17:55:30 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:55:30 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/11/28-owl-irc
17:55:31 <alanr> alanr has joined #owl
17:55:40 <jeremy> Zakim, this is SW_OWL
17:55:40 <Zakim> jeremy, I see SW_OWL()12:00PM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be SW_OWL".
17:55:49 <jeremy> Zakim, this will be SW_OWL
17:55:49 <Zakim> ok, jeremy; I see SW_OWL()12:00PM scheduled to start 55 minutes ago
17:56:22 <achille> achille has joined #owl
17:56:45 <Zakim> SW_OWL()12:00PM has now started
17:56:49 <MichaelSmith> MichaelSmith has joined #owl
17:56:52 <Zakim> +??P13
17:56:56 <jeremy> Zakim, ??P13 is me
17:56:56 <Zakim> +jeremy; got it
17:58:14 <JeffP> JeffP has joined #owl
17:58:35 <bmotik> bmotik has joined #owl
17:58:43 <IanH> IanH has joined #owl
17:58:56 <Zakim> +[IBM]
17:59:02 <uli> uli has joined #owl
17:59:06 <Zakim> +??P16
17:59:16 <Zakim> +MIchaelSmith
17:59:20 <bmotik> Zakim, ??p16 is bmotik
17:59:20 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
17:59:21 <Ratnesh> Ratnesh has joined #owl
17:59:26 <Zakim> +Alan
17:59:27 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:59:28 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:59:36 <Zakim> +JeffP
17:59:38 <bijan> bijan has joined #owl
17:59:42 <Carsten> Carsten has joined #owl
17:59:43 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:59:43 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
17:59:44 <achille> Zakim, IBM is achille
17:59:44 <Zakim> +Ivan
17:59:45 <Zakim> +achille; got it
18:00:14 <Zakim> +??P11
18:00:22 <Zakim> +??P15
18:00:30 <Zakim> +??P19
18:00:43 <pfps> pfps has joined #owl
18:00:50 <pfps> zakim, who is on the phone
18:00:52 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', pfps
18:01:04 <bijan> zakim, ??P15 is me
18:01:07 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
18:01:13 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:01:13 <alanr> zakim, who is on the call
18:01:14 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:01:16 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the call', alanr
18:01:21 <alanr> zakim, who is here
18:01:21 <Zakim> alanr, you need to end that query with '?'
18:01:25 <alanr> zakim, who is here?
18:01:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see jeremy, achille, bmotik (muted), +1.202.408.aaaa, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, ??P11, bijan (muted), ??P19
18:01:27 <Zakim> On IRC I see pfps, Carsten, bijan, Ratnesh, uli, IanH, bmotik, JeffP, MichaelSmith, achille, alanr, RRSAgent, Zakim, jeremy, ivan, MartinD, trackbot-ng, sandro, ewallace
18:01:32 <Zakim> +Vipul_Kashyap
18:01:42 <Zakim> +MartinD
18:01:43 <pfps> zakim, ?p11 is me
18:01:46 <Zakim> sorry, pfps, I do not recognize a party named '?p11'
18:01:47 <uli> zakim, ??P15 is me
18:01:50 <Zakim> I already had ??P15 as bijan, uli
18:01:53 <pfps> zakim, ??p11 is me
18:01:54 <Zakim> +??P24
18:01:56 <Zakim> +pfps; got it
18:01:56 <pfps> zakim, mute me
18:02:00 <Zakim> pfps should now be muted
18:02:01 <Conrad> Conrad has joined #owl
18:02:04 <alanr> zakim, who is here?
18:02:09 <uli> zakim, ??p11 is me
18:02:09 <Conrad> Conrad
18:02:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see jeremy, achille, bmotik (muted), +1.202.408.aaaa, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, pfps (muted), bijan (muted), ??P19 (muted), Vipul_Kashyap, MartinD, ??P24
18:02:10 <jeremy> Zakim, mute me
18:02:15 <MartinD> zakim, mute me
18:02:19 <Zakim> I already had ??P11 as pfps, uli
18:02:21 <Zakim> jeremy should now be muted
18:02:27 <Zakim> On IRC I see Conrad, pfps, Carsten, bijan, Ratnesh, uli, IanH, bmotik, JeffP, MichaelSmith, achille, alanr, RRSAgent, Zakim, jeremy, ivan, MartinD, trackbot-ng, sandro, ewallace
18:02:32 <Zakim> MartinD should now be muted
18:02:37 <pfps> ack pfps
18:02:41 <alanr> zakim, who is here?
18:02:42 <MichaelSmith> zakim, +1.202.408.aaaa is me
18:02:45 <Ratnesh> zakim, P24 is Ratnesh
18:02:47 <pfps> q?
18:02:52 <Zakim> On the phone I see jeremy (muted), achille, bmotik (muted), +1.202.408.aaaa, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, pfps, bijan (muted), ??P19 (muted), Vipul_Kashyap, MartinD (muted), ??P24
18:02:56 <bcuencag> bcuencag has joined #owl
18:02:57 <Zakim> +MichaelSmith; got it
18:02:59 <Zakim> sorry, Ratnesh, I do not recognize a party named 'P24'
18:03:05 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
18:03:07 <Zakim> +IanH
18:03:08 <alanr> zakim, who is here?
18:03:11 <Zakim> On IRC I see Conrad, pfps, Carsten, bijan, Ratnesh, uli, IanH, bmotik, JeffP, MichaelSmith, achille, alanr, RRSAgent, Zakim, jeremy, ivan, MartinD, trackbot-ng, sandro, ewallace
18:03:16 <Zakim> +??P27
18:03:20 <Zakim> On the phone I see jeremy (muted), achille, bmotik (muted), MichaelSmith, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, pfps, bijan (muted), ??P19 (muted), Vipul_Kashyap, MartinD (muted), ??P24,
18:03:26 <Ratnesh> zakim, ?? P24 is Ratnesh
18:03:29 <Zakim> ... Evan_Wallace, IanH, ??P27
18:03:36 <alanr> zakim, who is here?
