08:52:17 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #webont
08:52:33 <DanC_jam> I don't think the scribe is using IRC
08:52:53 <DanC_jam> ftf agenda from Guus 30Sep http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Sep/0505.html
08:53:22 <libby> people could tunnel through me I think....
08:53:35 <jjc> brill ...
08:53:48 <libby>  slash server 192.6.10.107
08:53:52 <libby> I think....
08:55:09 <DaveB> DaveB has joined #webont
08:57:09 <libby> sorry,  slash server 192.6.10.107:6665
08:57:24 <DanC_jam> DanC_jam has changed the topic to: WebOnt Bristol ftf. scribe: ter Horst
08:58:11 <DaveB> ah you worked out irc forwarding.  I was just emailing
08:58:12 <JosD> JosD has joined #webont
08:58:29 <DanC_jam> irc forwarding? (I'm getting to IRC via ssh)
08:58:47 <DaveB> that's what I meant
08:58:55 <libby> yeah
08:59:07 <libby> you can use a -g flag
08:59:10 <nmg> nmg has joined #webont
08:59:15 <libby> so others can join via your tunnel
08:59:16 <logger> logger has joined #webont
09:00:45 <DanC_jam> layering document, from the agenda: "Layering RDFS into OWL"  http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/RDFS2OWL-L.html
09:01:57 <DaveB> libby: aha, that's the crucial detail
09:02:16 <libby> yeah, it's not in the help
09:02:30 <DaveB> it is in the man page
09:03:45 <libby> oh, I musta missed it
09:23:15 <jhendler_> jhendler_ has joined #webont
10:07:05 <libby> http://swordfish.rdfweb.org/photos/2002/10/07/
10:07:12 <libby> - photos from earlier
10:33:02 <hth> hth has joined #webont
10:33:30 <hth> hth has joined #webont
10:36:22 <DanC_jam> DanC_jam has joined #webont
10:44:28 <DanC_jam> (resume from break)
10:44:32 <DanC_jam> Mike S. scribing
10:44:42 <DanC_jam> DanC_jam has changed the topic to: WebOnt Bristol ftf. scribe: Mike S.
10:51:03 <nmg> nmg has joined #webont
11:09:52 <JosD> JosD has joined #webont
11:24:19 <DanC> DanC has joined #webont
11:24:34 <DanC> RRSAgent, pointer?
11:24:34 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2002/10/07-webont-irc#T11-24-34
11:24:53 <DaveB> logger's also writing it to the web live (at ilrt.org)
11:28:02 <DanC> logger, pointer?
11:28:04 <logger> See http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/webont/2002-10-07#T11-28-02
11:45:25 <jjc> jjc has joined #webont
12:33:40 <heflin> heflin has joined #webont
12:33:58 <heflin> Hi everyone, how's the F2F going?
12:54:25 <libby> er...
12:56:37 <heflin> Er?
12:57:47 <libby> :)
12:59:13 <heflin> Are you going to begin the imports discussion in a few minutes?
12:59:46 <libby> sorry jeff, I'm not sure. we're beinging something shortly yes
12:59:57 <nmg> not sure - we were on layering for most of this morning, so I'd guess that we're (slightly) behind sched
13:00:39 <heflin> Layering, huh? Doesn't suprise me that that took a while. Any progress?
13:01:32 <nmg> break-out group is going to thrash out the options; there wasn't any consensus between the large and fast approaches
13:06:32 <heflin> Okay. Could somebody let me know when you get to imports?
13:07:02 <heflin> I'll try to check in here, but e-mail might be best way to contact me (heflin@cse.lehigh.edu)
13:07:26 <libby> ok, we will
13:09:13 <heflin> Thanks!
13:13:12 <libby> no probs
13:19:12 <nmg> jeff, guide discussion has been moved forward (to now)
13:19:58 <nmg> imports and versioning will be at about 15.30 or thereabouts (45mins for guide, 15mins for tea break?)
13:20:54 <ChrisW> ChrisW has joined #webont
13:24:31 <heflin> Thanks for the info, Nick.
13:26:27 <DanC> who's scribing now?
13:27:29 <mdean> Mike Dean now scribing
13:27:35 <DanC> DanC has changed the topic to: WebOnt Bristol ftf. scribe: Mike Dean
13:27:43 <mdean> now discussing GUIDE
13:27:58 <mdean> Mike:  some changes based on validation, etc.
13:28:05 <mdean> Jim:  good feedback from students on history
13:28:42 <mdean> Mike:  plan to use bulleted lists for links to previous ontologies and use in previous commercial and major government projects
13:29:34 <mdean> discussion about relationship between xml:base and default namespace
13:29:49 <mdean> Namespaces section
13:30:08 <mdean> refering to Sep 29 version as published
13:30:21 <mdean> DanC:  xmlns="#" should be deprecated
13:32:00 <mdean> DanC:  not many things currently use xml:base
13:34:10 <mdean> DanC:  need to avoid xmlns="#" is due to problems with relative URIrefs and namespaces -- W3C decision not to require this in any of their specs
13:35:16 <mdean> decision to use explicit, non-default namespace with some text discussing alternatives
13:35:41 <mdean> DanC:  useful to have some simple "hello world" example
13:36:36 <mdean> Mike wants to modify all examples to fit in wines ontology
13:37:14 <mdean> Jim:  this walkthrough is better than previous because it also discusses alternative representations
13:37:53 <mdean> Guus:  some desire to make examples more realistic
13:38:09 <mdean> MikeS:  make region more accurate geographically
13:38:24 <mdean> Guus:  subClassOf example was very part/whole-like
13:38:41 <mdean> Guus:  should we include a specific part/whole example?
