<scribenick> PRESENT: Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, christine, IanH, MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, baojie, Rinke, Alan Ruttenberg, Michael Schneider, boris motik, uli sattler, jeff pan, evan wallace, zhe, sebastian
<scribenick> CHAIR: Ian Horrocks
16:39:10 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-owl-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-owl-irc ←
16:56:55 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
(No events recorded for 17 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started ←
16:57:02 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: +Peter_Patel-Schneider ←
16:57:11 <pfps> pfps has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.04.15/Agenda
Peter Patel-Schneider: pfps has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.04.15/Agenda ←
16:57:24 <pfps> zakim, this is owl
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, this is owl ←
16:57:24 <Zakim> pfps, this was already SW_OWL()1:00PM
Zakim IRC Bot: pfps, this was already SW_OWL()1:00PM ←
16:57:26 <Zakim> ok, pfps; that matches SW_OWL()1:00PM
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, pfps; that matches SW_OWL()1:00PM ←
16:57:30 <Zakim> + +1.202.408.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.202.408.aaaa ←
16:59:17 <Zakim> + +86528aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +86528aabb ←
16:59:28 <Zakim> +??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1 ←
16:59:31 <bijan> zakim, ??p1 is me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, ??p1 is me ←
16:59:31 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bijan; got it ←
16:59:39 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, 86528aabb is me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, 86528aabb is me ←
16:59:39 <Zakim> sorry, bcuencagrau, I do not recognize a party named '86528aabb'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, bcuencagrau, I do not recognize a party named '86528aabb' ←
16:59:43 <Zakim> + +2
Zakim IRC Bot: + +2 ←
16:59:50 <bijan> zkaim, aabb is bcuencagrau
Bijan Parsia: zkaim, aabb is bcuencagrau ←
16:59:51 <Zakim> + +1.603.897.aadd
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.603.897.aadd ←
16:59:58 <bijan> zakim even
Bijan Parsia: zakim even ←
17:00:08 <bijan> zakim, �aabb is bcuencagrau�
Bijan Parsia: zakim, �aabb is bcuencagrau� ←
17:00:08 <Zakim> sorry, bijan, I do not recognize a party named '�aabb'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, bijan, I do not recognize a party named '�aabb' ←
17:00:11 <Zakim> +??P6
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P6 ←
17:00:19 <bcuencagrau> zakim, aabb is me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: zakim, aabb is me ←
17:00:19 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bcuencagrau; got it ←
17:00:26 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me ←
17:00:26 <Zakim> +Ian_Horrocks
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ian_Horrocks ←
17:00:26 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should now be muted ←
17:00:27 <Zakim> - +2
Zakim IRC Bot: - +2 ←
17:00:38 <IanH> zakim, Ian_Horrocks is IanH
Ian Horrocks: zakim, Ian_Horrocks is IanH ←
17:00:38 <Zakim> +IanH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +IanH; got it ←
17:00:49 <msmith> yes
Mike Smith: yes ←
17:00:54 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
17:00:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, +1.603.897.aadd, ??P6, IanH
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, +1.603.897.aadd, ??P6, IanH ←
17:00:56 <Zakim> On IRC I see MarkusK_, christine, JeffP, Zhe, IanH, bcuencagrau, sebastian, Rinke, pfps, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see MarkusK_, christine, JeffP, Zhe, IanH, bcuencagrau, sebastian, Rinke, pfps, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, sandro, trackbot ←
17:00:59 <Zakim> +??P4
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4 ←
17:01:04 <Zakim> +??P8
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P8 ←
17:01:05 <Rinke> zakim, ??P4 is me
Rinke Hoekstra: zakim, ??P4 is me ←
17:01:05 <Zakim> +Rinke; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Rinke; got it ←
17:01:10 <Rinke> zakim, mute me
Rinke Hoekstra: zakim, mute me ←
17:01:10 <Zakim> Rinke should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Rinke should now be muted ←