18:03:36 <Vipul> Vipul has joined #owl
18:03:39 <Zakim> On IRC I see bcuencag, Conrad, pfps, Carsten, bijan, Ratnesh, uli, IanH, bmotik, JeffP, MichaelSmith, achille, alanr, RRSAgent, Zakim, jeremy, ivan, MartinD, trackbot-ng, sandro,
18:03:42 <Zakim> ... ewallace
18:03:45 <uli> zakim, ??P19 is me
18:03:46 <Zakim> I don't understand '?? P24 is Ratnesh', Ratnesh
18:03:47 <pfps> pfps has joined #owl
18:03:48 <Zakim> On the phone I see jeremy (muted), achille, bmotik (muted), MichaelSmith, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, pfps, bijan (muted), ??P19 (muted), Vipul_Kashyap, MartinD (muted), ??P24,
18:03:53 <alanr> zakim, who is here?
18:03:55 <Zakim> ... Evan_Wallace, IanH (muted), ??P27
18:03:56 <zhe> zhe has joined #owl
18:03:57 <Zakim> +Conrad
18:04:01 <Zakim> +uli; got it
18:04:05 <Zakim> On IRC I see pfps, Vipul, bcuencag, Conrad, Carsten, bijan, Ratnesh, uli, IanH, bmotik, JeffP, MichaelSmith, achille, alanr, RRSAgent, Zakim, jeremy, ivan, MartinD, trackbot-ng,
18:04:12 <Zakim> ... sandro, ewallace
18:04:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see jeremy (muted), achille, bmotik (muted), MichaelSmith, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, pfps, bijan (muted), uli (muted), Vipul_Kashyap, MartinD (muted), ??P24, Evan_Wallace,
18:04:17 <Zakim> ... IanH (muted), ??P27, +1.301.975.aaee
18:04:19 <Zakim> +Sandro
18:04:25 <Zakim> On IRC I see zhe, pfps, Vipul, bcuencag, Conrad, Carsten, bijan, Ratnesh, uli, IanH, bmotik, JeffP, MichaelSmith, achille, alanr, RRSAgent, Zakim, jeremy, ivan, MartinD,
18:04:30 <Zakim> ... trackbot-ng, sandro, ewallace
18:04:34 <Zakim> +??P30
18:04:47 <JeffP> zakim, who is talking?
18:04:54 <bcuencag> zakim, ??P30 is me
18:04:54 <Zakim> +bcuencag; got it
18:04:57 <Zakim> JeffP, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Alan (5%), Vipul_Kashyap (76%), Sandro (36%), ??P30 (17%)
18:05:05 <bmotik> I have quite a lot of static on the line. Do others have the same problem?
18:05:12 <Ratnesh> zakim, ??P24 is Ratnesh
18:05:12 <Zakim> +Ratnesh; got it
18:05:14 <alanr> zakim, who is here?
18:05:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see jeremy (muted), achille, bmotik (muted), MichaelSmith, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, pfps, bijan (muted), uli (muted), Vipul_Kashyap, MartinD (muted), Ratnesh,
18:05:17 <Zakim> ... Evan_Wallace, IanH (muted), ??P27, +1.301.975.aaee, Sandro, bcuencag
18:05:18 <Zakim> On IRC I see zhe, pfps, Vipul, bcuencag, Conrad, Carsten, bijan, Ratnesh, uli, IanH, bmotik, JeffP, MichaelSmith, achille, alanr, RRSAgent, Zakim, jeremy, ivan, MartinD,
18:05:21 <Zakim> ... trackbot-ng, sandro, ewallace
18:05:26 <MartinD> i can hear well and clearly, as well...
18:05:30 <bcuencag> zakim, mute me
18:05:30 <Zakim> bcuencag should now be muted
18:05:49 <jeremy> conrad is not recorded on the phone
18:06:03 <jeremy> 41#
18:06:12 <jeremy> is the magic
18:06:27 <jeremy> Zakim, aaee is Conrad
18:06:27 <Zakim> +Conrad; got it
18:06:35 <alanr> zakim, who is here?
18:06:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see jeremy (muted), achille, bmotik (muted), MichaelSmith, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, pfps, bijan (muted), uli (muted), Vipul_Kashyap, MartinD (muted), Ratnesh,
18:06:38 <Zakim> ... Evan_Wallace, IanH (muted), ??P27, Conrad, Sandro, bcuencag (muted)
18:06:40 <Zakim> On IRC I see zhe, pfps, Vipul, bcuencag, Conrad, Carsten, bijan, Ratnesh, uli, IanH, bmotik, JeffP, MichaelSmith, achille, alanr, RRSAgent, Zakim, jeremy, ivan, MartinD,
18:06:42 <Zakim> ... trackbot-ng, sandro, ewallace
18:06:55 <sandro> zakim, drop ??P27
18:06:55 <Zakim> ??P27 is being disconnected
18:06:57 <Zakim> -??P27
18:07:08 <zhe> Zhe that is me been dropped
18:07:20 <alanr> call back in please
18:07:27 <Zakim> +??P27
18:07:28 <GiorgosStoilos> GiorgosStoilos has joined #OWL
18:07:54 <sandro> Zakim, ??P27 is Deb
18:07:54 <Zakim> +Deb; got it
18:07:56 <Zakim> +??P31
18:08:05 <IanH> zakim, ??p31 is zhe
18:08:05 <Zakim> +zhe; got it
18:08:08 <Zakim> +GiorgosStoilos
18:08:09 <alanr> zakim, who is here?
18:08:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see jeremy (muted), achille, bmotik (muted), MichaelSmith, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, pfps, bijan (muted), uli (muted), Vipul_Kashyap, MartinD (muted), Ratnesh,
18:08:12 <Zakim> ... Evan_Wallace, IanH (muted), Conrad, Sandro, bcuencag (muted), Deb, zhe, GiorgosStoilos
18:08:15 <Zakim> On IRC I see GiorgosStoilos, zhe, pfps, Vipul, bcuencag, Conrad, Carsten, bijan, Ratnesh, uli, IanH, bmotik, JeffP, MichaelSmith, achille, alanr, RRSAgent, Zakim, jeremy, ivan,
18:08:17 <Zakim> ... MartinD, trackbot-ng, sandro, ewallace
18:08:22 <pfps> a faq on how to handle Zakim would probably be useful
18:08:35 <bijan> I could report on rif meeting
18:09:02 <JeffP> topic: ADMIN
18:09:11 <bijan> http://www.w3.org/2002/01/UsingZakim
18:09:19 <JeffP> comments of the minutes?
