54 <Rinke> IanH: we need to find some better, faster way of dealing with these things.

Ian Horrocks: we need to find some better, faster way of dealing with these things.

18:48:03 <Rinke> IanH: that's something for me and alan to discuss offline

Ian Horrocks: that's something for me and alan to discuss offline

18:48:19 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

18:48:28 <alanr>  group: for your information we have already started discussing that (how to make this more efficient)

Alan Ruttenberg: group: for your information we have already started discussing that (how to make this more efficient)

18:48:36 <Rinke> IanH: next is a list of all comments that I thought were significantly nontrivial, that required us to make some decision on the design.

Ian Horrocks: next is a list of all comments that I thought were significantly nontrivial, that required us to make some decision on the design.

18:48:36 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:48:42 <IanH> ack bijan

Ian Horrocks: ack bijan

18:49:04 <Rinke> bijan: I have drafted an initial response to jeremy, and I would like feedback on whether this direction is ok (had some feedback from ivan)

Bijan Parsia: I have drafted an initial response to jeremy, and I would like feedback on whether this direction is ok (had some feedback from ivan)

18:49:07 <alanr> q+

Alan Ruttenberg: q+

18:49:16 <Rinke> IanH: sure, it isn't on this list at the moment.

Ian Horrocks: sure, it isn't on this list at the moment.

18:49:18 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:49:20 <IanH> ack alanr

Ian Horrocks: ack alanr

18:50:03 <Rinke> alanr: my judgment is that I wouldn't abandon the draft, rather than refining it right now. There's discussion on the **** list right now, it's very much appreciated. Let's wait until that progresses

Alan Ruttenberg: my judgment is that I wouldn't abandon the draft, rather than refining it right now. There's discussion on the **** list right now, it's very much appreciated. Let's wait until that progresses

18:50:13 <alanr>  *** = chairs list

Alan Ruttenberg: *** = chairs list

18:50:17 <ivan>  -:)

Ivan Herman: -:)

18:50:18 <Rinke> IanH: coming back to the list

Ian Horrocks: coming back to the list

18:50:38 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

18:50:42 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:50:44 <Rinke> subtopic: Naming issues

2.3. Naming issues

18:50:44 <Rinke> IanH: grddl, several comments referring to OWL, OWL DL and OWL Full (being more clear in the documents)

Ian Horrocks: grddl, several comments referring to OWL, OWL DL and OWL Full (being more clear in the documents)

18:50:50 <IanH> ack bijan

Ian Horrocks: ack bijan

18:51:25 <Rinke> bijan: I have a question. Looking at comments, not all of them about the design of the language. Just wondering whether the ones that are literally editorial could be moved to a different category (e.g. the use of OWL DL, OWL etc...)

Bijan Parsia: I have a question. Looking at comments, not all of them about the design of the language. Just wondering whether the ones that are literally editorial could be moved to a different category (e.g. the use of OWL DL, OWL etc...)

18:51:33 <ivan> it is on the borderline...

Ivan Herman: it is on the borderline...

18:51:51 <Rinke> IanH: it could be dealt with in an editorial way, perhaps... it could potentially require major restructuring of the documents

Ian Horrocks: it could be dealt with in an editorial way, perhaps... it could potentially require major restructuring of the documents

18:52:10 <Rinke> bijan: let me put it another way, what triggers another last call at this point.

Bijan Parsia: let me put it another way, what triggers another last call at this point.

18:52:11 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:52:12 <alanr> Can we postpone this discussion for the moment (of what triggers last call)

Alan Ruttenberg: Can we postpone this discussion for the moment (of what triggers last call)

18:52:20 <Rinke> bijan: do we have some sens on that?

Bijan Parsia: do we have some sense on that?

18:52:25 <Rinke> s/sens/sense
18:52:33 <schneid> "OWL 2" --> "OWL 2 DL" will certainly not justify another LC, but it's important anyway

Michael Schneider: "OWL 2" --> "OWL 2 DL" will certainly not justify another LC, but it's important anyway

18:52:34 <alanr> A subject of current discussion on chairs list. We are trying to understand issues.

Alan Ruttenberg: A subject of current discussion on chairs list. We are trying to understand issues.

18:52:38 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:52:47 <Rinke> IanH: how we decide to deal with them will determine the answer to bijan's question

Ian Horrocks: how we decide to deal with them will determine the answer to bijan's question

18:52:52 <schneid> q+

Michael Schneider: q+

18:53:12 <schneid> zakim, unmute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me

18:53:12 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should no longer be muted

18:53:13 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:53:17 <IanH> ack schneid

Ian Horrocks: ack schneid

18:53:18 <Rinke> IanH: see whether we have a rough agreement on these... see whether we can get a high-level plan on what to do

Ian Horrocks: see whether we have a rough agreement on these... see whether we can get a high-level plan on what to do

18:53:38 <Rinke> schneid: we should have a clear story about the OWL names.

Michael Schneider: we should have a clear story about the OWL names.

18:53:46 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:53:51 <Rinke> schneid: what do the names signify, only syntax, only semantics?

Michael Schneider: what do the names signify, only syntax, only semantics?

18:54:07 <Rinke> schneid: I understood OWL 2 Full only as semantics, but now realize that's a bad idea.

Michael Schneider: I understood OWL 2 Full only as semantics, but now realize that's a bad idea.

