There are some format problems with the chatlog. Please correct them and reload this page. They are labeled on this page in a red box, like this message.
It may be helpful to
<MarkusK_> PRESENT: Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan, bmotik (muted), MarkusK_, Ivan (muted), Sandro, uli (muted), Zhe (muted), IanH, bcuencagrau (muted), christine, baojie, Achille, Alan Ruttenberg, Evan_Wallace, msmith, Michael Schneider, jar, zimmer
16:49:05 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/01-owl-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/01-owl-irc ←
16:53:34 <pfps> zakim, this is owl
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, this is owl ←
16:53:34 <Zakim> ok, pfps; that matches SW_OWL()1:00PM
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, pfps; that matches SW_OWL()1:00PM ←
16:53:41 <pfps> zakim, who is on the phone?
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
16:53:41 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider ←
16:56:43 <Zakim> +??P12
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P12 ←
16:56:51 <bijan> zakim, ??P12 is me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, ??P12 is me ←
16:56:51 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bijan; got it ←
16:56:53 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
16:56:53 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
16:57:16 <bmotik> Zakim, this will be owl
Boris Motik: Zakim, this will be owl ←
16:57:16 <Zakim> ok, bmotik, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM already started
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, bmotik, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM already started ←
16:57:43 <Zakim> +bcuencag2
Zakim IRC Bot: +bcuencag2 ←
16:57:50 <bmotik> Zakim, bcuencag2 is me
Boris Motik: Zakim, bcuencag2 is me ←
16:57:50 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bmotik; got it ←
16:57:53 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
16:57:53 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
16:58:14 <Zakim> +??P6
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P6 ←
16:58:18 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
16:58:18 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
16:58:20 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
16:58:29 <MarkusK_> ScribeNick: MarkusK_
(Scribe set to Markus Krötzsch)
16:58:55 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
16:59:53 <pfps> didn't Alan promise to find where we agreed on the five-minute rule?
Peter Patel-Schneider: didn't Alan promise to find where we agreed on the five-minute rule? ←
17:00:30 <Zakim> +??P14
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14 ←
17:00:44 <IanH> i'm trying to connect, but zakim isn't cooperating
Ian Horrocks: i'm trying to connect, but zakim isn't cooperating ←
17:00:46 <christine> Zakim, ??P14 is me
Christine Golbreich: Zakim, ??P14 is me ←
17:00:46 <Zakim> +christine; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +christine; got it ←
17:00:54 <Zakim> +??P18
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P18 ←
17:01:05 <uli> zakim, ??P18 is me
Uli Sattler: zakim, ??P18 is me ←
17:01:05 <Zakim> +uli; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +uli; got it ←
17:01:09 <IanH> I will hopefully be connected soon!
Ian Horrocks: I will hopefully be connected soon! ←
17:01:12 <Zakim> +Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: +Zhe ←
17:01:18 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
17:01:18 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
17:01:19 <Zhe> zakim, mute me
17:01:19 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Zhe should now be muted ←
17:01:20 <Zakim> -christine
Zakim IRC Bot: -christine ←
17:01:25 <Zakim> +IanH
Zakim IRC Bot: +IanH ←
17:01:30 <sandro> zakim, who is here?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is here? ←
17:01:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, uli (muted), Zhe (muted), IanH
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, uli (muted), Zhe (muted), IanH ←
17:01:33 <Zakim> On IRC I see bcuencagrau, Zhe, IanH, christine, MarkusK_, bmotik, ivan, Zakim, RRSAgent, pfps, bijan, sandro, uli, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see bcuencagrau, Zhe, IanH, christine, MarkusK_, bmotik, ivan, Zakim, RRSAgent, pfps, bijan, sandro, uli, trackbot ←
17:01:55 <Zakim> +bmotik.a
Zakim IRC Bot: +bmotik.a ←
17:01:57 <Zakim> +??P19
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P19 ←
17:01:57 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
17:01:57 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, uli (muted), Zhe (muted), IanH, bmotik.a, ??P19
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, uli (muted), Zhe (muted), IanH, bmotik.a, ??P19 ←
17:01:58 <ivan> zakim, mute me
Ivan Herman: zakim, mute me ←
17:02:01 <MarkusK_> Topic: Admin
17:02:01 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Roll call
17:02:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see baojie, alanr, bcuencagrau, Zhe, IanH, christine, MarkusK_, bmotik, ivan, Zakim, RRSAgent, pfps, bijan, sandro, uli, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see baojie, alanr, bcuencagrau, Zhe, IanH, christine, MarkusK_, bmotik, ivan, Zakim, RRSAgent, pfps, bijan, sandro, uli, trackbot ←
17:02:06 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should now be muted ←
17:02:07 <christine> Zakim, ??P19 is me
Christine Golbreich: Zakim, ??P19 is me ←
17:02:11 <Zakim> +christine; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +christine; got it ←
17:02:13 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Agenda amendments?
17:02:19 <Zakim> +baojie
Zakim IRC Bot: +baojie ←
17:02:20 <MarkusK_> Ian: No amendments.
Ian Horrocks: No amendments. ←
17:02:29 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Previous minutes
17:02:32 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, bmotik.a is bcuencagrau
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, bmotik.a is bcuencagrau ←
17:02:32 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bcuencagrau; got it ←
17:02:37 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me ←
17:02:37 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should now be muted ←
17:02:55 <MarkusK_> Ian: Can somebody confirm that the minutes are in good shape?
Ian Horrocks: Can somebody confirm that the minutes are in good shape? ←
17:02:50 <pfps> they look OK, except that I seem to remember that Alan was going to find out about the five-minute rule
Peter Patel-Schneider: they look OK, except that I seem to remember that Alan was going to find out about the five-minute rule ←
17:03:19 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.04.01/Agenda
Sandro Hawke: sandro has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.04.01/Agenda ←
17:03:25 <MarkusK_> Resolved: accept previous minutes
RESOLVED: accept previous minutes ←
17:03:33 <Zakim> +[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
17:03:37 <pfps> q+
17:03:37 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Action Item Status
17:03:37 <MarkusK_> Subsubtopic: Pending Review Actions
17:03:47 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
17:03:51 <Achille> zakim, ibm is me
Achille Fokoue: zakim, ibm is me ←
17:03:51 <MarkusK_> Ian: Any comments on pending review actions?
Ian Horrocks: Any comments on pending review actions? ←
17:03:49 <pfps> some of these have been previously approved
Peter Patel-Schneider: some of these have been previously approved ←
17:03:51 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Achille; got it ←
17:03:51 <Zakim> +Alan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alan ←
17:04:08 <MarkusK_> Pfps: Some of the actions did not get updated; they are all good otherwise.
Peter Patel-Schneider: Some of the actions did not get updated; they are all good otherwise. ←
17:04:20 <MarkusK_> Subsubtopic: Due and Overdue Actions
17:04:44 <MarkusK_> Ian: there is nothing to Action 299 to be done right now
Ian Horrocks: there is nothing to ACTION-299 to be done right now ←
17:04:47 <MarkusK_> Sandro: yes
Sandro Hawke: yes ←
17:04:55 <MarkusK_> Ian: Action 322 is done
Ian Horrocks: ACTION-322 is done ←
17:04:39 <alanr> yes
Alan Ruttenberg: yes ←
17:05:14 <MarkusK_> Ian: Action 320 was also done
Ian Horrocks: ACTION-320 was also done ←
17:05:14 <MarkusK_> Ian: Action 319?
17:05:44 <MarkusK_> Achille: The according review will be sent today.
Achille Fokoue: The according review will be sent today. ←
17:05:14 <MarkusK_> Ian: Is Action 311 progressing?
Ian Horrocks: Is ACTION-311 progressing? ←
17:05:20 <bcuencagrau> yes
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: yes ←
17:05:23 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, unmute me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, unmute me ←
17:05:24 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should no longer be muted ←
17:06:26 <MarkusK_> Bernardo: Action 311 will also be done soon.
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: ACTION-311 will also be done soon. ←
17:05:48 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me ←
17:05:48 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should now be muted ←
17:06:35 <MarkusK_> Ian: Ok, so all reviews are progressing well.
Ian Horrocks: Ok, so all reviews are progressing well. ←
17:06:49 <MarkusK_> Topic: Documents and Reviewing
17:06:49 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: References
17:07:23 <MarkusK_> Ian: Sandro, there will be some technical solution to automatically create references in documents?
Ian Horrocks: Sandro, there will be some technical solution to automatically create references in documents? ←
17:07:45 <MarkusK_> Sandro: There are currently some open issues, and the documents do not agree with the W3C policies on howe references should look. I will discuss this in email.
Sandro Hawke: There are currently some open issues, and the documents do not agree with the W3C policies on howe references should look. I will discuss this in email. ←
17:08:50 <MarkusK_> Ian: OK; it would be good if there would not be many additional changes to be done by the editors for fixing the references.