13:39:06 <mdean> Guus has a part/whole example
13:40:21 <mdean> Mike will integrate Guus example
13:40:51 <mdean> Larry Eshelman has how-to example regarding part/whole
13:41:18 <mdean> Jim:  feedback is that GUIDE can be more complex
13:41:45 <mdean> Chris:  things like this should be in GUIDE
13:41:54 <mdean> Nick:  should be in appendix of GUIDE
13:42:42 <mdean> MikeS:  want part/whole to be an example of using properties, not how to do part/whole
13:43:49 <mdean> Guus:  decided last F2F to have HOW-TO/FAQ separate from GUIDE
13:44:04 <DanC> [I'm getting mixed messages about whether the 'tricks of the trade' is something the WG has decided to do or not]
13:45:05 <mdean> Nick:  need to make clear that these are examples of OWL, not an official OWL representation of part/whole
13:46:19 <mdean> Jim:  making wine more complete isn't so useful -- want real examples of people things want/need to do
13:46:43 <mdean> Jim:  e.g. more examples of complex use of instance data
13:47:33 <mdean> Deb:  need example of every language concept
13:47:40 <mdean> Jim:  also need more examples of instances
13:48:15 <mdean> Evan:  need "HOW-TO" to show how to use OWL for common modelling problems
13:49:19 <mdean> Jeremy:  not hearing showstoppers for publishing GUIDE as is -- these may be suggestions for GUIDE v2
13:49:46 <mdean> Guus:  agree, current version has received lots of positive feedback
13:50:20 <mdean> Jim:  next WD may be last until last call
13:51:51 <mdean> Chris:  far more people will read guide than Model Theory, so we need a very good wine ontology, since people start by cut-and-pasting the examples
13:52:06 <DanC> quite; they're not even gonna read the guide. They're just gonna cut/paste.
13:52:21 <mdean> Deb:  any particular requests for extensions?
13:52:48 <mdean> Chris:  has some suggestions
13:53:26 <mdean> MikeS:  perfectly happy with good wine ontology, but not with large/expanding set of appendices (textbook)
13:54:13 <mdean> Jim:  maybe we should have examples that go beyond wines ontology
13:54:27 <mdean> MikeS:  pulling meals, etc. into separate ontologies
13:54:44 <mdean> MikeS:  requires resolution on imports, etc.
13:56:25 <mdean> DanC:  good example could change his position to drop imports
13:57:33 <mdean> ~6 people have thoroughly reviewed current draft
13:57:54 <DeborahMc> DeborahMc has joined #webont
13:58:09 <mdean> MikeS:  most of current changes can be done pretty rapidly
13:59:39 <DanC> [ooh; I'm interested to know which features he didn't run into/need in this draft.]
13:59:40 <mdean> MikeS:  target 2-3 weeks from next Monday
14:00:44 <mdean> MikeD:  would prefer use of camelCase rather than LISP-STYLE names
14:01:13 <mdean> Nick:  should we commit now to putting the "tricks of the trade" in a separate document?
14:02:15 <mdean> Enrico:  first draft of GUIDE should be correct, need not be complete
14:03:34 <mdean> Deb:  should note that example is just one type of part/whole
14:04:29 <mdean> DanC:  more cost-effective to get community involved
14:05:44 <DanC> (oh crud; I forgot to ask for pointers-to-issues in the guide, ala in the reference)
14:05:48 <mdean> Jim:  target late October for WD, then incorporate larger changes for last call
14:07:15 <DanC> PROPOSED: to publishd the guide, as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Sep/att-0478/01-Guide.html plus edits at the discretion of the editor.
14:08:30 <mdean> MikeS:  will note holes/placeholders for missing examples of every feature
14:09:43 <bwm> bwm has joined #webont
14:10:01 <DeborahMc> is there a url where the whole log for this session can be viewed?  (I was in the semantics discussion for the beginning sorry)
14:11:23 <mdean> DanC:  schedule is quite tight
14:11:58 <libby> Deborah:http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/chatlogs/webont/2002-10-07.html
14:12:05 <mdean> Chris:  some ontology problems need to be fixed before publication
14:12:30 <mdean> Jim:  let's discuss technical issues here
14:12:50 <mdean> Stephen:  GUIDE may not need to go through formal last call, since it's not normative
14:13:06 <mdean> Jeremy:  XML Schema Primer (?) did go through last call
14:13:26 <mdean> Jim:  would prefer GUIDE to go through formal last call process
14:13:57 <mdean> John Stanton:  what are the real W3C requirements?