17:01:16 <msmith> scribenick: msmith
(Scribe set to Mike Smith)
17:01:17 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
17:01:17 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
17:01:18 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
17:01:22 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
17:01:22 <christine> zakim, ??P8 is me
Christine Golbreich: zakim, ??P8 is me ←
17:01:26 <Zakim> I already had ??P8 as MarkusK_, christine
Zakim IRC Bot: I already had ??P8 as MarkusK_, christine ←
17:01:37 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
17:01:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, +1.603.897.aadd, ??P6, IanH, Rinke (muted), MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, +1.603.897.aadd, ??P6, IanH, Rinke (muted), MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro ←
17:01:54 <Zakim> On IRC I see uli, ivan, MarkusK_, christine, JeffP, Zhe, IanH, bcuencagrau, sebastian, Rinke, pfps, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see uli, ivan, MarkusK_, christine, JeffP, Zhe, IanH, bcuencagrau, sebastian, Rinke, pfps, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, sandro, trackbot ←
17:02:00 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aaee
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.518.276.aaee ←
17:02:04 <msmith> topic: admin
17:02:05 <Zakim> -Rinke
Zakim IRC Bot: -Rinke ←
17:02:09 <christine> zakim, ??P6 is me
Christine Golbreich: zakim, ??P6 is me ←
17:02:13 <Zakim> +christine; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +christine; got it ←
17:02:14 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
17:02:15 <msmith> subtopic: roll call
17:02:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, +1.603.897.aadd, christine, IanH, MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, +1.518.276.aaee
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, +1.603.897.aadd, christine, IanH, MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, +1.518.276.aaee ←
17:02:26 <Zakim> +??P4
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4 ←
17:02:27 <baojie> Zakim, aaee is baojie
Jie Bao: Zakim, aaee is baojie ←
17:02:27 <Zakim> On IRC I see baojie, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, christine, JeffP, Zhe, IanH, bcuencagrau, sebastian, Rinke, pfps, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see baojie, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, christine, JeffP, Zhe, IanH, bcuencagrau, sebastian, Rinke, pfps, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, sandro, trackbot ←
17:02:28 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P4 is me
Boris Motik: Zakim, ??P4 is me ←
17:02:33 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau.a
Zakim IRC Bot: +bcuencagrau.a ←
17:02:34 <msmith> subtopic: agenda amendments
17:02:35 <Zakim> +baojie; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +baojie; got it ←
17:02:39 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bmotik; got it ←
17:02:43 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
17:02:45 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
17:02:52 <msmith> subtopic: previous minutes
17:02:53 <Zakim> +??P16
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P16 ←
17:02:57 <pfps> minutes OK by me
Peter Patel-Schneider: minutes OK by me ←
17:03:00 <uli> zakim, ??P16 is me
Uli Sattler: zakim, ??P16 is me ←
17:03:00 <Zakim> +uli; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +uli; got it ←
17:03:03 <Rinke> can you hear me?
Rinke Hoekstra: can you hear me? ←
17:03:06 <Zakim> + +22427aaff
Zakim IRC Bot: + +22427aaff ←
17:03:10 <Zakim> +Alan_Ruttenberg
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alan_Ruttenberg ←
17:03:12 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
17:03:12 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
17:03:13 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P4 is someone-else
Boris Motik: Zakim, ??P4 is someone-else ←
17:03:14 <Zakim> I already had ??P4 as bmotik, bmotik
Zakim IRC Bot: I already had ??P4 as bmotik, bmotik ←
17:03:18 <uli> Rinke, I couldn't hear you
Uli Sattler: Rinke, I couldn't hear you ←
17:03:18 <Rinke> zakim, ??P4 is me
Rinke Hoekstra: zakim, ??P4 is me ←
17:03:18 <Zakim> I already had ??P4 as bmotik, Rinke
Zakim IRC Bot: I already had ??P4 as bmotik, Rinke ←
17:03:26 <msmith> ianh: any comments on minutes?
