edit

OWL Working Group

Minutes of 15 April 2009

Present
Peter Patel-Schneider, Michael Smith, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Bijan Parsia, Christine Golbreich, Ian Horrocks, Markus Krötzsch, Ivan Herman, Sandro Hawke, Jie Bao, Rinke Hoekstra, Alan Ruttenberg, Michael Schneider, Boris Motik, Uli Sattler, Jeff Pan, Evan Wallace, Zhe Wu, Sebastian Rudolph
Regrets
Achille Fokoue, Elisa Kendall
Chair
Ian Horrocks
Scribe
Michael Smith
IRC Log
Original
Resolutions
  1. Accept Previous Minutes (8 April) http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-04-08 link
  2. WG will send LC comment to POWDER WG as per Ivan's draft link
  3. Primer is ready for publication as OWD link
Topics
<scribenick> PRESENT: Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, christine, IanH, MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, baojie, Rinke, Alan Ruttenberg, Michael Schneider, boris motik, uli sattler, jeff pan, evan wallace, zhe, sebastian
<scribenick> CHAIR: Ian Horrocks
<msmith> REGRETS: Achille, ElisaKendall
16:39:10 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-owl-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-owl-irc

16:56:55 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started

(No events recorded for 17 minutes)

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

16:57:02 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider

Zakim IRC Bot: +Peter_Patel-Schneider

16:57:11 <pfps> pfps has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.04.15/Agenda

Peter Patel-Schneider: pfps has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.04.15/Agenda

16:57:24 <pfps> OMIT: zakim, this is owl
16:57:24 <Zakim> pfps, this was already SW_OWL()1:00PM

Zakim IRC Bot: pfps, this was already SW_OWL()1:00PM

16:57:26 <Zakim> ok, pfps; that matches SW_OWL()1:00PM

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

16:57:30 <Zakim> + +1.202.408.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.202.408.aaaa

16:59:17 <Zakim> + +86528aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: + +86528aabb

16:59:28 <Zakim> +??P1

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1

16:59:31 <bijan> zakim, ??p1 is me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, ??p1 is me

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

Zakim IRC Bot: +bijan; got it

16:59:39 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, 86528aabb is me

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, 86528aabb is me

16:59:39 <Zakim> sorry, bcuencagrau, I do not recognize a party named '86528aabb'

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, bcuencagrau, I do not recognize a party named '86528aabb'

16:59:43 <Zakim> + +2

Zakim IRC Bot: + +2

16:59:50 <bijan> OMIT: zkaim, aabb is bcuencagrau
16:59:51 <Zakim> + +1.603.897.aadd

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.603.897.aadd

16:59:58 <bijan> OMIT: zakim even
17:00:08 <bijan> zakim, �aabb is bcuencagrau�

Bijan Parsia: zakim, �aabb is bcuencagrau�

17:00:08 <Zakim> sorry, bijan, I do not recognize a party named '�aabb'

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, bijan, I do not recognize a party named '�aabb'

17:00:11 <Zakim> +??P6

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P6

17:00:19 <bcuencagrau> zakim, aabb  is me

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: zakim, aabb is me

17:00:19 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +bcuencagrau; got it

17:00:26 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me

17:00:26 <Zakim> +Ian_Horrocks

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ian_Horrocks

17:00:26 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should now be muted

17:00:27 <Zakim> - +2

Zakim IRC Bot: - +2

17:00:38 <IanH> zakim, Ian_Horrocks is IanH

Ian Horrocks: zakim, Ian_Horrocks is IanH

17:00:38 <Zakim> +IanH; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +IanH; got it

17:00:49 <msmith> OMIT: yes
17:00:54 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

17:00:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, +1.603.897.aadd, ??P6, IanH

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, +1.603.897.aadd, ??P6, IanH

17:00:56 <Zakim> On IRC I see MarkusK_, christine, JeffP, Zhe, IanH, bcuencagrau, sebastian, Rinke, pfps, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, sandro, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see MarkusK_, christine, JeffP, Zhe, IanH, bcuencagrau, sebastian, Rinke, pfps, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, sandro, trackbot

17:00:59 <Zakim> +??P4

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4

17:01:04 <Zakim> +??P8

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P8

17:01:05 <Rinke> zakim, ??P4 is me

Rinke Hoekstra: zakim, ??P4 is me

17:01:05 <Zakim> +Rinke; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Rinke; got it

17:01:10 <Rinke> zakim, mute me

Rinke Hoekstra: zakim, mute me

17:01:10 <Zakim> Rinke should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Rinke should now be muted

17:01:16 <msmith> scribenick: msmith

(Scribe set to Michael Smith)

17:01:17 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip

Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip

17:01:17 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made

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

17:01:18 <Zakim> +Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan

17:01:22 <Zakim> +Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro

17:01:22 <christine> zakim, ??P8 is me

Christine Golbreich: zakim, ??P8 is me

17:01:26 <Zakim> I already had ??P8 as MarkusK_, christine

Zakim IRC Bot: I already had ??P8 as MarkusK_, christine

17:01:37 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

17:01:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, +1.603.897.aadd, ??P6, IanH, Rinke (muted), MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, +1.603.897.aadd, ??P6, IanH, Rinke (muted), MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro

17:01:54 <Zakim> On IRC I see uli, ivan, MarkusK_, christine, JeffP, Zhe, IanH, bcuencagrau, sebastian, Rinke, pfps, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, sandro, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see uli, ivan, MarkusK_, christine, JeffP, Zhe, IanH, bcuencagrau, sebastian, Rinke, pfps, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, sandro, trackbot

17:02:00 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aaee

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.518.276.aaee

17:02:04 <msmith> topic: Admin

1. Admin

17:02:05 <Zakim> -Rinke

Zakim IRC Bot: -Rinke

17:02:09 <christine> zakim, ??P6  is me

Christine Golbreich: zakim, ??P6 is me

17:02:13 <Zakim> +christine; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +christine; got it

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

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

17:02:15 <msmith> subtopic: Roll Call

1.1. Roll Call

17:02:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, +1.603.897.aadd, christine, IanH, MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, +1.518.276.aaee

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, +1.603.897.aadd, christine, IanH, MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, +1.518.276.aaee

17:02:26 <Zakim> +??P4

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4

17:02:27 <baojie> Zakim, aaee is baojie

Jie Bao: Zakim, aaee is baojie

17:02:27 <Zakim> On IRC I see baojie, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, christine, JeffP, Zhe, IanH, bcuencagrau, sebastian, Rinke, pfps, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, sandro, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see baojie, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, christine, JeffP, Zhe, IanH, bcuencagrau, sebastian, Rinke, pfps, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, sandro, trackbot

17:02:28 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P4 is me

Boris Motik: Zakim, ??P4 is me

17:02:33 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau.a

Zakim IRC Bot: +bcuencagrau.a

17:02:34 <msmith> subtopic: Agenda Amendments

1.2. Agenda Amendments

17:02:35 <Zakim> +baojie; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +baojie; got it

17:02:39 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +bmotik; got it

17:02:43 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me

17:02:45 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted

17:04:14 <IanH> ack JeffP

Ian Horrocks: ack JeffP

17:04:40 <msmith> jeffp: I'd like agenda amendment for negative property assertions

Jeff Pan: I'd like agenda amendment for negative property assertions

17:05:04 <msmith> ianh: ok, we'll try to do this in topic "(Technical) Issues Arising"

Ian Horrocks: ok, we'll try to do this in topic "(Technical) Issues Arising"

17:02:52 <msmith> subtopic: Previous Minutes

1.3. Previous Minutes

17:02:53 <Zakim> +??P16

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P16

17:03:26 <msmith> ianh: any comments on minutes?

Ian Horrocks: any comments on minutes?

17:02:57 <pfps> minutes OK by me

Peter Patel-Schneider: minutes OK by me

17:03:00 <uli> zakim, ??P16 is me

Uli Sattler: zakim, ??P16 is me

17:03:00 <Zakim> +uli; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +uli; got it

17:03:03 <Rinke> can you hear me?

Rinke Hoekstra: can you hear me?

