IRC log of webont on 2003-12-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:51:28 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #webont
16:57:17 [guus]
guus has joined #webont
16:59:35 [Zakim]
SW_WebOnt()12:00PM has now started
16:59:36 [seanb]
seanb has joined #webont
16:59:42 [Zakim]
17:00:52 [Zakim]
17:00:58 [Zakim]
17:01:14 [guus]
zakim, ??p28 is Guus
17:01:14 [Zakim]
+Guus; got it
17:02:41 [guus]
zakim, who is talking?
17:02:52 [Zakim]
guus, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P6 (82%)
17:02:58 [Zakim]
17:03:05 [IanH]
IanH has joined #webont
17:03:09 [Zakim]
17:03:23 [mdean]
mdean has joined #webont
17:03:27 [jjc]
jjc has joined #webont
17:03:33 [Zakim]
17:03:40 [jjc]
17:03:47 [jjc]
Zakim, who's on the call
17:03:47 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who's on the call', jjc
17:03:50 [jjc]
Zakim, who's on the call?
17:03:50 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P6, Guus, Mike_Dean, ??P32, Ian_Horrocks, Deb_Mcguinness
17:04:02 [Zakim]
17:04:16 [jjc]
Zakim, mute ??P32
17:04:16 [Zakim]
??P32 should now be muted
17:04:30 [jjc]
Zakim, ??P32 is jjc
17:04:30 [Zakim]
+jjc; got it
17:04:38 [jjc]
Zakim unmute jjc
17:04:43 [jjc]
Zakim, unmute jjc
17:04:43 [Zakim]
jjc should no longer be muted
17:04:48 [Zakim]
17:05:02 [Zakim]
17:05:14 [Zakim]
17:05:29 [jjc]
Zakim, who is talking?
17:05:40 [Zakim]
jjc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Guus (25%), ??P66 (20%), HermanT (4%), DanC (4%)
17:05:48 [DanC]
DanC has changed the topic to: WebOnt 18Dec. Chair: GuusS scribe: ?
17:05:52 [guus]
zakim, ??p32 is Jeremy
17:05:52 [Zakim]
sorry, guus, I do not recognize a party named '??p32'
17:06:26 [guus]
zakim, ??p26 is Yasser
17:06:26 [Zakim]
sorry, guus, I do not recognize a party named '??p26'
17:06:34 [Zakim]
17:06:55 [DanC]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:06:55 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Yasser, Guus, Mike_Dean, jjc, Ian_Horrocks, Deb_Mcguinness, Evan_Wallace, HermanT, DanC, SeanB, Sandro
17:08:08 [DanC]
Zakim, agenda?
17:08:08 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
17:08:09 [Zakim]
1. 18Dec [from DanC]
17:08:18 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose SeanB
17:08:33 [DanC]
DanC has changed the topic to: WebOnt 18Dec. Chair: GuusS scribe: jjc
17:08:44 [jjcscribe]
Guus chairs
17:08:59 [jjcscribe]
rollcall above
17:09:22 [DanC]
I'm available 8Jan
17:09:40 [Zakim]
17:09:42 [DanC]
I'm available 15Jan
17:09:53 [jjcscribe]
Next m,eeting Guus suggests 15th Jan?
17:09:56 [Jhendler]
Jhendler has joined #webont
17:10:21 [jjcscribe]
JimH notes Jan 19th PR ends
17:10:24 [jjcscribe]
Dan seonds proposal from Guus
17:10:31 [jjcscribe]
Next meeting 15th Jan 2004
17:10:36 [jjcscribe]
Agendum 2
17:10:54 [jjcscribe]
Chair proposes thanks to DanC and Sandro
17:10:55 [Jhendler]
zakim, [umd] is jimH
17:10:55 [Zakim]
+jimH; got it
17:11:25 [jjcscribe]
Also tashnks to Jeremy for extra effort and test
17:11:49 [jjcscribe]
(and every editor,
17:11:56 [jjcscribe]
the whole group should feel proud
17:12:08 [jjcscribe]
Zakim, mute jjc
17:12:08 [Zakim]
jjc should now be muted
17:12:22 [jjcscribe]
is that better soundwise?