Ian Horrocks: any comments on minutes? ←
17:03:34 <pfps> "minutes OK by me"
Peter Patel-Schneider: "minutes OK by me" ←
17:03:37 <JeffP> zakim, aaff is me
17:03:37 <Zakim> +JeffP; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +JeffP; got it ←
17:03:39 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: +Evan_Wallace ←
17:03:42 <bmotik> Zakim, bmotik is Rinke
Boris Motik: Zakim, bmotik is Rinke ←
17:03:42 <Zakim> +Rinke; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Rinke; got it ←
17:03:52 <msmith> RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes (8 April) http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-04-08
RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes (8 April) http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-04-08 ←
17:03:54 <bmotik> Zakim, +bcuencagrau.a is me
Boris Motik: Zakim, +bcuencagrau.a is me ←
17:03:55 <Zakim> sorry, bmotik, I do not recognize a party named '+bcuencagrau.a'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, bmotik, I do not recognize a party named '+bcuencagrau.a' ←
17:03:58 <JeffP> q+
17:04:04 <msmith> subtopic: pending review action items
17:04:04 <pfps> q+
17:04:13 <bmotik> Zakim, bcuencagrau.a is me
Boris Motik: Zakim, bcuencagrau.a is me ←
17:04:13 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bmotik; got it ←
17:04:14 <IanH> ack JeffP
Ian Horrocks: ack JeffP ←
17:04:17 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
17:04:17 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
17:04:40 <msmith> jeffp: I'd like agenda amendment for negative property assertions
Jeff Pan: I'd like agenda amendment for negative property assertions ←
17:04:53 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:04:56 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
17:05:04 <msmith> ianh: ok, we'll try to do this in topic "(Technical) Issues Arising"
Ian Horrocks: ok, we'll try to do this in topic "(Technical) Issues Arising" ←
17:05:13 <ewallace> she said consider it done
Evan Wallace: she said consider it done ←
17:05:17 <msmith> pfps: what about Elisa's review action (ACTION-321)
Peter Patel-Schneider: what about Elisa's review action (ACTION-321) ←
17:05:29 <pfps> OK to close it by me
Peter Patel-Schneider: OK to close it by me ←
17:05:29 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:05:29 <msmith> ianh: she considers it done for this review round
Ian Horrocks: she considers it done for this review round ←
17:05:51 <msmith> ianh: consider all pending done (320, 321, 329, 328, 326)
Ian Horrocks: consider all pending done (320, 321, 329, 328, 326) ←
17:06:05 <msmith> subtopic: Due and overdue Actions
17:06:22 <msmith> subsubtopic: ACTION-299
17:06:31 <pfps> Maybe the links from NF&R, but these are intentional
Peter Patel-Schneider: Maybe the links from NF&R, but these are intentional ←
17:06:38 <msmith> sandro: I don't know what links he was talking about.
Sandro Hawke: I don't know what links he was talking about. ←
17:06:56 <msmith> ianh: there are references in NF&R that reference documents in the wiki. e.g., there is a reference to punning
Ian Horrocks: there are references in NF&R that reference documents in the wiki. e.g., there is a reference to punning ←
17:07:24 <msmith> sandro: yesterday (or before) I sent an email to the list about links to the wiki
Sandro Hawke: yesterday (or before) I sent an email to the list about links to the wiki ←
17:07:37 <pfps> in any case NF&R is not in last call, so we don't need to fix it right now
Peter Patel-Schneider: in any case NF&R is not in last call, so we don't need to fix it right now ←
17:07:41 <christine> +q
Christine Golbreich: +q ←
17:07:46 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:08:07 <pfps> RDF Semantics might be a bit more problematic
Peter Patel-Schneider: RDF Semantics might be a bit more problematic ←
17:08:08 <msmith> ianh: links to wiki seem like a bad idea - mutable
Ian Horrocks: links to wiki seem like a bad idea - mutable ←
17:08:25 <msmith> sandro: I'm not sure they're so bad, they may be the best we can do
Sandro Hawke: I'm not sure they're so bad, they may be the best we can do ←
17:08:31 <IanH> ack christine
Ian Horrocks: ack christine ←
17:08:46 <sandro> sandro: I do agree it's worth some effort to find better citations than links to wiki pages.
Sandro Hawke: I do agree it's worth some effort to find better citations than links to wiki pages. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:08:49 <msmith> christine: what should I do for these links?
Christine Golbreich: what should I do for these links? ←
17:08:53 <Zakim> -Rinke
Zakim IRC Bot: -Rinke ←
17:09:52 <msmith> ianh: it seems there is a reasonable justification for pointing at the wiki now and this is not time critical yet
Ian Horrocks: it seems there is a reasonable justification for pointing at the wiki now and this is not time critical yet ←
17:10:03 <msmith> ... what we have now is fine for a working draft
... what we have now is fine for a working draft ←
17:10:05 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
17:10:11 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:10:19 <Zakim> +??P4
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4 ←
17:10:24 <Rinke> zakim, ??P4 is me
Rinke Hoekstra: zakim, ??P4 is me ←
17:10:24 <Zakim> +Rinke; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Rinke; got it ←
17:10:27 <Rinke> zakim, mute me
Rinke Hoekstra: zakim, mute me ←
17:10:27 <Zakim> Rinke should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Rinke should now be muted ←
17:10:32 <msmith> bijan: I have no problem with wiki mutability, if we can freeze specific pages.