18:09:30 <JeffP> minutes accepted
18:09:38 <JeffP> alanr: action items ...
18:10:03 <JeffP> action 4: continued
18:10:11 <bijan> alanr, I could take the imports action ifyou'd like
18:10:26 <bijan> ok
18:10:30 <Zakim> +Carsten
18:10:32 <jeremy> yes - I claim victory on action
18:10:36 <Carsten> zakim, mute me
18:10:36 <Zakim> sorry, Carsten, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
18:10:46 <JeffP> action 27 is close
18:11:15 <Carsten> zakim, mute me
18:11:15 <Zakim> sorry, Carsten, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
18:11:18 <MichaelSmith> yes
18:11:20 <JeffP> action 29 is close
18:11:33 <jeremy> (I put the action number in the e-mail so the tracker tracks)
18:11:39 <dlm> dlm has joined #owl
18:12:21 <JeffP> alanr: any furhter suggestions of the f2f agenda?
18:12:29 <JeffP> q?
18:12:30 <jeremy> Zakim, q- ??P15
18:12:31 <Zakim> I see ??P11, ??P19, +49.351.4.aaff on the speaker queue
18:12:31 <bijan> alanr got cut off
18:12:41 <jeremy> q- ??P19
18:12:45 <IanH> q?
18:12:48 <jeremy> no we don't
18:12:52 <MichaelSmith> the queue doesn't update when names are correlated
18:12:54 <jeremy> q- ??P11
18:13:00 <JeffP> zakim, who is on the call?
18:13:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see jeremy (muted), achille, bmotik (muted), MichaelSmith, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, pfps, bijan (muted), uli (muted), Vipul_Kashyap, MartinD (muted), Ratnesh,
18:13:03 <Zakim> ... Evan_Wallace, IanH, Conrad, Sandro, bcuencag (muted), Deb, zhe, GiorgosStoilos, +49.351.4.aaff
18:13:08 <sandro> (thanks Jeremy)
18:13:13 <IanH> q?
18:13:38 <Carsten> I think I inadvertedly added myself to the queue
18:13:42 <Carsten> sorry
18:13:53 <jeremy> Zakim, aaff is Carsten
18:13:53 <Zakim> +Carsten; got it
18:13:57 <jeremy> q- aaff
18:14:03 <Carsten> thanks!
18:14:09 <jeremy> q- +49.351.4.aaff
18:15:00 <dlm> +queue
18:15:08 <Carsten> yes, thanks
18:15:27 <JeffP> alanr: we might need to move the import and rich annotation to first day
18:15:55 <bijan> Can we swap fragments and imports and RAs?
18:15:56 <JeffP> ... since alan won't be in day 2
18:16:25 <JeffP> ian: we could discuss it offline, there are other constraints
18:16:34 <JeffP> q?
18:16:35 <Conrad> Where is the draft agenda?
18:16:39 <IanH> q?
18:16:41 <JeffP> ack dlm
18:16:42 <alanr> q?http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F.2007.12-Manchester/Agenda
18:16:46 <alanr> q?
18:16:49 <jeremy> +1
18:17:16 <JeffP> alan: we should move the user facing part to later part of the day
18:17:26 <dlm> -queue
18:17:31 <alanr> q?
18:17:38 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Manchester_F2F
18:17:41 <jeremy> Elisa and Deborah are remote participants in UFDTF
18:18:07 <JeffP> topic: Teleconference 2007.12.05 ? 
18:18:13 <jeremy> -1
18:18:14 <JeffP> alanr: I cannot
18:18:18 <pfps> there is already a conflicting event on the 5th
18:18:19 <dlm> i think jim h wants to participate in the ufdtf as well
18:18:22 <alanr> -1
18:18:22 <bijan> It's traditional not to have such telecons
18:18:24 <pfps> which is which?
18:18:27 <JeffP> -1
18:18:27 <bijan> -1
18:18:28 <MichaelSmith> -1 on telecon on 5th
18:18:29 <ivan> -1
18:18:31 <bcuencag> -1
18:18:33 <pfps> -1 
18:18:48 <JeffP> Resolved: no telecon on Dec 5th
18:18:57 <pfps> transit?  I expect to be in the meeting at the Kro2!
18:19:33 <IanH> Well, that still means no teleconf :-)
18:19:50 <bijan> Functional Syntax and Structural Spec, Semantics, Rdf mapping
18:19:57 <jeremy> (for me - the issue list is in good shape for reflecting the lack of consensus)
18:19:57 <bijan> Were the original proposal
18:19:58 <JeffP> Topic: Discussions (35 min)
18:20:02 <JeffP> q?
18:20:06 <jeremy> q+ to suggest shading ...
18:20:15 <alanr> q?
18:20:18 <jeremy> Zakim, unmute me
18:20:18 <Zakim> jeremy should no longer be muted
18:20:21 <alanr> ack jeremy
18:20:21 <Zakim> jeremy, you wanted to suggest shading ...
18:21:17 <bijan> We have some issues that touch everything so "shady" per se won't work
18:21:17 <JeffP> jeremy: editors might want to relate part of the documents with issues in the issue list 
18:21:25 <bijan> E.g., Typed constructs
18:21:38 <JeffP> ian: we need to see whether it is practical
18:21:49 <uli> is it me or is there an echo?
18:21:55 <JeffP> zakim, who is talking?
18:21:55 <jeremy> Zakim, mute me
18:21:55 <Zakim> jeremy should now be muted
18:22:07 <Zakim> JeffP, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Alan (3%), Sandro (44%)
18:22:12 <uli> ah - echo gone!
18:22:24 <jeremy> +1 to sandro as an alternative
18:22:30 <alanr> +1
18:22:41 <pfps> how about putting the disclaimer in the document status, pointing to the issue list?
18:22:45 <jeremy> to my suggestion!
18:22:53 <jeremy> for me yes
18:23:06 <bmotik> q+
18:23:06 <jeremy> (yes to RDF Mapping with such riders)
18:23:38 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
18:23:38 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
18:23:43 <IanH> q?
18:23:44 <pfps> the mapping between sections and issues is not particularly easy
18:23:46 <JeffP> alanr: should issues be written in the beginning part of the sections?
18:23:52 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:23:54 <IanH> q?