14:14:42 <mdean> DanC:  alternatives include WD, web page, Note (terminal state)
14:16:07 <mdean> Guus:  at F2F 3, HOW-TO document was viewed as a web page
14:16:10 <enrico> enrico has joined #webont
14:17:58 <mdean> Evan suggests withdrawing motions and deferring vote
14:18:09 <mdean> Chris specific comments
14:18:28 <mdean> treatment of regions (part/whole vs. subClassOf)
14:18:40 <mdean> Deb:  known problem
14:18:52 <mdean> DanC:  transitive, but unrelated to subclass
14:19:09 <mdean> arbitrary point at which classes become instances
14:19:18 <mdean> MikeS:  GUIDE notes that this is arbitrary
14:19:32 <mdean> Deb:  What is "right" boundary?
14:21:25 <mdean> MikeS:  this model is accurate for the domain
14:21:43 <mdean> Guus:  perhaps renaming Grape to GrapeType might help
14:21:57 <mdean> MikeS:  this is exactly the classes as instances problem
14:22:38 <mdean> MikeS:  tried to do some normalization of names
14:23:17 <mdean> Chris:  some remaining concerns about relationships between GrapeType and WineGrapeType -- need to think about this more
14:26:05 <mdean> need to note opportunities for subclassing as well
14:26:18 <mdean> Guus:  perhaps breakout session on wine ontology
14:28:25 <DanC> ACTION Guus: arrange a break-out session on the Wine ontology and the Guide
14:28:35 <mdean> Jeremy as non-wine expert had trouble following some of this discussion
14:28:57 <mdean> Jim:  we aren't content ontology group
14:30:04 <mdean> Guus:  time for break
14:30:23 <mdean> breakout group still needs to be scheduled
14:30:58 <mdean> breakout members:  Enrico, Chris, Deb, Mike, Evan
14:37:05 <mdean> next session in other room
14:37:53 <Snakker> Snakker has joined #webont
14:41:19 <heflin> When the break is over, please call me at 610-758-xxxx or let me know a number to dial in to (assuming imports is next).
14:41:50 <heflin> That's International U.S. by the way...
14:41:54 <mdean_> mdean_ has joined #webont
14:42:23 <libby> whoo-hoo - we got irc port forwarding working
14:50:47 <jjc> jjc has joined #webont
14:53:09 <jjc> jjc has joined #webont
15:02:00 <libby> jeff, we're going to call you shoirtly
15:02:21 <heflin> Great! Thanks, Libby.
15:03:10 <libby> no prob
15:04:07 <libby> jeff's number is  610-758-xxxx
15:04:25 <DanC> ping
15:05:15 <mdean> discussing imports and versioning
15:07:49 <lib-scrib> guus: could jeff recap status of imports document?
15:07:57 <lib-scrib> jeff: 3 proposals, 2 similar
15:08:22 <lib-scrib> number 1: outside rdf syntax, inline with rdf spec, concur decision in f2f2
15:08:49 <lib-scrib> advantages: nice suntactic properties (missed somethign)
15:09:02 <jhendler_> jhendler_ has joined #webont
15:09:10 <lib-scrib> proposal 2: RDF triples. some technical issues in discussion
15:09:31 <DanC> s/concurs/conflicts/
15:09:39 <lib-scrib> ...'undefined' = lack of intereoperability. another document imports something
15:09:59 <lib-scrib> also benfit - existing rdf data can be used as is; this is not tru of 1 - need a translation
15:10:43 <lib-scrib> propsal 3: ? and borden - processing model proposal - syntax like 2, but instead of semantic meaning a processing model 
15:10:52 <lib-scrib> ?= massimo?
15:11:27 <lib-scrib> potential problems: leaves things unclear e.g. whether processing occurs before inference...
15:11:41 <lib-scrib> - end of jeff's overview
15:12:29 <lib-scrib> jjc: asks if any of options provide abiltyy to infer triples
15:13:12 <lib-scrib> jeff: inferring triples can lead to complexities, multiple imports. Problem with the thrird option is that doesn;t tell you how to handle inferencing issues
15:13:37 <lib-scrib> guus: comments?
15:13:51 <lib-scrib> danc: getting rid ofg imports is the best option
15:13:59 <lib-scrib> ...having built things
15:14:34 <lib-scrib> jeff; dissagrees - ontology extensions important part of requirements doc
15:14:49 <lib-scrib> danc: to extend them doesnt require imports
15:15:20 <lib-scrib> ...each doc has its own meaning; 2 docs meaning is those together...outside the language entirely
15:15:38 <lib-scrib> ...nothing in the language tells you what to import
15:15:47 <lib-scrib> [several people agree w danc]
15:16:38 <lib-scrib> jim: diagrees strongly: users shoudl be able to link to others' onotlogies, change classes etc - orgignal motivation for daml+oil - can't agree but can extend it locally - link back and add their own tersm
15:17:15 <lib-scrib> ...we dont need to be consistent with each other, just with the orginal ontology
15:17:42 <lib-scrib> ??you just tell it where to look for things like you would tell a web browser - the url of teh documnt
15:18:08 <lib-scrib> patH: imports has more meabning than linking baCK
15:18:28 <lib-scrib> jim: use case: 
15:18:44 <lib-scrib> class agenda with various properties: chair, issues etc
15:18:58 <DanC> RRSAgent, pointer?