Bijan Parsia: I have no problem with wiki mutability, if we can freeze specific pages. ←
17:10:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:10:50 <msmith> sandro: are you worried about vandalism if left unattended?
Sandro Hawke: are you worried about vandalism if left unattended? ←
17:11:04 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:11:31 <ewallace> +1 to IanH
Evan Wallace: +1 to IanH ←
17:11:37 <msmith> bijan: not so much vandalism. more just unanticipated changes
Bijan Parsia: not so much vandalism. more just unanticipated changes ←
17:12:05 <msmith> ianh: we're considering ACTION-299 done
Ian Horrocks: we're considering ACTION-299 done ←
17:12:14 <msmith> subsubtopic: ACTION-325
17:12:20 <sandro> action-299: closed
Sandro Hawke: ACTION-299: closed ←
17:12:20 <trackbot> ACTION-299 Find and fix the to-wiki-links Jeremy complains about notes added
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-299 Find and fix the to-wiki-links Jeremy complains about notes added ←
17:12:20 <trackbot> If you meant to close ACTION-299, please use 'close ACTION-299'
Trackbot IRC Bot: If you meant to close ACTION-299, please use 'close ACTION-299' ←
17:12:34 <sandro> close action-299
Sandro Hawke: close ACTION-299 ←
17:12:34 <Zakim> +??P22
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P22 ←
17:12:34 <trackbot> ACTION-299 Find and fix the to-wiki-links Jeremy complains about closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-299 Find and fix the to-wiki-links Jeremy complains about closed ←
17:12:43 <sandro> close action-325
Sandro Hawke: close ACTION-325 ←
17:12:43 <trackbot> ACTION-325 Send a comment to the CURIE folks about us not using them. closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-325 Send a comment to the CURIE folks about us not using them. closed ←
17:12:49 <pfps> zakim, who is talking?
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, who is talking? ←
17:12:49 <Zakim> I am sorry, pfps; I don't have the necessary resources to track talkers right now
Zakim IRC Bot: I am sorry, pfps; I don't have the necessary resources to track talkers right now ←
17:12:56 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:13:18 <msmith> subtopic: which document should we propose as a citation for OWL 2 as a whole?
17:13:23 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:13:39 <pfps> OK by me, I guess
Peter Patel-Schneider: OK by me, I guess ←
17:13:40 <ivan_> yes
Ivan Herman: yes ←
17:13:43 <msmith> ianh: current position seems to be recommend overview
Ian Horrocks: current position seems to be recommend overview ←
17:13:45 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:13:46 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
17:13:47 <ewallace> Overview is the main entry point.
Evan Wallace: Overview is the main entry point. ←
17:13:47 <bijan> I'm reconciled enough to that, with grumpiness
Bijan Parsia: I'm reconciled enough to that, with grumpiness ←
17:14:03 <msmith> +1 to overview (which is why we made all WG authors)
+1 to overview (which is why we made all WG authors) ←
17:14:13 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:14:23 <msmith> ianh: that was the intention of overview from last f2f
Ian Horrocks: that was the intention of overview from last f2f ←
17:14:44 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:14:53 <pfps> I'm happy with it.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm happy with it. ←
17:14:57 <ivan_> i'll ship it then...
Ivan Herman: i'll ship it then... ←
17:15:02 <msmith> ... we continue with owverview as main citation point
... we continue with owverview as main citation point ←
17:15:08 <IanH> PROPOSED: WG will send LC comment to POWDER WG as per Ivan's draft
PROPOSED: WG will send LC comment to POWDER WG as per Ivan's draft ←
17:15:13 <ivan_> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
17:15:14 <pfps> +1
17:15:16 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
17:15:17 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
17:15:18 <Rinke> +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
17:15:19 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
17:15:23 <Zhe> +1
17:15:25 <baojie> +1
17:15:25 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
17:15:26 <msmith> msmith: +1
Mike Smith: +1 ←
17:15:27 <sebastian> +1
Sebastian Brandt: +1 ←
17:15:27 <christine> +1
Christine Golbreich: +1 ←
17:15:29 <msmith> subtopic: LC comment to POWDER WG
17:15:36 <IanH> RESOLVED: WG will send LC comment to POWDER WG as per Ivan's draft
RESOLVED: WG will send LC comment to POWDER WG as per Ivan's draft ←
17:15:50 <msmith> ivan's draft: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Apr/0120.html
ivan's draft: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Apr/0120.html ←
17:16:14 <msmith> topic: Documents and Reviewing
17:16:29 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:16:32 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:16:35 <pfps> Primer looks good to me.