18:24:00 <JeffP> boris: some issues are more meta issues
18:24:04 <jeremy> A list of other issues might be good
18:24:16 <JeffP> alanr: we meant the specific ones
18:24:21 <pfps> q+
18:24:23 <bijan> I think we're in editor's choice space
18:24:28 <pfps> zakim, unmute me
18:24:28 <Zakim> pfps was not muted, pfps
18:24:31 <bijan> some issues are minor, don't need huge highlighting
18:24:32 <jeremy> I agree with bijan
18:24:32 <alanr> we don't have editors yet
18:24:37 <bijan> Some are important and controversial
18:24:41 <JeffP> boris: I meant more issues are meta ones
18:24:43 <bijan> And need to be highlighted
18:24:48 <IanH> We don't need to insist that every issue is mentioned in some document
18:24:56 <alanr> +1 to Ian
18:25:02 <jeremy> I agree with bijan again!
18:25:12 <bijan> How about we task someone(s) to add some issue texts to a document?
18:25:19 <JeffP> boris: and who should do this?
18:25:21 <bijan> And experiement a bit
18:25:35 <JeffP> alan: we could assign them to some people, including me
18:25:53 <JeffP> ian: which document?
18:26:00 <JeffP> alanr: does not matter
18:26:19 <pfps> q?
18:26:29 <IanH> ack pfps
18:26:35 <JeffP> sandro: you still need to be familiar with the documents enough to do the job properly
18:26:58 <pfps> zakim, mute me
18:26:58 <Zakim> pfps should now be muted
18:27:11 <bijan> Yes
18:27:16 <bijan> On behalf of carsten
18:27:17 <JeffP> ian: do we need to have such fine-grain issule list mechanism
18:27:25 <dlm> +1 to grouping
18:27:27 <bijan> I'm big +1 on grouping issues loosely
18:27:30 <jeremy> -1 to grouping
18:27:43 <bmotik> +1 to grouping (not all, but some should be grouped)
18:27:49 <JeffP> dlm, it is also hard to follow
18:27:58 <pfps> we are supposed to be spending 8 hours a week on this, minimum
18:28:29 <jeremy> (peter's days might be longer than mine! 7.5 hrs)
18:28:42 <JeffP> sandro, do we want a hierartical issue list?
18:28:43 <bijan> I tried this on rich annotations...addding all the issues related to annotations
18:28:47 <bijan> Peter complained about this :)
18:28:57 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:28:57 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:29:08 <jeremy> We can group issues by 'product'
18:29:08 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:29:08 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
18:29:22 <JeffP> sandro, we should take a simplified approach
18:29:34 <jeremy> q+ to explain a separation
18:29:46 <JeffP> q?
18:29:46 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:29:47 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:29:51 <jeremy> Zakim, unmute me
18:29:51 <Zakim> jeremy should no longer be muted
18:29:53 <alanr> q?
18:29:54 <pfps> zakim, mute me
18:29:54 <Zakim> pfps was already muted, pfps
18:29:56 <bijan> How about soem web pages for this
18:30:04 <JeffP> ian, we just started but we have 81 issues already
18:30:15 <JeffP> ack jeremy
18:30:15 <Zakim> jeremy, you wanted to explain a separation
18:30:36 <bijan> Issues are a tool for the chairs
18:30:36 <jeremy> Zakim, unmute me
18:30:36 <Zakim> jeremy was not muted, jeremy
18:30:42 <uli> ha ha
18:30:46 <bijan> The chairs should figure out what works for them
18:30:48 <jeremy> Zakim, mute me
18:30:48 <Zakim> jeremy should now be muted
18:31:07 <JeffP> Topic: Publication Schedule and First Public Working Drafts
18:31:17 <jeremy> jeremy: lots of small issues are easier to make progress on than a few big issues
18:31:40 <JeffP> alanr, a quick poll to see if the solution is acceptable by everyone
18:32:04 <bijan> q+
18:32:11 <bijan> ack bijan
18:32:17 <JeffP> alanr: three documents: syntax, semantics and mapping to RDF
18:32:54 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:32:54 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:33:00 <JeffP> q?
18:33:01 <jeremy> no we cannot decide to publish docs until they are ready
18:33:15 <jeremy> I can confirm informally the plan
18:33:17 <bijan> actually, we can
18:33:17 <sandro> PROPOSED: Annotate the Syntax, Semantics, and Mapping-to-RDF documents with links to all issues, as they might affect the text....
18:33:25 <pfps> we can publish subject to editorial changes
18:33:33 <bijan> We can say, "We will publish these docuemnts pace soem editoral mod...
18:34:00 <sandro> PROPOSED: Annotate the Syntax, Semantics, and Mapping-to-RDF documents with links to all issues, as they might affect the text, and then (give or take editorial changes) we will publish.   
18:34:02 <jeremy> i guess i bow to pfps and bijan here, but some rider
18:34:28 <pfps> +1, as long as I'm not doing the work!
18:34:28 <alanr> +1
18:34:32 <IanH> would prefer to say "issues" rather than all issues
18:34:32 <jeremy> ok
18:34:35 <achille> +1
18:34:36 <uli> +1
18:34:39 <dlm> +1
18:34:40 <ivan> +1
18:34:41 <bijan> +1 with "issues"
18:34:41 <zhe> +1
18:34:44 <Conrad> -1
18:34:45 <MartinD> +1
18:34:46 <Ratnesh> +1
18:34:48 <MichaelSmith> +1
18:34:48 <IanH> +1 otherwise
18:34:49 <GiorgosStoilos> +1
18:34:57 <JeffP> +1
18:35:00 <sandro> -0 concerned about deciding before deciding, but it seems vaguely okay.
18:35:02 <Carsten> Regarding my issues discussed here:
18:35:03 <Carsten> - I saw lots small issues before, so I was just trying to follow common practice
18:35:04 <bcuencag> +1
18:35:05 <Carsten> - Several of my issues I wouldn't call "small"
18:35:06 <Carsten> - I can live with grouping as long as decisions are taken individually (this
18:35:08 <Carsten>   is why I separated them)
18:35:10 <Carsten> +1
18:35:13 <bmotik> -0 This might be a lot of work
18:35:17 <ewallace> 0
18:36:07 <uli> -0 is the slightly more negative vote than the neutral o?
18:36:17 <ewallace> +1 with metamodel issue included
18:36:34 <Carsten> -o ?