Ian Horrocks: OK; it would be good if there would not be many additional changes to be done by the editors for fixing the references. ←
17:09:19 <pfps> +1 to a single list
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to a single list ←
17:06:11 <pfps> q+ to talk about rdf:text
Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ to talk about rdf:text ←
17:06:12 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: +Evan_Wallace ←
17:06:12 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:06:16 <Zakim> +msmith
Zakim IRC Bot: +msmith ←
17:06:16 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
17:06:17 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to talk about rdf:text
Zakim IRC Bot: pfps, you wanted to talk about rdf:text ←
17:09:26 <MarkusK_> subtopic: Changes since last call
17:09:44 <MarkusK_> Ian: is it okay and suitable to have a single wiki page with changes since LC 1?
Ian Horrocks: is it okay and suitable to have a single wiki page with changes since LC 1? ←
17:09:45 <pfps> even if we don't need a list, it is an excellent idea, and we should make it prominent
Peter Patel-Schneider: even if we don't need a list, it is an excellent idea, and we should make it prominent ←
17:09:54 <pfps> how about in the announcement?
Peter Patel-Schneider: how about in the announcement? ←
17:10:11 <MarkusK_> Ian: There seems to be no strict requirement to have such a list.
Ian Horrocks: There seems to be no strict requirement to have such a list. ←
17:10:22 <pfps> OK
17:10:25 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Yes, but having one is clearly useful.
Sandro Hawke: Yes, but having one is clearly useful. ←
17:10:51 <MarkusK_> Ian: Okay, so we keep the single wiki page and do not add separate change lists to each document
Ian Horrocks: Okay, so we keep the single wiki page and do not add separate change lists to each document ←
17:11:20 <ewallace> Let's not document every minor editorial fix
Evan Wallace: Let's not document every minor editorial fix ←
17:11:21 <MarkusK_> Sandro: There are some changes that affect many documents anyway, but other changes might be local to some documents.
Sandro Hawke: There are some changes that affect many documents anyway, but other changes might be local to some documents. ←
17:11:26 <pfps> the advantage of a list (and it's in *the* list) is that it can point to last-call comments
Peter Patel-Schneider: the advantage of a list (and it's in *the* list) is that it can point to last-call comments ←
17:11:40 <pfps> it's on the wiki now
Peter Patel-Schneider: it's on the wiki now ←
17:11:43 <pfps> q+
17:11:50 <MarkusK_> Ian: Yes, but many changes have been merely editorial; it might be enough to record the major changes
Ian Horrocks: Yes, but many changes have been merely editorial; it might be enough to record the major changes ←
17:12:19 <MarkusK_> A single list of major changes was already created: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Changes_since_1st_Last_Call
A single list of major changes was already created: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Changes_since_1st_Last_Call ←
17:12:46 <pfps> go wild!
Peter Patel-Schneider: go wild! ←
17:13:05 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Could we retitle this to "Changes since Sept 2008" or similar since some documents were not in LC then.
Sandro Hawke: Could we retitle this to "Changes since Sept 2008" or similar since some documents were not in LC then. ←
17:13:19 <Zakim> +??P11
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P11 ←
17:13:29 <schneid> zakim, ??P11 is me
Michael Schneider: zakim, ??P11 is me ←
17:13:29 <Zakim> +schneid; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +schneid; got it ←
17:13:33 <schneid> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:13:33 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted ←
17:13:33 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:13:42 <MarkusK_> Ian: Ok, feel free to change this, Sandro.
Ian Horrocks: Ok, feel free to change this, Sandro. ←
17:14:06 <pfps> q+
17:14:14 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Publication Schedule
17:14:30 <pfps> q+ to discuss rdf:text document
Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ to discuss rdf:text document ←
17:14:32 <MarkusK_> Ian: The timeline is at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Timeline. This states that the review started yesterday, and there will be a publication round on Apr 15. Initially, we were imagining that all rec track documents would go to LC at this time. This may not be needed for all documents, esp. not for documents that need no CR phase. Those could have another public WD and then have the LC later.
Ian Horrocks: The timeline is at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Timeline. This states that the review started yesterday, and there will be a publication round on Apr 15. Initially, we were imagining that all rec track documents would go to LC at this time. This may not be needed for all documents, esp. not for documents that need no CR phase. Those could have another public WD and then have the LC later. ←
17:15:23 <jar> zakim, what conference is this?
Jonathan Rees: zakim, what conference is this? ←
17:15:23 <Zakim> this is SW_OWL()1:00PM conference code 69594
Zakim IRC Bot: this is SW_OWL()1:00PM conference code 69594 ←
17:15:34 <schneid> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
17:15:36 <pfps> +1
17:15:37 <christine> +q
Christine Golbreich: +q ←
17:15:43 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
17:15:43 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
17:15:43 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to discuss rdf:text document
Zakim IRC Bot: pfps, you wanted to discuss rdf:text document ←
17:15:44 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
17:15:46 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should no longer be muted ←
17:15:49 <IanH> ack michael
Ian Horrocks: ack michael ←
17:15:52 <Zakim> +jar
Zakim IRC Bot: +jar ←
17:16:30 <MarkusK_> mschneider: How long would LC be delayed in those cases? If its only some weeks, then we may also wait this short time.
Michael Schneider: How long would LC be delayed in those cases? If its only some weeks, then we may also wait this short time. ←
17:16:38 <ivan> yes
Ivan Herman: yes ←
17:16:44 <bijan> I would prefer that
Bijan Parsia: I would prefer that ←
17:17:02 <pfps> Primer in particular is not going to be ready for LC by the 15th
Peter Patel-Schneider: Primer in particular is not going to be ready for LC by the 15th ←
17:17:04 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:17:07 <bijan> Esp. since we might have to change the normative documents in response to 2nd last call
Bijan Parsia: Esp. since we might have to change the normative documents in response to 2nd last call ←
17:17:10 <MarkusK_> Ian: We may not need user facing documents at last call before CR of the other technical documents.
Ian Horrocks: We may not need user facing documents at last call before CR of the other technical documents. ←
17:17:14 <schneid> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:17:14 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted ←
17:17:17 <IanH> ack schneid
Ian Horrocks: ack schneid ←
17:17:30 <MarkusK_> MSchneider: That sounds good to me.
Michael Schneider: That sounds good to me. ←
17:17:32 <Zakim> +??P16
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P16 ←
17:17:46 <zimmer> Zkaim, ??P16 is me
Antoine Zimmermann: Zkaim, ??P16 is me ←
17:17:47 <MarkusK_> Christine: I do not think that this delay is needed. Some reviews were very late. But some user facing documents may still be ready for LC now.
Christine Golbreich: I do not think that this delay is needed. Some reviews were very late. But some user facing documents may still be ready for LC now. ←
17:17:48 <pfps> QRG needs *significant* work still, so I don't see how it can be ready
Peter Patel-Schneider: QRG needs *significant* work still, so I don't see how it can be ready ←
17:18:07 <zimmer> Zakim, ??P16 is me
Antoine Zimmermann: Zakim, ??P16 is me ←
17:18:07 <Zakim> +zimmer; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +zimmer; got it ←
17:18:16 <pfps> I don't think that *any* reviews are *late* yet.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I don't think that *any* reviews are *late* yet. ←
17:18:21 <bijan> I don't believe we have consensus that any of the UFD are ready for last call publication
Bijan Parsia: I don't believe we have consensus that any of the UFD are ready for last call publication ←
17:18:36 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:18:42 <IanH> ack christine
Ian Horrocks: ack christine ←
17:18:44 <MarkusK_> Christine: We do not need to publish all user-facing docs at the same time.
Christine Golbreich: We do not need to publish all user-facing docs at the same time. ←
17:18:45 <ewallace> It's less work to respond to simple Public WG pub than to LC
Evan Wallace: It's less work to respond to simple Public WG pub than to LC ←
17:18:48 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
17:18:59 <ewallace> so delaying can be a plus for the editors
Evan Wallace: so delaying can be a plus for the editors ←
17:19:01 <MarkusK_> Ian: I do not think any reviews were late yet, according to the timeline. Do you think that NF&R can go to LC now?
Ian Horrocks: I do not think any reviews were late yet, according to the timeline. Do you think that NF&R can go to LC now? ←
17:19:41 <MarkusK_> Christine: Yes, I think this is possible and it would be useful.
Christine Golbreich: Yes, I think this is possible and it would be useful. ←
17:19:09 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
17:19:15 <pfps> I think that NF&R needs significant work yet
Peter Patel-Schneider: I think that NF&R needs significant work yet ←
17:19:19 <alanr> as do I
Alan Ruttenberg: as do I ←
17:19:21 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
17:19:43 <schneid> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:19:43 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted ←
17:19:52 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:19:53 <MarkusK_> Ivan: I do not think that we have to make this decision now. We can always publish documents with the next publication round on short notice. We can make this decision when we have the formal vote on the other documents.