17:12:27 [sandro]
Yes, JJC
17:12:30 [jjcscribe]
not for me
17:12:37 [Zakim]
17:12:48 [jjcscribe]
scribe is lost ....
17:13:36 [jjcscribe]
what's the passcode?
17:13:42 [DanC]
Zakim, passcode?
17:13:42 [Zakim]
the conference code is 9326, DanC
17:13:51 [Zakim]
17:13:55 [jjcscribe]
scribe back again
17:14:04 [jjcscribe]
Zakim, ??P32 is jjc
17:14:04 [Zakim]
+jjc; got it
17:14:11 [sandro]
JimH: EVERYONE please encourage your AC reps to vote.
17:14:21 [DanC]
Hendler: contact AC reps to give formal feedback on our proposed rec; both the org you work for an any W3C member orgs you work with
17:14:38 [sandro]
vote at:
17:15:01 [sandro]
s/vote/give feedback
17:15:19 [jjcscribe]
danc explains process
17:15:26 [jjcscribe]
for PR and AC review
17:16:09 [Jhendler]
The AC member gets to choose from
17:16:10 [Jhendler]
[# be published as a W3C Recommendation as is.
17:16:16 [Jhendler]
# be published as a W3C Recommendation with minor changes (your details below)
17:16:16 [Jhendler]
# be returned for further work due to substantial issues (your details below)
17:16:16 [Jhendler]
# not be published as a specification, and discontinued as a W3C work item (your details below)
17:16:17 [Jhendler]
# My organization abstains from this review]
17:16:21 [sandro]
(also RDF Core : )
17:17:28 [Jhendler]
also an invitation to be involved with the publicity
17:18:13 [jjcscribe]
Zakim, mute jjc
17:18:13 [Zakim]
jjc should now be muted
17:18:44 [jjcscribe]
AC vote advises director
17:19:11 [sandro]
DanC: Things that mostly count are: My Org wants this (going to build products) and We don't want to this to go forward (and here's why).
17:19:48 [jjcscribe]
detailed discussion of form
17:20:43 [jjcscribe]
AOB entry sean's note added number 7
17:21:10 [jjcscribe]
Approve minutes of last call ---
17:21:23 [jjcscribe]
3.0 Dan 2nds - approved
17:21:25 [DanC]
minutes of last call (Nov 13)
17:21:25 [DanC]
17:21:32 [jjcscribe]
thanks dan
17:21:51 [jjcscribe]
Action items 4.0 - amnesty on all actioons
17:22:10 [jjcscribe]
Zakim, unmute jjc
17:22:10 [Zakim]
jjc should no longer be muted
17:22:16 [Zakim]
17:22:18 [jjcscribe]
People may do actions if they want
17:22:25 [dlm]
dlm has joined #webont
17:22:43 [jjcscribe]
Agendum 5 QA review
17:22:48 [jjcscribe]
Zakim, mute jjc
17:22:48 [Zakim]
jjc should now be muted
17:23:00 [jjcscribe]
17:23:21 [jjcscribe]
17:23:42 [jjcscribe]
We were building a case study for their guidelines ....
17:23:47 [jjcscribe]
that was part II
17:24:02 [DanC]
fyi, jeremy, Zakim has a new feature where it tells everybody that was on the phone at any time during the call when it's dismissed
17:24:13 [jjcscribe]
Zakim, unmute jjc
17:24:13 [Zakim]
jjc should no longer be muted
17:26:02 [jjcscribe]
JimH suggest separating part I and II as two separate msgs
17:26:52 [jjcscribe]
i.e. I and III in one msg and II in a separate piece
17:27:45 [Zakim]
17:28:02 [Jhendler]
zakim, [eds] is mike smith
17:28:02 [Zakim]
I don't understand '[eds] is mike smith', Jhendler
17:28:12 [jjcscribe]
left as editorial decision for Evan and Jeremy ...