18:36:38 <JeffP> sandro, I don't think we should have a resolution here
18:36:41 <pfps> zakim, mute me
18:36:41 <Zakim> pfps was already muted, pfps
18:36:48 <jeremy> (I find Sandro compelling, but can't say why)
18:36:54 <JeffP> ... but it seems that it is good enough to proceed?
18:36:58 <pfps> that's an action, not a resolution
18:36:58 <bijan> It's his air of mystery
18:37:16 <JeffP> sandro, I think people need to review how it is done
18:37:41 <bijan> I think the difference between a blessing and vote is not good
18:37:44 <jeremy> (Personally I would like to see the post-Wiki doc before the vote)
18:37:51 <sandro> So the only future discussion will be about issue links.
18:37:56 <jeremy> q+ to put JimH points
18:38:00 <JeffP> action or resolution?
18:38:05 <JeffP> q?
18:38:08 <ewallace> I'm confused now
18:38:12 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:38:12 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
18:38:21 <IanH> q?
18:38:25 <ewallace> Are we to do an up or down vote later?
18:39:35 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:39:35 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:39:39 <jeremy> q-
18:39:50 <JeffP> alanr: no resolution but general agreement to the direction
18:40:12 <ewallace> yes
18:40:12 <jeremy> The chairs appoint editors
18:40:19 <JeffP> ian, chairs may deligate the tasks
18:40:34 <bijan> I hate the idea, but I think UManchester can mobilize some resources to this end
18:40:40 <bijan> (er.. the idea of workign on it :)
18:42:12 <bmotik> q+
18:42:35 <jeremy> I feel the discussion needs booze
18:43:19 <alanr> q?
18:43:21 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
18:43:26 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
18:43:44 <JeffP> s/deligate/delegate
18:43:55 <Conrad> Alan, I filed the metamodel issue on Syntax at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/82.
18:44:22 <alanr> thanks, conrad
18:44:34 <bijan> Hmm. I think it is a fragment
18:44:49 <JeffP> boris, owl dl is not 100% sub-language of owl full
18:45:13 <bijan> I'm looking at 5.3...what's the difference?
18:45:16 <alanr> qq+
18:45:18 <alanr> q+
18:45:19 <IanH> Also, even to the extent that we believe that it is a fragment, this is a belief/conjecture and not a proven fact
18:45:20 <JeffP> q?
18:45:22 <alanr> ack bmoik
18:45:26 <alanr> ack bmotik
18:45:27 <jeremy> q- bmotik
18:45:35 <bijan> q+
18:45:42 <bijan> to reply to Boris
18:45:44 <IanH> q?
18:45:51 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:45:51 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
18:46:17 <JeffP> bijan, it seems that part of the issue what counts as compatibility
18:46:24 <sandro> JeffP, the scribe convention is to scribe like "Sandro: what sandro said" not "Sandro, what sandro said"
18:46:39 <JeffP> thx, sandro
18:47:16 <alanr> There is a strictly increasing chain of sets of entailments
18:47:18 <alanr> >
18:47:19 <alanr> > Simple <= RDF <= RDFS <= D- <= OWL DL <= OWL Full
18:47:21 <alanr> >
18:47:22 <alanr> > It was a design goal that the last strict inclusion should be an  equality; see
18:47:24 <alanr> >
18:47:26 <alanr> > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.3-Semantic-Layering
18:47:28 <alanr> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Oct/0022.html
18:47:29 <JeffP> bijan, your idea is a stronger version of compatibility
18:47:29 <alanr> >
18:47:31 <alanr> > In other words (subject to the syntactic constraints of OWL DL) the  
18:47:32 <alanr> > entailments of OWL DL are exactly those of OWL Full. This goal  
18:47:34 <alanr> > slipped a little: see
18:47:35 <alanr> >
18:47:37 <alanr> > http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/byFunction#function-Thing
18:47:39 <alanr> q?
18:47:40 <alanr> q?
18:47:42 <dlm> +1 to getting clear on a working defn of compatibility
18:47:45 <alanr> ack bijan
18:47:55 <jeremy> OWL 1.0
18:48:37 <JeffP> ian: we had similar discussion in WebOnt
18:48:38 <uli> but the entailments aren't the same.
18:49:11 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:49:11 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
18:49:11 <jeremy> THe two known exceptions are size of universe and certain entailments involving annotations
18:49:15 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:49:15 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:49:17 <ivan> ack alanr
18:49:35 <JeffP> alanr: I want more compatibility than what is between RDF and OWL
18:50:03 <pfps> where are the new sources of "incompatability"?
18:50:04 <bijan> I agree with alanr...the corner case semantic alignment is much less important than bringing in more wffs
18:50:35 <alanr> q?
18:50:38 <IanH> q?
18:50:53 <JeffP> dlm, it is a good idea to clarify compatibility
18:50:57 <jeremy> Zakim, unmute me
18:50:57 <Zakim> jeremy should no longer be muted
18:51:46 <bijan> That was a goal of, e.g., adding punnings
18:52:03 <bijan> I.e., to align to owl full
18:52:19 <bmotik> q+
18:52:55 <pfps> my understanding is that semantic-full annotations are the result of not having black triples in RDF
18:53:08 <pfps> s/black/dark/
18:53:22 <alanr> s/dark/graphite/
18:53:22 <bijan> I thought we *did* implement anntotions per the spec...I would love a pointer to where this is not the case
18:53:41 <pfps> there is a solution to backward compatability wrt annotations (but I don't like it)
18:53:48 <IanH> q+
18:53:52 <bijan> I would love there to be a unity OWL
18:53:53 <JeffP> q?
18:54:07 <alanr> q+ to ask how we can tell whether annotations are correctly implemented
18:54:15 <alanr> ack boris
18:54:17 <jeremy> Zakim, mute me
18:54:17 <Zakim> jeremy should now be muted
18:54:20 <IanH> q?
18:54:25 <ivan> ack bmotik 
18:55:05 <JeffP> boris: one design principle of OWL 1.1 is that ...
18:55:05 <jeremy> who are users???
