OWL Weekly Telco

 

 

<Rinke> bernardo?

<bernardo> zakim ??p21 is bernardo

<Ratnesh> P19 = Ratnesh

<IanH> unmute me

<scribe> ScribeNick: achille

<IanH> My phone just went dead!

<alanr> i don't hear anyone

<IanH> Me neither

<IanH> unmute me

<uli> I could hear a child just now

<IanH> unmute me

<IanH> I am!

PROPOSED: Accept the previous minutes

<pfps> +1 to accept minutes

<ivan> +1

+1

<Rinke> +1

<Ratnesh> +1

RESOLUTION: minutes accepted

<pfps> NONONONON

<Rinke> except for the images

ACTION Send email reminding people to make wiki account

POSTPONE

<scribe> ACTION: Sandro to migration of documents [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/07-owl-minutes.html#action01]

<pfps> sandro sent out a message concerning where to put the images

<scribe> Postponed

<pfps> there are *two* documents

<jjc> alan said avout reminder email that the naming conventions were unclear, and Sandro is clarifying

<scribe> ACTION: 6 to Done [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/07-owl-minutes.html#action02]

<pfps> should the link to the duplicate page be removed?

Issues

<Rinke> +1 to removing the (link to the) duplicate page

<scribe> Topic : Issue 2

<pfps> both http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Issues and http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/HowIssuesAreProcessed tell how issues are processed

<Rinke> perhaps turn HowIssuesAreProcessed into a redirect to Issues

<ew> +1 to Bijan's viewpoint on this

ian: do new properties affect backward compatibility

<Ratnesh> P19 = Ratnesh

<ew> Cardinality Q was also turned down

<bijan> ooo, excellent point ew

<bijan> Does peter actually object? Can't we just disagree with the old group?

<Carsten> I disagree. There are usually *many* disjoint classes. Only ontology designers overlook that and

<Carsten> usually fail to state it.

<IanH> ack

<bijan> I see peter's point...this is a owl full thing

<pfps> many large disjointness sets (a disjointness set with thousands of elements)

<pfps> there can be lots of small disjointness sets

<IanH> How do I ack someone else?

alanr: the assumption that there will not be a lot of disjoint is not correct

<bijan> +1 to alan

<Carsten> peter: if you have thousands of classes, why not?

<pfps> if your disjointness sets are small then you don't get many extra triples

<bijan> we get this request all the time

<bijan> NO NO NO NO

<bmotik> It is not just the disjointness. In the functional spec, you can have equivalences between n classes, but in RDF you can have only pair-wise equivalences. This is inherited from OWL 1.0 RDF mapping.

<pfps> but it is easy and direct to put a large equivalence set into RDF with no size increase

<bmotik> The same thing also holds for properties (disjointness and equivalences). It is probably a good idea to come up with the same solution for all of these constructs, not just for disjointness.

<bijan> +1 to bmotik

<jjc2> disagree with bmotik

<bmotik> And there are also sameAs and differentFrom on individuals.

<DougL> +p

<DougL> +q

<pfps> Alan's case seems to be quite compelling

ianh: AllDisjoint does not necessary have a negative impact on implementations

<IanH> ?q

who is speaking?

<DougL> that was me, achille

<bmotik> OK, I'll just add this to the issue.

<pfps> i never had an objection, just a caution

<IanH> ?q

<Zakim> jjc, you wanted to mention back chat

<alanr> +1

<pfps> ok by me

<ew> +1

<DougL> sounds good to me

ianh: should we make the change in the docs for AllDisjoint

<jjc2> +1

<ivan> not against

+1

<Rinke> +1

<zhe> +1

<Carsten> +1

<FabianNeuhaus> +1

<uli> +1

<MikeSmith_> +1 for AllDisjoint

<bijan> +1 for AllDisjoint

RESOLUTION: Issue 2 AllDisjoint will be added in the docs

<bijan> ?

<pfps> do it the same way that allDifferent is handled in OWL 1.0

<alanr> presume that the rdf mapping will be O(n)

<pfps> it is in the FS already, right?

<bijan> pfps, no! it seems!

<bijan> ah it is

<bijan> disjointClasses

<bijan> Here: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Class_or_Description_Axioms

<pfps> how about: treat DisjointClasses like DifferentIndividuals?

RESOLUTION: AllDisjoint will be added to the functional syntax and the RDF mapping

<bijan> """The disjointClasses axiom takes a set of descriptions and states that all descriptions from the set are pair-wise disjoint."""

<bijan> It is in

<alanr> RESOLVED: Issue 2 A O(n) rdf mapping of disjointClasses will be added

<pfps> votes?