15:18:58 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2002/10/07-webont-irc#T15-18-58
15:19:16 <lib-scrib> ...I read it into my tool, producing a form I can fill out, and it goes and get classes for me and does type checking
15:19:57 <JosD> JosD has joined #webont
15:20:03 <lib-scrib> ...I often read in DanC's onoltogy, which has one bit missing - priority. I don;t want to import DanC's document and copy it: it might change - instead I want a live link to DanC's document
15:21:05 <lib-scrib> MikeS: this is good software engineering 0- how else do you remmeber this stuff?
15:22:02 <lib-scrib> jim: doesn't cxare about imports as long as can refer to DanC's live document
15:22:16 <lib-scrib> PatH: believe DanC's doc or extend it - different
15:22:43 <lib-scrib> DanC: read Jim's doc most opf teh time - if I need it I get the urls recursively 
15:23:20 <heflin> Can I have the floor?
15:23:30 <lib-scrib> e.g. validator - does RDFs closure on a document wrt a vocabulary
15:23:57 <lib-scrib>  - implementation experienc that don't need this stuff
15:24:07 <lib-scrib> MikeD: us too: we don;t need imports
15:24:21 <lib-scrib> Jeff would like the floor
15:24:43 <lib-scrib> [crud missed something by jjc]
15:25:59 <lib-scrib> danC:  if I use someone elses' property (rather than mention it) (using it rather than annotating it) then I look up the property
15:26:34 <pfps> pfps has joined #webont
15:26:56 <lib-scrib> ...'endorsing' the schema is use it x talliban:y z or fred rdf:typ[e talliban:goodguy
15:27:16 <lib-scrib> jim: we had a conversation that there shoudl notbe an implicit imports
15:27:28 <lib-scrib> ...if we can hacve that, then that's fine
15:27:51 <lib-scrib> patH: jjc said - any use of a voicabulary consitutes can imports?
15:28:49 <lib-scrib> enrico: shows a graph of an application ontology - the arrows mean import, include.
15:29:18 <lib-scrib> ...would like this to be part of the expression of teh languiage. stronger than using the namespace - I substribe to the theory described in the docuennt
15:30:09 <lib-scrib> patH: prob is he doesnt know what it means to not subscribe to an ontology - how can it refuse to import it. you can draw conclusions for it. you cant not assent to rdf
15:31:29 <DanC> they can tell which documents I "import" by looking at what terms I use as properties.
15:31:51 <lib-scrib> jeff: problem with DanC's approach is that un;less there's some list of urls there other people can't work out what documents you need. imports is committing to an ontology - I sort of sanction the infrences made with _these_ documents
15:32:35 <lib-scrib>  - important to have 2 kinds of inference - the doc and those that go with iot, to which I agree to - responsibility for what you agree to, versus combining it with anything, to which I haven;t agreed to
15:33:22 <lib-scrib> patH: with no imports mechanism, anyone can combine your doc with otthers and infre things from it - you seem to think a bad thing
15:33:34 <lib-scrib> jeff: no - but require both types, e.g. terms of a contract
15:33:54 <DDeR> DDeR has joined #webont
15:33:58 <lib-scrib> patH: thinks that buys into a more elaborate theory of teh Seb than we have at the moment
15:34:05 <lib-scrib> s/seb/sweb/
15:34:56 <nmg> nmg has joined #webont
15:35:04 <lib-scrib> MikeS: geog example: import geog vocab; taking only about texas and oklahoma - don;t want to buy into all the recursive onoltogies - jusrt this part of the oklahoma ontology
15:35:26 <lib-scrib> danC: remember only in use though, using the property
15:35:42 <lib-scrib> mikeS getting less nervous, pps more so
15:36:14 <lib-scrib> danc: rdfs:seealso - look at this other document; somethign similar for this? (missed detail, sorry)
15:36:28 <lib-scrib> guus: consensus point - no semantic meaning?
15:36:50 <lib-scrib> patH: from email seealso - often doesn;t point to rdf, often a webpage
15:37:00 <lib-scrib> danc: that's ok - we subproperty it
15:37:42 <lib-scrib> guus: consensus point - subproperty of seealso as a way of docuemnting this imports thing without it having any formal meanning
15:37:48 <nmg> nmg has joined #webont
15:38:03 <lib-scrib> jeff: unacceptable: broken language, because of the usecases - how do you know what you agree to?
15:38:30 <lib-scrib> ...otherwise bascially a centralized knowledge base
15:38:50 <lib-scrib> ...has responded to danC on email -
15:38:53 <lib-scrib> [ref?]
15:39:39 <lib-scrib> jim: you have a difference bwteen imports= pull that document in there vs imports as stronger committment, stronger than DAML
15:40:36 <lib-scrib> ...what about just adding a propoerty to someone's onoltgy? just can;t do it?