18:55:31 <JeffP> boris: annotations have no serious semantics
18:55:49 <jeremy> No Boris said no semantics not 'no serious semantics'
18:55:50 <JeffP> boris: comments are simply comments
18:55:51 <alanr> ack ianh
18:56:21 <JeffP> Ian, in the charter we say to refine and extend OWL
18:56:26 <alanr> three cases of disparity: annotations, punning, (forget third)
18:56:35 <alanr> third: bnodes
18:56:54 <jeremy> wrong - strong disagreement
18:57:05 <alanr> wrong what, jeremy?
18:57:11 <jeremy> q+ to defend the quality of Sean's work
18:57:28 <JeffP> Ian: an OWL document should be one that could be translated from the one written in abstract syntax
18:57:34 <JeffP> ... according to the spec
18:57:50 <JeffP> q?
18:57:53 <JeffP> ack alanr
18:57:53 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to ask how we can tell whether annotations are correctly implemented
18:58:03 <bmotik> Yes, there is
18:58:04 <bijan> There seem to be test cases
18:58:08 <IanH> Sean's work was *excellent*, but it shouldn't have been *needed*
18:58:17 <jeremy> Zakim, unmute me
18:58:17 <Zakim> jeremy should no longer be muted
18:58:19 <bmotik> Ontology O1 does not entail O2 even if O1 and O2 are the same save for annotations.
18:58:45 <JeffP> jeremy, the semantics document is hard to get interpretation
18:59:06 <JeffP> Ian: this is completely different order
18:59:13 <alanr> Does any tool implement ontology entailment?
18:59:18 <bijan> Yes
18:59:18 <JeffP> ... the semantics document is technical
18:59:19 <bijan> Pellet
18:59:28 <bmotik> We don't know even if it decidable
18:59:31 <JeffP> ... and understood by many people
18:59:32 <alanr> Pellet has it commented out last time I checked
18:59:36 <bijan> ?
18:59:38 <bijan> No
18:59:46 <jeremy> Zakim, mute me
18:59:46 <Zakim> jeremy should now be muted
18:59:55 <bijan> could do more on this
19:00:15 <bmotik> No need to continue now. We should have a strategy to address this issue soon.
19:00:22 <bijan> Usage: java Pellet OPTIONS
19:00:22 <bijan>  {-if,-inputFile} <file URI>  Input ontology URI
19:00:22 <bijan>  {-is,-inputString} string    A string representation of the input file
19:00:23 <bijan> -cf,-conclusionsFile} <URI> Check if all the triples in this ontology is
19:00:23 <bijan>                               entailed by the input ontology
19:00:23 <bijan>  {-cs,-conclusionsString} str A string representation of the conclusions fil
19:00:33 <Carsten> have to leave, sorry
19:00:37 <Zakim> -Carsten
19:00:56 <JeffP> Topic: Issues (35 min)
19:01:09 <JeffP> Topic: PROPOSAL: Base abbreviated URIs in  Functional-style Syntax on CURIES not QNAMES (see Issue 14)
19:01:09 <alanr> PROPOSAL: Base abbreviated URIs in Functional-style Syntax on CURIES not QNAMES (see Issue 14)
19:01:48 <alanr> +1
19:01:53 <IanH> +1
19:01:56 <pfps> +1 issue-14 proposal
19:01:58 <MichaelSmith> +1
19:02:01 <jeremy> HP abstain (but no desire for further discussion)
19:02:03 <ivan> +1
19:02:04 <ewallace> +1
19:02:05 <bcuencag> +1
19:02:05 <Ratnesh> +1
19:02:06 <achille> +1
19:02:09 <JeffP> 0
19:02:12 <bmotik> 0
19:02:16 <dlm> 0
19:02:20 <MartinD> 0
19:02:22 <sandro> 0
19:02:23 <ivan> q+
19:02:27 <jeremy> q-
19:02:29 <JeffP> q?
19:02:32 <alanr> ack jeremy
19:02:40 <jeremy> Zakim, mute me
19:02:40 <Zakim> jeremy should now be muted
19:03:19 <alanr> q?
19:03:21 <bmotik> Could someone please point out the main benefit of using CURIES?
19:03:24 <alanr> qck ivan
19:03:26 <alanr> ack ivan
19:03:27 <JeffP> ivan: it seems that we could do that without too much danger
19:03:35 <pfps> curies allow abbreviating all IRIs
19:03:44 <pfps> qnames don't
19:03:55 <jeremy> The main benefit is ids like http://ex.og/id/9324
19:03:57 <JeffP> Resolved: Base abbreviated URIs in Functional-style Syntax on CURIES not QNAMES (see Issue 14)
19:04:08 <JeffP> PROPOSAL: Structural specification, XML Schema, and RDF mapping be extended to allow for multiple facet--value pairs in data ranges (see Issue 28)
19:04:16 <alanr> +1
19:04:20 <JeffP> +1
19:04:22 <jeremy> +1
19:04:22 <ewallace> +1
19:04:23 <uli> +1
19:04:24 <pfps> +1
19:04:24 <MichaelSmith> +1
19:04:25 <IanH> +1
19:04:27 <dlm> +1
19:04:27 <bijan> +1
19:04:29 <MartinD> +1
19:04:31 <GiorgosStoilos> +1
19:04:34 <ivan> ivan: what I said is (for the minutes) we can normatively refer to the CURIE document (http://www.w3.org/TR/curie)
19:04:37 <bcuencag> +1
19:04:38 <sandro> 0
19:04:39 <ivan> +1
19:04:43 <achille> 0
19:04:50 <bmotik> +1
19:05:30 <JeffP> Resolved: PROPOSAL: Structural specification, XML Schema, and RDF mapping be extended to allow for multiple facet--value pairs in data ranges (see Issue 28)
19:05:46 <JeffP> PROPOSAL: Issue 64 be resolved as per this email
19:06:05 <MichaelSmith> the email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Nov/0391.html
19:06:10 <JeffP> object property chains in triples: confusion of list with property
19:06:24 <alanr> +1
19:06:26 <bmotik> +1
19:06:30 <IanH> +1
19:06:32 <pfps> +1
19:06:32 <sandro> 0
19:06:33 <achille> +1
19:06:35 <MichaelSmith> +1
19:06:37 <bcuencag> +1
19:06:42 <dlm> +1
19:06:44 <ewallace> 0
19:06:45 <MartinD> +1
19:06:45 <uli> +1
19:06:49 <JeffP> 0
19:06:51 <ivan> 0 (do not remember the detail, but no reason for discussion for me)
19:06:52 <jeremy> +1
19:06:55 <alanr> q?