Ivan Herman: I do not think that we have to make this decision now. We can always publish documents with the next publication round on short notice. We can make this decision when we have the formal vote on the other documents. ←
17:20:08 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:20:14 <sandro> q+ to clarify what the decision means
Sandro Hawke: q+ to clarify what the decision means ←
17:20:43 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
17:20:43 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
17:20:49 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
17:21:03 <christine> +q
Christine Golbreich: +q ←
17:21:20 <ewallace> IanH: the schedule pressure on the UF documents is simply not as much as the others.
Ian Horrocks: the schedule pressure on the UF documents is simply not as much as the others. [ Scribe Assist by Evan Wallace ] ←
17:21:21 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
17:21:21 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
17:21:23 <MarkusK_> Ian: Ok, it should still be noted that the user-facing documents are not under the same publication pressure as the other technical documents.
Ian Horrocks: Ok, it should still be noted that the user-facing documents are not under the same publication pressure as the other technical documents. ←
17:21:47 <MarkusK_> Bijan: It might be good to publish all user-facing documents at once, since they address the same audience.
Bijan Parsia: It might be good to publish all user-facing documents at once, since they address the same audience. ←
17:21:31 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:21:35 <IanH> ack sandro
Ian Horrocks: ack sandro ←
17:21:35 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to clarify what the decision means
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to clarify what the decision means ←
17:22:49 <MarkusK_> Sandro: As I read the timeline, we only agreed to publish all documents on Apr 15, with the normative specs being in LC. We could in any case publish snapshots of all documents, possibly as public WDs.
Sandro Hawke: As I read the timeline, we only agreed to publish all documents on Apr 15, with the normative specs being in LC. We could in any case publish snapshots of all documents, possibly as public WDs. ←
17:21:56 <bijan> +1 to sandro
Bijan Parsia: +1 to sandro ←
17:22:10 <bijan> +1 to publishing as WD
Bijan Parsia: +1 to publishing as WD ←
17:22:12 <alanr> that was my understanding
Alan Ruttenberg: that was my understanding ←
17:22:23 <bijan> That seems reasonable
Bijan Parsia: That seems reasonable ←
17:22:46 <christine> several of us understood different
Christine Golbreich: several of us understood different ←
17:22:53 <bijan> Not just the editor, but the WG
Bijan Parsia: Not just the editor, but the WG ←
17:23:46 <MarkusK_> Ian: I agree, but it is probably good to bring the issue up now.
Ian Horrocks: I agree, but it is probably good to bring the issue up now. ←
17:23:17 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:23:33 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
17:23:37 <ivan> ack christine
Ivan Herman: ack christine ←
17:24:34 <MarkusK_> Christine: I am disappointed if the user-facing docs should be delayed based on delays in other documents, since NF&R is ready.
Christine Golbreich: I am disappointed if the user-facing docs should be delayed based on delays in other documents, since NF&R is ready. ←
17:23:53 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:24:15 <sandro> NO ONE IS SAYING NF&R WONT BE PUBLISHED ON THIS SCHEDULE.
Sandro Hawke: NO ONE IS SAYING NF&R WONT BE PUBLISHED ON THIS SCHEDULE. ←
17:24:17 <ewallace> LC vs none-LC ness of sync'ed pub this time was not clear but not a big issue for me
Evan Wallace: LC vs none-LC ness of sync'ed pub this time was not clear but not a big issue for me ←
17:24:21 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:24:25 <pfps> q+
17:24:35 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
17:24:59 <MarkusK_> Ivan: I do not understand what the problem is
Ivan Herman: I do not understand what the problem is ←
17:25:03 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:25:36 <pfps> Alan's review is actually six days *early*
Peter Patel-Schneider: Alan's review is actually six days *early* ←
17:25:39 <MarkusK_> Sandro: I also think that there is a misunderstanding here; we are clearly going to publish all documents. Only the status "LC" is what is discussed now.
Sandro Hawke: I also think that there is a misunderstanding here; we are clearly going to publish all documents. Only the status "LC" is what is discussed now. ←
17:26:05 <pfps> q+
17:26:18 <MarkusK_> Christine: My problem is that the user-facing documents are not under sufficient pressure for publication, and they are always late.
Christine Golbreich: My problem is that the user-facing documents are not under sufficient pressure for publication, and they are always late. ←
17:26:26 <bijan> Regardless of the reviews, the document doesn't have WG consensus for LC
Bijan Parsia: Regardless of the reviews, the document doesn't have WG consensus for LC ←
17:26:29 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
17:26:45 <MarkusK_> Pfps: There are diverging opinions on what should be done with NF&R. These should be discussed sometime soon.
Peter Patel-Schneider: There are diverging opinions on what should be done with NF&R. These should be discussed sometime soon. ←
17:26:49 <bijan> Plus, I had comments long ago on NF&R and only got a response very recently
Bijan Parsia: Plus, I had comments long ago on NF&R and only got a response very recently ←
17:27:01 <pfps> q+ to talk about rdf:text
Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ to talk about rdf:text ←
17:27:03 <christine> when can it be solved ??
Christine Golbreich: when can it be solved ?? ←
17:27:04 <MarkusK_> Ian: Ok, we should take this discussion to email. We do not need to decide this now.
Ian Horrocks: Ok, we should take this discussion to email. We do not need to decide this now. ←
17:27:07 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:27:26 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:27:31 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
17:27:31 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to talk about rdf:text
Zakim IRC Bot: pfps, you wanted to talk about rdf:text ←
17:28:06 <MarkusK_> I note that the Primer has been updated a lot recently; it should not be perceived as a blocker for NF&R.
I note that the Primer has been updated a lot recently; it should not be perceived as a blocker for NF&R. ←
17:28:07 <ivan> zakim, mute me
Ivan Herman: zakim, mute me ←
17:28:07 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should now be muted ←
17:28:44 <MarkusK_> Topic: rdf:text
17:28:38 <pfps> Pfps: rdf:text needs to be on the agenda next week if it is not ready by then
Peter Patel-Schneider: rdf:text needs to be on the agenda next week if it is not ready by then [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
17:29:17 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:29:25 <alanr> yes
Alan Ruttenberg: yes ←
17:29:35 <alanr> then we have a problem
Alan Ruttenberg: then we have a problem ←
17:29:38 <MarkusK_> Ian: It seems we are now waiting on RIF here
Ian Horrocks: It seems we are now waiting on RIF here ←
17:29:40 <pfps> Pfps: rdf:text is *fine* for us (at least the parts we care about)
Peter Patel-Schneider: rdf:text is *fine* for us (at least the parts we care about) [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
17:29:48 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Yes, Axel needs to come back to us. As it looks now, we can not move to LC without removing Section 5.
Sandro Hawke: Yes, Axel needs to come back to us. As it looks now, we can not move to LC without removing Section 5. ←
17:30:24 <MarkusK_> Topic: Last Call Comments
17:30:24 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Un-Acknowledged Replies
17:30:56 <MarkusK_> Ian: We are still wating for a number of acknowledgments. People are being chased to reply soon.
Ian Horrocks: We are still wating for a number of acknowledgments. People are being chased to reply soon. ←
17:30:07 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:30:12 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:30:15 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
17:30:15 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
17:31:26 <MarkusK_> Bijan: I think there must be some time after which we do not have to wait any longer.
Bijan Parsia: I think there must be some time after which we do not have to wait any longer. ←
17:30:43 <pfps> we don't need a deadline, as we are going into 2nd last call
Peter Patel-Schneider: we don't need a deadline, as we are going into 2nd last call ←
17:30:50 <pfps> but we should get them to reply ASAP
Peter Patel-Schneider: but we should get them to reply ASAP ←
17:31:07 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
17:31:07 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
17:31:12 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:31:16 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
17:31:23 <bijan> Not even for CR
Bijan Parsia: Not even for CR ←
17:31:30 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:31:36 <MarkusK_> Ian: Is there an official process for this?
Ian Horrocks: Is there an official process for this? ←
17:32:08 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:32:14 <MarkusK_> Sandro: We should at least contact all people who have not replied when publishing the next LC. We can ask them to check if their complaints are still valid for the new documents.
Sandro Hawke: We should at least contact all people who have not replied when publishing the next LC. We can ask them to check if their complaints are still valid for the new documents. ←
17:32:29 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:32:32 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
17:33:07 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
17:33:07 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
17:33:14 <MarkusK_> Bijan: I think we did all that we could for satisfying people, but we have no obligation to satisfy everybody. So I think there must be some point when we can move forward, even if the next publication is not LC but CR.
Bijan Parsia: I think we did all that we could for satisfying people, but we have no obligation to satisfy everybody. So I think there must be some point when we can move forward, even if the next publication is not LC but CR. ←
17:33:21 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:33:53 <MarkusK_> Ian: Ok, but for now sending out the email notice seems to be a good solution.