15:40:57 <lib-scrib> jeff: maybe by referencing the namespace without importaing it...maybe..?
15:40:58 <ChrisW> ChrisW has joined #webont
15:41:11 <lib-scrib> jjc: that seems unlear - danC's position is clear
15:41:15 <lib-scrib> jeeff: not to me
15:41:38 <lib-scrib> mikeS: an operational way of descrbing using tokens from another ontology...
15:41:47 <lib-scrib> danc: no. 
15:41:49 <lib-scrib> [scribe lost]
15:42:07 <lib-scrib> danc: if they load the same onologies, they come to same conclusions
15:42:22 <lib-scrib> jim: what if we load diff documents? then diff conclusions
15:42:27 <lib-scrib> danc: not a problem
15:42:45 <lib-scrib> mikeS: but I don;lt know what my assumptions are - I can;t write them down
15:43:22 <lib-scrib> jim: same toolls, same url, same conformance - diff conclusions - problem
15:44:01 <lib-scrib> [big shouty argunment]
15:44:20 <ChrisW> we're shouting so you can hear better, Jeff
15:44:34 <heflin> That's what I thought ;-)
15:44:35 <lib-scrib> danc: need to reference the documents  that used to get conclusions
15:44:49 <lib-scrib> patH - these tools are in the wide world, they will pick up things
15:45:07 <lib-scrib> jim at whiteboard
15:45:42 <lib-scrib> pps: disagrees totally with Pat. if yuou import another ontologies, you are require to draw the conclusions
15:45:54 <lib-scrib> patH: no, can;'t require that all conclusions are drawn
15:46:10 <lib-scrib> pps: can;t complain if draw all cnoncclusions
15:46:33 <lib-scrib> pps: doc1 imports doc2. any kb derrived from doc1 entails the stuff in doc2 - is what pps wants
15:46:54 <lib-scrib> patH: must not translate in an operational sense about requiring -
15:47:31 <lib-scrib> enrico: ridiculous to have the semantics depend on the tool - same levle of importance as say subclass
15:47:58 <lib-scrib> ...you are going to subscribe to specofoc onolotgies - a finite number (not like statments)
15:48:23 <lib-scrib> jim: %owl1 -f http://ont1
15:48:29 <lib-scrib> jim: %owl2 -f http://ont1
15:48:36 <lib-scrib> owl1 100% owl compliant
15:48:39 <lib-scrib> owl2 100% owl compliant
15:48:51 <lib-scrib> [ therefore p(x) is undefined]
15:49:03 <lib-scrib> ...that's fine - don;t need to bother with all these semantics!
15:49:29 <lib-scrib> jim v happy with DanC's operational semnatics; need something though, otherwise a crapshoot
15:49:50 <lib-scrib> patH: why would the docs come out sensibly
15:50:04 <lib-scrib> ? thfirst tool has different import idea than second
15:50:17 <lib-scrib> patH: 'importing' is the issue
15:51:00 <lib-scrib> jim: we need a good clean operational semantics
15:52:06 <lib-scrib> danC: this group does not say what every owl implementtaion doesin all languages; the implementation will need to justify its conclusiosn accorting to our spec - it will have certain premises - diffee nt conclusiosn will ahve differenbt set of preferences
15:52:47 <lib-scrib> guus: why are you aginst it?
15:52:59 <lib-scrib> danc: doesnt think will get consensus
15:53:24 <lib-scrib> guus: both agree that have operational semnatics for import and have to say this in the language
15:53:35 <lib-scrib> danc: doesnt always do imports - required it would be a bummer
15:54:00 <lib-scrib> danc: several policies to loda into machine - e.g. uses policy
15:54:30 <lib-scrib> jim: how to we characterise these diferences in policy?
15:55:10 <lib-scrib> danc: we can't use this in general because wants single documents to be well defined.
15:55:28 <lib-scrib> jjc has an example
15:55:30 <DanC> this="implementation defined"
15:55:36 <lib-scrib> jjc: in one file we have
15:55:43 <lib-scrib> <a> z:foo <b>
15:55:46 <lib-scrib> in another file:
15:56:01 <lib-scrib> z:foo domain c
15:56:27 <lib-scrib> c subclassof  <<restriction hasvalue v onprooperty w>>
15:56:37 <lib-scrib> does this entail <a> z:w v?
15:56:51 <lib-scrib> jjc thinks jim said that the entailment follws
15:57:02 <lib-scrib> - and agrees
15:57:21 <lib-scrib> ... change of example:
15:57:33 <lib-scrib> <a> z:foo <b> in one doc
15:57:40 <lib-scrib> implicitly importy doc 2:
15:57:55 <lib-scrib> z:foo domain c
15:58:17 <lib-scrib> do these two entail <a> type <c>?
15:58:45 <lib-scrib> danC: not with tools currently,. thopugh you can have a policy which can go and get all the documents andthen entail that.
15:59:01 <lib-scrib> danc: from our spec, the first two triples will entail the other.
15:59:26 <lib-scrib> ? is it allowable for the tool to draw that conclusion form the first tripple? 