<pfps> we changed the resolution, so it is probably best to confirm the change

<alanr> +1

<pfps> +1

<bijan> +1 for current resolution

+1

<DougL> +1

<Rinke> +1

<MikeSmith_> +1 for current resolution

<Ratnesh> +1

<MartinD> +1

<uli> +1

<jjc> +1

<bernardo> +1

<ivan> +1

<bijan> it taeks an arbitrary number

<bijan> disjointClasses�:= 'DisjointClasses' '(' { annotation } description description { description } ')'

<bijan> Brackets!

Issue 3 (anonymous individuals)

<alanr> Individual(type(owl:Thing)) legal in 1.0

<uli> but this doesn't help us to refer to it?

<alanr> "overzealous"

<jjc2> Jeremy: was the lack of this a bug? or deliberate?

jeremy: no anonymous individual in owl 1.1. Is it a bug?

pfps: is a bug

<bmotik> +q bmotik

<alanr> tree-like

<alanr> also see http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/23

<pfps> I would like to see a proposal

<bijan> Ooo, interesting!

<bernardo> we don't have the universal role in Owl 1.1

Carsten: related to having a universal property. should we consider adding universal property?

<bernardo> but, it was included in SROIQ

<uli> which is why we mention this here

Carsten: it will allow anonymous individuals

<jjc2> [I would like non-tree like stuff, as well as tree stuff, and this issue is only the first step but ...]

Carsten: Universal property is more general. It will make anonymous individuals a special case

<Carsten> correct

<uli> yes

<alanr> in above we are talking about "tree-like" networks of anonymous individuals

bmotik: arbitrary anonymous individuals could yield to undecideability

<bijan> How about close this with tree ones and opening a new issue

<uli> but there aren't any anon. inds. in the owl1.1? Can you clarify, Boris?

<bmotik> To be more precise: nontree like anonymous individuals (in an ABox) easily make ontology entailment undecidable

<alanr> Ian and I had a discussion about this a while ago concerning when we could distinguish skolems from bnodes

<Zakim> jjc, you wanted to propose resolution Issue 3 is a bug report. Action pfps to fix

<alanr> I will look it up

<jjc> jeremy bows to the chair

<alanr> negated property values 1 issue

<bijan> Action to boris to start the discussion?

<bijan> Or someone?

ianh: we will not be able to resolve it now
... we should continue on emails

<pfps> make sure the emails include ISSUE-3 or ISSUE-23

<jjc2> +1 to bijan

<Carsten> I am not on the mailinglist

<Carsten> But working on it :)

<jjc2> (neither am I, but can partifcipate nevertheless

<bijan> zkaim, mute me

<bijan> YEs!

<bmotik> Sire

<bijan> +1 to boris starting it

<bmotik> Sure

<scribe> ACTION: Boris to send an email on issue 3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/07-owl-minutes.html#action03]

<scribe> Topic : Issue 11 and 28 (datatype facets)

<bijan> Is this only for hte XML sytnax?

<bijan> If so, shouldn'tw e defer until we've decided about the XML sytnax?

<ew> Its part of the structural spec

<bijan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2007JanMar/0127.html

<bmotik> The reason why we have no several facts is rather arbitrary: we just didn't think of it. I believe we can easily extend the language to be more practicable.

<bijan> I don't undersatnd this issue ;)

<jjc2> Why can't we use user names in this syntax ?

pfps: I thought the issue was about the XML serialization

<bijan> We could ask evren to come on

<bijan> next week

ianh: let's move on since we do not understand it

<bmotik> The XML schema is now different from what is reporeted in the issue. It was likely a bug that I just fixed later.

<bmotik> I was talking about issue 11

<bijan> They both go back to evren's email

<bijan> Both 28 and 11

ianh: Let's nominate someone to start an email discussion

<bmotik> +q

bmotik: it is about having multiple facets.

<bijan> That sounds promising!

<pfps> suggest sending a message to Evrin to ask him if he thinks 11 is resolved

<jjc> move to email

bmotik: we should add them it was a bug in the XML Schema
... no problem either for issue 28

<bijan> close 11 and resolut 28 with action to liberalize the syntax

<scribe> ACTION: Boris to send an email about issue 11 fixed and how to fix issue 28 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/07-owl-minutes.html#action04]

Issue 13 and 14 (quotation and CURIES)

<ivan> see http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/28 notes

<bijan> This relates to whether we can use the XML Schema syntax

<bmotik> I can stay

<jjc> (I would like to go on the hour)

ianh: let's talk about the second f2f

<pfps> browser bombed

second f2f

<jjc2> peter: thje second f2f seems a long way away but it's not - Jeremy wonders whether it's on the moon.

pfps: collocate the 2nd f2f with OWLED

<bijan> +1

<Carsten> is OWLED collocated with any conference?

<bijan> Carsten, no

<jjc2> dates of OWLED again?

<jjc2> dates: 1-4 April 2 days

pfps: Proposed date 1,2,3 of April 2008

<pfps> this is "interim" OWLED which will not be colocated

ianh: online poll should be done
... online poll should be done

pfps: any objections for the date?

<bijan> Who would host?