17:03:06 <Zakim> + +22427aaff

Zakim IRC Bot: + +22427aaff

17:03:10 <Zakim> +Alan_Ruttenberg

Zakim IRC Bot: +Alan_Ruttenberg

17:03:12 <uli> zakim, mute me

Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me

17:03:12 <Zakim> uli should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted

17:03:13 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P4 is someone-else

Boris Motik: Zakim, ??P4 is someone-else

17:03:14 <Zakim> I already had ??P4 as bmotik, bmotik

Zakim IRC Bot: I already had ??P4 as bmotik, bmotik

17:03:18 <uli> Rinke, I couldn't hear you

Uli Sattler: Rinke, I couldn't hear you

17:03:18 <Rinke> zakim, ??P4 is me

Rinke Hoekstra: zakim, ??P4 is me

17:03:18 <Zakim> I already had ??P4 as bmotik, Rinke

Zakim IRC Bot: I already had ??P4 as bmotik, Rinke

17:03:34 <pfps> "minutes OK by me"

Peter Patel-Schneider: "minutes OK by me"

17:03:37 <JeffP> zakim, aaff is me

Jeff Pan: zakim, aaff is me

17:03:37 <Zakim> +JeffP; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +JeffP; got it

17:03:39 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace

Zakim IRC Bot: +Evan_Wallace

17:03:42 <bmotik> Zakim, bmotik is Rinke

Boris Motik: Zakim, bmotik is Rinke

17:03:42 <Zakim> +Rinke; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Rinke; got it

17:03:52 <msmith> RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes (8 April) http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-04-08

RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes (8 April) http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-04-08

17:03:54 <bmotik> Zakim, +bcuencagrau.a is me

Boris Motik: Zakim, +bcuencagrau.a is me

17:03:55 <Zakim> sorry, bmotik, I do not recognize a party named '+bcuencagrau.a'

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, bmotik, I do not recognize a party named '+bcuencagrau.a'

17:03:58 <JeffP> q+

Jeff Pan: q+

17:04:04 <msmith> subtopic: Pending Review Action Items

1.4. Pending Review Action Items

17:04:04 <pfps> q+

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+

17:04:13 <bmotik> Zakim, bcuencagrau.a is me

Boris Motik: Zakim, bcuencagrau.a is me

17:04:13 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +bmotik; got it

17:04:17 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me

17:04:17 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted

17:04:53 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:04:56 <IanH> ack pfps

Ian Horrocks: ack pfps

17:05:17 <msmith> pfps: what about Elisa's review action (ACTION-321)

Peter Patel-Schneider: what about Elisa's review action (ACTION-321)

17:05:13 <ewallace> she said consider it done

Evan Wallace: she said consider it done

17:05:29 <msmith> ianh: she considers it done for this review round

Ian Horrocks: she considers it done for this review round

17:05:29 <pfps> OK to close it by me

Peter Patel-Schneider: OK to close it by me

17:05:29 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:05:51 <msmith> ianh: consider all pending done (320, 321, 329, 328, 326)

Ian Horrocks: consider all pending done (320, 321, 329, 328, 326)

17:06:05 <msmith> subtopic: Due and Overdue Actions

1.5. Due and Overdue Actions

17:06:22 <msmith> subsubtopic: ACTION-299
1.5.1. ACTION-299
17:06:38 <msmith> sandro: I don't know what links he was talking about.

Sandro Hawke: I don't know what links he was talking about.

17:06:31 <pfps> Maybe the links from NF&R, but these are intentional

Peter Patel-Schneider: Maybe the links from NF&R, but these are intentional

17:06:56 <msmith> ianh: there are references in NF&R that reference documents in the wiki.  e.g., there is a reference to punning

Ian Horrocks: there are references in NF&R that reference documents in the wiki. e.g., there is a reference to punning

17:07:24 <msmith> sandro: yesterday (or before) I sent an email to the list about links to the wiki

Sandro Hawke: yesterday (or before) I sent an email to the list about links to the wiki

17:07:37 <pfps> in any case NF&R is not in last call, so we don't need to fix it right now

Peter Patel-Schneider: in any case NF&R is not in last call, so we don't need to fix it right now

17:07:41 <christine> OMIT: +q
17:07:46 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

17:08:07 <pfps> RDF Semantics might be a bit more problematic

Peter Patel-Schneider: RDF Semantics might be a bit more problematic

17:08:08 <msmith> ianh: links to wiki seem like a bad idea - mutable

Ian Horrocks: links to wiki seem like a bad idea - mutable

17:08:25 <msmith> sandro: I'm not sure they're so bad, they may be the best we can do

Sandro Hawke: I'm not sure they're so bad, they may be the best we can do

17:08:31 <IanH> ack christine

Ian Horrocks: ack christine

17:08:46 <sandro> sandro: I do agree it's worth some effort to find better citations than links to wiki pages.

Sandro Hawke: I do agree it's worth some effort to find better citations than links to wiki pages. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

17:08:49 <msmith> christine: what should I do for these links?

Christine Golbreich: what should I do for these links?

17:08:53 <Zakim> -Rinke

Zakim IRC Bot: -Rinke

17:09:52 <msmith> ianh: it seems there is a reasonable justification for pointing at the wiki now and this is not time critical yet

Ian Horrocks: it seems there is a reasonable justification for pointing at the wiki now and this is not time critical yet

17:10:03 <msmith> ... what we have now is fine for a working draft

... what we have now is fine for a working draft

17:10:05 <IanH> ack bijan

Ian Horrocks: ack bijan

17:10:11 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:10:19 <Zakim> +??P4

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4

17:10:24 <Rinke> zakim, ??P4 is me

Rinke Hoekstra: zakim, ??P4 is me

17:10:24 <Zakim> +Rinke; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Rinke; got it

17:10:27 <Rinke> zakim, mute me

Rinke Hoekstra: zakim, mute me

17:10:27 <Zakim> Rinke should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Rinke should now be muted

17:10:32 <msmith> bijan: I have no problem with wiki mutability, if we can freeze specific pages.

Bijan Parsia: I have no problem with wiki mutability, if we can freeze specific pages.

17:10:41 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:10:50 <msmith> sandro: are you worried about vandalism if left unattended?

Sandro Hawke: are you worried about vandalism if left unattended?

17:11:04 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:11:31 <ewallace> +1 to IanH

Evan Wallace: +1 to IanH

17:11:37 <msmith> bijan: not so much vandalism.  more just unanticipated changes

Bijan Parsia: not so much vandalism. more just unanticipated changes

17:12:05 <msmith> ianh: we're considering ACTION-299 done

Ian Horrocks: we're considering ACTION-299 done

17:12:20 <sandro>  OMIT: action-299: closed

Sandro Hawke: OMIT: ACTION-299: closed

17:12:20 <trackbot> ACTION-299 Find and fix the to-wiki-links Jeremy complains about notes added

Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-299 Find and fix the to-wiki-links Jeremy complains about notes added

17:12:20 <trackbot> If you meant to close ACTION-299, please use 'close ACTION-299'

Trackbot IRC Bot: If you meant to close ACTION-299, please use 'close ACTION-299'

17:12:34 <sandro> close action-299

Sandro Hawke: close ACTION-299

17:12:14 <msmith> subsubtopic: ACTION-325
1.5.2. ACTION-325
17:12:34 <Zakim> +??P22

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P22

17:12:34 <trackbot> ACTION-299 Find and fix the to-wiki-links Jeremy complains about closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-299 Find and fix the to-wiki-links Jeremy complains about closed

17:12:43 <sandro> close action-325

Sandro Hawke: close ACTION-325

17:12:43 <trackbot> ACTION-325 Send a comment to the CURIE folks about us not using them. closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-325 Send a comment to the CURIE folks about us not using them. closed

17:12:49 <pfps> zakim, who is talking?

Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, who is talking?

17:12:49 <Zakim> I am sorry, pfps; I don't have the necessary resources to track talkers right now

Zakim IRC Bot: I am sorry, pfps; I don't have the necessary resources to track talkers right now

17:12:56 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:13:18 <msmith> subtopic: Which Document Should We Propose as a Citation for OWL 2 as a whole?

1.6. Which Document Should We Propose as a Citation for OWL 2 as a whole?

17:13:43 <msmith> ianh: current position seems to be recommend overview

Ian Horrocks: current position seems to be recommend overview

17:13:23 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:13:39 <pfps> OK by me, I guess

Peter Patel-Schneider: OK by me, I guess

17:13:40 <ivan_> yes

Ivan Herman: yes

17:13:45 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:13:46 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

17:13:47 <ewallace> Overview is the main entry point.

Evan Wallace: Overview is the main entry point.

17:13:47 <bijan> I'm reconciled enough to that, with grumpiness

Bijan Parsia: I'm reconciled enough to that, with grumpiness

17:14:03 <msmith> msmith: +1 to overview (which is why we made all WG authors)

Michael Smith: +1 to overview (which is why we made all WG authors)

17:14:13 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:14:23 <msmith> ianh: that was the intention of overview from last f2f

Ian Horrocks: that was the intention of overview from last f2f

17:14:44 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:14:53 <pfps> I'm happy with it.

Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm happy with it.

17:14:57 <ivan_> i'll ship it then...

Ivan Herman: i'll ship it then...

17:15:02 <msmith> ianh: ... we continue with overview as main citation point

Ian Horrocks: ... we continue with overview as main citation point

17:15:29 <msmith> subtopic: LC Comment to POWDER WG

1.7. LC Comment to POWDER WG

17:15:08 <IanH> PROPOSED: WG will send LC comment to POWDER WG as per Ivan's draft

PROPOSED: WG will send LC comment to POWDER WG as per Ivan's draft

17:15:13 <ivan_> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

17:15:14 <pfps> +1

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1

17:15:16 <IanH> +1

Ian Horrocks: +1

17:15:17 <bijan> +1

Bijan Parsia: +1

17:15:18 <Rinke> +1

Rinke Hoekstra: +1

17:15:19 <MarkusK_> +1

Markus Krötzsch: +1

17:15:23 <Zhe> +1

Zhe Wu: +1

17:15:25 <baojie> +1

Jie Bao: +1

17:15:25 <uli> +1

Uli Sattler: +1

17:15:26 <msmith> msmith: +1

Michael Smith: +1

17:15:27 <sebastian> +1

Sebastian Rudolph: +1

17:15:27 <christine> +1

Christine Golbreich: +1

17:15:36 <IanH> RESOLVED: WG will send LC comment to POWDER WG as per Ivan's draft

RESOLVED: WG will send LC comment to POWDER WG as per Ivan's draft

17:15:50 <msmith> ivan's draft: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Apr/0120.html

ivan's draft: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Apr/0120.html

17:16:14 <msmith> topic: Documents and Reviewing

2. Documents and Reviewing

17:16:45 <msmith> ianh: last week we punted on publishing the Primer.  I think it is now ready to pub.  Comments?