18:54:21 <Rinke> schneid: it's very unclear at the moment. We should have a clear story on this.

Michael Schneider: it's very unclear at the moment. We should have a clear story on this.

18:54:25 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:54:33 <Rinke> IanH: I agree, this is also what the commenters ask.

Ian Horrocks: I agree, this is also what the commenters ask.

18:54:42 <schneid> zakim, mute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me

18:54:42 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted

18:54:58 <Rinke> schneid: we should state "that's the name of the syntax, that's the name of the semantics, that's the name of the whole language"

Michael Schneider: we should state "that's the name of the syntax, that's the name of the semantics, that's the name of the whole language"

18:55:00 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:55:09 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/mid/82658D86-CD96-4178-B822-E9D4ECFAAB99@comlab.ox.ac.uk -> Ian's mail

Ivan Herman: http://www.w3.org/mid/82658D86-CD96-4178-B822-E9D4ECFAAB99@comlab.ox.ac.uk -> Ian's mail

18:55:18 <Rinke> IanH: I sent an email summarising. A couple of people have been working on diagrammatic responses

Ian Horrocks: I sent an email summarising. A couple of people have been working on diagrammatic responses

18:55:30 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:55:47 <bijan> Ok, "RIF1 (Disjoint numeric datatypes)", I think we should make them disjoint

Bijan Parsia: Ok, "RIF1 (Disjoint numeric datatypes)", I think we should make them disjoint

18:55:48 <uli> +1

Uli Sattler: +1

18:55:50 <Rinke> IanH: we need to be clearer about all of these things. I don't think we'll succeed in doing this in the next 5 minutes. Unless anyone really objects...

Ian Horrocks: we need to be clearer about all of these things. I don't think we'll succeed in doing this in the next 5 minutes. Unless anyone really objects...

18:56:11 <Rinke> IanH: let's leave FH2, SWD1 for the moment

Ian Horrocks: let's leave FH2, SWD1 for the moment

18:56:18 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

18:56:23 <Rinke> subtopic: XML and GRDDL

2.4. XML and GRDDL

18:56:23 <Rinke> IanH: skipped over XML and GRDDL (TM1, FH3, BP2)

Ian Horrocks: skipped over XML and GRDDL (TM1, FH3, BP2)

18:56:25 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:56:32 <IanH> ack bijan

Ian Horrocks: ack bijan

18:56:39 <Rinke> bijan: I drafted some text in response to Frank's email.

Bijan Parsia: I drafted some text in response to Frank's email.

18:57:03 <Rinke> bijan: which provided extensive rationale for the XML syntax. Jonathan Rees liked those, but still wanted GRDDL.

Bijan Parsia: which provided extensive rationale for the XML syntax. Jonathan Rees liked those, but still wanted GRDDL.

18:57:24 <Rinke> IanH: I agree, motivating the XML stuff isn't too difficult, but the GRDDL point is still there.

Ian Horrocks: I agree, motivating the XML stuff isn't too difficult, but the GRDDL point is still there.

18:57:34 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:57:44 <alanr> chocolate?

Alan Ruttenberg: chocolate?

18:57:44 <ivan> two beers?

Ivan Herman: two beers?

18:57:47 <Rinke> IanH: I had the idea that you might have come round, and perhaps even be the man to take on GRDDL.

Ian Horrocks: I had the idea that you might have come round, and perhaps even be the man to take on GRDDL.

18:57:48 <alanr> hugs

Alan Ruttenberg: hugs

18:57:55 <alanr> genuine gratitude?

Alan Ruttenberg: genuine gratitude?

18:58:42 <Rinke> bijan: I am negotiating... I'm unsure what my official position would be if the discussion went the other way...

Bijan Parsia: I am negotiating... I'm unsure what my official position would be if the discussion went the other way...

18:58:58 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:59:12 <Rinke> bijan: I am negotiating with the pro-GRDDL people on the group. But I'm not there yet.

Bijan Parsia: I am negotiating with the pro-GRDDL people on the group. But I'm not there yet.

18:59:13 <schneid> IMHO, asking for dropping XML is very exaggerated, but I think the commenters believe that OWL/XML MUST be supported --> point them to the Conformance document!

Michael Schneider: IMHO, asking for dropping XML is very exaggerated, but I think the commenters believe that OWL/XML MUST be supported --> point them to the Conformance document!

18:59:16 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

18:59:22 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:00:17 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

19:00:26 <Rinke> ivan: I think there is a general feeling that the exact whole of OWL/XML in the whole framework is heavily misunderstood. There have been several comments, some came only a few days ago, is the feeling that RDF/XML is abandoned. This is not true, but it seems the messaging on this has gone wrong.

Ivan Herman: I think there is a general feeling that the exact whole of OWL/XML in the whole framework is heavily misunderstood. There have been several comments, some came only a few days ago, is the feeling that RDF/XML is abandoned. This is not true, but it seems the messaging on this has gone wrong.

19:00:33 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:00:39 <IanH> ack ivan

Ian Horrocks: ack ivan

19:00:39 <Rinke> ivan: one remark about all different syntaxes in the examples.

Ivan Herman: one remark about all different syntaxes in the examples.

19:00:41 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:00:42 <bmotik> +q

Boris Motik: +q

19:00:46 <Rinke> ivan: it's part of the same set of comments.

Ivan Herman: it's part of the same set of comments.