<ivan> for info: april 21-25 are the dates for WWW2008

<uli> possibly

<ivan> i will be in china

<alanr> +1

<bernardo> possibly

<MarkusK> possibly

<Carsten> -1

<jjc> possibly

<pfps> maybe me, but not too likely

<bijan> possibly

<FabianNeuhaus> -1

-1

<GiorgosStoilos> possible

<Elisa> -1

<ew> -1

<Ratnesh> maybe

<Rinke> -1

<MikeSmith_> -1 to www2008

<zhe> -1

<bijan> So, w3c would host?

<jjc> ivan: w3c china could help host

<bmotik> Where is the XML Schema stored in the working drafts? I see the XML Ser. document, but it has no pointer to the actual schema.

ivan: would be happy to help with hosting it in China
... if the group decides to do it in China, we can do it

pfps: we also need time to do publicity

<scribe> ACTION: pfps to send an email about your proposal collocated with OWLED [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/07-owl-minutes.html#action05]

<bijan> bmotik, I don't think they are there...I suppose you could upload it ot the wiki and attach it to the page

sorry I send the action to pfps

<bmotik> bijan, how do I do that? I don't know much about Wikis...

ivan, how do I change it to Ianh?

<ivan> good question:-)

<bijan> hmm. Not obvious to me, boris

<scribe> ACTION: ianh to send an email about your proposal collocated with OWLED [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/07-owl-minutes.html#action06]

sorry pfps

<Rinke> the wiki needs to accept uploads of that type: it usually only accepts jpg's etc

<bijan> Oh! look in teh sidebar

<bijan> There's an "upload file"

thanks pfps

<ivan> f2f meeting page

<pfps> have Ian send out an email about this

bijan: please add your name in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Manchester_F2F f2f if you are coming to the first f2f

additional other business?

<Zakim> bijan, you wanted to talk about first f2f

<bijan> yes

<bijan> \I'm done

<Zakim> jjc, you wanted to www2008

<pfps> yes

<bijan> close as manya s possible

<pfps> let's knock off the editorial ones

<ivan> for cca. 10-15 minutes

Issue 13 and 14

<bmotik> I tried uploading the XML schema, but the system said that .xsd is not a supported extension

<bijan> Ok, send an email to sandro

<pfps> jeremy is probably the closest thing we have to an expert here

<bijan> I propose to reuse the Turtle string quoting conventions

<pfps> which are?

<bijan> Common, comprehensive, easy to lift

<MarkusK> http://www.dajobe.org/2004/01/turtle/#sec-strings

<bijan> I feel pretty sure that the Turtle spec covers everything RDF can handle

<pfps> these are roughly the same as RDF quoting

<bijan> Wait! are we resolving on taht?

<pfps> Yes, wait.

<bijan> Yes, alanr, curies can represent properites that rdf/xml cannot

<alanr> so can abstract syntax

<bijan> So can turtle

<pfps> pointer to rdfa?

<Rinke> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-rdfa-primer/

<IanH> Sorry, but I have to run off

<Rinke> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/

<bijan> We'd need that for more arbitrary patterns of bnodes

<bijan> But that's delegated to email discussion

<alanr> PROPOSED: Resolved issue 13 by adopting quotation from turtle (\). Resolve 14 by adopting SPARQL syntax for extended qnames.

<MarkusK> +1

<alanr> +1

<bijan> +1

<ivan> +1

<Elisa> +1

<Rinke> +1

<MikeSmith_> +1 resolution for issue 13

<uli> +1

<MikeSmith_> +1 to resolution for issue 14

<GiorgosStoilos> +1

<pfps> +1 on the straw poll, but I would like to take a look to finalize

<Ratnesh> +1

<MartinD> +1

<pfps> I guess that we can invoke the one week rule if necessary

<alanr> RESOLVED: Resolved issue 13 by adopting quotation from turtle (\). Resolve 14 by adopting SPARQL syntax for extended qnames. (with checkin one written into the spec)

<bmotik> bye

<Rinke> bye

<uli> bye

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128  of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/does/ do/
Found ScribeNick: achille
Found ScribeNick: achille
Inferring Scribes: achille

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Alan Carsten CarstenLutz Doug DougL Elisa Elisa_Kendall Evan_Wallace Fabian FabianNeuhaus Fabien GiorgosStoilos Here IBM IVML Ivan JeremyCarroll MarkusK MartinD MikeSmith MikeSmith_ P12 P16 P17 P18 P19 P4 P5 P6 P8 PROPOSED PhD Ratnesh Rinke ScribeNick Zhe_Wu aaaa achille alanr bernardo bijan bmotik cgi-irc conrad dates evan ew ian ianh item jeremy jjc jjc2 peter pfps someone trackbot-ng uli zhe
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy


WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting


WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 7 Nov 2007
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/11/07-owl-minutes.html
People with action items: boris ianh pfps sandro

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.