15:59:45 <lib-scrib> - not within teh spec, although it coudl [...?]
16:01:13 <lib-scrib> ? abase ontolgy, 2 ontologies that extend it incompatibly and monotonically with weach other but not from the original: some tools will find the contradiction, some not
16:01:21 <lib-scrib> DanC: yes - state of the art is this
16:01:46 <lib-scrib> enrico: bizzare to have different conclusions depending on what files it finds
16:01:59 <lib-scrib> patH: not only not bizzare, but the way things are on the web
16:02:14 <lib-scrib> enrico: not what I said [goes to what board]
16:02:23 <lib-scrib> [many converations going on...]
16:03:00 <lib-scrib> onrico: one ontology with 2 stataemnets:
16:03:06 <lib-scrib> man is a subclass of mortal
16:03:10 <lib-scrib> man(socrates)
16:03:20 <lib-scrib> so, mortal(socrates)
16:03:44 <lib-scrib> if the first 2 statements are in two files, I can;t guarantee that I will be able to derrive that socrates is mortal
16:04:11 <lib-scrib> patH: I cant insist that you draw those conclusions, or any onclusionbs at all
16:04:46 <lib-scrib> jjc: in tersm of the spec, we specify the semnatic sfor a complete reasoner, even if none exists. 
16:04:56 <lib-scrib> pps: strongly agrees with that
16:05:13 <lib-scrib> jjc: one source of incompleeness will be not importing things
16:05:33 <lib-scrib> danc: cxan we justify the conclusion according to our spec, and we can
16:05:47 <DanC> s/and we can//
16:06:02 <lib-scrib> ok, someone said that
16:06:23 <ChrisW> ChrisW has joined #webont
16:06:55 <lib-scrib> jim: what if A:mortal rather than mortal
16:07:03 <lib-scrib> sorry ChrisW
16:07:47 <lib-scrib> jim: if mortal is from a different document, that shoudl not change the conclusion.
16:08:20 <lib-scrib> ...if the other document also said mortal(x) :- foo(x)
16:08:37 <lib-scrib> do I aslo legitimize A:foo?
16:09:01 <lib-scrib> ...mortal subclass transientbeing (from document A)
16:09:38 <lib-scrib> I believe A:mortal socrates; so do I believe socrates is also a A:transientbeing?
16:09:47 <lib-scrib> patH: yes if you got the document back
16:10:36 <lib-scrib> danc: from spec, certain entailmenets follw given certain documents; tool decides the policy
16:10:49 <lib-scrib> chrisW? can you just load onbe property?
16:11:05 <lib-scrib> jim: putting this on our testset
16:11:27 <lib-scrib> patH: entailments are clear - what's the point of the example
16:11:37 <lib-scrib> jim: then you believe that you always importa everything
16:11:58 <lib-scrib> patH: no! you import what you come accross
16:12:06 <lib-scrib> [more shouting]
16:12:54 <lib-scrib> jim: does the premises entail conclusion (from 2 docs)?
16:13:08 <lib-scrib> danc: depends on the premises
16:14:04 <lib-scrib> guus: 5-10 more minutes.
16:14:10 <lib-scrib> ..on this topic
16:14:41 <lib-scrib> sb: entailments are definted in term sof trilpes, not documents - if you have the triples then you ahve the entailments [missed a bit]
16:14:53 <lib-scrib> sb: supports danc, probably
16:15:40 <lib-scrib> chrisW: is theeraany way to include in teh spec some way to tell people when they are required to load a ertain set of triples
16:15:52 <lib-scrib> patH: we can;t require them to in terms of entailments
16:16:11 <lib-scrib> chrisW: youn must load these triples, nothignto do with entailment
16:16:31 <lib-scrib> - i.e. can we say this
16:17:02 <danbri> danbri has joined #webont
16:17:13 <lib-scrib> jjc: manifest file in testcases, pointing to files to include and entailments - get valid entailments _if_ you import the files
16:17:50 <lib-scrib> ...danc saying that can;t use implecit mechanism, but that we can't have imports - we need explcit operational semantics in this language
16:18:57 <lib-scrib> [sorry, scribe can;t keep iup]
16:19:19 <lib-scrib> jim: premise ns:A=http://bla/A
16:19:28 <lib-scrib> man owl:subclass A:mortal
16:19:33 <lib-scrib> socrates a man
16:19:44 <lib-scrib> exists a document http://bla/A
16:20:02 <lib-scrib> which says - mortal owl:subclass :transientbeing
16:20:19 <lib-scrib> conclusioon socrates:a http;//bla/A transientbeing
16:20:42 <lib-scrib> mikeS: software engineering, not entailment test
16:21:10 <lib-scrib> ? this is the kind of thing we should be standardizing
16:21:15 <lib-scrib> patH: yes!