Ian Horrocks: Ok, but for now sending out the email notice seems to be a good solution. ←
17:33:25 <bijan> I'm fine with that
Bijan Parsia: I'm fine with that ←
17:33:58 <uli> yes
Uli Sattler: yes ←
17:34:00 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
17:34:04 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:34:04 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Non-Positive Acknowledgments
17:34:07 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
17:34:16 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:34:20 <MarkusK_> Ian: Any comments on OWLlink?
Ian Horrocks: Any comments on OWLlink? ←
17:34:44 <MarkusK_> Alan: Yes, I will take an action to send a follow up on this, suggesting a member submission.
Alan Ruttenberg: Yes, I will take an action to send a follow up on this, suggesting a member submission. ←
17:33:57 <alanr> DIG
Alan Ruttenberg: DIG ←
17:34:53 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:34:55 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
17:35:13 <MarkusK_> ACTION: Alan to follow up comment ML2 45 to suggest making a W3C member submission.
ACTION: Alan to follow up comment ML2 45 to suggest making a W3C member submission. ←
17:35:13 <trackbot> Created ACTION-324 - Follow up comment ML2 45 to suggest making a W3C member submission. [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2009-04-08].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-324 - Follow up comment ML2 45 to suggest making a W3C member submission. [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2009-04-08]. ←
17:35:18 <pfps> Ralf is not unhappy with 51a
Peter Patel-Schneider: Ralf is not unhappy with 51a ←
17:35:25 <alanr> he's "dealing"
Alan Ruttenberg: he's "dealing" ←
17:35:27 <alanr> :)
Alan Ruttenberg: :) ←
17:35:40 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:35:45 <MarkusK_> Ian: It also seems that 51a has been addressed as good as possible. At least Ralf stated that he is not unhappy now.
Ian Horrocks: It also seems that 51a has been addressed as good as possible. At least Ralf stated that he is not unhappy now. ←
17:36:13 <MarkusK_> Topic: Technical Issues Arising
17:36:13 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: RDF-Based Semantics and n-ary dataranges
17:36:54 <MarkusK_> Ian: Michael spotted a new issue regarding the RDF semantics on n-ary datatypes.
Ian Horrocks: Michael spotted a new issue regarding the RDF semantics on n-ary datatypes. ←
17:36:07 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:36:08 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
17:36:08 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should no longer be muted ←
17:36:09 <pfps> q+
17:36:10 <schneid> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
17:36:17 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
17:36:23 <IanH> ack schneid
Ian Horrocks: ack schneid ←
17:36:24 <pfps> q+
17:37:04 <MarkusK_> Michael: These are really multiple issues. Regarding the RDF semantics, I am unsure how to model n-ary datatypes properly. I can write something down but there is no guideline in RDF how to do this. So is this really needed?
Scribe problem: the name 'Michael' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Michael Smith Michael Schneider . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.
Unknown Michael: These are really multiple issues. Regarding the RDF semantics, I am unsure how to model n-ary datatypes properly. I can write something down but there is no guideline in RDF how to do this. So is this really needed? ←
17:37:18 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:37:43 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:37:47 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
17:38:12 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:38:12 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
17:38:13 <MarkusK_> pfps: I think that nothing needs to be changed in the RDF semantics for nary. The nary case corresponds exactly to the unary case.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I think that nothing needs to be changed in the RDF semantics for nary. The nary case corresponds exactly to the unary case. ←
17:38:46 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:38:48 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
17:38:50 <MarkusK_> Michael: There is a bug that I did not fix yet.
Scribe problem: the name 'Michael' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Michael Smith Michael Schneider . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.
Unknown Michael: There is a bug that I did not fix yet. ←
17:42:30 <schneid> schneid: a concrete problem of the current state of the RDF-Based Semantics is that the semantic conditions for the n-ary value restrictions are currently formally broken
Michael Schneider: a concrete problem of the current state of the RDF-Based Semantics is that the semantic conditions for the n-ary value restrictions are currently formally broken [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
17:39:03 <MarkusK_> Pfps: I think I can supply you with a one-line fix for this.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I think I can supply you with a one-line fix for this. ←
17:39:06 <alanr> zakim, who is here?
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, who is here? ←
17:39:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan, bmotik (muted), MarkusK_, Ivan (muted), Sandro, uli (muted), Zhe (muted), IanH, bcuencagrau (muted), christine, baojie, Achille,
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan, bmotik (muted), MarkusK_, Ivan (muted), Sandro, uli (muted), Zhe (muted), IanH, bcuencagrau (muted), christine, baojie, Achille, ←
17:39:09 <Zakim> ... Alan, Evan_Wallace, msmith, schneid, jar, zimmer
Zakim IRC Bot: ... Alan, Evan_Wallace, msmith, schneid, jar, zimmer ←
17:39:10 <Zakim> On IRC I see zimmer, schneid, jar, msmith, ewallace, alanr, Achille, baojie, bcuencagrau, Zhe, IanH, christine, MarkusK_, bmotik, ivan, Zakim, RRSAgent, pfps, bijan, sandro, uli,
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see zimmer, schneid, jar, msmith, ewallace, alanr, Achille, baojie, bcuencagrau, Zhe, IanH, christine, MarkusK_, bmotik, ivan, Zakim, RRSAgent, pfps, bijan, sandro, uli, ←
17:39:12 <Zakim> ... trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: ... trackbot ←
17:39:32 <MarkusK_> Michael: Ok, then there are two further issues I have. One is regarding conformance: does a conformant tool need to support reasoning with naries?
Scribe problem: the name 'Michael' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Michael Smith Michael Schneider . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.
Unknown Michael: Ok, then there are two further issues I have. One is regarding conformance: does a conformant tool need to support reasoning with naries? ←
17:40:05 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:40:18 <MarkusK_> Ian: No, nary is an extension that is not mandatory for conformance. It was never intended to be mandatory.
Ian Horrocks: No, nary is an extension that is not mandatory for conformance. It was never intended to be mandatory. ←
17:40:24 <pfps> isn't this kind of thing much better in email?
Peter Patel-Schneider: isn't this kind of thing much better in email? ←
17:40:27 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
17:40:41 <schneid> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:40:41 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted ←
17:41:11 <MarkusK_> Ivan: I could not find it in the Conformance document that nary is not required.
Ivan Herman: I could not find it in the Conformance document that nary is not required. ←
17:41:49 <MarkusK_> Ian: It might be implicit there. Isn't it that the conformance document refers to OWL ontologies, and that this term only needs to include unary datatypes only?
Ian Horrocks: It might be implicit there. Isn't it that the conformance document refers to OWL ontologies, and that this term only needs to include unary datatypes only? ←
17:41:24 <alanr> syntax says: "All data ranges explicitly supported by this specification are unary"
Alan Ruttenberg: syntax says: "All data ranges explicitly supported by this specification are unary" ←
17:42:24 <alanr> couldn't hurt to say so one more time
Alan Ruttenberg: couldn't hurt to say so one more time ←
17:42:28 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:42:34 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
17:42:40 <MarkusK_> Ivan: Maybe we should be more explicit about this.
Ivan Herman: Maybe we should be more explicit about this. ←
17:42:49 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
17:43:19 <MarkusK_> Alan: I also believe that it is clear that the RDF semantics does not need to deal with nary dataypes, since the according document is a note only. Nary datatypes are clearly an optional extension.
Alan Ruttenberg: I also believe that it is clear that the RDF semantics does not need to deal with nary dataypes, since the according document is a note only. Nary datatypes are clearly an optional extension. ←
17:43:14 <schneid> no, thats not the point!
Michael Schneider: no, thats not the point! ←
17:43:28 <bijan> +1 to alanr
Bijan Parsia: +1 to alanr ←
17:43:29 <schneid> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
17:43:34 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:43:37 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
17:43:37 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should no longer be muted ←
17:43:37 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
17:43:52 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
17:43:56 <MarkusK_> Alan: But we could still make this explicit in the conformance document.
