17:56:56 RRSAgent has joined #owl 17:56:56 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/11/21-owl-irc 17:56:58 +??P4 17:57:15 ah, that looks better 17:57:25 ScribeNick: Rinke 17:58:05 rrsagent, make record public 17:58:11 bmotik has joined #owl 17:58:17 zakim, who's here 17:58:17 Rinke, you need to end that query with '?' 17:58:23 zakim, who's here? 17:58:23 On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK 17:58:24 On IRC I see bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, MichaelSmith, MarkusK, vit, bijan, Rinke, IanH, MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng 17:58:33 bcuencag has joined #owl 17:58:52 +??P6 17:59:09 uli has joined #owl 17:59:14 Carsten has joined #owl 17:59:17 +MartinD 17:59:20 Zakim, ??P6 is bmotik 17:59:20 +bmotik; got it 17:59:26 jeremy has joined #owl 17:59:27 +IanH 17:59:31 Zakim, mute me 17:59:31 bmotik should now be muted 17:59:33 zakim, mute me 17:59:33 MartinD should now be muted 18:00:05 -bmotik 18:00:23 +??P9 18:00:49 +Alan 18:01:02 +??P12 18:01:03 zakim, ??P9 is me 18:01:03 +uli; got it 18:01:09 +Sandro 18:01:13 Zakim, ??P12 is bmotik 18:01:13 +bmotik; got it 18:01:16 Zakim, mute me 18:01:16 bmotik should now be muted 18:01:17 +??P11 18:01:39 +??P18 18:01:48 Zakim, ??P18 is me 18:01:48 +vit; got it 18:01:58 zakim, who is here? 18:01:58 On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK (muted), MartinD (muted), IanH, uli (muted), Alan, bmotik (muted), Sandro, ??P11, vit 18:02:00 On IRC I see jeremy, Carsten, uli, bcuencag, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, MichaelSmith, MarkusK, vit, bijan, Rinke, IanH, MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng 18:02:03 alanr has joined #owl 18:02:16 ewallace has joined #owl 18:02:27 zakik, who is on the call? 18:02:35 zakim, who is on the call? 18:02:35 On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK (muted), MartinD (muted), IanH, uli (muted), Alan, bmotik (muted), Sandro, ??P11, vit 18:02:40 +??P19 18:03:03 calling in on cell phone too, for a few minutes, so I can fetch a coffee... 18:03:23 pfps has joined #owl 18:03:32 zhe has joined #owl 18:03:35 "Zakim, ??19 is me" 18:03:46 +??P20 18:03:50 zakim, ??p20 is me 18:03:50 +pfps; got it 18:03:51 zakim, ??P19 is me 18:03:52 +bcuencag; got it 18:03:54 +Alan_Ruttenberg 18:03:56 zakim, mute me 18:03:56 pfps should now be muted 18:04:00 +??P3 18:04:06 zakim, who is here? 18:04:06 On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK (muted), MartinD (muted), IanH, uli (muted), Alan, bmotik (muted), Sandro, ??P11, vit, bcuencag, pfps (muted), 18:04:09 ... Alan_Ruttenberg, ??P3 18:04:11 On IRC I see zhe, pfps, ewallace, alanr, jeremy, Carsten, uli, bcuencag, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, MichaelSmith, MarkusK, vit, bijan, Rinke, IanH, MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng 18:04:12 zakim, ??p3 is me 18:04:14 +Carsten; got it 18:04:20 zakim, mut me 18:04:20 I don't understand 'mut me', Carsten 18:04:25 zakim, mute me 18:04:25 Carsten should now be muted 18:04:33 zakim, mute me 18:04:33 Rinke should now be muted 18:04:48 +Evan_Wallace 18:06:05 "Zakim, ??P11 is me" 18:06:08 like that. 18:06:17 Zakim, ??P11 is me 18:06:17 +zhe; got it 18:06:26 zakim, who is here? 18:06:26 On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), MIchaelSmith, MarkusK (muted), MartinD (muted), IanH, uli (muted), Alan, bmotik (muted), Sandro, zhe, vit, bcuencag, pfps (muted), 18:06:29 ... Alan_Ruttenberg, Carsten (muted), Evan_Wallace 18:06:30 On IRC I see zhe, pfps, ewallace, alanr, jeremy, Carsten, uli, bcuencag, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, MichaelSmith, MarkusK, vit, bijan, Rinke, IanH, MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng 18:07:04 IanH: covered Role call 18:07:20 scribenick: Rinke 18:07:25 ok, thanks 18:07:30 RRSAgent, pointer? 18:07:30 See http://www.w3.org/2007/11/21-owl-irc#T18-07-30 18:07:32 IanH: covered Role call 18:07:43 ... any amendments? 