16:21:40 <lib-scrib> chrisW: semantics doesnt tell you what triples to load, just what you get if you do load them
16:22:16 <lib-scrib> ...could do this with every other ttriple
16:22:29 <lib-scrib> patH: you'd have to control what pieces of information people read
16:22:49 <lib-scrib> chrisW: if I pout text on a webpage thenm a nrowser will load it
16:23:05 <lib-scrib> danc: images? - commonality of implementation, not a standard
16:23:13 <lib-scrib> ...ok with me as long as I don;t have to use it
16:24:10 <lib-scrib> [....]
16:24:53 <lib-scrib> danC; has lots of ontloghies that has made on a daily basis, with coauthors, also mikeD, jos. we could like with no particular policy
16:25:43 <lib-scrib> ian: if my reasoner can load anythign at all from the web, all we need for a fillly comlpiant ontology is somethign that says yes to every entailment and ...do something...sorry?
16:25:56 <lib-scrib> patH: we can;'t pass laws against stupidity
16:26:07 <lib-scrib> mikeS": we can try to help them
16:26:26 <lib-scrib> patH: we can;t heplp them because we don;t know what they will do with it
16:27:22 <lib-scrib> jim: we will come up with  agrpah that only contains certain facts, that's consistent. we dont feel comfortable coming up wityh a solution wrt imports - we think the following policy looks good but we dont wantto endorse it as a standard
16:27:31 <lib-scrib> several peopel can live with it, ? can;t
16:27:58 <lib-scrib> ? wants to state a policy - pick a policy
16:28:21 <lib-scrib> ? picking one is a standardization issue
16:28:34 <lib-scrib> danc: we dont have enough informationt opick tyjhe right one
16:28:45 <lib-scrib> guus: should we pick one even if it's the wrong one?
16:28:56 <lib-scrib> ?what does it mean to be riht? we can add a policy later
16:28:58 <nmg> ? == EVAN WALLACE
16:29:05 <nmg> sorry, caps lock
16:29:07 <lib-scrib> (thanks, sorry)
16:29:45 <lib-scrib> chrisW: a proposal: if I write an ontology, want some assurance that it will be used consistently. some peopel say can;t do this on the web, don;t want this etc...
16:30:16 <lib-scrib> ....but if you could have an optional tag to say - loda all these triples between the tags - for owl complience. don;t have to use it
16:30:46 <lib-scrib> ...a packaging mechanism
16:32:08 <lib-scrib> patH: doesnt think that chris's proposal meams anything. whta can they do or can;t do if someone else reads this packaging
16:33:10 <lib-scrib> chrisW: sees a need to package together owl assertions - a compliant tool cannot pick and chosse form the triples
16:33:30 <lib-scrib> patH; so a tool can't use a part of teh ontology?
16:33:42 <lib-scrib> chris: just loading it
16:33:58 <lib-scrib> patH: so all it does is say that I have to juse up more of my memory!
16:34:40 <lib-scrib> danC: maybe we shoudl ahve an issue about tool conformance - we dont yet
16:35:31 <lib-scrib> ian: our spec tells you whether this wentailments follws form these triples; if you get more info from the web, then it might entail when it shoudl not
16:35:44 <lib-scrib> danC: different premises!
16:36:01 <lib-scrib> ian: more premises, more conclusions - and he's entitled to do this
16:36:13 <lib-scrib> danC: not more conclusions, different premises
16:36:24 <lib-scrib> ian: no way of specifying the premises!
16:36:50 <lib-scrib> jim: rss - like ontology 'channel' proposal
16:37:48 <lib-scrib> jim: <owl:onoltogy rdf:id>
16:38:01 <lib-scrib> <owl:includes rdf:collection..?
16:38:09 <lib-scrib> <ontlist:uri1>
16:38:11 <lib-scrib> <ontlist:uri2>
16:38:14 <lib-scrib> <ontlist:uri3>
16:38:27 <lib-scrib> ...if you point at me I will expect you to read in all these uris
16:39:05 <lib-scrib> ...could be just a policy; could be a requiremenet [scribe - what's the difefrence?]
16:39:51 <lib-scrib> patH: clarification q: suppose in order to conform I import the whole thing. suppose I then use a tiny bit I draw a conclusion and then throw it - why did I need to ijport it all?
16:40:29 <lib-scrib> jim: chris can be assured that if you change something from within the imports.....[missed stuff]
16:40:38 <lib-scrib> ...an explicit way to grow the graph
16:40:59 <lib-scrib> jjc: this example looks like the begiining of something - needs to be worked out
16:41:33 <lib-scrib> ...an incomplete reasoner can just look at some part sof some documents - no problem
16:41:58 <lib-scrib> ...nonl;y prob is when you say tghat scrates is not a transient being
16:42:14 <lib-scrib> ian: you are entitleed to use up to the fuull set of docs that are specified
16:42:44 <lib-scrib> patH: you are alsways compplete with repect to a particular knowledge base
16:43:37 <lib-scrib> ian: tehre shoufdl be a list to show the list of triple you are intended to conclude
16:44:21 <lib-scrib> patH: we will get a supergoogle
16:44:22 <lib-scrib> ...
16:44:30 <lib-scrib> [jeff, guus says sorry]
16:44:35 <lib-scrib> [scribe loses track
16:44:36 <lib-scrib> ]
16:44:41 <heflin> Sorry for what?