17:28:13 [Jhendler]
zakim, [EDS] is mike smith
17:28:13 [Zakim]
I don't understand '[EDS] is mike smith', Jhendler
17:28:25 [Jhendler]
zakim, [EDS] is mikeSmith
17:28:25 [Zakim]
+mikeSmith; got it
17:29:21 [jjcscribe]
Jeremy suggests www-qa www-qa-wg
17:29:31 [jjcscribe]
as places to send this comment
17:29:50 [DanC]
"You may email comments on this document to, the publicly archived list"
17:30:33 [jjcscribe]
DanC "wholly endorses review"
17:31:17 [jjcscribe]
Proposal to approve review with edits agreed, and editorial discretion to Evan
17:31:31 [jjcscribe]
(will go out today or tomorrow)
17:31:37 [jjcscribe]
Connolly seconds
17:31:54 [jjcscribe]
No objections
17:32:16 [jjcscribe]
Hendler Schriber Carroll
17:32:20 [jjcscribe]
lots in favour
17:32:33 [jjcscribe]
no abstentions
17:33:05 [jjcscribe]
Thanks to Evan and Jeremy for review
17:33:14 [jjcscribe]
(particularly Evan! - scribe)
17:33:26 [jjcscribe]
6 Handling of errors
17:33:29 [jjcscribe]
17:34:11 [jjcscribe]
Proposed Rec is end of WG works
17:34:18 [jjcscribe]
the recs belong to director
17:34:54 [jjcscribe]
Question: there is a type s/all/some/ in an example
17:35:16 [jjcscribe]
DanC says make change in editors draft ... cost of change is high
17:36:13 [jjcscribe]
AC reps may make comments which may include fixes
17:37:07 [jjcscribe]
AC votes can add comments after having voted
17:37:28 [jjcscribe]
fixing typos is OK -
17:37:49 [jjcscribe]
must not cross line where someone who voted for PR is unhappy with REC
17:39:34 [jjcscribe]
there is a problem with minor versus major change ...
17:40:08 [jjcscribe]
DanC prefers concrete discussion ...
17:40:29 [jjcscribe]
First issue XMLLiteral - Herman
17:40:51 [jjcscribe]
S&AS is normative description of OWL Semantics
17:41:42 [sandro]
"They are intended to provide examples for, and clarification of, the normative definition of OWL found in [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax] to which this document is subsidiary."
17:41:59 [DanC]
"They are intended to provide examples for, and clarification of, the normative definition of OWL found in [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax] to which this document is subsidiary."
17:42:34 [jjcscribe]
Many members agree that S&AS is *the* normative defn
17:43:26 [DanC]
"my message of a few days ago" is ambiguous; I'm aware of several
17:44:59 [jjcscribe]
Herman makes the point that the text of test misc-201-204 needs to change in his position.
17:45:36 [jjcscribe]
Herman suggests looking at msg 68
17:45:52 [jjcscribe]
17:48:12 [DanC]
misc-201 to misc-205
17:48:21 [Jhendler]
jeremy - discusses implicit vs. explicit nature of the XMLLiteral rec, and describes some test cases
17:48:55 [seanb]
17:49:21 [DanC]
17:51:10 [Zakim]
17:51:13 [jjcscribe]
horrocks I think it is explicit that rdf:XMLLiteral is not required
17:51:24 [jjcscribe]
DanC what do our implementors think?
17:52:29 [jjcscribe]
Hendler: if you have not added reasoning for rdf:XMLLiteral then test 205 comes out this way
17:52:32 [sandro]
Note that test results have F-OWL, Pellet, OWLP, and Hoolet as passing misc-205, and ConVISor as failing it.
17:52:50 [jjcscribe]
Herman: S&AS has normative ref to RDF Semantics
17:52:52 [sandro]
(and no others)
17:55:41 [jjcscribe]
Herman points to D interpretations being imported in section 5 of S&AS from RDF Semantics
17:55:57 [jjcscribe]
D interpretations in RDF Semantics have rdf:XMLLiteral
17:59:15 [jjcscribe]
Definition: Let D be a datatype map that includes datatypes for xsd:integer and xsd:string. An OWL interpretation, I = < RI, PI, EXTI, SI, LI, LVI >, of a vocabulary V, where V includes the RDF and RDFS vocabularies and the OWL vocabulary, is a D-interpretation of V that satisfies all the constraints in this section.
17:59:54 [Jhendler]
But... -- if I run test 205 through an RDF system which supports the RDF data map for XMLLiteral, that system will do the right thing as detailed in our test
18:00:09 [jjcscribe]
D-interpretations must meet several other conditions, as detailed in the RDF semantics.