18:07:50 ... no amendments 18:07:56 PROPOSED: Accept Previous Previous Minutes 18:08:00 Are we going to cover more issues if we finsih the one's listed 18:08:05 ? 18:08:06 they were rather late 18:08:10 Present: bijan, Rinke, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK, MartinD, IanH, uli, Alan, bmotik, Sandro, zhe, vit, bcuencag, pfps, Alan_Ruttenberg, Carsten, Evan_Wallace 18:08:21 Ian: previous *PREVIOUS* minutes 18:08:30 (ok) 18:08:53 JeffP has joined #owl 18:08:53 7th 18:08:54 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.11.14/Minutes 18:09:00 -Alan_Ruttenberg 18:09:06 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.11.07/Minutes 18:09:12 back 18:09:28 ewallace: previous previous minutes list me as evan wallface 18:10:08 +JeffP 18:10:16 sandro: accept them pending the change 18:10:38 PROPOSED: Accept previous previous minutes module fixing Evan's name 18:11:01 +1 to accept previous previous minutes 18:11:02 sandro: fixed them 18:11:12 ACCEPTED: Accept previous previous minutes module fixing Evan's name 18:11:22 I just updated the attendance list to add Uli 18:11:24 Who was missing 18:11:25 PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes 18:11:27 SANDRO - please reply to prtvate message 18:11:31 I approve 18:11:34 sandro: haven't been there long enough to be reviewed 18:11:43 +1 wait 18:11:51 +1 18:11:54 IanH: who has reviewed them? 18:11:58 i haven't 18:11:58 I just did 18:12:07 had a quick look 18:12:12 IanH: leave them to next week 18:12:21 ... action item status? 18:12:28 aren't minutes supposed to be ready in 48 hours or less? 18:12:28 sandro: still mulling it over 18:12:40 IanH: move to next week 18:12:48 alanr: did the syntax document (Action 15) 18:13:00 IanH: action 17 qname approval 18:13:17 MichaelSmith: email has been sent, asking about schema components status 18:13:20 yes, PFPS, that's the normal convention. In this case the fault was mostly mine. :-( 18:13:21 In http://www.w3.org/mid/20071115.054530.235781452.pfps@research.bell-labs.com pfps found text in XML Schema spec http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#built-in-datatypes built-in datatypes and facets are both given URIs 18:13:23 Evan, are you willing to write up the steps to clean up the minutes? (on http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Scribe_Conventions) 18:13:34 ... most of the issue has been addressed because peter found relevant parts 18:13:47 ... action was done 18:13:52 + +078910aaaa 18:13:57 IanH: action 18, brain dump? 18:14:03 continue 18:14:05 alanr: haven't dumped, postponed to next week 18:14:18 Zakim, aaaa is me 18:14:18 +jeremy; got it 18:14:21 IanH: f2f agenda 18:14:43 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F.2007.12-Manchester/Agenda 18:14:44 IanH: have collected a list of items to be discussed at the f2f, please look at the agenda 18:14:55 F2F agenda: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F.2007.12-Manchester/Agenda 18:15:04 ... currently on day 1 an overview of language features, imports 18:15:10 Datatypes? 18:15:11 ... two other topics dl and full alignment 18:15:29 ... if you have comments, topics, then you might want to suggest them 18:15:37 suggest F2F topics how? 18:15:37 ... the schedule is going to be quite tight! 18:15:49 q+ 18:15:54 alanr: where did you put the agenda? 18:15:57 zakim, unmute me 18:15:57 pfps should no longer be muted 18:16:06 q? 18:16:11 IanH: link from meetings page, in the irc as well 18:16:33 ... cannot guarantee that every topic will be added 18:16:49 alanr: if you feel that any knowledge needs to be made clear, we can put it in the tutorial 18:16:56 What's the tutorial? 18:17:00 When is it? 18:17:07 IanH: over the course of the next week we will fix the agenda? 18:17:14 q- 18:17:18 (who's this?) 18:17:21 zakim, unmute me 18:17:21 pfps was not muted, pfps 18:17:43 ewallace: would like to discuss the Declaration 18:17:50 ... just the discussion of it 18:17:52 zakim, unmute me 18:17:52 bijan should no longer be muted 18:17:54 q+ 18:18:12 bijan: what's the tutorial? 