19:01:10 <Rinke> IanH: more related to what we discussed previously, but next on the list, misunderstanding on the whole messaging thing.

Ian Horrocks: more related to what we discussed previously, but next on the list, misunderstanding on the whole messaging thing.

19:01:37 <Rinke> ivan: the whole OWL/XML made people feel that this was the exchange syntax. I had the discussion with some of my colleagues this week.

Ivan Herman: the whole OWL/XML made people feel that this was the exchange syntax. I had the discussion with some of my colleagues this week.

19:01:41 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:01:45 <IanH> ack bijan

Ian Horrocks: ack bijan

19:01:50 <Rinke> IanH: not directly related to the whole OWL/XML GRDDL thing.

Ian Horrocks: not directly related to the whole OWL/XML GRDDL thing.

19:02:01 <Rinke> bijan: I agree, I think people have lashed on the Functional Syntax and XML

Bijan Parsia: I agree, I think people have lashed on the Functional Syntax and XML

19:02:05 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:02:06 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me

19:02:06 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted

19:02:12 <alanr> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

19:02:18 <alanr> to what Bijan says

Alan Ruttenberg: to what Bijan says

19:02:31 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:02:35 <Rinke> bijan: we haven't changed how OWL was specified. Putting the two semantics in two documents confused people who thought there was only one semantics.

Bijan Parsia: we haven't changed how OWL was specified. Putting the two semantics in two documents confused people who thought there was only one semantics.

19:02:37 <schneid> actually, in OWL 1 there have been even three different semantics...

Michael Schneider: actually, in OWL 1 there have been even three different semantics...

19:02:42 <Rinke> bijan: that does need to be dealt with.

Bijan Parsia: that does need to be dealt with.

19:02:55 <Rinke> IanH: there's a whole presentation issue that needs to be dealt with.

Ian Horrocks: there's a whole presentation issue that needs to be dealt with.

19:03:09 <bmotik> -q

Boris Motik: -q

19:03:25 <Rinke> IanH: there isn't one specific comment that says this. but we need a response to such a comment.

Ian Horrocks: there isn't one specific comment that says this. but we need a response to such a comment.

19:03:29 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:03:38 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me

19:03:38 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted

19:04:06 <bmotik> +q

Boris Motik: +q

19:04:10 <Rinke> subtopic: RIF1

2.5. RIF1

19:04:10 <Rinke> IanH: ok, what about the RIF1 related to numeric datatypes

Ian Horrocks: ok, what about the RIF1 related to numeric datatypes

19:04:11 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me

19:04:11 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted

19:04:12 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:04:17 <IanH> ack bmotik

Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik

19:04:32 <alanr> missed that

Alan Ruttenberg: missed that

19:04:35 <Rinke> bmotik: I have a proposal, we make the datatypes exactly as they are in XML

Boris Motik: I have a proposal, we make the datatypes exactly as they are in XML

19:04:38 <sandro> +1 stoning

Sandro Hawke: +1 stoning

19:04:40 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:04:41 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

19:04:45 <alanr> -1

Alan Ruttenberg: -1

19:04:53 <Rinke> bmotik: throw a stone at me at the F2F5 for starting this in the first place

Boris Motik: throw a stone at me at the F2F5 for starting this in the first place

19:04:59 <ivan> +1 stoning (in virtual space, will not be at the f2f...)

Ivan Herman: +1 stoning (in virtual space, will not be at the f2f...)

19:05:13 <IanH> NO -- I want to see blood

Ian Horrocks: NO -- I want to see blood

19:05:16 <alanr> I'm not sorry yet

Alan Ruttenberg: I'm not sorry yet

19:05:18 <Rinke> bmotik: there is also a practical reason, non-disjointness really difficult to implement.

Boris Motik: there is also a practical reason, non-disjointness really difficult to implement.

19:05:19 <sandro> rofl

Sandro Hawke: rofl

19:05:26 <Rinke> bmotik: I'm sorry

Boris Motik: I'm sorry

19:05:40 <ewallace> Why are disjoint types now acceptable?

Evan Wallace: Why are disjoint types now acceptable?

19:05:51 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:05:53 <msmith> q+

Michael Smith: q+

19:05:55 <IanH> ack bijan

Ian Horrocks: ack bijan

19:05:56 <alanr> q+

Alan Ruttenberg: q+

19:05:57 <Rinke> IanH: Boris proposes that we change our decision on disjointness because of conformance with XML, and implementation issues

Ian Horrocks: Boris proposes that we change our decision on disjointness because of conformance with XML, and implementation issues

19:06:05 <msmith> q-

Michael Smith: q-

19:06:15 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:06:15 <Rinke> bijan: I am happy to have disjointness as well (we should throw stones at Rob as well)

Bijan Parsia: I am happy to have disjointness as well (we should throw stones at Rob as well)

19:06:23 <Rinke> msmith: would this require another last call?

Michael Smith: would this require another last call?

19:06:38 <Rinke> IanH: I'm just not wanting to talk about whether or not that requires another last call

Ian Horrocks: I'm just not wanting to talk about whether or not that requires another last call

19:06:53 <Rinke> IanH: deal with each comment, then look at the totality of changes.

Ian Horrocks: deal with each comment, then look at the totality of changes.

19:07:01 <Rinke> IanH: welcome to have comments from sandro, ivan

Ian Horrocks: welcome to have comments from sandro, ivan

19:07:06 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:07:24 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

19:07:30 <Rinke> sandro: I agree. And: not another LC, it's a corner issue that people just haven't thought about enough.