Ian Horrocks: last week we punted on publishing the Primer. I think it is now ready to pub. Comments?

17:16:29 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:16:32 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:16:35 <pfps> Primer looks good to me.

Peter Patel-Schneider: Primer looks good to me.

17:16:44 <christine> no!

Christine Golbreich: no!

17:16:45 <sebastian> (y)

Sebastian Rudolph: (y)

17:16:47 <uli> looks fine to me

Uli Sattler: looks fine to me

17:16:49 <ivan_> yes

Ivan Herman: yes

17:16:55 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:17:10 <bijan> No one has to like it in it's current form!

Bijan Parsia: No one has to like it in it's current form!

17:17:17 <bijan> By publishing we don't commit to it

Bijan Parsia: By publishing we don't commit to it

17:17:19 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:17:20 <msmith> christine: I haven't changed my mind since last week and do not want to see it published

Christine Golbreich: I haven't changed my mind since last week and do not want to see it published

17:17:47 <msmith> ... I would like a commitment for significant changes before last call

... I would like a commitment for significant changes before last call

17:18:17 <msmith> ianh: there is no positive commitment inherent in publishing, so such a commitment to force changes is inappropriate

Ian Horrocks: there is no positive commitment inherent in publishing, so such a commitment to force changes is inappropriate

17:18:16 <sandro> Christine, note that it currently says: "This Working Draft has undergone a complete rewrite since the previous version of 11 April 2008, to improve its readability and utility. Examples are now mostly also available in Turtle syntax. This document will undergo further significant revision before a final version is produced. "

Sandro Hawke: Christine, note that it currently says: "This Working Draft has undergone a complete rewrite since the previous version of 11 April 2008, to improve its readability and utility. Examples are now mostly also available in Turtle syntax. This document will undergo further significant revision before a final version is produced. "

17:18:20 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:18:21 <sandro> q?

Sandro Hawke: q?

17:18:23 <sandro> q+

Sandro Hawke: q+

17:18:28 <pfps> +1 to Ian

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to Ian

17:18:41 <IanH> ack sandro

Ian Horrocks: ack sandro

17:18:47 <msmith> christine: I don't want to commit to going to LC in the next publication

Christine Golbreich: I don't want to commit to going to LC in the next publication

17:19:07 <bijan> Standard boilerpalte:

Bijan Parsia: Standard boilerpalte:

17:19:07 <bijan> No Endorsement

Bijan Parsia: No Endorsement

17:19:08 <bijan> Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.

Bijan Parsia: Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.

17:19:11 <pfps> I did it.  :-)

Peter Patel-Schneider: I did it. :-)

17:19:15 <bijan> This is standard for WD

Bijan Parsia: This is standard for WD

17:19:17 <MarkusK_> +1 to Sandro stating that further revisions are in scope for us

Markus Krötzsch: +1 to Sandro stating that further revisions are in scope for us

17:19:36 <msmith> sandro: I think the text quoted above (authored by pfps) meets your goal

Sandro Hawke: I think the text quoted above (authored by pfps) meets your goal

17:19:40 <IanH> PROPOSED: Primer is ready for publication as OWD

PROPOSED: Primer is ready for publication as OWD

17:19:44 <pfps> +1 ALU

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU

17:19:47 <bcuencagrau> +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

17:19:49 <MarkusK_> +1

Markus Krötzsch: +1

17:19:49 <ivan_> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

17:19:51 <bijan> +1

Bijan Parsia: +1

17:19:52 <uli> +1

Uli Sattler: +1

17:19:52 <msmith> msmith: +1

Michael Smith: +1

17:19:53 <sebastian> +1

Sebastian Rudolph: +1

17:19:55 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

17:19:57 <Rinke> +1

Rinke Hoekstra: +1

17:19:59 <ewallace> +1

Evan Wallace: +1

17:20:01 <christine> 0-

Christine Golbreich: 0-

17:20:02 <Zakim> -Alan_Ruttenberg

Zakim IRC Bot: -Alan_Ruttenberg

17:20:06 <JeffP> 0

Jeff Pan: 0

17:20:08 <Zhe> +0

Zhe Wu: +0

17:20:09 <IanH> RESOLVED: Primer is ready for publication as OWD

RESOLVED: Primer is ready for publication as OWD

17:20:11 <baojie> 0

Jie Bao: 0

17:20:16 <christine> even no reviews!

Christine Golbreich: even no reviews!

17:20:39 <Zakim> +Alan_Ruttenberg

Zakim IRC Bot: +Alan_Ruttenberg

17:20:50 <sandro> alan: +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

17:21:32 <IanH> OMIT: Q?
17:21:32 <msmith> subtopic: Procedure for LC comments (in 2nd LC)

2.1. Procedure for LC comments (in 2nd LC)

17:21:49 <Rinke> zakim, who is talking?

Rinke Hoekstra: zakim, who is talking?

17:21:49 <Zakim> I am sorry, Rinke; I don't have the necessary resources to track talkers right now

Zakim IRC Bot: I am sorry, Rinke; I don't have the necessary resources to track talkers right now

17:21:54 <sandro> ian: Last time, we treated last call comments from WG members like we treated them from outside.  I think this was a mistake, overkill, with extra admin burden.

Ian Horrocks: Last time, we treated last call comments from WG members like we treated them from outside. I think this was a mistake, overkill, with extra admin burden. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

17:22:28 <msmith> ianh: last time we allowed lc comments from wg members.  We should change this because: I think this was a mistake because it added administrative burden, and interested parties should have already reviewed

Ian Horrocks: last time we allowed lc comments from wg members. We should change this because: I think this was a mistake because it added administrative burden, and interested parties should have already reviewed

17:22:33 <IanH> OMIT: Q?
17:22:38 <sandro> ian: I would expect that folks in the WG have *already* *reviewed* these documents, and given their feedback already.

Ian Horrocks: I would expect that folks in the WG have *already* *reviewed* these documents, and given their feedback already. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

17:22:48 <sandro> Ian; I think we should be quicker in dealing with the comments.

Sandro Hawke: Ian; I think we should be quicker in dealing with the comments.

17:22:51 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

17:22:54 <msmith> ... we also need to be quicker responding to lc comments

... we also need to be quicker responding to lc comments

17:22:58 <IanH> ack bijan

Ian Horrocks: ack bijan

17:23:37 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:23:41 <msmith> bijan: are we pretty committed to thinking we have everything fixed (presentation and technical)?  if so, then we can dispose of things pretty quickly.

Bijan Parsia: are we pretty committed to thinking we have everything fixed (presentation and technical)? if so, then we can dispose of things pretty quickly.

17:23:47 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

17:24:01 <sandro> rrsagent, make record public

Sandro Hawke: rrsagent, make record public

17:24:23 <schneid> zakim, [IPcaller] is me

Michael Schneider: zakim, [IPcaller] is me

17:24:23 <Zakim> +schneid; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +schneid; got it

17:24:27 <schneid> zakim, mute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me

17:24:27 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted

17:24:27 <msmith> ianh: last time we took a long time just to allocate resources for response.  that consumed a lot of time.  chairs might delegate actions more this time around

Ian Horrocks: last time we took a long time just to allocate resources for response. that consumed a lot of time. chairs might delegate actions more this time around

17:24:31 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:24:35 <Zakim> -Alan_Ruttenberg

Zakim IRC Bot: -Alan_Ruttenberg

17:24:37 <msmith> bijan: that sounds great.

Bijan Parsia: that sounds great.

17:24:58 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:25:08 <msmith> ... but if we're not committed enough to push against push back - then we're definitely going to take a long time.  are we more confident this time?

... but if we're not committed enough to push against push back - then we're definitely going to take a long time. are we more confident this time?

17:25:04 <pfps> *I* feel more confident. :-)

Peter Patel-Schneider: *I* feel more confident. :-)

17:25:37 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:25:51 <msmith> bijan: so, then we should be quick and avoid revisiting the same debates

Bijan Parsia: so, then we should be quick and avoid revisiting the same debates

17:25:55 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:26:06 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:26:21 <Zakim> +Jonathan_Rees

Zakim IRC Bot: +Jonathan_Rees

17:26:26 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:26:46 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

17:26:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, +1.603.897.aadd, christine, IanH, MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, baojie, bmotik (muted), uli (muted), JeffP,

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, +1.603.897.aadd, christine, IanH, MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, baojie, bmotik (muted), uli (muted), JeffP,

17:26:48 <JeffP> q+

Jeff Pan: q+

17:26:49 <Zakim> ... Evan_Wallace, Rinke (muted), sebastian, schneid (muted), Jonathan_Rees

Zakim IRC Bot: ... Evan_Wallace, Rinke (muted), sebastian, schneid (muted), Jonathan_Rees

17:26:52 <Zakim> On IRC I see schneid, ivan_, ewallace, baojie, bmotik, uli, MarkusK_, christine, JeffP, Zhe, IanH, bcuencagrau, sebastian, Rinke, pfps, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, sandro,

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see schneid, ivan_, ewallace, baojie, bmotik, uli, MarkusK_, christine, JeffP, Zhe, IanH, bcuencagrau, sebastian, Rinke, pfps, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, sandro,

17:26:54 <Zakim> ... trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: ... trackbot

17:27:12 <msmith> jeffp: what are the deadlines for this lc?