Alan Ruttenberg: But we could still make this explicit in the conformance document. ←
17:44:04 <Zakim> -MarkusK_
Zakim IRC Bot: -MarkusK_ ←
17:45:08 <MarkusK_> – Scribe lost audio –
– Scribe lost audio – ←
17:45:13 <sandro> understood MarkusK_
Sandro Hawke: understood MarkusK_ ←
17:44:46 <msmith> The relevant statement in conformance about datatypes is at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Conformance_and_Test_Cases#Datatype_Map_Conformance
Michael Smith: The relevant statement in conformance about datatypes is at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Conformance_and_Test_Cases#Datatype_Map_Conformance ←
17:44:58 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me ←
17:44:58 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted ←
17:45:23 <pfps> RDF-Based Semantics says:
Peter Patel-Schneider: RDF-Based Semantics says: ←
17:45:25 <pfps> if
17:45:27 <pfps> s sequence of p1 , … , pn ∈ IR ,
Peter Patel-Schneider: s sequence of p1 , … , pn ∈ IR , ←
17:45:28 <pfps> 〈 z , c 〉 ∈ IEXT(I(owl:someValuesFrom)) ,
Peter Patel-Schneider: 〈 z , c 〉 ∈ IEXT(I(owl:someValuesFrom)) , ←
17:45:30 <pfps> 〈 z , s 〉 ∈ IEXT(I(owl:onProperties)) p1 , … , pn ∈ IP ,
Peter Patel-Schneider: 〈 z , s 〉 ∈ IEXT(I(owl:onProperties)) p1 , … , pn ∈ IP , ←
17:45:31 <pfps> then
Peter Patel-Schneider: then ←
17:45:33 <pfps> ICEXT(z) = { x | ∃ y1 , … , yn : 〈 x , yk 〉 ∈ IEXT(pk) for each 1 ≤ k ≤ n and 〈 y1 , … , yn 〉 ∈ ICEXT(c) }
Peter Patel-Schneider: ICEXT(z) = { x | ∃ y1 , … , yn : 〈 x , yk 〉 ∈ IEXT(pk) for each 1 ≤ k ≤ n and 〈 y1 , … , yn 〉 ∈ ICEXT(c) } ←
17:45:35 <pfps> This is perfectly OK. C is a class - it instances can be *anything*,
Peter Patel-Schneider: This is perfectly OK. C is a class - it instances can be *anything*, ←
17:45:36 <pfps> including tuples.
Peter Patel-Schneider: including tuples. ←
17:45:39 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:45:42 <IanH> ack schneid
Ian Horrocks: ack schneid ←
17:46:09 <pfps> and complements work fine as well
Peter Patel-Schneider: and complements work fine as well ←
17:46:17 <alanr> would it help to move the nary in direct semantics to the note?
Alan Ruttenberg: would it help to move the nary in direct semantics to the note? ←
17:46:27 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
17:46:31 <pfps> q+
17:46:35 <sandro> schnei: In both semantics documents, there are concrete semantics for this n-ary stuff. Something is said about complements of nary, nary data ranges, ... there is something said about these value description. These are in. The quesiton is, are these normative? Do thay have to be supported by every conformant reasoner?
Michael Schneider: In both semantics documents, there are concrete semantics for this n-ary stuff. Something is said about complements of nary, nary data ranges, ... there is something said about these value description. These are in. The quesiton is, are these normative? Do thay have to be supported by every conformant reasoner? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:46:57 <sandro> ian: Maybe this shouldn't be in the Direct Semantics?
Ian Horrocks: Maybe this shouldn't be in the Direct Semantics? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:47:02 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:47:09 <sandro> schneid: If it's in one, it should be in both, yes?
Michael Schneider: If it's in one, it should be in both, yes? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:47:13 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
17:47:49 <schneid> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
17:48:00 <sandro> bmotik: No conformant reasoner needs to do anything with any n-ary stuff. From the syntax spec alone, you can't do anything with the hooks. The spec says all datatypes are arity 1. So no conformant reasoner needs to implement that.
Boris Motik: No conformant reasoner needs to do anything with any n-ary stuff. From the syntax spec alone, you can't do anything with the hooks. The spec says all datatypes are arity 1. So no conformant reasoner needs to implement that. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:47:30 <bijan> Since they have no predicates!
Bijan Parsia: Since they have no predicates! ←
17:48:08 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:48:10 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
17:48:12 <MarkusK_> – Scribe is back –
– Scribe is back – ←
17:48:14 <sandro> bmotik: I don't see why the RDF-based semantics is worried about that.
Boris Motik: I don't see why the RDF-based semantics is worried about that. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:48:20 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:48:47 <sandro> schneid: Just to give you an idea what I'm talking about ... You can do calculations with combinations of n-ary value restrictions, ...
Michael Schneider: Just to give you an idea what I'm talking about ... You can do calculations with combinations of n-ary value restrictions, ... [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:48:51 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:48:56 <MarkusK_> Michael: You can do calculation with nary datatypes without knowing about data ranges
Scribe problem: the name 'Michael' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Michael Smith Michael Schneider . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.
Unknown Michael: You can do calculation with nary datatypes without knowing about data ranges ←
17:48:56 <sandro> bmotik: But you don't have any names. That's the point.
Boris Motik: But you don't have any names. That's the point. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:49:10 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:49:13 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
17:49:15 <schneid> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:49:15 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted ←
17:49:21 <MarkusK_> Michael: Ok, then that is a different issue.
Scribe problem: the name 'Michael' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Michael Smith Michael Schneider . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.
Unknown Michael: Ok, then that is a different issue. ←
17:49:30 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:49:34 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
17:49:46 <MarkusK_> Alan: I was wondering if this could be solved by moving the conditions on direct semantics for naries into the nary note. Then the note would be self-contained.
Alan Ruttenberg: I was wondering if this could be solved by moving the conditions on direct semantics for naries into the nary note. Then the note would be self-contained. ←
17:50:15 <MarkusK_> Pfps: I do not know why we need to discuss this. The documents seem to be in good shape. I do not see that any of the documents currently needs changing to be compatible with nary datatypes at all.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I do not know why we need to discuss this. The documents seem to be in good shape. I do not see that any of the documents currently needs changing to be compatible with nary datatypes at all. ←
17:50:13 <bijan> er
Bijan Parsia: er ←
17:50:14 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:50:19 <bijan> q+ to say why moving into the note is not a great idea
Bijan Parsia: q+ to say why moving into the note is not a great idea ←
17:50:19 <IanH> ack schneid
Ian Horrocks: ack schneid ←
17:50:19 <schneid> All <p1,p2>.D1 and All<p1,p2>.D2 iff All <p1,p2>.(D1 & D2)
Michael Schneider: All <p1,p2>.D1 and All<p1,p2>.D2 iff All <p1,p2>.(D1 & D2) ←
17:50:26 <schneid> q-
Michael Schneider: q- ←
17:50:27 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
17:50:31 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
17:50:31 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was not muted, bijan ←
17:50:31 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
17:50:32 <Zakim> bijan, you wanted to say why moving into the note is not a great idea
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan, you wanted to say why moving into the note is not a great idea ←
17:51:23 <MarkusK_> Bijan: I thought about Alan's suggestion. The one reason why I would not want to do this is that the note is just one specific instance of a possible nary extension. The general hook in the specs allows other extensions, too. This is why I would like to keep this hook in the specs.
Bijan Parsia: I thought about Alan's suggestion. The one reason why I would not want to do this is that the note is just one specific instance of a possible nary extension. The general hook in the specs allows other extensions, too. This is why I would like to keep this hook in the specs. ←
17:51:24 <schneid> <"a","b> in { 1, 2 }
Michael Schneider: <"a","b> in { 1, 2 } ←
17:51:25 <ivan> +1 to bijan
Ivan Herman: +1 to bijan ←
17:51:37 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
17:51:37 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
17:51:39 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
17:51:39 <Zakim> schneid was not muted, schneid
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid was not muted, schneid ←
17:51:44 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:51:58 <pfps> q+
17:52:07 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
17:52:12 <MarkusK_> Ian: Michael, can you comment on the notes you pasted in IRC.
Ian Horrocks: Michael, can you comment on the notes you pasted in IRC. ←
17:52:37 <MarkusK_> Michael: Well, it was an example to illustrate that there is a bug in the RDF semantics that is inacceptible.
Scribe problem: the name 'Michael' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Michael Smith Michael Schneider . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.
Unknown Michael: Well, it was an example to illustrate that there is a bug in the RDF semantics that is inacceptible. ←
17:52:47 <schneid> ok
Michael Schneider: ok ←
17:52:49 <bijan> If there's a bug, let's fix it
Bijan Parsia: If there's a bug, let's fix it ←
17:52:50 <schneid> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:52:50 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted ←
17:52:53 <pfps> I need a demonstration of the bug
Peter Patel-Schneider: I need a demonstration of the bug ←
17:52:55 <MarkusK_> Pfps: I think this is wrong, technically. There is no problem.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I think this is wrong, technically. There is no problem. ←
17:53:09 <MarkusK_> Ian: I think this discussion needs to be continued via email.
Ian Horrocks: I think this discussion needs to be continued via email. ←
17:53:08 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
17:53:12 <bijan> But I think the current setup is the right one
Bijan Parsia: But I think the current setup is the right one ←
17:53:17 <schneid> The set theories underlying RDF-Based Semantics and Direct Semantics are equal
Michael Schneider: The set theories underlying RDF-Based Semantics and Direct Semantics are equal ←
17:53:21 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:53:37 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: xsd:dateTime
17:53:37 <ivan> zakim, mute me
Ivan Herman: zakim, mute me ←
17:53:37 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should now be muted ←
17:53:48 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:53:55 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
17:53:58 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
17:54:06 <MarkusK_> Ian: Boris sent an email last week, stating that it might be useful to include xsd:dateTime now, too. There was some discussion already.