Sandro Hawke: I agree. And: not another LC, it's a corner issue that people just haven't thought about enough.

19:07:31 <msmith> q+ to request more detail from Boris

Michael Smith: q+ to request more detail from Boris

19:07:39 <IanH> ack alanr

Ian Horrocks: ack alanr

19:07:57 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

19:08:10 <Rinke> alanr: Im not ready to cave on this yet. We do have a meeting with RIF on this, next week. I want to discuss this with Jonathan (my colleague).

Alan Ruttenberg: Im not ready to cave on this yet. We do have a meeting with RIF on this, next week. I want to discuss this with Jonathan (my colleague).

19:08:14 <alanr> understood. just chiming in.

Alan Ruttenberg: understood. just chiming in.

19:08:23 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:08:25 <Rinke> IanH: we don't have a unanimous plan on this

Ian Horrocks: we don't have a unanimous plan on this

19:08:27 <bijan> q-

Bijan Parsia: q-

19:08:28 <alanr> yes. more than that even :)

Alan Ruttenberg: yes. more than that even :)

19:08:37 <Rinke> IanH: we;ll ask you again after the RIF meeting

Ian Horrocks: we;ll ask you again after the RIF meeting

19:08:37 <IanH> ack ivan

Ian Horrocks: ack ivan

19:08:40 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:08:58 <bijan> Given all the feedback, I think Manchester (pace Uli) might formally object to non-disjoint double

Bijan Parsia: Given all the feedback, I think Manchester (pace Uli) might formally object to non-disjoint double

19:09:08 <bijan> So it's not just to satisfy rif

Bijan Parsia: So it's not just to satisfy rif

19:09:14 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:09:17 <Rinke> ivan: wrt. the LC or non-LC issue. We have a number of documents that are not LC. A second LC is not the end of the world. I agree we should not spend time on this issue. It is not a huge issue.

Ivan Herman: wrt. the LC or non-LC issue. We have a number of documents that are not LC. A second LC is not the end of the world. I agree we should not spend time on this issue. It is not a huge issue.

19:09:18 <Zakim> +Tony

Zakim IRC Bot: +Tony

19:09:25 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:09:28 <IanH> ack msmith

Ian Horrocks: ack msmith

19:09:28 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to request more detail from Boris

Zakim IRC Bot: msmith, you wanted to request more detail from Boris

19:09:35 <bmotik> +q

Boris Motik: +q

19:09:35 <ewallace> +1 to Mike suggestions

Evan Wallace: +1 to Mike suggestions

19:09:37 <Rinke> msmith: If boris could write an email that more explicitly specifies the change he's proposing to make

Michael Smith: If boris could write an email that more explicitly specifies the change he's proposing to make

19:09:41 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:09:41 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me

19:09:41 <alanr> uli is ready to drop rational too?

Alan Ruttenberg: uli is ready to drop rational too?

19:09:42 <Zakim> bmotik was not muted, bmotik

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik was not muted, bmotik

19:09:42 <Rinke> msmith: that would be helpful

Michael Smith: that would be helpful

19:09:46 <Rinke> sandro: test cases test cases

Sandro Hawke: test cases test cases

19:09:49 <IanH> ack bmotik

Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik

19:09:51 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:09:53 <alanr> q+

Alan Ruttenberg: q+

19:09:57 <schneid> q+

Michael Schneider: q+

19:10:01 <Rinke> bmotik: this is already specified in the 1.1 XML schema. It's very precise on this.

Boris Motik: this is already specified in the 1.1 XML schema. It's very precise on this.

19:10:14 <msmith> q+

Michael Smith: q+

19:10:18 <bijan> +1 to what boris just said

Bijan Parsia: +1 to what boris just said

19:10:24 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:10:27 <Rinke> bmotik: float disjoint from double would be disjoint from decimal, but integer and all that crap wouldn't be

Boris Motik: float disjoint from double would be disjoint from decimal, but integer and all that crap wouldn't be

19:10:28 <uli> alanr, I am not sure...

Uli Sattler: alanr, I am not sure...

19:10:38 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:10:42 <IanH> ack alanr

Ian Horrocks: ack alanr

19:10:42 <msmith> but where does that leave owl:realPlus?

Michael Smith: but where does that leave owl:realPlus?

19:10:43 <ivan> ack alanr

Ivan Herman: ack alanr

19:10:52 <msmith> q-

Michael Smith: q-

19:11:03 <Rinke> alanr: how would that impact ...

Alan Ruttenberg: how would that impact ...

19:11:05 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:11:05 <alanr> thanks

Alan Ruttenberg: thanks

19:11:09 <schneid> zakim, unmute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me

19:11:09 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should no longer be muted

19:11:13 <IanH> ack schneid

Ian Horrocks: ack schneid

19:11:17 <Rinke> IanH: that's a different issue, because those are new datatypes

Ian Horrocks: that's a different issue, because those are new datatypes

19:11:52 <Rinke> schneid: there was months of discussion about this. Would like the ramifications of this change. There were reasons for not having this disjointness.

Michael Schneider: there was months of discussion about this. Would like the ramifications of this change. There were reasons for not having this disjointness.