16:45:03 <lib-scrib> [for the lack of clearness maybe?]
16:45:59 <lib-scrib> guus: we're going in circles; 3 positions
16:46:05 <lib-scrib> [scribe didnt catch them!]
16:46:33 <lib-scrib> [did anyone catch them?]
16:47:10 <lib-scrib> chrisW: a way to convey the intention of the author of the ontology is maybe what trying to get at
16:47:38 <lib-scrib> guus: shoudl these principles be pragmatic, formal or not bother
16:47:56 <lib-scrib> danC; 2 diff types of testcases, one that follow links, one that doesn't
16:48:17 <lib-scrib> ...call it a 'slurp it up and look for entailments tests' or something
16:48:37 <lib-scrib> ...give it the same status as the rest of our tests
16:49:29 <lib-scrib> jim has a strong problem with that one. import doesnt tell you what to import except the entire document, prob with metdata, versioning
16:49:45 <lib-scrib> ...is it a graph ort an xml document that inetrested in?
16:49:54 <lib-scrib> ...get a small group to do a compromise position
16:50:14 <lib-scrib> ...being ab;le to name a set of statemenets together, then you culd name an ontology; rather than a docuemnt
16:50:37 <lib-scrib> mikeD: confused - sound like imports ok with danC now
16:50:51 <lib-scrib> danc: ok with it as long as specified separately from entailments
16:51:22 <lib-scrib> jjc: if difefent sorts of entailment tests, it shoudl be interms of the way that they are incomplete
16:52:00 <lib-scrib> ...an extra layer of metadata over teh tests to specify the soret of reasoning you need for them. one of lots of ways of being incomplete - not a special one
16:52:19 <lib-scrib> danc: not incompleetness, extra-logical but maybe we can agree using testcasees
16:52:35 <lib-scrib> ....importing less than a whole doc - any impleemntations?
16:52:48 <lib-scrib> jim: yes - get it all, but just get a few uris
16:53:43 <lib-scrib> jos: would be good if we could come up with a proof of the conclusion - explain why, a justification, evidence
16:54:25 <lib-scrib> action connolly to raise and postpone a justification mechanism
16:54:45 <lib-scrib> jim: - on an issues list for teh future
16:54:55 <lib-scrib> - useful - a non-trivial issue
16:55:25 <lib-scrib> guus: proposals...?
16:55:49 <lib-scrib> danc: informally, anc's proposal is consistent with charter and jeff's first proposal
16:55:53 <lib-scrib> [missed what was]
16:56:19 <lib-scrib> danc thinks jjc has a few propsed tests coudl discuss at a later telecon
16:56:47 <lib-scrib> patH - we could say that that's part of the definition of entailment
16:57:12 <lib-scrib> danC; want a separate definition of a triple taht doesn;t depend on the sdtate of the world [..?]
16:57:48 <lib-scrib> jim: the real issue is how are we going to write imports down, if imports has a daml like meaning (does imports go in teh graph?)
16:58:19 <lib-scrib> guus: at amsterdam f2f, exchange syntax is rdf/xml, and so only proposal 2 is acceptable
16:58:28 <lib-scrib> ? proposal 3? 
16:58:46 <lib-scrib> danc: from syntax 2 and 3 are not distinguishable
16:59:04 <lib-scrib> jim: use syntax of 2 and the implication mechanism of 3 - assume a strong imports
16:59:08 <lib-scrib> guus: and have test suites
16:59:53 <lib-scrib> action Danc - make sure the test cases from today are written down
17:01:23 <lib-scrib> proposed resolution - `we will usew the syntax of `jeff's `proposal 2
17:01:38 <DanC> PROPOSED: to include daml:imports syntax as in the reference WD, to include an operational specification of how to find the triples before testing semantic entailment. To have a separate class of tests for this operation.
17:03:02 <DanC> jeff, you ok with that?
17:03:22 <lib-scrib> scribe has to go....
17:04:07 <lib-scrib> thanks danc
17:05:53 <DanC> PROPOSED: to include daml:imports syntax as in the reference WD, to provide a specification of the set of triples to be included in the test of semantic entailment. To have a separate class of tests for this operation.
17:06:19 <DanC> straw poll...
17:06:24 <DanC> MikeD doesn't like it
17:07:16 <DanC> MikeD: daml:imports adds a lot of hair... I don't think we've clarified why it's better than the mechanism Dan talked about [i.e. if you use a property, ...]
17:08:41 <DanC> [... question of whether daml:imports is sufficiently valualbe, the cost of implentation, the obligation or lack thereof of implementing it]
17:09:18 <DanC> Volz: I don't like this because if we have imports, we need a "if that fails..." mechanism.
17:10:23 <DanC> Guus: perhaps we can postpone the decision until our 'recap' session tomorrow.
17:10:50 <DanC> [Guus notes nobody joined 'the telcon']
17:10:56 <DanC> thanks for joining, jeff.
17:11:02 <DanC> ADJOURN
18:31:35 <heflin> quit
18:31:43 <heflin> heflin has left #webont