Ian Horrocks: Boris sent an email last week, stating that it might be useful to include xsd:dateTime now, too. There was some discussion already. ←
17:54:06 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:54:09 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
17:54:14 <ewallace> q+
Evan Wallace: q+ ←
17:54:24 <IanH> ack ewallace
Ian Horrocks: ack ewallace ←
17:54:36 <MarkusK_> Ewallace: I sent an email today regarding this issue. The question at hand is whether we want to support full xsd:dateTime. I am okay with Boris' proposal, but I want to see the consequences. I still would like to have a look at the recent changes for xsd:dateTimeStamp in the specs
Evan Wallace: I sent an email today regarding this issue. The question at hand is whether we want to support full xsd:dateTime. I am okay with Boris' proposal, but I want to see the consequences. I still would like to have a look at the recent changes for xsd:dateTimeStamp in the specs ←
17:54:51 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
17:55:19 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
17:55:23 <alanr> q+ alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ alanr ←
17:55:29 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:55:48 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:56:06 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
17:56:40 <MarkusK_> Ian: So should we defer this decision to next week?
Ian Horrocks: So should we defer this decision to next week? ←
17:56:52 <MarkusK_> Ewallace: Maybe Boris can clarify right now.
Evan Wallace: Maybe Boris can clarify right now. ←
17:57:16 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:57:18 <pfps> sounds good to me
Peter Patel-Schneider: sounds good to me ←
17:57:21 <MarkusK_> Boris: When I did the change for xsd:dateTimeStamp, I noticed that only one more bullet point would be needed to include xsd:dateTime as well. And there needs to be some statement of what the facets are for xsd:dateTime. And I would like to include the new type in all profiles that support xsd:dateTimeStamp as well.
Boris Motik: When I did the change for xsd:dateTimeStamp, I noticed that only one more bullet point would be needed to include xsd:dateTime as well. And there needs to be some statement of what the facets are for xsd:dateTime. And I would like to include the new type in all profiles that support xsd:dateTimeStamp as well. ←
17:57:21 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
17:58:05 <pfps> q+
17:58:49 <MarkusK_> Alan: There might be some open issues regarding the facets. Some facets may have rather confusing effects. I also think that there is no very strong motivation to include this data type.
Alan Ruttenberg: There might be some open issues regarding the facets. Some facets may have rather confusing effects. I also think that there is no very strong motivation to include this data type. ←
17:58:14 <ewallace> Alan raises a point I made in today's email
Evan Wallace: Alan raises a point I made in today's email ←
17:58:15 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
17:58:17 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:58:35 <schneid> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:58:35 <Zakim> schneid was already muted, schneid
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid was already muted, schneid ←
17:58:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:58:56 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
17:59:30 <ewallace> Where?
Evan Wallace: Where? ←
17:59:50 <MarkusK_> Pfps: The earlier issue was that values without time zones did not fit at all into the earlier semantics. This issue has been solved by the recent changes. You can still use timezoned values, but also non-timezoned values. Issues and some confusion mainly arises when comparing these two kinds.
Peter Patel-Schneider: The earlier issue was that values without time zones did not fit at all into the earlier semantics. This issue has been solved by the recent changes. You can still use timezoned values, but also non-timezoned values. Issues and some confusion mainly arises when comparing these two kinds. ←
18:00:24 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
18:00:28 <alanr> in variance with xml schema, bijan
Alan Ruttenberg: in variance with xml schema, bijan ←
18:00:45 <ewallace> several? 1681 I think.
Evan Wallace: several? 1681 I think. ←
18:00:56 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:01:08 <ewallace> q+
Evan Wallace: q+ ←
18:01:14 <MarkusK_> Boris: I hope that the XML Schema group comes up with a notion of comparability that is acceptable to us. If not, then we should complain with them. I think the change is well-motivated by many ontologies that are now using xsd:dateTime already.
Boris Motik: I hope that the XML Schema group comes up with a notion of comparability that is acceptable to us. If not, then we should complain with them. I think the change is well-motivated by many ontologies that are now using xsd:dateTime already. ←
18:01:58 <MarkusK_> Markus: +1 to Boris
Markus Krötzsch: +1 to Boris ←
18:01:25 <IanH> ack ewallace
Ian Horrocks: ack ewallace ←
18:01:30 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:01:37 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:01:38 <pfps> +1 to adding, and adding an example
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to adding, and adding an example ←
18:02:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:02:43 <MarkusK_> Ian: So, Evan, you are basically happy introducing dateTime?
Ian Horrocks: So, Evan, you are basically happy introducing dateTime? ←
18:03:12 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:03:20 <IanH> PROPOSED: OWL 2 will include xsd:dateTime datatype
PROPOSED: OWL 2 will include xsd:dateTime datatype ←
18:03:24 <pfps> +1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU ←
18:03:28 <msmith> +1
Michael Smith: +1 ←
18:03:29 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
18:03:30 <MarkusK_> Markus: +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
18:03:33 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
18:03:35 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
18:03:38 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
18:03:43 <zimmer> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
18:03:43 <alanr> -.99 science commons (not formally objecting)
Alan Ruttenberg: -.99 science commons (not formally objecting) ←
18:03:44 <ewallace> +1 (with additional text per email discussion)
Evan Wallace: +1 (with additional text per email discussion) ←
18:03:45 <Achille> +1
Achille Fokoue: +1 ←
18:03:48 <bcuencagrau> +1
18:03:50 <christine> +1
Christine Golbreich: +1 ←
18:04:04 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
18:04:07 <Zhe> 0
18:04:12 <IanH> RESOLVED: OWL 2 will include xsd:dateTime datatype
RESOLVED: OWL 2 will include xsd:dateTime datatype ←
18:04:47 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
18:04:47 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
18:11:26 <bmotik> I've added the formal part of xsd:dateTime to both Profiles and the Syntax. I'll add an example or two later this week.
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
Boris Motik: I've added the formal part of xsd:dateTime to both Profiles and the Syntax. I'll add an example or two later this week. ←
18:05:08 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Documentation for Differences between OWL 1 and OWL 2
18:05:06 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:05:08 <MarkusK_> q+
q+ ←
18:05:09 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
18:05:11 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:05:14 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
18:05:14 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
18:05:21 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
18:05:34 <MarkusK_> Ian: There is currently some duplication of changes from OWL 1 to OWL 2 in various documents. Is this useful or should this be consolidated somewhere?
Ian Horrocks: There is currently some duplication of changes from OWL 1 to OWL 2 in various documents. Is this useful or should this be consolidated somewhere? ←
18:06:09 <MarkusK_> Bijan: I think it should be in one document. I think a list of changes and features would be better than a complete explanation.
Bijan Parsia: I think it should be in one document. I think a list of changes and features would be better than a complete explanation. ←
18:06:30 <ewallace> an enumeration?
Evan Wallace: an enumeration? ←
18:06:30 <IanH> ack MarkusK_
Ian Horrocks: ack MarkusK_ ←
18:06:32 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
18:09:03 <MarkusK_> Markus: The primer already contains a detailed explanation of changes with examples, and I would not want to drop this.
Markus Krötzsch: The primer already contains a detailed explanation of changes with examples, and I would not want to drop this. ←
18:16:05 <MarkusK_> Section in the Primer: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Primer#Guide_to_OWL_2_for_OWL_1_users
(No events recorded for 7 minutes)
Section in the Primer: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Primer#Guide_to_OWL_2_for_OWL_1_users ←
18:06:37 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
18:06:39 <uli> yes
Uli Sattler: yes ←
18:06:45 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:06:45 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
18:07:05 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:07:10 <christine> we cannot hear you
Christine Golbreich: we cannot hear you ←
18:07:18 <bijan> I want only *one* list
Bijan Parsia: I want only *one* list ←
18:07:18 <ewallace> That is what NF&R is for
Evan Wallace: That is what NF&R is for ←
18:07:20 <bijan> I can hear you
Bijan Parsia: I can hear you ←
18:07:23 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:07:42 <bijan> I object to it
Bijan Parsia: I object to it ←
18:08:07 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
18:08:07 <ivan> ack ivan
Ivan Herman: ack ivan ←
18:09:49 <MarkusK_> Ivan: I think that this content should not be in the Primer. In particular, the NF&R is a document that is especially dedicated to explaining the changes. We should not duplicate this.
Ivan Herman: I think that this content should not be in the Primer. In particular, the NF&R is a document that is especially dedicated to explaining the changes. We should not duplicate this. ←
18:08:42 <MarkusK_> q+
q+ ←
18:08:51 <IanH> qq?