19:11:55 <alanr> the ramifications are bad :)

Alan Ruttenberg: the ramifications are bad :)

19:11:58 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:11:59 <Rinke> schneid: would it be very bad?

Michael Schneider: would it be very bad?

19:12:11 <Rinke> schneid: would like to see the non-obvious ramifications

Michael Schneider: would like to see the non-obvious ramifications

19:12:24 <bijan> I note again, Pellet (and Jena) have supported disjointness here

Bijan Parsia: I note again, Pellet (and Jena) have supported disjointness here

19:12:41 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:12:44 <Rinke> IanH: would be the kind of ones that when you have integers and doubles in an inference, you would have different answers for your inferences.

Ian Horrocks: would be the kind of ones that when you have integers and doubles in an inference, you would have different answers for your inferences.

19:12:51 <alanr> instance classification issues as well

Alan Ruttenberg: instance classification issues as well

19:12:56 <uli> Michael, I see (1) less tricky to implement (2) possibly strange inferences (3) comformance to Schema

Uli Sattler: Michael, I see (1) less tricky to implement (2) possibly strange inferences (3) comformance to Schema

19:12:58 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:13:07 <Rinke> IanH: all those guys are overlapping and derived from decimal

Ian Horrocks: all those guys are overlapping and derived from decimal

19:13:30 <Rinke> schneid: there was this idea to have overlapping value spaces, and this must have a good reason.

Michael Schneider: there was this idea to have overlapping value spaces, and this must have a good reason.

19:13:48 <bmotik> q+

Boris Motik: q+

19:13:55 <Rinke> IanH: the good reason was that logicallly speaking the double 1 should be interpreted in the same way as the integer 1

Ian Horrocks: the good reason was that logicallly speaking the double 1 should be interpreted in the same way as the integer 1

19:14:00 <alanr> or that the different 0's are different

Alan Ruttenberg: or that the different 0's are different

19:14:04 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:14:17 <IanH> ack bmotik

Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik

19:14:34 <Rinke> bmotik: because of that, there is no need for owl:realPlus .. just an umbrella for the doubles etc.

Boris Motik: because of that, there is no need for owl:realPlus .. just an umbrella for the doubles etc.

19:14:39 <schneid> zakim, mute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me

19:14:39 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted

19:15:05 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:15:06 <Rinke> IanH: we can see how the meeting with RIF goes. It's possible to resolve this by doing what they asked us to do?

Ian Horrocks: we can see how the meeting with RIF goes. It's possible to resolve this by doing what they asked us to do?

19:15:10 <bmotik> q+

Boris Motik: q+

19:15:18 <schneid> thanks, uli

Michael Schneider: thanks, uli

19:15:24 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:15:28 <IanH> ack bmotik

Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik

19:15:29 <Rinke> subtopic: RIF2

2.6. RIF2

19:15:29 <Rinke> IanH: what to do with RIF2 (same set of supported datatypes). They don't support some of the derived string-types.

Ian Horrocks: what to do with RIF2 (same set of supported datatypes). They don't support some of the derived string-types.

19:15:37 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

19:15:39 <Rinke> bmotik: are they complaining about OWL 2 RL, or in general?

Boris Motik: are they complaining about OWL 2 RL, or in general?

19:15:52 <Zakim> -Achille

Zakim IRC Bot: -Achille

19:15:55 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:16:01 <IanH> ack bijan

Ian Horrocks: ack bijan

19:16:09 <Rinke> IanH: they wouldn't object to profiles to support only a subset of datatypes. I think they'd like both languages as a whole to support the same set of datatypes.

Ian Horrocks: they wouldn't object to profiles to support only a subset of datatypes. I think they'd like both languages as a whole to support the same set of datatypes.

19:16:14 <alanr> q+

Alan Ruttenberg: q+

19:16:18 <bmotik> q+

Boris Motik: q+

19:16:43 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:17:12 <Rinke> bijan: we should resolve this to say that we're happy if they support all datatypes we have. I'm not convinced with the exhange argument...

Bijan Parsia: we should resolve this to say that we're happy if they support all datatypes we have. I'm not convinced with the exhange argument...

19:17:47 <Rinke> bijan: least-common denominator approach does not really match with the development of a language that allows people to express what they need to express.

Bijan Parsia: least-common denominator approach does not really match with the development of a language that allows people to express what they need to express.

19:17:51 <pfps> +1 to 1/3-full cups (+2 to 2/3-full cups)

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to 1/3-full cups (+2 to 2/3-full cups)

19:18:05 <bijan> Sure

Bijan Parsia: Sure

19:18:07 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

19:18:11 <Rinke> IanH: I understood the argument and sympathise, will put your argument forward on the OWL/RIF meeting

Ian Horrocks: I understood the argument and sympathise, will put your argument forward on the OWL/RIF meeting

19:18:13 <alanr> is the cup 1/3 full or 2/3 empty?

Alan Ruttenberg: is the cup 1/3 full or 2/3 empty?

19:18:15 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:18:19 <sandro> do you think RIF should have built-ins for rational math?

Sandro Hawke: do you think RIF should have built-ins for rational math?

19:18:24 <bijan> I just think we need a better prima facie argument to budge

Bijan Parsia: I just think we need a better prima facie argument to budge

19:18:26 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:18:28 <IanH> ack alanr

Ian Horrocks: ack alanr

19:18:34 <bijan> sandro, I don't care. That's up to them

Bijan Parsia: sandro, I don't care. That's up to them

19:19:00 <Rinke> alanr: there are two cases we may consider. Wrt the string derived types, we don't have a lot of demand for them, we could drop some of them: some negotiating room for horse trading.