18:18:31 alanr: orientation, looking who's coming, having a walkthrough of the specs, and doing a Q&A 18:18:42 ... if you have ideas of what should be covered, let us know 18:18:59 zakim, mute me 18:18:59 bijan should now be muted 18:19:00 bianr: is that the same as Overview of language features? 18:19:03 alanr: yes 18:19:09 IanH: are we done? 18:19:10 chair: Ian 18:19:12 s/bianr/bijan 18:19:29 IanH: alan and I will prepare a more concrete agenda 18:19:36 IanH: 2nd F2F meeting 18:19:37 Perhaps, ian should send an email to solicit agenda topics for f2f? 18:19:43 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F2_proposals 18:19:50 ... quite a few have commented already 18:20:05 Beijing 18:20:10 ... any people on the phone who would like to add their response before we come to a decision? 18:20:16 zakim, mute me 18:20:16 pfps should now be muted 18:20:30 q+ to go back to scribing for a second 18:20:32 ... uli, boris, bernardo... you didn't respond yet? 18:20:40 No preference 18:20:41 oups - i thought i had: preference for washington 18:20:47 beijing or DC 18:20:48 ... any preference Washington, Bejing, Sydney 18:20:59 JeffP: beijing 18:21:00 zakim, unmute me 18:21:00 bijan should no longer be muted 18:21:05 prob. washington for me 18:21:10 I prefer DC, at risk for Beijing, no to sydney 18:21:23 I can probably neither come to Washington nor Beijing, but Sydney may be possible 18:21:46 no preference for me for F2F2 18:21:52 alanr: will put the raw responses on the voting list 18:21:52 zakim, mute me 18:21:52 bijan should now be muted 18:22:11 two 18:22:17 IanH: it is overwhelming for Washington... two people Beijing, one Sydney, everybody else Washington 18:22:35 IanH: it's a no brainer... almost unanimous for Washington 18:22:47 +1 18:22:50 ... peter can go ahead with the OWLED colocation thing? That's my proposal 18:23:03 PROPOSED: F2F2 will be in Washington DC 18:23:07 +1 18:23:09 +1 18:23:10 +1 18:23:11 +1 18:23:13 +1 18:23:15 +1 18:23:16 +1 18:23:17 +1 18:23:31 IanH: lots of agreement, no disagreement 18:23:43 RESOLVED: F2F2 will be in Washington DC 18:23:48 IanH: finished with the admin 18:24:10 q+ have we decided the dates on F2F2? 18:24:12 +1 to DC 18:24:15 ack alanr 18:24:15 alanr, you wanted to go back to scribing for a second 18:24:19 alanr: if Conrad could put his work on the cleanups on the wiki 18:24:23 q- 18:24:23 q? 18:24:32 IanH: task forces stuff 18:24:49 IanH: it would be useful to get some feedback from them 18:25:03 IanH: jeremy to say something about the UFDTF 18:25:05 ?q 18:25:09 q? 18:25:10 Yes he is :) 18:25:27 q+ testing zakim 18:25:28 jeremy: let me think 18:25:31 q? 18:25:34 ack 18:25:34 ... can I go second? 18:25:41 ack testing 18:25:43 ack zakim 18:25:45 IanH: Rich annotations? Bijan? 18:25:53 zakim, unmute me 18:25:53 bijan should no longer be muted 18:26:07 bijan: I wrote up a proposal, some use cases, not finished 18:26:18 ... I ran them by several people, e.g. Alan Rector 18:26:40 ... somebody wanted to use them for patterns (value partitions) 18:26:49 ... that's fine in my proposal, haven't written it up 18:27:01 ... (Jeremy?) using reification for axiom annotations 18:27:07 oooh 18:27:23 ... I guess in that exchange with Boris one option would be to ... the anotations 18:27:30 +1 on importance of axiom annotations 18:27:35 ... would remove a lot of the usefullness of annotations 18:27:43 q? 18:27:48 q+ to mention issue with rich annotations 18:27:52 bijan: proposal is 90% done... 18:28:03 ... would be nice to get some sense of what we're going to do with it 18:28:12 IanH: there is a fairly wellformed proposal on the table 18:28:17 ... please give some comments 18:28:21 the current proposal is http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Annotation_System correct? 