Jeff Pan: what are the deadlines for this lc?

17:27:16 <IanH> ack JeffP

Ian Horrocks: ack JeffP

17:27:19 <msmith> ianh: 21 days from publish

Ian Horrocks: 21 days from publish

17:27:34 <msmith> sandro: apr 21 is expected pub date, so may 12 for end of lc period

Sandro Hawke: apr 21 is expected pub date, so may 12 for end of lc period

17:27:51 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

17:27:52 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:27:56 <IanH> ack bijan

Ian Horrocks: ack bijan

17:27:59 <alanr> OMIT: on irc now...
17:28:02 <msmith> ianh: last time we got comments well after end of comment period, we tried to deal with those.  I'm not sure what happens with those?

Ian Horrocks: last time we got comments well after end of comment period, we tried to deal with those. I'm not sure what happens with those?

17:28:18 <msmith> bijan: if we set an intended CR date, that will help.

Bijan Parsia: if we set an intended CR date, that will help.

17:28:28 <msmith> sandro: june 1 was a nominal CR date

Sandro Hawke: june 1 was a nominal CR date

17:28:28 <alanr> q+

Alan Ruttenberg: q+

17:28:42 <IanH> ack alanr

Ian Horrocks: ack alanr

17:29:02 <bijan> We should respond to comments before end of LC period :)

Bijan Parsia: We should respond to comments before end of LC period :)

17:29:02 <msmith> alanr: we said 3 weeks for comments, 3 weeks for response.  so 6 weeks from pub.

Alan Ruttenberg: we said 3 weeks for comments, 3 weeks for response. so 6 weeks from pub.

17:29:23 <bijan> +1 to alanr

Bijan Parsia: +1 to alanr

17:29:10 <msmith> sandro: ok, that means june 2

Sandro Hawke: ok, that means june 2

17:29:14 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:29:21 <pfps> q+

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+

17:29:27 <alanr> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q?

17:29:32 <msmith> alanr: we should be explicit about schedule dates in LC publish

Alan Ruttenberg: we should be explicit about schedule dates in LC publish

17:29:34 <pfps> q-

Peter Patel-Schneider: q-

17:29:44 <schneid> q+

Michael Schneider: q+

17:29:49 <msmith> sandro: yes, phrased in a friendly way

Sandro Hawke: yes, phrased in a friendly way

17:29:52 <alanr> +1 to being more friendly :)

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 to being more friendly :)

17:29:53 <pfps> q+

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+

17:30:16 <msmith> sandro: doesn't want to over commit to dates

Sandro Hawke: doesn't want to over commit to dates

17:30:20 <schneid> zakim, unmute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me

17:30:20 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should no longer be muted

17:30:26 <IanH> ack schneid

Ian Horrocks: ack schneid

17:30:31 <pfps> q-

Peter Patel-Schneider: q-

17:30:49 <msmith> schneid: should we see if everyone is available for a f2f at the end of may

Michael Schneider: should we see if everyone is available for a f2f at the end of may

17:30:53 <pfps> q+

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+

17:31:09 <msmith> ianh: we can check, but I think we're hoping to avoid another f2f.

Ian Horrocks: we can check, but I think we're hoping to avoid another f2f.

17:31:16 <msmith> ... we can schedule one just in case

... we can schedule one just in case

17:31:09 <sandro> June 1 is only 7 weeks away now, and we need 8 weeks lead time.

Sandro Hawke: June 1 is only 7 weeks away now, and we need 8 weeks lead time.

17:31:12 <IanH> ack pfps

Ian Horrocks: ack pfps

17:31:14 <schneid> q-

Michael Schneider: q-

17:31:23 <msmith> pfps: let's not have another f2f

Peter Patel-Schneider: let's not have another f2f

17:31:40 <msmith> ... let's schedule an extended telecon (whole afternoon) instead

... let's schedule an extended telecon (whole afternoon) instead

17:31:19 <bijan> +1 to peter

Bijan Parsia: +1 to peter

17:31:33 <alanr> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

17:31:33 <ivan_> +1 to peter

Ivan Herman: +1 to peter

17:31:40 <sandro> "virtual F2F" is the goofy name I've heard for that.

Sandro Hawke: "virtual F2F" is the goofy name I've heard for that.

17:31:41 <JeffP> unless the f2f is in Europe :-)

Jeff Pan: unless the f2f is in Europe :-)

17:31:57 <msmith> ianh: it would be pretty tough to have another f2f at such short notice

Ian Horrocks: it would be pretty tough to have another f2f at such short notice

17:32:07 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:32:18 <msmith> ... doing it by telecon is more economical with everyone's time

... doing it by telecon is more economical with everyone's time

17:32:22 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:32:31 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:32:43 <msmith> topic: (Technical) Issues Arising

3. (Technical) Issues Arising

17:32:52 <alanr> zakim, mute me

Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, mute me

17:32:52 <Zakim> sorry, alanr, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, alanr, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you

17:33:00 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:33:08 <msmith> subtopic: Negative Property Assertions (in RL)

3.1. Negative Property Assertions (in RL)

17:33:14 <alanr> zakim, who is here?

Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, who is here?

17:33:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, +1.603.897.aadd, christine, IanH, MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, baojie, bmotik (muted), uli (muted), JeffP,

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, +1.603.897.aadd, christine, IanH, MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, baojie, bmotik (muted), uli (muted), JeffP,

17:33:17 <Zakim> ... Evan_Wallace, Rinke (muted), sebastian, schneid, Jonathan_Rees

Zakim IRC Bot: ... Evan_Wallace, Rinke (muted), sebastian, schneid, Jonathan_Rees

17:33:18 <Zakim> On IRC I see alanr, schneid, ivan_, ewallace, baojie, bmotik, uli, MarkusK_, christine, JeffP, Zhe, IanH, bcuencagrau, sebastian, Rinke, pfps, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan,

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see alanr, schneid, ivan_, ewallace, baojie, bmotik, uli, MarkusK_, christine, JeffP, Zhe, IanH, bcuencagrau, sebastian, Rinke, pfps, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan,

17:33:21 <Zakim> ... sandro, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: ... sandro, trackbot

17:33:33 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:33:35 <alanr> zakim, Jonathan_Rees is alanr

Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, Jonathan_Rees is alanr

17:33:35 <Zakim> +alanr; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +alanr; got it

17:33:38 <sandro> Ciao, everyone.    Back to RIF F2F.

Sandro Hawke: Ciao, everyone. Back to RIF F2F.

17:33:41 <alanr> zakim, mute me

Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, mute me

17:33:41 <Zakim> alanr should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: alanr should now be muted

17:33:47 <Zakim> -Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro

17:33:56 <msmith> jeffp: last telecon we discussed n.p.a.'s in RL.  I did some investigation and I think it boils down to syntactic sugar.

Jeff Pan: last telecon we discussed n.p.a.'s in RL. I did some investigation and I think it boils down to syntactic sugar.

17:33:44 <uli> yes!

Uli Sattler: yes!

17:34:21 <msmith> jeffp: jos's comment was about if such syntactic sugar is appropriate

Jeff Pan: jos's comment was about if such syntactic sugar is appropriate

17:34:25 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:34:30 <pfps> pointer, please

Peter Patel-Schneider: pointer, please

17:37:05 <pfps> jjc's message is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/att-0051/index.html

Peter Patel-Schneider: jjc's message is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/att-0051/index.html

17:34:41 <IanH> OMIT: pointer to what?
17:34:42 <uli> q+ to answer to Jeff that 'we have learned from OWL lite that leaving out syntactic sugar from a profile is bad'

Uli Sattler: q+ to answer to Jeff that 'we have learned from OWL lite that leaving out syntactic sugar from a profile is bad'

17:34:46 <msmith> jeffp: jjc's email laid out why the syntactic sugar is problematic

Jeff Pan: jjc's email laid out why the syntactic sugar is problematic

17:34:49 <schneid> jeremy fears an idea he calls "negative triples" - whatever this is

Michael Schneider: jeremy fears an idea he calls "negative triples" - whatever this is

17:35:02 <bmotik> q+

Boris Motik: q+

17:35:13 <bijan> It's harmless, it was requested, add it

Bijan Parsia: It's harmless, it was requested, add it

17:35:18 <uli> zakim, unmute me

Uli Sattler: zakim, unmute me

17:35:18 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: uli should no longer be muted

17:35:19 <IanH> ack uli

Ian Horrocks: ack uli

17:35:19 <Zakim> OMIT: uli, you wanted to answer to Jeff that 'we have learned from OWL lite that leaving out syntactic sugar from a profile is bad'
17:35:26 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

17:35:41 <Zakim> -bijan

Zakim IRC Bot: -bijan

17:35:46 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me

17:35:46 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted

17:36:02 <JeffP> q+

Jeff Pan: q+

17:36:05 <IanH> ack bmotik

Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik

17:36:11 <msmith> uli: one design principle for all profiles is that if something can be expressed indirectly, it can be expressed directly.  i.e., so each profile is maximal in a certain sense.

Uli Sattler: one design principle for all profiles is that if something can be expressed indirectly, it can be expressed directly. i.e., so each profile is maximal in a certain sense.