19:07:10 <bijan> +1
19:07:21 <JeffP> Resolved: Issue 64 be resolved as per this email
19:07:32 <jeremy> q+ to ask about publications
19:07:36 <Ratnesh1> Ratnesh1 has joined #owl
19:07:41 <alanr> ack jeremy
19:07:42 <jeremy> Zakim, unmute me
19:07:43 <Zakim> jeremy, you wanted to ask about publications
19:07:46 <Zakim> jeremy was not muted, jeremy
19:08:16 <jeremy> Zakim, mute me
19:08:16 <Zakim> jeremy should now be muted
19:08:41 <jeremy> OK
19:09:07 <alanr> Issue 2 revisited: RDF syntax for other "n-ary constructs"? (See [1] and thread.)
19:09:15 <jeremy> jeremy: do the issues resolved go into abput to be published docs
19:09:18 <jeremy> alan: yes
19:09:30 <JeffP> thx, jeremy
19:09:58 <JeffP> (abput?)
19:10:11 <jeremy> (about)
19:10:17 <Zakim> -Vipul_Kashyap
19:10:18 <bmotik> Yes
19:10:23 <JeffP> s/abput/about
19:10:36 <pfps> q+
19:10:40 <alanr> acl peter
19:10:40 <pfps> zakim, unmute me
19:10:40 <Zakim> pfps should no longer be muted
19:10:43 <alanr> ack peter
19:10:49 <bmotik> Yes
19:10:56 <Ratnesh3> Ratnesh3 has joined #owl
19:10:56 <alanr> q+ alanr
19:11:01 <alanr> ack pfps
19:11:01 <bmotik> q+
19:11:03 <jeremy> I am against
19:11:16 <uli> against what
19:11:19 <uli> ?
19:11:23 <sandro> Zakim, list attendees
19:11:23 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been jeremy, MIchaelSmith, bmotik, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, achille, bijan, Vipul_Kashyap, MartinD, pfps, Evan_Wallace, IanH, Conrad, uli, Sandro,
19:11:23 <JeffP> pfps: I am not conviced that it would solve the round-tripping problem (?)
19:11:24 <jeremy> against more vocab
19:11:27 <Zakim> ... bcuencag, Ratnesh, Deb, zhe, GiorgosStoilos, Carsten
19:11:27 <pfps> what about the case for n=2?
19:11:32 <pfps> zakim, mute me
19:11:32 <Zakim> pfps should now be muted
19:11:45 <JeffP> q?
19:11:49 <bijan> With suitable annotations, we could round trip without new vocab!
19:11:58 <pfps> agreed
19:11:59 <IanH> against adding explicit rdf syntax for all n-ary constructs
19:12:00 <sandro> zakim, who is on the phone?
19:12:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see jeremy (muted), achille, bmotik, MichaelSmith, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, pfps (muted), bijan (muted), uli (muted), MartinD (muted), Ratnesh, Evan_Wallace, IanH, Conrad,
19:12:00 <alanr> ack alanr
19:12:02 <ivan> ack alanr 
19:12:03 <alanr> ack boris
19:12:04 <Zakim> ... Sandro, bcuencag (muted), Deb, zhe, GiorgosStoilos
19:12:16 <alanr> q?
19:12:20 <alanr> ack bmotik
19:13:10 <IanH> q?
19:13:11 <JeffP> boris, the spec should be more implementable
19:13:14 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
19:13:14 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
19:13:39 <sandro> Present: Jeremy, Achille, bmotik, MichaelSmith, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, pfps, bijan, uli, MartinD, Ratnesh, Evan_Wallace, IanH, Conrad, Sandro, bcuencag, Deb, zhe, GiorgosStoilos, Vipul_Kashyap, Conrad, Carsten
19:14:25 <JeffP> bijan: need to make things easier
19:14:31 <bijan> zakim, mute me
19:14:31 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
19:15:12 <bijan> Oh, I have users who really like nice serializations...that was a big deal
19:15:20 <bijan> So I would like to reduce *parser* freedom
19:15:32 <bijan> (sorry, illness making me think slow...)
19:15:52 <bijan> IT's not just an implementator issue, but a user issue
19:16:30 <bijan> Not if you use the binary constructs
19:16:58 <JeffP> alanr: if so, then an OWL DL ontology could become something not a proper OWL DlL ontology after some parsing
19:17:00 <bijan> I think Protege4 is using some aggressive pretty printing
19:17:25 <jeremy> (for me this is hitting the bigger issues about what are the goals ....)
19:17:40 <IanH> Yes, I guess that P4 "helps" you by turning multiple binary into an nary?
19:17:49 <alanr> this is not a help
19:17:49 <bijan> It may
19:17:53 <pfps> but what if you are building an OWL 1.0 ontology in Protege?  then you would generate OWL 1.1, not OWL 1.0, in the RDF
19:18:13 <bijan> Yep...this may be a bug in the serializer
19:18:13 <Zakim> -Conrad
19:18:16 <uli> ...but this is about P4 and not about "what is possible/should be done"
19:18:39 <IanH> but this is a tool issue
19:18:39 <JeffP> is this n-ary thing done by Protete using the well known design pattern for n-ary relations?
19:18:54 <IanH> P4 should allow you to explicitly save as 1.0
19:19:09 <bijan> It should respect how you construct
19:19:09 <IanH> See numerous Microsoft tools for details
19:19:23 <bijan> That's the intend of the roundtripping design
19:19:24 <JeffP> alanr: annotation properties would be changed too
19:19:25 <uli> But Alan, these are still P4 issues -- or are any of them due to OWL1.1?
19:20:05 <jeremy> Zakim, unmute me
19:20:05 <Zakim> jeremy should no longer be muted
19:20:12 <IanH> Q+
19:20:12 <JeffP> (maybe we should take this offline)
19:20:18 <JeffP> zakim, who is talking?
19:20:29 <jeremy> Zakim, mute me
19:20:29 <Zakim> jeremy should now be muted
19:20:30 <Zakim> JeffP, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: jeremy (5%), Alan (39%)
19:20:32 <alanr> q?
19:20:32 <JeffP> q?
19:20:32 <IanH> q?