18:00:45 [jjcscribe]
Herman: "this is a sumamry section to help the reader" this is not a complete repeat of RDF semantics
18:01:02 [jjcscribe]
they allows S&AS to be read on its own
18:01:15 [Jhendler]
or should I say - run it through an RDF parser w functional added...
18:03:28 [jjcscribe]
Horrocks: section3 definitely does not contain this condition
18:05:14 [jjcscribe]
Herman: tests depend on section 5
18:05:24 [jjcscribe]
Carroll: no Lite and DL tests depend on section 3
18:06:53 [jjcscribe]
18:07:28 [sandro]
Stepping back of a sec, I'm really worried about this idea that every OWL system MUST supposed XML Literal. Supporting XML Literal is likely to be a royal pain.
18:07:52 [guus]
guus has joined #webont
18:08:01 [Jhendler]
18:08:02 [DanC]
when the WG considered that explicitly, sandro, we decided XML Literal support is not necessary. but it seems that perhaps a bug has crept in somewhere
18:08:16 [sandro]
"somewhere" == "RDF COre".
18:08:54 [DanC]
well, I don't think RDF Core created a bug; I think they changed something, and we didn't fully consider the impact of the change on our earlier decisions
18:08:56 [sandro]
They said every RDF system must support XML Literal; we only said OWL (Full?) systems were RDF systems.
18:08:59 [guus]
18:09:16 [jjcscribe]
Herman: if OWL DL does not support rdf:XMLLiteral then it is not a semantic ext of RDFS
18:09:35 [sandro]
Right -- but it strikes me as a bad idea for RDF Core to require XMLLiteral of very RDF systems.
18:10:48 [Zakim]
18:11:13 [Zakim]
18:11:50 [jjcscribe]
DanC: what changes do people want?
18:12:48 [jjcscribe]
Herman: add rdf:XMLLiteral to ... list of datatypes in section3
18:14:57 [jjcscribe]
Carroll, could support change technically but not at cost of going back
18:15:34 [jjcscribe]
Horrocks we have explicitly voted to not support rdf:XMLLiteral
18:15:58 [jjcscribe]
ter Horst This is a deviation from what S&AS says
18:17:33 [jjcscribe]
Herman claims to have a test case, Horrocks believes it
18:18:25 [jjcscribe]
Herman's example msg 58
18:18:42 [jjcscribe]
18:18:48 [DanC]
Horrocks: ill-formed XML literal is inconsitent in an RDF D-interpretation but not in OWL Lite/DL
18:21:25 [jjcscribe]
(that is same as herman's example)
18:22:26 [jjcscribe]
DanC reiterates that cost of change is high
18:23:22 [jjcscribe]
Carrroll asks about s/datatype tehory/datatype map/
18:24:03 [jjcscribe]
Herman proposed change in section 3
18:24:10 [jjcscribe]
Carroll suggested only in section 5
18:25:00 [jjcscribe]
Herman believes Carroll proposal is better than no change
18:25:21 [Jhendler]
test 201 says - Datatypes that may or may not be supported:
18:25:52 [Jhendler]
which is ambiguous enough to be fine (i.e. can be interepreted as supported in Full, not supported in Lite)
18:27:45 [DanC]
Carrol: [my proposal?] is mainly taking "full" out of test 205
18:28:50 [jjcscribe]
ACTION carroll expand proposal to modify 205 without Full
18:28:57 [jjcscribe]
Ian can't make the 8th
18:31:39 [jjcscribe]
Carroll - business arguments take precedence over technical arguments
18:31:58 [DanC]
in general, business and technical interact in non-linear ways
18:32:41 [jjcscribe]
Chair moved an extension
18:32:53 [jjcscribe]
ACTION carroll propose theory to map change
18:33:32 [Jhendler]
I second the proposal to make Sean's doc a WG Note if team contact will support hat
18:33:36 [Jhendler]
18:33:42 [jjcscribe]
SeanB's note
18:33:55 [jjcscribe]
Zakim, who's on the call?
18:33:55 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Guus, Mike_Dean, Ian_Horrocks, Deb_Mcguinness, Evan_Wallace, HermanT, DanC, SeanB, jimH, jjc, CharlesW, mikeSmith, Sandro
18:34:13 [seanb]
we can hear you!