Alan Ruttenberg: there are two cases we may consider. Wrt the string derived types, we don't have a lot of demand for them, we could drop some of them: some negotiating room for horse trading.

19:19:11 <bijan> Why give up what can be defined? What's the harm of having names for types that are expressively available?

Bijan Parsia: Why give up what can be defined? What's the harm of having names for types that are expressively available?

19:19:11 <sandro> q?

Sandro Hawke: q?

19:19:19 <Rinke> IanH: that supports the notion that we need the same set

Ian Horrocks: that supports the notion that we need the same set

19:19:37 <IanH> ack bmotik

Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik

19:19:44 <Rinke> alanr: I understand bijan's point.. i have sympathy for harmonisation, see how far we can go.

Alan Ruttenberg: I understand bijan's point.. i have sympathy for harmonisation, see how far we can go.

19:20:04 <Rinke> bmotik: but we would need to extend our set of datatypes as well (e.g. from XQuery, and one that has to do with datetime).

Boris Motik: but we would need to extend our set of datatypes as well (e.g. from XQuery, and one that has to do with datetime).

19:20:10 <Rinke> bmotik: we would both need to change

Boris Motik: we would both need to change

19:20:17 <Rinke> IanH: would they be difficult to support

Ian Horrocks: would they be difficult to support

19:20:21 <Rinke> bmotik: I don't think so.

Boris Motik: I don't think so.

19:20:29 <Rinke> IanH: what about the issue with time zones

Ian Horrocks: what about the issue with time zones

19:20:55 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

19:20:56 <Rinke> bmotik: there is a diversion with datetime as well. We are interpreting timezones in OWL in a different way as well

Boris Motik: there is a diversion with datetime as well. We are interpreting timezones in OWL in a different way as well

19:21:08 <ewallace> I think there is some confusion in RIF wg about dateTime

Evan Wallace: I think there is some confusion in RIF wg about dateTime

19:21:09 <IanH> ack ivan

Ian Horrocks: ack ivan

19:21:24 <Rinke> IanH: we don't support XML datetime, but have a subtype with an explicit timezone.

Ian Horrocks: we don't support XML datetime, but have a subtype with an explicit timezone.

19:22:06 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:22:06 <Rinke> ivan: we should stop the discussion now, and see where we can go from the RIF/OWL meeting. What I don't see is the issue with the rdf:text on the LC page. I haven't seen any move on this over the past few weeks.

Ivan Herman: we should stop the discussion now, and see where we can go from the RIF/OWL meeting. What I don't see is the issue with the rdf:text on the LC page. I haven't seen any move on this over the past few weeks.

19:22:10 <Rinke> IanH: what do you suggest?

Ian Horrocks: what do you suggest?

19:22:17 <Rinke> ivan: we should have it on the LC comments page.

Ivan Herman: we should have it on the LC comments page.

19:22:24 <Rinke> sandro: but rdf:text is not in last call.

Sandro Hawke: but rdf:text is not in last call.

19:22:35 <Rinke> ivan: oh, ok. but it may come up on the meeting with RIF

Ivan Herman: oh, ok. but it may come up on the meeting with RIF

19:22:42 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:22:45 <Rinke> IanH: it seems to be a completely separate issue

Ian Horrocks: it seems to be a completely separate issue

19:22:55 <IanH> ack bijan

Ian Horrocks: ack bijan

19:23:05 <Rinke> bijan: What does RIF require conformant systems to support in terms of the datatypes

Bijan Parsia: What does RIF require conformant systems to support in terms of the datatypes

19:23:12 <Rinke> bmotik: do you want a list? I can recite it...

Boris Motik: do you want a list? I can recite it...

19:23:27 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-bld/#Conformance_Clauses

Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-bld/#Conformance_Clauses

19:23:27 <Rinke> bijan: I'm not clear that you have to support them all (i'm looking at conformance clauses)

Bijan Parsia: I'm not clear that you have to support them all (i'm looking at conformance clauses)

19:23:35 <Rinke> IanH: take this to email?

Ian Horrocks: take this to email?

19:23:38 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:23:43 <Rinke> bijan: i concede

Bijan Parsia: i concede

19:23:54 <Rinke> IanH: discuss this by email before the meeting with RIF

Ian Horrocks: discuss this by email before the meeting with RIF

19:24:18 <Rinke> subtopic: FH4

2.7. FH4

19:24:18 <Rinke> IanH: close to running out of time. Try to tackle one more of these: anonymous individuals (FH4)

Ian Horrocks: close to running out of time. Try to tackle one more of these: anonymous individuals (FH4)

19:24:25 <bijan> Clarify rationale and reject the change

Bijan Parsia: Clarify rationale and reject the change

19:24:31 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:24:32 <bmotik> +q

Boris Motik: +q

19:24:36 <pfps> +1 to bijan

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to bijan

19:24:44 <Rinke> IanH: Frank didn't like the new way in which we deal with anonymous individuals?

Ian Horrocks: Frank didn't like the new way in which we deal with anonymous individuals?

19:24:51 <msmith> +1 to bmotik, I didn't understand the comment

Michael Smith: +1 to bmotik, I didn't understand the comment

19:24:53 <uli> I don't

Uli Sattler: I don't

19:24:56 <Rinke> IanH: yes, bijan is right....