19:20:57 <JeffP> Ian, I think this is a tool issue rather than a language issue
19:21:43 <Zakim> -jeremy
19:21:43 <JeffP> ... tools supporting OWL 1.1 will produce OWL1.1 files by default
19:21:44 <bijan> But you need to distinguish the tool issues from langauge issues
19:21:55 <jeremy> Please let me know when we are on topic
19:22:02 <ivan> :-)
19:22:10 <jeremy> and I will rejoin
19:22:14 <achille> +1 for Ian's view that it is a tool issue
19:22:19 <bijan> Round tripping, as boris described, should work fine. If protege does some munging in its serialization...that's different
19:22:24 <JeffP> rool call on issue 2?
19:22:27 <alanr> roll call on issue 2 revisited?
19:22:33 <jeremy> -1
19:22:36 <bmotik> +1 to extend all n-ary constructs to n-ary
19:22:39 <JeffP> Issue 2 revisited: RDF syntax for other "n-ary constructs"? (See [1] and thread.)
19:22:40 <bijan> Yeah, what'st he resolution?
19:22:53 <uli> did we not already do this call?
19:22:58 <pfps> no proposal was in the minutes
19:23:01 <IanH> +1 to either extend all n-ary constructs to n-ary or remove them from functional syntax
19:23:20 <pfps> s/minutes/agenda/
19:23:23 <bijan> IanH, really?
19:23:31 <bijan> Including AllDisjoint?
19:23:47 <IanH> yes -- I want the various syntaxes to be properly aligned
19:23:47 <jeremy> AllDisjoint was solved and agreed
19:24:05 <bijan> That was my understanding too, jeremy
19:24:23 <bijan> IanH do you propose reopening AllDisjoint? What about AllDifferent?
19:24:25 <uli> mine too, Jeremy
19:24:29 <IanH> My preference would be to extend the RDF, not emasculate the functional syntax
19:24:42 <alanr> alldifferent is already in this form in 1.0 iirc
19:24:47 <IanH> I don't ropose reopening AllDisjoint? What about AllDifferent? -- they are in alignment
19:24:52 <jeremy> yes
19:24:52 <pfps> what about objectunionof, objectintersectionof?
19:25:04 <bijan> Can we move this to email?
19:25:38 <JeffP> Ian, I would like to see some alignment between the two syntax
19:25:54 <Zakim> +jeremy
19:26:03 <jeremy> zakim, mute me
19:26:03 <Zakim> jeremy should now be muted
19:26:10 <ewallace> agree with Ivan, but can we have an action to record where we are on this
19:26:12 <bijan> sire
19:26:17 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
19:26:17 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
19:26:17 <ivan> :-)
19:26:24 <JeffP> Topic: RIF meeting 
19:26:37 <alanr> open to suggestions of which one might have been easier :)
19:26:47 <JeffP> bijan, there is a draft on compatibility between RIF and OWL
19:26:53 <alanr> apologies for taking liberty with chair
19:27:04 <pfps> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/SWC/OWL-Compatibility
19:27:06 <JeffP> ... people suggested RIF should talk to us on it
19:27:34 <JeffP> ... proposed a joint TF
19:27:50 <JeffP> ... between the two WGs
19:28:10 <JeffP> alanr: do we need nominate someone?
19:28:27 <JeffP> Sandro: we didn't remember the exact number
19:28:44 <JeffP> bijan, ChrisW will contact the chairs of this WG 
19:29:11 <bijan> zakim, mute me
19:29:13 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
19:29:27 <uli> bye bye
19:29:28 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
19:29:30 <bmotik> bye
19:29:34 <MichaelSmith> bye
19:29:35 <Zakim> -IanH
19:29:36 <Zakim> -jeremy
19:29:36 <Zakim> -bcuencag
19:29:37 <Zakim> -uli
19:29:38 <achille> bye
19:29:39 <Zakim> -MichaelSmith
19:29:40 <ivan> bye bye, see some of you next week in Manchester
19:29:40 <Ratnesh3> bye
19:29:40 <Zakim> -bmotik
19:29:41 <Zakim> -Alan
19:29:42 <Zakim> -GiorgosStoilos
19:29:43 <Zakim> -zhe
19:29:44 <Zakim> -MartinD
19:29:46 <Zakim> -bijan
19:29:48 <Zakim> -Sandro
19:29:50 <Zakim> -Ivan
19:29:52 <Zakim> -Deb
19:29:52 <uli> uli has left #owl
19:29:54 <Zakim> -achille
19:29:56 <Zakim> -pfps
19:29:58 <dlm> dlm has left #owl
19:30:00 <Zakim> -Ratnesh
19:30:05 <sandro> JeffP, can you hang on for 2 minutes?
19:30:08 <sandro> (on IRC)
19:30:11 <JeffP> ok
19:30:14 <Zakim> -JeffP
19:30:16 <Zakim> SW_OWL()12:00PM has ended
19:30:18 <Zakim> Attendees were jeremy, MIchaelSmith, bmotik, Alan, JeffP, Ivan, achille, bijan, Vipul_Kashyap, MartinD, pfps, Evan_Wallace, IanH, Conrad, uli, Sandro, bcuencag, Ratnesh, Deb, zhe,
19:30:20 <Zakim> ... GiorgosStoilos, Carsten
19:30:47 <bijan> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/SWC/OWL-Compatibility
19:31:00 <MartinD> MartinD has left #OWL
19:31:57 <sandro> Thanks, Bijan!
19:32:15 <bijan> np, kitchen dude
19:32:25 <sandro> or scribe-helping dude right now
19:32:33 <JeffP> :-)
19:33:06 <bijan> I was tempted to retort "What, you don't have a web browser in the kitchen? Isn't that a w3c team requriement?"
19:33:26 <JeffP> haha
19:34:06 <sandro> Anyway, Jeff, I think http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.11.28/Minutes is now ready for you.
19:34:45 <sandro> There are lot of [BOT] lines which can be simply deleted.   If any lines are marked BOT when they should not be, or aren't when they should be, please let me know.
19:34:56 <sandro> simple deleted after reading them.  :)
19:35:06 <JeffP> ok
19:35:31 <sandro> okay later!     
19:35:37 <JeffP> bye
19:46:01 <jeremy> jeremy has left #owl
21:35:41 <Zakim> Zakim has left #owl