17:36:38 <msmith> bmotik: jjc is wrong, there is no problem with the RDF.  we either have it in the language or not.

Boris Motik: jjc is wrong, there is no problem with the RDF. we either have it in the language or not.

17:36:58 <msmith> ... in RL it is *not* syntactic sugar, they can't be expressed in other ways

... in RL it is *not* syntactic sugar, they can't be expressed in other ways

17:37:02 <ivan_> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

17:37:13 <Zakim> +??P1

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1

17:37:16 <IanH> ack JeffP

Ian Horrocks: ack JeffP

17:37:19 <bijan> zakim, ??p1 is me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, ??p1 is me

17:37:19 <Zakim> +bijan; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +bijan; got it

17:37:58 <msmith> jeffp: bmotik's point that it is not syntactic sugar in RL is important

Jeff Pan: bmotik's point that it is not syntactic sugar in RL is important

17:38:01 <bmotik> q+

Boris Motik: q+

17:38:17 <msmith> ... folks at HP Bristol confirmed jjc's claim that the RDF will be problematic

... folks at HP Bristol confirmed jjc's claim that the RDF will be problematic

17:38:06 <pfps> q+ to ask what the problem is

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ to ask what the problem is

17:38:29 <msmith> ianh: do you have any better information about what the problem is?

Ian Horrocks: do you have any better information about what the problem is?

17:38:40 <uli>  clarification: do we talk about negative property or negative class assertions?

Uli Sattler: clarification: do we talk about negative property or negative class assertions?

17:38:57 <ivan_> q-

Ivan Herman: q-

17:39:06 <msmith> jeffp: if you have negative property assertions, you are negating triples, which is not specified in RDF

Jeff Pan: if you have negative property assertions, you are negating triples, which is not specified in RDF

17:38:58 <bmotik> This is not correct.

Boris Motik: This is not correct.

17:39:16 <bmotik> Negative property assertions are accompanied by a set of semantic conditions just like any other construct.

Boris Motik: Negative property assertions are accompanied by a set of semantic conditions just like any other construct.

17:39:20 <bmotik> There is *no* problem here.

Boris Motik: There is *no* problem here.

17:39:21 <IanH> ack bijan

Ian Horrocks: ack bijan

17:39:24 <msmith> jeffp: we need an agreement with the RDF working group

Jeff Pan: we need an agreement with the RDF working group

17:39:59 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:40:09 <ivan_> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

17:40:10 <schneid> q+

Michael Schneider: q+

17:40:10 <msmith> bijan: that argument doesn't make sense because there are alternative encodings.  the encoding we're using is intention revealing

Bijan Parsia: that argument doesn't make sense because there are alternative encodings. the encoding we're using is intention revealing

17:40:10 <pfps> q+ to say that functional properties already permits negative triples

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ to say that functional properties already permits negative triples

17:40:15 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:40:47 <msmith> ianh: how long should we discuss this given that we're unlikely to change this now?

Ian Horrocks: how long should we discuss this given that we're unlikely to change this now?

17:41:03 <msmith> ianh: we voted for them to be in already.

Ian Horrocks: we voted for them to be in already.

17:41:04 <alanr> q+

Alan Ruttenberg: q+

17:41:07 <pfps> no will from me to chuck them out.

Peter Patel-Schneider: no will from me to chuck them out.

17:41:08 <bmotik> Absolutely not!

Boris Motik: Absolutely not!

17:41:27 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:41:34 <msmith> jeffp: I think we voted that they were in, unless I found problems.  This is a problem.

Jeff Pan: I think we voted that they were in, unless I found problems. This is a problem.

17:41:42 <msmith> bijan: I disagree, this is not a new problem.

Bijan Parsia: I disagree, this is not a new problem.

17:41:48 <bijan> It's not a problem!

Bijan Parsia: It's not a problem!

17:41:52 <alanr> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q?

17:41:56 <uli> Jeff, where exactly/technically is the problem?

Uli Sattler: Jeff, where exactly/technically is the problem?

17:42:05 <alanr> zakim, unmute me

Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, unmute me

17:42:05 <Zakim> alanr should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: alanr should no longer be muted

17:42:06 <bijan> A problem would be that it wouldn't be implementable on a rules system

Bijan Parsia: A problem would be that it wouldn't be implementable on a rules system

17:42:18 <bijan> That was explicitly the issue raised last time

Bijan Parsia: That was explicitly the issue raised last time

17:42:12 <schneid> let's straw poll on "at risk"!

Michael Schneider: let's straw poll on "at risk"!

17:42:14 <msmith> ianh: I agree with bijan, it would take massive changes to revise current decision

Ian Horrocks: I agree with bijan, it would take massive changes to revise current decision

17:42:52 <bmotik> Let's work off the queue first.

Boris Motik: Let's work off the queue first.

17:42:56 <msmith> alanr: we can straw poll specifically for at risk, to solicit comments just for n.p.a.

Alan Ruttenberg: we can straw poll specifically for at risk, to solicit comments just for n.p.a.

17:43:05 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:43:07 <alanr> q-

Alan Ruttenberg: q-

17:43:08 <pfps> q-

Peter Patel-Schneider: q-

17:43:13 <schneid> we heard that the jena team things there is a problem for their implementation - so at risk seems reasonable

Michael Schneider: we heard that the jena team things there is a problem for their implementation - so at risk seems reasonable

17:43:24 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:43:27 <schneid> (i don't think there is a problem in jena)

Michael Schneider: (i don't think there is a problem in jena)

17:43:31 <bijan> But we don't know what the problem is

Bijan Parsia: But we don't know what the problem is

17:43:36 <bijan> I'm very skeptical about the report

Bijan Parsia: I'm very skeptical about the report

17:43:44 <uli> schneid, "thinks" that there is a problem is different from 'has found a problem'!

Uli Sattler: schneid, "thinks" that there is a problem is different from 'has found a problem'!

17:43:45 <schneid> +1 to boris

Michael Schneider: +1 to boris

17:43:50 <pfps> +1 to boris

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to boris

17:43:54 <bijan> +1 to boris

Bijan Parsia: +1 to boris

17:44:02 <Zakim> -Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan

17:44:10 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:44:10 <pfps> note that functional properties have exactly the same effect as negative property assertions

Peter Patel-Schneider: note that functional properties have exactly the same effect as negative property assertions

17:44:17 <IanH> ack bmotik

Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik

17:44:20 <JeffP> we lost ivan

Jeff Pan: we lost ivan

17:44:20 <msmith> bmotik: all of this is fabricated.  we are not negating parts of rdf graphs.  the statements are positive and accompanied by a set of semantic conditions.  I don't see a need to further discussion or vote.

Boris Motik: all of this is fabricated. we are not negating parts of rdf graphs. the statements are positive and accompanied by a set of semantic conditions. I don't see a need to further discussion or vote.

17:44:20 <schneid> q-

Michael Schneider: q-

17:44:28 <msmith> ack ivan_+

ack ivan_+

17:44:37 <pfps> ack ivan_

Peter Patel-Schneider: ack ivan_

17:44:52 <MarkusK_> +1 to Boris

Markus Krötzsch: +1 to Boris

17:45:03 <uli> Jeff, who asked for this?

Uli Sattler: Jeff, who asked for this?

17:45:08 <msmith> ianh: jeffp, are you suggesting removal from OWL 2 or OWL 2 RL?

Ian Horrocks: jeffp, are you suggesting removal from OWL 2 or OWL 2 RL?

17:45:12 <bijan> OMIT: q+ to ask if jeff is going to lie in the road
17:45:18 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:45:18 <Rinke> But it would still be in full right?

Rinke Hoekstra: But it would still be in full right?

17:45:23 <msmith> jeffp: just OWL 2 RL, which is considered more RDF friendly

Jeff Pan: just OWL 2 RL, which is considered more RDF friendly

17:45:27 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:45:30 <IanH> ack bijan

Ian Horrocks: ack bijan

17:45:30 <Zakim> OMIT: bijan, you wanted to ask if jeff is going to lie in the road
17:45:34 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:45:35 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip

Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip

17:45:35 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made

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

17:45:35 <Zakim> +Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan

17:45:55 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:45:58 <msmith> bijan: I think jeff would need to file a formal objection at this point.

Bijan Parsia: I think jeff would need to file a formal objection at this point.

17:46:31 <JeffP> q+

Jeff Pan: q+

17:46:38 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:46:43 <msmith> ivan: I think this discussion is not specific to RL.  JJC's comment is about negative property assertions in general.

Ivan Herman: I think this discussion is not specific to RL. JJC's comment is about negative property assertions in general.

17:46:25 <uli> +1 to Ivan's understanding

Uli Sattler: +1 to Ivan's understanding

17:47:00 <msmith> ianh: I agree, jjc was talking about negative property assertions in OWL 2

Ian Horrocks: I agree, jjc was talking about negative property assertions in OWL 2

17:47:15 <bijan> OMIT: q+ to oppose at risking!
17:47:23 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:47:30 <msmith> ivan: I support making it at risk to get additional feedback.  if jjc is the only negative feedback, we can move on

Ivan Herman: I support making it at risk to get additional feedback. if jjc is the only negative feedback, we can move on

17:47:27 <bmotik> I really don't see a need for an "at risk" label. We should not emasculate the spec because some people have fixations.