Ian Horrocks: yes, bijan is right....

19:25:00 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:25:06 <Rinke> bmotik: did anyone understand the comment?

Boris Motik: did anyone understand the comment?

19:25:06 <bmotik> -q

Boris Motik: -q

19:25:09 <alanr> q+

Alan Ruttenberg: q+

19:25:10 <schneid> Frank talks about "deviation" of OWL 1, I believe

Michael Schneider: Frank talks about "deviation" of OWL 1, I believe

19:25:13 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:25:20 <Rinke> IanH: that's my feeling as well, we should clarify

Ian Horrocks: that's my feeling as well, we should clarify

19:25:35 <bmotik> +q

Boris Motik: +q

19:25:45 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:25:49 <IanH> ack alanr

Ian Horrocks: ack alanr

19:26:00 <IanH> ack bmotik

Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik

19:26:01 <Rinke> alanr: I was wondering whether the anon individuals in OWL 1 had different syntax where the name wasn't mentioned. perhaps boris could think of a way to deal with this with minimal impact (Syntactic change)

Alan Ruttenberg: I was wondering whether the anon individuals in OWL 1 had different syntax where the name wasn't mentioned. perhaps boris could think of a way to deal with this with minimal impact (Syntactic change)

19:26:20 <bijan> +1 to Boris

Bijan Parsia: +1 to Boris

19:26:26 <Rinke> bmotik: there is no way to do this. I thought long and hard. This didn't play along well with the axiom based view on OWL.

Boris Motik: there is no way to do this. I thought long and hard. This didn't play along well with the axiom based view on OWL.

19:26:26 <schneid> q+

Michael Schneider: q+

19:26:32 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

19:26:36 <pfps> +1 to Boris, as well, the RDF form hasn't changed

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to Boris, as well, the RDF form hasn't changed

19:26:36 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:26:44 <Rinke> IanH: we do have backwards compatibility don't we?

Ian Horrocks: we do have backwards compatibility don't we?

19:26:53 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

19:26:56 <schneid> zakim, unmute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me

19:26:56 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should no longer be muted

19:27:00 <bijan> q-

Bijan Parsia: q-

19:27:01 <IanH> ack schneid

Ian Horrocks: ack schneid

19:27:10 <Rinke> bmotik: we do. It is only the problem with the Abstract syntax vs. the functional syntax.

Boris Motik: we do. It is only the problem with the Abstract syntax vs. the functional syntax.

19:27:41 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:27:42 <Rinke> schneid: I think that if he is coming more from the RDF/web view... working with anonymous individuals is very common (e.g. in foaf).

Michael Schneider: I think that if he is coming more from the RDF/web view... working with anonymous individuals is very common (e.g. in foaf).

19:27:42 <alanr> on the motivation issue we can certainly response coherently

Alan Ruttenberg: on the motivation issue we can certainly respond coherently

19:27:47 <IanH> ack ivan

Ian Horrocks: ack ivan

19:27:48 <alanr> s/response/respond/
19:27:58 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

19:28:00 <Rinke> ivan: I am lost actually, can somebody explain in one minute what the problem is?

Ivan Herman: I am lost actually, can somebody explain in one minute what the problem is?

19:28:01 <IanH> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0037.html

Ian Horrocks: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0037.html

19:28:09 <Rinke> IanH: it's not that easy, his email is very short.

Ian Horrocks: it's not that easy, his email is very short.

19:28:14 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:28:21 <IanH> ack bijan

Ian Horrocks: ack bijan

19:28:26 <Rinke> ivan: I don't understand what problem he's responding to

Ivan Herman: I don't understand what problem he's responding to

19:28:32 <bmotik> In OWL 1 you had Individual( value(p "bla") )

Boris Motik: In OWL 1 you had Individual( value(p "bla") )

19:28:43 <schneid> ClassAssertion(foaf:Agent _:x)

Michael Schneider: ClassAssertion(foaf:Agent _:x)

19:28:45 <schneid> PropertyAssertion(foaf:knows _:x Alice)

Michael Schneider: PropertyAssertion(foaf:knows _:x Alice)

19:28:50 <bmotik> In OWL 2 you have PropertyAssertion( p _:1 "bla" )

Boris Motik: In OWL 2 you have PropertyAssertion( p _:1 "bla" )

19:29:03 <bmotik> It is the same from the expressivity point of view, but the syntax is different.

Boris Motik: It is the same from the expressivity point of view, but the syntax is different.

19:29:09 <alanr> there is also more expressivity in owl 2, no?

Alan Ruttenberg: there is also more expressivity in owl 2, no?

19:29:11 <Rinke> bijan: in OWL 1 AS anon individuals were represented using blank nodes (no node id's). We have to use node id's because of the syntax. Frank is confused by this.

Bijan Parsia: in OWL 1 AS anon individuals were represented using blank nodes (no node id's). We have to use node id's because of the syntax. Frank is confused by this.

19:29:15 <alanr> that's what I thought, ian

Alan Ruttenberg: that's what I thought, ian

19:29:20 <schneid> We can now share

Michael Schneider: We can now share

19:29:33 <schneid> the same anon in different axioms

Michael Schneider: the same anon in different axioms

19:29:34 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:29:35 <Rinke> IanH: isn't it so that we could deal with more RDF with this change

Ian Horrocks: isn't it so that we could deal with more RDF with this change

19:29:45 <Rinke> ivan: seems to be syntactic sugar only in the functional syntax.