Ian Horrocks: qq? ←
18:08:53 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:09:11 <bijan> Overview is a good place
Bijan Parsia: Overview is a good place ←
18:09:13 <christine> +q
Christine Golbreich: +q ←
18:09:31 <ewallace> +1 to Ivan's position
Evan Wallace: +1 to Ivan's position ←
18:09:37 <IanH> ack sandro
Ian Horrocks: ack sandro ←
18:09:38 <christine> +1
Christine Golbreich: +1 ←
18:10:02 <ewallace> OK with an enumeration of owl1-owl2 delta somewhere
Evan Wallace: OK with an enumeration of owl1-owl2 delta somewhere ←
18:10:15 <bijan> +1 to ewallace
Bijan Parsia: +1 to ewallace ←
18:10:54 <schneid> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
18:11:11 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
18:11:26 <alanr> sandro, NF&R. File under R
Alan Ruttenberg: sandro, NF&R. File under R ←
18:11:39 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:11:58 <uli> +1 for leaving out 'changes to OWL 1' from Primer
Uli Sattler: +1 for leaving out 'changes to OWL 1' from Primer ←
18:11:59 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:12:13 <MarkusK_> Bijan: I disagree with Markus because the Primer should introduce the language as it is, but not be mainly a transitional document.
Bijan Parsia: I disagree with Markus because the Primer should introduce the language as it is, but not be mainly a transitional document. ←
18:12:26 <sandro> bijan: The primer should be an introduction for people coming new to OWL 2 -- there shouldn't be much spent on transitional material.
Bijan Parsia: The primer should be an introduction for people coming new to OWL 2 -- there shouldn't be much spent on transitional material. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:12:16 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:12:16 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
18:12:23 <MarkusK_> q+ to clarify his viewpoint
q+ to clarify his viewpoint ←
18:12:38 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:12:45 <christine> +q
Christine Golbreich: +q ←
18:13:09 <IanH> ack MarkusK_
Ian Horrocks: ack MarkusK_ ←
18:13:09 <Zakim> MarkusK_, you wanted to clarify his viewpoint
Zakim IRC Bot: MarkusK_, you wanted to clarify his viewpoint ←
18:13:43 <MarkusK_> Ian: We should keep this discussion short.
Ian Horrocks: We should keep this discussion short. ←
18:13:46 <sandro> MarkusK_: I don't really care where the transitional content, currently in an appendix of the primer, lives, but I think it would be a real shame to drop it.
Markus Krötzsch: I don't really care where the transitional content, currently in an appendix of the primer, lives, but I think it would be a real shame to drop it. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:14:21 <MarkusK_> Markus: I would like to clarify my point: I do not think that the content that is now in the Primer needs to be in the Primer appendix that it is in now. I just think that this content is valuable to some people, and it should be placed *somewhere* instead of being dropped.
Markus Krötzsch: I would like to clarify my point: I do not think that the content that is now in the Primer needs to be in the Primer appendix that it is in now. I just think that this content is valuable to some people, and it should be placed *somewhere* instead of being dropped. ←
18:13:29 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:13:39 <bijan> No doubt that is is useful to a certain audience ... but we can put it elsewhere ... wiki, webont wiki, etc.
Bijan Parsia: No doubt that is is useful to a certain audience ... but we can put it elsewhere ... wiki, webont wiki, etc. ←
18:14:05 <bijan> ? I think the short list should be in the overview :)
Bijan Parsia: ? I think the short list should be in the overview :) ←
18:14:19 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
18:14:19 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should no longer be muted ←
18:14:19 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:14:25 <ivan> ack christine
Ivan Herman: ack christine ←
18:14:25 <IanH> ack christine
Ian Horrocks: ack christine ←
18:14:23 <sandro> christine: I think the right place for all this stuff is NF&R, and I'm hearing most other folks agreeing.
Christine Golbreich: I think the right place for all this stuff is NF&R, and I'm hearing most other folks agreeing. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:15:14 <MarkusK_> Christine: I think the Primer should point to NF&R for these changes.
Christine Golbreich: I think the Primer should point to NF&R for these changes. ←
18:14:28 <schneid> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF-Based_Semantics#Appendix:_Changes_from_the_OWL_RDF-Compatible_Semantics_.28Informative.29
Michael Schneider: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF-Based_Semantics#Appendix:_Changes_from_the_OWL_RDF-Compatible_Semantics_.28Informative.29 ←
18:14:29 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:14:34 <IanH> ack schneid
Ian Horrocks: ack schneid ←
18:14:56 <sandro> schneid: The RDF-Based Semantics has already a section listing, very technically, the differences from OWL 1.
Michael Schneider: The RDF-Based Semantics has already a section listing, very technically, the differences from OWL 1. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:16:29 <schneid> schneid: if something of the RDF-Based Semantics difference should go to a userfacing document, then only one line of high level explanation, with a link to the RDF-Based Semantics: because it is very technical and RDF specific in most cases
Michael Schneider: if something of the RDF-Based Semantics difference should go to a userfacing document, then only one line of high level explanation, with a link to the RDF-Based Semantics: because it is very technical and RDF specific in most cases [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
18:15:22 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:15:31 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
18:15:37 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:15:43 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
18:15:58 <pfps> q+
18:16:00 <pfps> q-
18:16:05 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:16:48 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
18:16:50 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:16:53 <pfps> q+
18:17:00 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:17:15 <MarkusK_> Topic: Open Issues
18:17:15 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Issue 146
18:16:05 <alanr> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Apr/0012.html
Alan Ruttenberg: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Apr/0012.html ←
18:17:28 <schneid> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
18:17:28 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted ←
18:17:29 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:17:33 <IanH> ack sandro
Ian Horrocks: ack sandro ←
18:18:08 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:18:20 <MarkusK_> Alan: I sent a proposal via email.
Alan Ruttenberg: I sent a proposal via email. ←
18:19:00 <alanr_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0009.html
Alan Ruttenberg: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0009.html ←
18:18:28 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
18:18:30 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:18:57 <MarkusK_> Sandro: I agree that this is a long-standing issue in the Semantic Web architecture. But I think there are problems with the current proposal as I also mentioned in my emails.
Sandro Hawke: I agree that this is a long-standing issue in the Semantic Web architecture. But I think there are problems with the current proposal as I also mentioned in my emails. ←
18:19:16 <alanr_> we aren't make Manch part of the language yet, are we? It's a note.
Alan Ruttenberg: we aren't make Manch part of the language yet, are we? It's a note. ←
18:19:20 <alanr_> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
18:19:37 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
18:20:38 <MarkusK_> Bijan: I agree that this is a problem; but there are practical solutions that people use right now already.
Bijan Parsia: I agree that this is a problem; but there are practical solutions that people use right now already. ←
18:19:40 <sandro> bijan: Like Sandro, I think the tool layer is adequate if not ideal for solving this. If some real solution comes along later, great.
Bijan Parsia: Like Sandro, I think the tool layer is adequate if not ideal for solving this. If some real solution comes along later, great. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:19:42 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:19:43 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:19:43 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
18:19:54 <alanr_> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
18:19:57 <uli> q+
Uli Sattler: q+ ←
18:20:23 <IanH> ack alanr_
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr_ ←
18:20:44 <sandro> pfps: If you wanted to dump an ontology with and without labels, with all the info needed to go both ways, they'd both be a lot more complicated.
Peter Patel-Schneider: If you wanted to dump an ontology with and without labels, with all the info needed to go both ways, they'd both be a lot more complicated. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:21:03 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
18:21:05 <pfps> everything agrees that label display is nice
Peter Patel-Schneider: everything agrees that label display is nice ←
18:21:05 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:21:06 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:21:11 <sandro> q+ to ask if OBO is making these labels unique and stable, then why don't they just make them part of the IRIs?
Sandro Hawke: q+ to ask if OBO is making these labels unique and stable, then why don't they just make them part of the IRIs? ←
18:21:23 <IanH> ack uli
Ian Horrocks: ack uli ←
18:21:24 <uli> ack /me
Uli Sattler: ack /me ←
18:21:40 <MarkusK_> Alan: I did not mean this to be a mandatory change but rather a proposal to the community on how to solve this problem.
Alan Ruttenberg: I did not mean this to be a mandatory change but rather a proposal to the community on how to solve this problem. ←
18:21:46 <alanr_> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
18:22:00 <MarkusK_> Uli: I would rather like to see a solution that uses SKOS.
Uli Sattler: I would rather like to see a solution that uses SKOS. ←
18:22:02 <sandro> uli: use SKOS instead -- it has the formalization for handling labels.
Uli Sattler: use SKOS instead -- it has the formalization for handling labels. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:22:18 <sandro> alan: That's reasonable, but Alan Rector told me that people should have a choice of which the labels are.
Alan Ruttenberg: That's reasonable, but Alan Rector told me that people should have a choice of which the labels are. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:22:45 <sandro> alan: Rector doesn't want to be tied to SKOS.