Boris Motik: I really don't see a need for an "at risk" label. We should not emasculate the spec because some people have fixations.

17:47:37 <bmotik> I strongly oppose an "at risk" label.

Boris Motik: I strongly oppose an "at risk" label.

17:47:41 <uli> +1 to bmotik

Uli Sattler: +1 to bmotik

17:47:54 <bijan> +1 to bmotik

Bijan Parsia: +1 to bmotik

17:47:55 <sebastian> +1 to boris

Sebastian Rudolph: +1 to boris

17:47:58 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:48:01 <msmith> msmith: I also oppose "at risk" label

Michael Smith: I also oppose "at risk" label

17:48:02 <schneid> I thought "at Risk" targets to CR ?

Michael Schneider: I thought "at Risk" targets to CR ?

17:48:08 <IanH> ack JeffP

Ian Horrocks: ack JeffP

17:48:42 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

17:48:42 <msmith> jeffp: to ivan, jjc's comment is whole spec, but negative property assertions are also in RL.  I proposed removing it just from RL.

Jeff Pan: to ivan, jjc's comment is whole spec, but negative property assertions are also in RL. I proposed removing it just from RL.

17:48:57 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:49:00 <schneid> In the RL rules it is simply: NPA(s p o) + s p o = false

Michael Schneider: In the RL rules it is simply: NPA(s p o) + s p o = false

17:49:05 <IanH> ack bijan

Ian Horrocks: ack bijan

17:49:05 <Zakim> bijan, you wanted to oppose at risking!

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan, you wanted to oppose at risking!

17:49:12 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:49:22 <msmith> ianh: ok, it's acceptable to comment on decision from last week.  less acceptable to revisit long standing decisions

Ian Horrocks: ok, it's acceptable to comment on decision from last week. less acceptable to revisit long standing decisions

17:49:35 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:49:45 <msmith> bijan: I oppose "at risk" because there is not a technical problem with supporting it.

Bijan Parsia: I oppose "at risk" because there is not a technical problem with supporting it.

17:49:50 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:50:00 <schneid> zakim, mute me

Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me

17:50:00 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted

17:50:02 <msmith> ...  I think an "at risk" label would punt a difficult decision that we should make now.

... I think an "at risk" label would punt a difficult decision that we should make now.

17:49:37 <bmotik> I *strongly* oppose labeling any part of the spec with "at risk" for exactly the reasons that Bijan mentions now.

Boris Motik: I *strongly* oppose labeling any part of the spec with "at risk" for exactly the reasons that Bijan mentions now.

17:50:04 <IanH> ack ivan

Ian Horrocks: ack ivan

17:50:33 <msmith> ivan: I don't understand why focusing on RL would make any difference.  I added these rules to my RL implementation this afternoon and they were trivial

Ivan Herman: I don't understand why focusing on RL would make any difference. I added these rules to my RL implementation this afternoon and they were trivial

17:50:23 <bmotik> +1000 to Ivan

Boris Motik: +1000 to Ivan

17:50:47 <msmith> ianh: we're going to do some polls

Ian Horrocks: we're going to do some polls

17:50:39 <JeffP> we are talking about existing RDF APIs but not just one implementation

Jeff Pan: we are talking about existing RDF APIs but not just one implementation

17:51:01 <bijan> JeffP, there's no change to any api

Bijan Parsia: JeffP, there's no change to any api

17:51:04 <IanH> STRAWPOLL: we mark as "at risk" negative property assertions in general

STRAWPOLL: we mark as "at risk" negative property assertions in general

17:51:08 <Rinke> -1

Rinke Hoekstra: -1

17:51:09 <bmotik> -1000000

Boris Motik: -1000000

17:51:09 <msmith> msmith: -1

Michael Smith: -1

17:51:10 <baojie> 0

Jie Bao: 0

17:51:10 <pfps> -1

Peter Patel-Schneider: -1

17:51:11 <MarkusK_> -1

Markus Krötzsch: -1

17:51:12 <sebastian> -1

Sebastian Rudolph: -1

17:51:13 <bijan> -1

Bijan Parsia: -1

17:51:13 <Zhe> 0

Zhe Wu: 0

17:51:13 <ivan> +0.5

Ivan Herman: +0.5

17:51:16 <alanr> 0

Alan Ruttenberg: 0

17:51:17 <ewallace> -1

Evan Wallace: -1

17:51:18 <JeffP> +1

Jeff Pan: +1

17:51:19 <uli> -1

Uli Sattler: -1

17:51:19 <schneid> -1

Michael Schneider: -1

17:51:20 <bcuencagrau> -1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: -1

17:51:25 <christine> -1

Christine Golbreich: -1

17:51:51 <alanr> zakim, mute me

Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, mute me

17:51:51 <Zakim> alanr should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: alanr should now be muted

17:52:03 <msmith> ianh: jeffp, this vote is in conflict with your previous comment that you were only concerned with RL

Ian Horrocks: jeffp, this vote is in conflict with your previous comment that you were only concerned with RL

17:52:12 <JeffP> -1

Jeff Pan: -1

17:52:12 <msmith> jeffp: I misread the vote, make it -1

Jeff Pan: I misread the vote, make it -1

17:52:37 <msmith> ivan: I will not push for "at risk" in general

Ivan Herman: I will not push for "at risk" in general

17:52:37 <uli> ivan, but you just implemented them?!

Uli Sattler: ivan, but you just implemented them?!

17:52:44 <IanH> STRAWPOLL: we mark as "at risk" negative property assertions in RL profile

STRAWPOLL: we mark as "at risk" negative property assertions in RL profile

17:52:51 <Rinke> -1

Rinke Hoekstra: -1

17:52:52 <msmith> msmith: -1

Michael Smith: -1

17:52:52 <bmotik> -1E72 (this time shorter)

Boris Motik: -1E72 (this time shorter)

17:52:55 <pfps> -1

Peter Patel-Schneider: -1

17:52:56 <MarkusK_> -1

Markus Krötzsch: -1

17:52:56 <bijan> -1

Bijan Parsia: -1

17:52:57 <Zhe> 0

Zhe Wu: 0

17:52:57 <bcuencagrau> -1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: -1

17:52:58 <sebastian> -1

Sebastian Rudolph: -1

17:52:58 <ivan> -1

Ivan Herman: -1

17:52:59 <uli> -1

Uli Sattler: -1

17:53:00 <baojie> 0

Jie Bao: 0

17:53:00 <schneid> 0

Michael Schneider: 0

17:53:01 <JeffP> +1

Jeff Pan: +1

17:53:01 <alanr> 0

Alan Ruttenberg: 0

17:53:07 <ewallace> 0

Evan Wallace: 0

17:53:42 <msmith> ianh: jeffp, are you lying in the road?

Ian Horrocks: jeffp, are you lying in the road?

17:53:55 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

17:53:56 <msmith> jeffp: I will stick to my opinion

Jeff Pan: I will stick to my opinion

17:53:59 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:54:00 <alanr> q+

Alan Ruttenberg: q+

17:54:00 <bmotik> Jeff should formally object if he wants

Boris Motik: Jeff should formally object if he wants

17:54:10 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:54:15 <IanH> ack bijan

Ian Horrocks: ack bijan

17:54:18 <msmith> ianh: you can formally object I guess?

Ian Horrocks: you can formally object I guess?

17:54:38 <msmith> bijan: I don't think he can object to it being "at risk", he can object to it being in the language

Bijan Parsia: I don't think he can object to it being "at risk", he can object to it being in the language

17:54:47 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:54:51 <IanH> ack alanr

Ian Horrocks: ack alanr

17:55:17 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

17:55:20 <bmotik> OMIT: +q
17:55:33 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:55:45 <IanH> ack bijan

Ian Horrocks: ack bijan

17:56:00 <msmith> alanr: I don't see that much down side to saying it is at risk in RL.  I don't think many people in the WG are thinking about RL and jeff is, that should be noted.

Alan Ruttenberg: I don't see that much down side to saying it is at risk in RL. I don't think many people in the WG are thinking about RL and jeff is, that should be noted.

17:56:15 <alanr> I didn't hear that. He wants it at risk.

Alan Ruttenberg: I didn't hear that. He wants it at risk.

17:56:19 <alanr> that's what's on the table.

Alan Ruttenberg: that's what's on the table.

17:56:31 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:56:37 <bijan> alanr, he said that

Bijan Parsia: alanr, he said that

17:56:40 <IanH> ack bmotik

Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik

17:56:43 <msmith> bijan: I don't think jeff is in a privileged position, many of us are thinking about RL.  he is not advocating for at risk, he is advocating for removal.

Bijan Parsia: I don't think jeff is in a privileged position, many of us are thinking about RL. he is not advocating for at risk, he is advocating for removal.

17:57:00 <JeffP> q+

Jeff Pan: q+

17:57:23 <msmith> bmotik: there is no implementation problem.

Boris Motik: there is no implementation problem.

17:57:08 <uli> +1 to bmotik, again!

Uli Sattler: +1 to bmotik, again!