18:28:26 Yes 18:28:33 q? 18:28:37 alanr: concerned about the multiple domains of interpretation/ multiple worlds/ multiple models aspect of it 18:28:41 ack alanr 18:28:42 alanr, you wanted to mention issue with rich annotations 18:28:59 ... part of the concern was that it's fairly new, and unexplored... want a warm fuzzy feeling that it's well understood 18:29:10 zakim, mute me 18:29:10 bcuencag should now be muted 18:29:18 ... second issue is that I don't know whether and how it would affect the RDF semantics 18:29:38 ... could you comment on how it affects the OWL Full aspect of it, in the RDF sense 18:29:43 q? 18:29:48 bijan: I have not realised an RDF mapping 18:30:03 ... one could use different extensions: multiple files with pointers analogous to owl:imports 18:30:12 ... minimal mutilation of everything, and easy to understand 18:30:26 ... other than that: is that enough to get you going? 18:30:43 alanr: yes, just to say where I am on it: how much of the proposal is dependent on that 18:31:03 ... is that the central part of the proposal? If it's left out, what will be left? 18:31:20 bijan: it's a major part... another part is the idea to have blobs of annotations instead of nested or chained 18:31:31 ... in the current anotations have to booted in the axiom 18:31:51 ... a lot of people I talked to want to be able toa ssociate fairly elaborate structures to an entity or axiom 18:32:08 q+ to comment 18:32:16 IanH: until more people have had a chance to have a look at that... we might as well leave that 18:32:28 we do have it on f2f 18:32:31 bijan: suggest that it becomes an official agenda item 18:32:40 IanH: action item to go and read it? 18:33:06 q? 18:33:07 bijan: if I know its' going to be on the agenda I could (re)start an email discussion about this 18:33:14 sandro: no need to do an action item 18:33:22 bijan: if its on the agenda, I will start a discussion 18:33:33 zakim, mute me 18:33:33 bijan should now be muted 18:33:41 IanH: why don't you start a discussion, and if there's a significant response to that we can put it on the agenda 18:33:42 q? 18:33:48 alanr: who are the stakeholders on this? 18:33:56 ... and have an action item to review this? 18:34:05 ... for them (that holds for me) 18:34:11 I'm a stakeholder and will review 18:34:13 IanH: anyone else? 18:34:16 I'll stick my hand up 18:34:26 I will read it by next week. Does this cound as a review? 18:34:34 alanr: more strongly, if you think it's important and you might object, you're a stakeholder 18:34:35 q? 18:34:49 ack jeremy 18:34:49 jeremy, you wanted to comment 18:34:52 IanH: why not let jeremy speak, and let people mull over whether they are stakeholders 18:35:11 jeremy: by having the OWL Full semantics in multiple documents is very complicated 18:35:15 JeffP has joined #owl 18:35:17 q? 18:35:18 ... far away from owl 1.0 18:35:28 q+ to see if I understand bijan's idea 18:35:40 could we ask for a decision on this next week 18:35:42 ... out of court. More about 'lets' put some wacky stuff in' instead of a conservative improvement over 1.0 18:35:55 If I've understood things correctly, the idea is not to have one semantics distributed over different documents (Bijan, please correct me if I'm wrong). 18:35:55 IanH: you're talking yourself into being a stakeholder 18:36:04 jeremy, as usual, I can't understand what you are saying -- could you please talk louder? 18:36:15 jeremy: just articulating how a large part of the OWL community would feel about this move away from 1.0 18:36:26 (me neither) 18:36:36 The idea is that you just have different, independent documents. They have nothing to do with each other. You can, however, query them together using, say, SPARQL. 18:36:46 jeremy: this seems a big change from 1.0 in terms of the OWL Full semantics 18:36:53 ... sounds like a non starter (?) 18:36:53 q? 18:36:59 ack alanr 18:36:59 alanr, you wanted to see if I understand bijan's idea 18:37:06 q? 18:37:12 alanr: by putting it into different files, we are just making things independently and unconnected 18:37:22 ... each separately is an OWL Full document 18:37:22 that's fine 18:37:37 That's one reasonable way to go yes 18:37:41 ... that correct bijan? 