Alan Ruttenberg: Rector doesn't want to be tied to SKOS. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:22:41 <bijan> Manchester, including Alan Rector, does not support this proposal
Bijan Parsia: Manchester, including Alan Rector, does not support this proposal ←
18:22:49 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
18:23:00 <alanr_> q-
Alan Ruttenberg: q- ←
18:23:01 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
18:23:02 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
18:23:06 <Zakim> -Alan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Alan ←
18:23:16 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:23:20 <alanr_> hang on calling back in
Alan Ruttenberg: hang on calling back in ←
18:23:26 <MarkusK_> Ian: We should at least get a straw poll on this issue. There are many people on the queue already.
Ian Horrocks: We should at least get a straw poll on this issue. There are many people on the queue already. ←
18:23:32 <Zakim> +Alan_Ruttenberg
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alan_Ruttenberg ←
18:23:53 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:23:56 <MarkusK_> Ivan: My point is that solving this issue in one single serialization makes me uneasy. Even if this is a note, I do not think we should single out Manchester syntax here.
Ivan Herman: My point is that solving this issue in one single serialization makes me uneasy. Even if this is a note, I do not think we should single out Manchester syntax here. ←
18:24:16 <sandro> ivan: I am uneasy solving this in one serialization --- it ought to be solved in all of them, if that were possible.
Ivan Herman: I am uneasy solving this in one serialization --- it ought to be solved in all of them, if that were possible. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:24:08 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
18:24:08 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
18:24:11 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
18:24:14 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:24:31 <sandro> q-
Sandro Hawke: q- ←
18:24:38 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:24:38 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
18:24:38 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:24:55 <MarkusK_> Bijan: I do not want to put in this proposal, since I feel that there is no sufficient consensus that this is the right approach to solve the problem.
Bijan Parsia: I do not want to put in this proposal, since I feel that there is no sufficient consensus that this is the right approach to solve the problem. ←
18:25:25 <bijan> I suggest that alan propose it in other form. If people get behind it, we can always add an extension.
Bijan Parsia: I suggest that alan propose it in other form. If people get behind it, we can always add an extension. ←
18:25:26 <MarkusK_> Ian: Alan, would you lie in the road if we reject your proposal?
Ian Horrocks: Alan, would you lie in the road if we reject your proposal? ←
18:25:26 <MarkusK_> Alan: No, but I would, obviously, be strongly opposed.
Alan Ruttenberg: No, but I would, obviously, be strongly opposed. ←
18:25:29 <IanH> PROPOSED: Manchester Syntax will-not specify how to use labels in addition to/instead of entity URIs
PROPOSED: Manchester Syntax will-not specify how to use labels in addition to/instead of entity URIs ←
18:25:34 <ewallace> +0
Evan Wallace: +0 ←
18:25:35 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
18:25:36 <pfps> +1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU ←
18:25:37 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
18:25:38 <msmith> +1
Michael Smith: +1 ←
18:25:39 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
18:25:40 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
18:25:42 <bcuencagrau> 0
18:25:44 <Zhe> +0
18:25:44 <MarkusK_> Markus: +0
Markus Krötzsch: +0 ←
18:25:45 <schneid> +1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
18:25:45 <christine> 0
18:25:47 <Achille> 0
Achille Fokoue: 0 ←
18:25:49 <alanr_> -.99 (not formally objecting)
Alan Ruttenberg: -.99 (not formally objecting) ←
18:25:55 <zimmer> 0
18:25:59 <baojie> 0
18:26:00 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
18:26:09 <IanH> RESOLVED: Manchester Syntax will-not specify how to use labels in addition to/instead of entity URIs
RESOLVED: Manchester Syntax will-not specify how to use labels in addition to/instead of entity URIs ←
18:27:04 <uli> alanr_, it looks as if http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#secskosspecialization says that you can extend labels
Uli Sattler: alanr_, it looks as if http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#secskosspecialization says that you can extend labels ←
18:26:39 <MarkusK_> Ian: In fact, we have some time left.
Ian Horrocks: In fact, we have some time left. ←
18:26:45 <pfps> q+
18:26:48 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:26:52 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
18:26:52 <MarkusK_> Topic: Test Cases
18:26:52 <MarkusK_> Ian: It is probably not needed to discuss test cases?
Ian Horrocks: It is probably not needed to discuss test cases? ←
18:26:56 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
18:27:02 <IanH> ack sandro
Ian Horrocks: ack sandro ←
18:27:09 <MarkusK_> Pfps: Some tests may need cleanup after the recent changes of the functional syntax.
Peter Patel-Schneider: Some tests may need cleanup after the recent changes of the functional syntax. ←
18:27:12 <msmith> q+ to address both
Michael Smith: q+ to address both ←
18:27:17 <MarkusK_> q+
q+ ←
18:27:21 <MarkusK_> q-
q- ←
18:27:22 <IanH> ack msmith
Ian Horrocks: ack msmith ←
18:27:23 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to address both
Zakim IRC Bot: msmith, you wanted to address both ←
18:27:26 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:27:37 <pfps> Good
Peter Patel-Schneider: Good ←
18:27:43 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Is the machinery for publicly gathering tests working well?
Sandro Hawke: Is the machinery for publicly gathering tests working well? ←
18:28:05 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:28:18 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:28:25 <schneid> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
18:28:25 <Zakim> schneid was already muted, schneid
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid was already muted, schneid ←
18:28:30 <MarkusK_> msmith: There is already a test harness, but nobody has stepped forward to use it so far.
Michael Smith: There is already a test harness, but nobody has stepped forward to use it so far. ←
18:28:31 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:29:00 <bijan> You sure did
Bijan Parsia: You sure did ←
18:29:07 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:29:19 <MarkusK_> Ian: Birte Glimm at Oxford is working on getting Hermit tested based on this harness.
Ian Horrocks: Birte Glimm at Oxford is working on getting Hermit tested based on this harness. ←
18:29:22 <sandro> effective april 1, Ian is moving back to Manchester!
Sandro Hawke: effective april 1, Ian is moving back to Manchester! ←
18:29:23 <MarkusK_> Topic: Additional Other Business
18:29:23 <MarkusK_> Ian: AOB?
Ian Horrocks: AOB? ←
18:29:31 <Zakim> -Alan_Ruttenberg
Zakim IRC Bot: -Alan_Ruttenberg ←
18:29:32 <Zhe> bye
18:29:32 <alanr_> bye
Alan Ruttenberg: bye ←
18:29:32 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: -Evan_Wallace ←
18:29:32 <Zakim> -bmotik
Zakim IRC Bot: -bmotik ←
18:29:34 <Zakim> -bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: -bijan ←
18:29:34 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
18:29:34 <Zakim> -baojie
Zakim IRC Bot: -baojie ←
18:29:35 <Zakim> -msmith
Zakim IRC Bot: -msmith ←
18:29:35 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
18:29:35 <zimmer> bye
Antoine Zimmermann: bye ←
18:29:37 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
Zakim IRC Bot: -bcuencagrau ←
18:29:40 <Zakim> -Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: -Zhe ←
18:29:42 <Zakim> -zimmer
Zakim IRC Bot: -zimmer ←
18:29:44 <Zakim> -jar
Zakim IRC Bot: -jar ←
18:29:46 <Zakim> -IanH
Zakim IRC Bot: -IanH ←
18:29:48 <Zakim> -MarkusK_
Zakim IRC Bot: -MarkusK_ ←
18:29:50 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: -Peter_Patel-Schneider ←
18:29:52 <Zakim> -christine
Zakim IRC Bot: -christine ←
18:29:54 <Zakim> -uli
Zakim IRC Bot: -uli ←
18:29:59 <Zakim> -schneid
Zakim IRC Bot: -schneid ←
18:30:06 <IanH> RRSAgent, make records public
Ian Horrocks: RRSAgent, make records public ←
18:30:14 <uli> bye
Uli Sattler: bye ←
18:30:19 <Zakim> -Achille
Zakim IRC Bot: -Achille ←
18:30:20 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended ←
18:30:21 <Zakim> Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan, bmotik, Ivan, MarkusK_, Sandro, christine, uli, Zhe, IanH, baojie, bcuencagrau, Achille, Alan, Evan_Wallace, msmith, schneid, jar,
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan, bmotik, Ivan, MarkusK_, Sandro, christine, uli, Zhe, IanH, baojie, bcuencagrau, Achille, Alan, Evan_Wallace, msmith, schneid, jar, ←
18:30:24 <Zakim> ... zimmer, Alan_Ruttenberg
Zakim IRC Bot: ... zimmer, Alan_Ruttenberg ←
20:58:02 <alanr> zakim, pointer
(No events recorded for 147 minutes)
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, pointer ←
20:58:02 <Zakim> I don't understand 'pointer', alanr
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'pointer', alanr ←
20:58:06 <alanr> rrsagent, pointer
Alan Ruttenberg: rrsagent, pointer ←
20:58:06 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/01-owl-irc#T20-58-06
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/01-owl-irc#T20-58-06 ←
Formatted by CommonScribe