17:57:09 <MarkusK_> +1 to Boris, again; there is no problem, it's done, let's keep it

Markus Krötzsch: +1 to Boris, again; there is no problem, it's done, let's keep it

17:57:15 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:57:21 <IanH> ack JeffP

Ian Horrocks: ack JeffP

17:57:27 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

17:57:38 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:57:41 <Rinke> if the problem really really is RDF-compatibility, then not including it in RL, but including it in Full is really nonsensical

Rinke Hoekstra: if the problem really really is RDF-compatibility, then not including it in RL, but including it in Full is really nonsensical

17:57:55 <msmith> jeffp: the problem is not implementation, it is with compatibility.  we should hear from people building RDF APIs, an area about which we're not experts

Jeff Pan: the problem is not implementation, it is with compatibility. we should hear from people building RDF APIs, an area about which we're not experts

17:58:00 <ivan> JeffP, the problem is _not_ with RL... (in my view)

Ivan Herman: JeffP, the problem is _not_ with RL... (in my view)

17:58:01 <bijan> I've build RDF apis

Bijan Parsia: I've build RDF apis

17:58:06 <bijan> I've contribtuted to them

Bijan Parsia: I've contribtuted to them

17:58:09 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:58:12 <bijan> OMIT: q_
17:58:13 <bijan> q-

Bijan Parsia: q-

17:58:28 <msmith> ianh: I don't think we can propose to overturn previous decision.  the only think is to decide if we mark at risk.

Ian Horrocks: I don't think we can propose to overturn previous decision. the only think is to decide if we mark at risk.

17:58:33 <bijan> You can look at the design and see it has no effect on the RDF level

Bijan Parsia: You can look at the design and see it has no effect on the RDF level

17:58:34 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:58:43 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:59:06 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

17:59:09 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:59:15 <bmotik> I'll formally object to removing it!

Boris Motik: I'll formally object to removing it!

17:59:18 <bijan> What a strange belief

Bijan Parsia: What a strange belief

17:59:28 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:59:31 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

17:59:37 <IanH> ack ivan

Ian Horrocks: ack ivan

17:59:39 <msmith> jeffp: I would like to remove it from RL altogether, if not mark it "at risk"

Jeff Pan: I would like to remove it from RL altogether, if not mark it "at risk"

17:59:55 <alanr> zakim, mute me

Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, mute me

17:59:55 <Zakim> alanr should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: alanr should now be muted

18:00:05 <bijan> Yes, you don't have to add a "addNegativeTriple"

Bijan Parsia: Yes, you don't have to add a "addNegativeTriple"

18:00:06 <JeffP> q+

Jeff Pan: q+

18:00:12 <bijan> Thus, no change to *any* rdf api

Bijan Parsia: Thus, no change to *any* rdf api

18:00:17 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:00:24 <msmith> ivan: if there is a problem with negative property assertions, the issue is not specific to RL.  this is why I voted to make "at risk" in general

Ivan Herman: if there is a problem with negative property assertions, the issue is not specific to RL. this is why I voted to make "at risk" in general

18:00:58 <msmith> jeffp: if RDF people are going to support OWL 2, then OWL 2 RL will be their initial target.

Jeff Pan: if RDF people are going to support OWL 2, then OWL 2 RL will be their initial target.

18:01:02 <msmith> ivan: I agree.

Ivan Herman: I agree.

18:01:02 <bijan> IT ADDS NO EXPRESSIVE POWER

Bijan Parsia: IT ADDS NO EXPRESSIVE POWER

18:01:13 <schneid> and also no problem in OWL 2 Full: NPAs are expressible in OWL 1 Full

Michael Schneider: and also no problem in OWL 2 Full: NPAs are expressible in OWL 1 Full

18:01:29 <IanH> PROPOSAL: We will mark as "at risk" negative property assertions in OWL RL

PROPOSED: We will mark as "at risk" negative property assertions in OWL RL

18:01:31 <bmotik> -1 (I'll formally object to this decision if this goes through.)

Boris Motik: -1 (I'll formally object to this decision if this goes through.)

18:01:34 <pfps> -0.5 ALU

Peter Patel-Schneider: -0.5 ALU

18:01:38 <ivan> -1

Ivan Herman: -1

18:01:40 <msmith> msmith: -1

Michael Smith: -1

18:01:40 <bcuencagrau> -1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: -1

18:01:41 <MarkusK_> -1 (FZI)

Markus Krötzsch: -1 (FZI)

18:01:41 <uli> -1 (Manchester)

Uli Sattler: -1 (Manchester)

18:01:41 <schneid> 0

Michael Schneider: 0

18:01:42 <alanr> 0

Alan Ruttenberg: 0

18:01:42 <baojie> 0

Jie Bao: 0

18:01:43 <sebastian> -1

Sebastian Rudolph: -1

18:01:43 <Zhe> 0

Zhe Wu: 0

18:01:45 <Rinke> -1 (Amsterdam)

Rinke Hoekstra: -1 (Amsterdam)

18:01:45 <JeffP> +1 (Aberdeen)

Jeff Pan: +1 (Aberdeen)

18:01:45 <christine> 0

Christine Golbreich: 0

18:01:49 <ewallace> 0

Evan Wallace: 0

18:02:39 <msmith> ianh: jeff, are you satisfied that we've exhausted this issue

Ian Horrocks: jeff, are you satisfied that we've exhausted this issue

18:02:26 <JeffP> ok

Jeff Pan: ok

18:02:51 <alanr> indeed - can get comments at lc and cr

Alan Ruttenberg: indeed - can get comments at lc and cr

18:03:02 <ivan> +10000 to Ian

Ivan Herman: +10000 to Ian

18:03:04 <alanr> Yes, Jeff - please do explain this clearly!

Alan Ruttenberg: Yes, Jeff - please do explain this clearly!

18:03:11 <JeffP> I will try

Jeff Pan: I will try

18:03:14 <alanr> thanks

Alan Ruttenberg: thanks

18:03:36 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:03:44 <IanH> ack JeffP

Ian Horrocks: ack JeffP

18:03:48 <msmith> topic: Test Cases

4. Test Cases

18:04:23 <msmith> ianh: previous approval procedure required action.  I think we should switch to defaul approval of test cases

Ian Horrocks: previous approval procedure required action. I think we should switch to defaul approval of test cases

18:03:58 <alanr> OMIT: q+ perhaps discuss syntax translation test criteria?
18:04:13 <pfps> +1 to default approval of test cases

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to default approval of test cases

18:04:16 <alanr> OMIT: q+ to perhaps discuss syntax translation test criteria?
18:04:24 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:04:28 <IanH> ack alanr

Ian Horrocks: ack alanr

18:04:29 <Zakim> OMIT: alanr, you wanted to perhaps discuss syntax translation test criteria?
18:05:12 <msmith> alanr: the only unresolved issue regarding tests was criteria for translation tests.  should we discuss this now?

Alan Ruttenberg: the only unresolved issue regarding tests was criteria for translation tests. should we discuss this now?

18:04:32 <pfps> ... or someone could notice a structural problem with a test

Peter Patel-Schneider: ... or someone could notice a structural problem with a test

18:04:33 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:05:08 <uli> q+

Uli Sattler: q+

18:05:15 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:05:17 <pfps> Umm, bi-entailment does not actually check that the models are the same

Peter Patel-Schneider: Umm, bi-entailment does not actually check that the models are the same

18:05:27 <msmith> alanr: clarification on default.  what would be subject to default?

Alan Ruttenberg: clarification on default. what would be subject to default?

18:05:33 <bijan> Syntax translation should be in terms of..e.r..syntax, thus structure,yes?

Bijan Parsia: Syntax translation should be in terms of..e.r..syntax, thus structure,yes?

18:05:38 <msmith> OMIT: q+ to comment on default approval
18:05:42 <alanr> ok. pfps - what would the test be?

Alan Ruttenberg: ok. pfps - what would the test be?

18:05:42 <uli> zakim, unmute me

Uli Sattler: zakim, unmute me

18:05:42 <Zakim> uli was not muted, uli

Zakim IRC Bot: uli was not muted, uli

18:05:44 <IanH> ack uli

Ian Horrocks: ack uli

18:06:20 <msmith> uli: regarding syntax translation criteria, we can't test model equivalence because you would need to run infinite tests

Uli Sattler: regarding syntax translation criteria, we can't test model equivalence because you would need to run infinite tests

18:06:29 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:06:32 <msmith> alanr: so we have statement in RDF mapping that is untestable?

Alan Ruttenberg: so we have statement in RDF mapping that is untestable?

18:06:35 <bijan> It's demonstratable

Bijan Parsia: It's demonstratable

18:06:45 <msmith> uli: yes, but untestable is different from demonstrable

Uli Sattler: yes, but untestable is different from demonstrable

18:06:50 <pfps> we have lots of untestable stuff in our documents - most of the theorems are "untestable"

Peter Patel-Schneider: we have lots of untestable stuff in our documents - most of the theorems are "untestable"

18:06:59 <bijan> But you can't check it in specific cases

Bijan Parsia: But you can't check it in specific cases

18:07:03 <bijan> Mechanically

Bijan Parsia: Mechanically

18:07:04 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:07:06 <msmith> uli: if you had such a test, you can test the implementation of a translator

Uli Sattler: if you had such a test, you can test the implementation of a translator

18:07:45 <alanr> The mappings presented in this document are backwards-compatible with that of OWL 1 DL: every OWL 1 DL ontology encoded as an RDF graph can be mapped into a valid OWL 2 DL ontology using the mapping from Section 3 such that the resulting OWL 2 DL ontology has exactly the same set of models as the original OWL 1 DL ontology

Alan Ruttenberg: The mappings presented in this document are backwards-compatible with that of OWL 1 DL: every OWL 1 DL ontology encoded as an RDF graph can be mapped into a valid OWL 2 DL ontology using the mapping from Section 3 such that the resulting OWL 2 DL ontology has exactly the same set of models as the original OWL 1 DL ontology

18:07:49 <IanH> ack msmith

Ian Horrocks: ack msmith

18:07:49 <Zakim> OMIT: msmith, you wanted to comment on default approval
18:07:50 <uli> zakim, mute me

Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me

18:07:51 <Zakim> uli should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted

18:08:12 <uli> sure, let's do this by email

Uli Sattler: sure, let's do this by email

18:08:33 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:08:38 <msmith> ianh: uli was saying there are properties that exist which we can't necessarily test.