18:37:51 q? 18:37:52 jeremy: strikes me as a 'big' change (in the eye of the beholder) 18:37:57 ... mouses and elephants 18:38:08 IanH: clearly needs to be discussed in some more detail 18:38:12 But this is really no change: each document is still interpreted as it was interpreted in OWL 1.0. You can use either Full or DL semantics, moreover. 18:38:15 +1 to draft Jeremy as stakeholder :) 18:38:22 ... perhaps jeremy and bijan could exchange some emails on this topic? 18:38:30 ... then the rest of us can eavesdrop 18:38:34 Fine 18:38:36 ... how would that be? 18:38:39 q? 18:38:45 I can be on call too... 18:38:51 if desired 18:38:59 jeremy: not very enthusiastic, at least I get payd for it 18:39:06 IanH: I'll take that as a yes 18:39:13 ... move on to datatypes 18:39:25 There was a telecon! 18:39:32 IanH: a lot of email traffic, no taskforce... 18:39:33 There is! 18:39:42 q? 18:39:45 alanr: summarise where we came to in the first meeting 18:39:48 Cleaned up datatype telecon minutes at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/DataType.Telecon.2007.11.19/Minutes 18:39:48 (who's this?) 18:39:55 Mike smith 18:40:35 MichaelSmith: two types of external datatypes... those that include ID's which can be externally referenced, and those that can't 18:40:53 ... on the first we are waiting on the XML Schema wg 18:40:54 q? 18:41:07 (on the second) 18:41:16 to modify structural specification to require the approach described in http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-xsch-datatypes/#sec-id-attr when referencing external XML Schema definitions with id attributes 18:41:29 ... moving forward on the approach outlined in the best practices document for the case where we do have IDs 18:41:47 IanH: what kinds of things wouldn't we be able to do without ID's 18:41:48 referencing externalk datatypes defined by someone else 18:41:51 big file of anonymous datatypes 18:41:54 external 18:42:15 MikeSmith: perfectly valid xml schema exists without IDs... if you want to reuse such schema types you have a problem 18:42:17 q? 18:42:22 ... on the semantic web 18:42:27 So one would have to cut and paste that datatype definition into a different file 18:42:39 ... if the author does have the semweb in mind, we have a solution. 18:42:44 ... from the best practices 18:42:52 IanH: we won't lose expressivity, just some rework 18:42:57 literal inclusion of the file within the OWL file 18:43:11 Yes 18:43:13 MikeSmith: yes, about reusing existing XML schema definitions 18:43:17 IanH: unary datatypes? 18:43:31 MikeSmith: yes, the external datatypes only discussed about unary datatypes 18:43:40 ... one other thing, that we discussed 18:43:53 ... don't know if we want to put that in to a proposal first or... 18:44:03 IanH: try us with the other item first 18:44:07 (at the telecon - some e-mail traffic on n-ary) 18:44:20 MikeSmith: inline xml as opposed to what is in the member submission 18:44:21 Issues with XML Schema in thread starting at http://www.w3.org/mid/474203BC.50307@hpl.hp.com and with attempted summary at http://www.w3.org/mid/1195586107.6320.52.camel@msmith-laptop 18:44:28 ... I think it hit some kind of completion point 18:44:34 ... we understand what could be done, 18:44:50 q? 18:44:53 ... if we want to use xml schema types inline, ... 18:45:04 ... we need feedback from people about this 18:45:08 I got negative feedback from OWL API/Protege4 author Matthew Horridge 18:45:10 I'll ask HP implementors 18:45:17 IanH: another case where people need to have a look and get feedback 18:45:19 q+ unary datatype 18:45:21 I would expect negative feedback from TopQuadrent (Holger) 18:45:31 Oh, xml schema syntax inline 18:45:32 IanH: negative with respect to which option? 18:45:36 q? 18:45:45 q? 18:45:54 alanr: I was advocating taking this as our first point strictly from a simplicity point of view 18:46:03 ack unary 18:46:08