18:34:17 [Jhendler]
we hear sandro - he doesn't hear us
18:34:53 [jjcscribe]
reuest to sandro to act as team contact for publishing WG note (SeanB's doc)
18:35:16 [jjcscribe]
Guus proposes publishing Sean's note
18:35:21 [jjcscribe]
as WG note
18:35:25 [jjcscribe]
Carroll and others second
18:35:31 [jjcscribe]
no objection, no abstention
18:35:35 [jjcscribe]
thanks to Sean
18:35:52 [jjcscribe]
ACTION Sandro To act as team contact for WG note.
18:35:56 [DanC]
(jjc, note that who seconds isn't important for W3C process; a 2nd helps the chair detect non-trivial support for a proposal)
18:36:34 [jjcscribe]
Annotations left til 15th
18:36:44 [jjcscribe]
ACTION chairs Add annotationproperties to agenda for 15th
18:36:49 [jjcscribe]
18:37:10 [jjcscribe]
There is charter for Best practice WG
18:37:36 [DanC]
18:37:46 [DanC]
$Revision: 1.292 $
18:37:59 [jjcscribe]
Tentative date for kick off for best practices at tehc plenary
18:39:05 [jjcscribe]
Call for discussion on charter of BP group to take places in Cannes
18:39:12 [jjcscribe]
WebOnt WG will not be meeting in Cannes
18:39:37 [jjcscribe]
There will be a party for WebOnt WG members at Cannes
18:39:51 [Zakim]
18:39:53 [Zakim]
18:39:53 [jjcscribe]
(Carroll complains that party is not part of the process)
18:39:56 [Zakim]
18:39:57 [Zakim]
18:39:58 [Zakim]
18:40:01 [Zakim]
18:40:02 [Zakim]
18:40:03 [Zakim]
18:40:04 [Zakim]
18:40:05 [Zakim]
18:40:06 [Zakim]
18:40:07 [Zakim]
18:40:08 [Zakim]
18:40:09 [Zakim]
SW_WebOnt()12:00PM has ended
18:40:11 [Zakim]
Attendees were Mike_Dean, Guus, Ian_Horrocks, Deb_Mcguinness, Evan_Wallace, jjc, HermanT, DanC, Sandro, SeanB, Yasser, jimH, CharlesW, mikeSmith
18:40:20 [DanC]
hmm... jeremy, clearly we need an ISO9000-certified party, yes?
18:40:38 [DanC]
18:40:52 [Jhendler]
point to RalphS for "attendees were..." nice zakim change!!
18:41:07 [DanC]
yeah, Zakim's got some new features.
18:41:09 [DanC]
Zakim, help?
18:41:09 [Zakim]
Please refer to for more detailed help.
18:41:11 [Zakim]
Some of the commands I know are:
18:41:12 [Zakim]
xxx is yyy - establish yyy as the name of unknown party xxx
18:41:14 [Zakim]
if yyy is 'me' or 'I', your nick is substituted
18:41:16 [Zakim]
xxx may be yyy - establish yyy as possibly the name of unknown party xxx
18:41:18 [Zakim]
I am xxx - establish your nick as the name of unknown party xxx
18:41:20 [Zakim]
xxx holds yyy [, zzz ...] - establish xxx as a group name and yyy, etc. as participants within that group
18:41:22 [Zakim]
xxx also holds yyy - add yyy to the list of participants in group xxx
18:41:24 [Zakim]
who's here? - lists the participants on the phone
18:41:26 [Zakim]
who's muted? - lists the participants who are muted
18:41:28 [Zakim]
mute xxx - mutes party xxx (like pressing 61#)
18:41:30 [Zakim]
unmute xxx - reverses the effect of "mute" and of 61#
18:41:32 [Zakim]
is xxx here? - reports whether a party named like xxx is present
18:41:34 [Zakim]
list conferences - reports the active conferences
18:41:35 [Zakim]
this is xxx - associates this channel with conference xxx
18:41:36 [Zakim]
excuse us - disconnects from the irc channel
18:41:37 [Zakim]
I last learned something new on $Date: 2003/12/11 14:46:58 $
18:41:45 [Jhendler]
very nice
18:56:51 [Jhendler]
Jhendler has joined #webont