Ian Horrocks: uli was saying there are properties that exist which we can't necessarily test.

18:08:45 <msmith> alanr: I will follow-up on email.

Alan Ruttenberg: I will follow-up on email.

18:08:48 <uli> sure

Uli Sattler: sure

18:09:01 <alanr> zakim, mute me

Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, mute me

18:09:01 <Zakim> alanr should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: alanr should now be muted

18:09:02 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:09:47 <bmotik> q+

Boris Motik: q+

18:09:48 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:09:59 <IanH> ack bmotik

Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik

18:10:00 <msmith> msmith: I think we should have some quick oversight before approval.

Michael Smith: I think we should have some quick oversight before approval.

18:10:09 <msmith> bmotik: I don't want default approval.

Boris Motik: I don't want default approval.

18:10:21 <msmith> ... one or two tools should pass test before approval

... one or two tools should pass test before approval

18:10:22 <alanr> OMIT: had to step away from phone - back now
18:10:30 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:10:52 <msmith> bmotik: suggestion, two tools should pass the test. then default approval.

Boris Motik: suggestion, two tools should pass the test. then default approval.

18:11:03 <alanr> q+

Alan Ruttenberg: q+

18:11:07 <msmith> ... then the whole test suite should be run periodically.

... then the whole test suite should be run periodically.

18:11:11 <msmith> ianh: what is status

Ian Horrocks: what is status

18:11:15 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:11:21 <msmith> q+

q+

18:11:27 <pfps> +1 to some intermediate status

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to some intermediate status

18:11:44 <IanH> ack alanr

Ian Horrocks: ack alanr

18:12:11 <msmith> alanr: this sounds fine.  there should be a mechanism for tests that fail to be approved.

Alan Ruttenberg: this sounds fine. there should be a mechanism for tests that fail to be approved.

18:12:52 <msmith> ianh: yes, I was thinking 3 statuses. no state.  reasonable. approved.

Ian Horrocks: yes, I was thinking 3 statuses. no state. reasonable. approved.

18:12:56 <IanH> ack msmith

Ian Horrocks: ack msmith

18:12:59 <alanr> q+

Alan Ruttenberg: q+

18:13:35 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:13:36 <alanr> submitted, proposed, approved-default, approved-explicit, rejected-explicit

Alan Ruttenberg: submitted, proposed, approved-default, approved-explicit, rejected-explicit

18:14:03 <MarkusK_> +1 to Mike

Markus Krötzsch: +1 to Mike

18:14:06 <IanH> ack alanr

Ian Horrocks: ack alanr

18:14:13 <pfps> +1 to Mike

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to Mike

18:14:22 <pfps> q+

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+

18:14:25 <msmith> msmith: the test framework can support this process.

Michael Smith: the test framework can support this process.

18:14:45 <pfps> q+ to say that approved-default is more likely to be correct than approved-explicit

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ to say that approved-default is more likely to be correct than approved-explicit

18:14:50 <msmith> alanr: we need an easy way to see approved default vs. approved by wg action

Alan Ruttenberg: we need an easy way to see approved default vs. approved by wg action

18:14:56 <IanH> ack pfps

Ian Horrocks: ack pfps

18:14:56 <Zakim> OMIT: pfps, you wanted to say that approved-default is more likely to be correct than approved-explicit
18:15:17 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:15:25 <msmith> alanr: we also need support for submitted tests that are never satisfied by tools.  what happens then?

Alan Ruttenberg: we also need support for submitted tests that are never satisfied by tools. what happens then?

18:15:34 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:15:39 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+

18:16:01 <IanH> ack bijan

Ian Horrocks: ack bijan

18:16:48 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:16:52 <msmith> bijan: tests that are wrong will get resolved by the tools.

Bijan Parsia: tests that are wrong will get resolved by the tools.

18:17:14 <msmith> ... perhaps a new category for tests that no one will pass

... perhaps a new category for tests that no one will pass

18:16:58 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:17:05 <alanr> +1 on "too-hard" tests according to bijan

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 on "too-hard" tests according to bijan

18:17:10 <pfps> +1 to Mike's suggestion

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to Mike's suggestion

18:17:36 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:17:51 <msmith> ianh: we're all pretty much in agreement with "ready for testing" status

Ian Horrocks: we're all pretty much in agreement with "ready for testing" status

18:18:16 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:18:32 <msmith> msmith: yes, I would like primer examples, when primer is stablized to become test cases

Michael Smith: yes, I would like primer examples, when primer is stablized to become test cases

18:18:35 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

18:18:53 <msmith> q+

q+

18:18:59 <IanH> ack msmith

Ian Horrocks: ack msmith

18:20:11 <uli> OMIT: jj
18:20:23 <msmith> msmith: we can clean up test cases on future agendas

Michael Smith: we can clean up test cases on future agendas

18:20:16 <MarkusK_> msmith: There was an open issue on how to organize tests that use the same input but produce different outcomes for direct semantics and RDF-based semantics. This is solved now and we can handle this.

Michael Smith: There was an open issue on how to organize tests that use the same input but produce different outcomes for direct semantics and RDF-based semantics. This is solved now and we can handle this. [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ]

18:20:27 <msmith> ianh: agreed.

Ian Horrocks: agreed.

18:20:29 <uli> bye bye

Uli Sattler: bye bye

18:20:29 <JeffP> thanks, bye

Jeff Pan: thanks, bye

18:20:29 <Zakim> -bijan

Zakim IRC Bot: -bijan

18:20:29 <Zhe> bye

Zhe Wu: bye

18:20:30 <ivan> we can talk about grddl

Ivan Herman: we can talk about grddl

18:20:30 <alanr> thanks Ian!

Alan Ruttenberg: thanks Ian!

18:20:32 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace

Zakim IRC Bot: -Evan_Wallace

18:20:33 <MarkusK_> bye

Markus Krötzsch: bye

18:20:33 <Rinke> thanks, bye!

Rinke Hoekstra: thanks, bye!

18:20:33 <Zakim> - +1.603.897.aadd

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.603.897.aadd

18:20:34 <Zakim> -JeffP

Zakim IRC Bot: -JeffP

18:20:37 <Zakim> -alanr

Zakim IRC Bot: -alanr

18:20:39 <Zakim> -MarkusK_

Zakim IRC Bot: -MarkusK_

18:20:39 <Zakim> -bmotik

Zakim IRC Bot: -bmotik

18:20:39 <ivan> sorry

Ivan Herman: sorry

18:20:40 <Zakim> -IanH

Zakim IRC Bot: -IanH

18:20:41 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau

Zakim IRC Bot: -bcuencagrau

18:20:43 <schneid> bye

Michael Schneider: bye

18:20:43 <Zakim> -baojie

Zakim IRC Bot: -baojie

18:20:45 <Zakim> -sebastian

Zakim IRC Bot: -sebastian

18:20:46 <Zakim> -uli

Zakim IRC Bot: -uli

18:20:46 <Zakim> -Rinke

Zakim IRC Bot: -Rinke

18:20:50 <Zakim> -Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan

18:20:52 <Zakim> -christine

Zakim IRC Bot: -christine

18:20:52 <Zakim> -schneid

Zakim IRC Bot: -schneid

18:20:58 <IanH> RRSAgent, make records public

Ian Horrocks: RRSAgent, make records public

18:21:14 <msmith> OMIT: thanks ian
18:21:16 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider

Zakim IRC Bot: -Peter_Patel-Schneider

18:21:17 <IanH> Thanks Mike for scribing!

Ian Horrocks: Thanks Mike for scribing!

18:21:18 <msmith> msmith: bye

Michael Smith: bye

19:35:01 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, msmith, in SW_OWL()1:00PM

(No events recorded for 73 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: disconnecting the lone participant, msmith, in SW_OWL()1:00PM

19:35:05 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended

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

19:35:06 <Zakim> Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, +1.202.408.aaaa, msmith, +86528aabb, bijan, +2, +1.603.897.aadd, bcuencagrau, IanH, Rinke, MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, +1.518.276.aaee, christine,

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, +1.202.408.aaaa, msmith, +86528aabb, bijan, +2, +1.603.897.aadd, bcuencagrau, IanH, Rinke, MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, +1.518.276.aaee, christine,

19:35:08 <Zakim> ... baojie, uli, +22427aaff, Alan_Ruttenberg, JeffP, Evan_Wallace, bmotik, sebastian, schneid, alanr

Zakim IRC Bot: ... baojie, uli, +22427aaff, Alan_Ruttenberg, JeffP, Evan_Wallace, bmotik, sebastian, schneid, alanr



Formatted by CommonScribe