Ivan Herman: seems to be syntactic sugar only in the functional syntax.

19:29:57 <Rinke> bijan: seems to be about presentation, not a technical comment.

Bijan Parsia: seems to be about presentation, not a technical comment.

19:29:58 <alanr> q+

Alan Ruttenberg: q+

19:30:00 <bijan> I can write a draft

Bijan Parsia: I can write a draft

19:30:03 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:30:06 <Rinke> IanH: probably isn't a big deal

Ian Horrocks: probably isn't a big deal

19:30:06 <IanH> ack alanr

Ian Horrocks: ack alanr

19:30:10 <msmith> @schneid, we can only share in careful ways (see the global restrictions)

Michael Smith: @schneid, we can only share in careful ways (see the global restrictions)

19:30:14 <Rinke> alanr: I didn't understand that last comment

Alan Ruttenberg: I didn't understand that last comment

19:30:27 <Rinke> bijan: it's not a substantive change, change in the presentation, not technical.

Bijan Parsia: it's not a substantive change, change in the presentation, not technical.

19:30:27 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

19:30:30 <schneid> ah, there was this fine print again ;-)

Michael Schneider: ah, there was this fine print again ;-)

19:30:53 <Rinke> bijan: I explain why we make the change, it's an editorial manner.

Bijan Parsia: I explain why we make the change, it's an editorial manner.

19:31:32 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace

Zakim IRC Bot: -Evan_Wallace

19:31:39 <Rinke> IanH: we have to carry on with the rest of this list next week. Alan and I will discuss on how to deal with carrying forward with responding to the comments

Ian Horrocks: we have to carry on with the rest of this list next week. Alan and I will discuss on how to deal with carrying forward with responding to the comments

19:31:41 <alanr> And pfps be earnest?

Alan Ruttenberg: And pfps be earnest?

19:31:50 <Rinke> topic: anny additional business?

3. anny additional business?

19:31:57 <Rinke> IanH: no? ok, we're done

Ian Horrocks: no? ok, we're done

19:31:57 <bijan> yes please!

Bijan Parsia: yes please!

19:32:03 <msmith> thanks all. bye

Michael Smith: thanks all. bye

19:32:04 <Zakim> -msmith

Zakim IRC Bot: -msmith

19:32:08 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau

Zakim IRC Bot: -bcuencagrau

19:32:11 <Zakim> -MarkusK_

Zakim IRC Bot: -MarkusK_

19:32:14 <uli> bye

Uli Sattler: bye

19:32:17 <Zhe> bye

Zhe Wu: bye

19:32:17 <alanr> thanks everyone! Particularly Ian. No thanks to my hosts.

Alan Ruttenberg: thanks everyone! Particularly Ian. No thanks to my hosts.

19:32:18 <Rinke> action: bijan to draft a response to FH1 (anonymous individuals) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0037.html

ACTION: bijan to draft a response to FH1 (anonymous individuals) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0037.html

19:32:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-280 - Draft a response to FH1 (anonymous individuals) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0037.html [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-11].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-280 - Draft a response to FH1 (anonymous individuals) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0037.html [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-11].

19:32:19 <Zakim> -bmotik

Zakim IRC Bot: -bmotik

19:32:22 <Zakim> - +1.603.897.aaee

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.603.897.aaee

19:32:23 <Zakim> -Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan

19:32:24 <Zakim> -uli

Zakim IRC Bot: -uli

19:32:25 <Zakim> -alanr

Zakim IRC Bot: -alanr

19:32:26 <Zakim> -christine

Zakim IRC Bot: -christine

19:32:27 <Zakim> -bijan

Zakim IRC Bot: -bijan

19:32:27 <Zakim> -baojie

Zakim IRC Bot: -baojie

19:32:28 <Zakim> -schneid

Zakim IRC Bot: -schneid

19:32:29 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider

Zakim IRC Bot: -Peter_Patel-Schneider

19:32:31 <Zakim> -Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro

19:32:33 <Zakim> -Tony

Zakim IRC Bot: -Tony

19:32:35 <Zakim> -IanH

Zakim IRC Bot: -IanH

19:32:41 <Zakim> -Rinke

Zakim IRC Bot: -Rinke

19:32:42 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended

19:32:43 <Zakim> Attendees were bijan, Rinke, bmotik, Evan_Wallace, Sandro, Achille, IanH, MarkusK_, schneid, +0186528aabb, uli, bcuencagrau, Ivan, alanr, +1.202.408.aadd, msmith, +1.603.897.aaee,

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were bijan, Rinke, bmotik, Evan_Wallace, Sandro, Achille, IanH, MarkusK_, schneid, +0186528aabb, uli, bcuencagrau, Ivan, alanr, +1.202.408.aadd, msmith, +1.603.897.aaee,

19:32:46 <Zakim> ... christine, +1.518.276.aaff, baojie, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Tony

Zakim IRC Bot: ... christine, +1.518.276.aaff, baojie, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Tony

19:33:17 <Rinke> RRSAgent, pointer?

RRSAgent, pointer?

19:33:17 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/02/04-owl-irc#T19-33-17

RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2009/02/04-owl-irc#T19-33-17



Formatted by CommonScribe