Peter Patel-Schneider: Primer looks good to me. ←
17:16:44 <christine> no!
Christine Golbreich: no! ←
17:16:45 <sebastian> (y)
Sebastian Brandt: (y) ←
17:16:45 <msmith> ianh: last week we punted on publishing the Primer. I think it is now ready to pub. Comments?
Ian Horrocks: last week we punted on publishing the Primer. I think it is now ready to pub. Comments? ←
17:16:47 <uli> looks fine to me
Uli Sattler: looks fine to me ←
17:16:49 <ivan_> yes
Ivan Herman: yes ←
17:16:55 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:17:10 <bijan> No one has to like it in it's current form!
Bijan Parsia: No one has to like it in it's current form! ←
17:17:17 <bijan> By publishing we don't commit to it
Bijan Parsia: By publishing we don't commit to it ←
17:17:19 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:17:20 <msmith> christine: I haven't changed my mind since last week and do not want to see it published
Christine Golbreich: I haven't changed my mind since last week and do not want to see it published ←
17:17:47 <msmith> ... I would like a commitment for significant changes before last call
... I would like a commitment for significant changes before last call ←
17:18:16 <sandro> Christine, note that it currently says: "This Working Draft has undergone a complete rewrite since the previous version of 11 April 2008, to improve its readability and utility. Examples are now mostly also available in Turtle syntax. This document will undergo further significant revision before a final version is produced. "
Sandro Hawke: Christine, note that it currently says: "This Working Draft has undergone a complete rewrite since the previous version of 11 April 2008, to improve its readability and utility. Examples are now mostly also available in Turtle syntax. This document will undergo further significant revision before a final version is produced. " ←
17:18:17 <msmith> ianh: there is no positive commitment inherent in publishing, so such a commitment to force changes is inappropriate
Ian Horrocks: there is no positive commitment inherent in publishing, so such a commitment to force changes is inappropriate ←
17:18:20 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:18:21 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
17:18:23 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
17:18:28 <pfps> +1 to Ian
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to Ian ←
17:18:41 <IanH> ack sandro
Ian Horrocks: ack sandro ←
17:18:47 <msmith> christine: I don't want to commit to going to LC in the next publication
Christine Golbreich: I don't want to commit to going to LC in the next publication ←
17:19:07 <bijan> Standard boilerpalte:
Bijan Parsia: Standard boilerpalte: ←
17:19:07 <bijan> No Endorsement
Bijan Parsia: No Endorsement ←
17:19:08 <bijan> Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.
Bijan Parsia: Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress. ←
17:19:11 <pfps> I did it. :-)
Peter Patel-Schneider: I did it. :-) ←
17:19:15 <bijan> This is standard for WD
Bijan Parsia: This is standard for WD ←
17:19:17 <MarkusK_> +1 to Sandro stating that further revisions are in scope for us
Markus Krötzsch: +1 to Sandro stating that further revisions are in scope for us ←
17:19:36 <msmith> sandro: I think the text quoted above (authored by pfps) meets your goal
Sandro Hawke: I think the text quoted above (authored by pfps) meets your goal ←
17:19:40 <IanH> PROPOSED: Primer is ready for publication as OWD
PROPOSED: Primer is ready for publication as OWD ←
17:19:44 <pfps> +1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU ←
17:19:47 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:19:49 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
17:19:49 <ivan_> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
17:19:51 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
17:19:52 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
17:19:52 <msmith> +1
+1 ←
17:19:53 <sebastian> +1
Sebastian Brandt: +1 ←
17:19:55 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
17:19:57 <Rinke> +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
17:19:59 <ewallace> +1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
17:20:01 <christine> 0-
Christine Golbreich: 0- ←
17:20:02 <Zakim> -Alan_Ruttenberg
Zakim IRC Bot: -Alan_Ruttenberg ←
17:20:06 <JeffP> 0
17:20:08 <Zhe> +0
17:20:09 <IanH> RESOLVED: Primer is ready for publication as OWD
RESOLVED: Primer is ready for publication as OWD ←
17:20:11 <baojie> 0
17:20:16 <christine> even no reviews!
Christine Golbreich: even no reviews! ←
17:20:39 <Zakim> +Alan_Ruttenberg
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alan_Ruttenberg ←
17:20:50 <sandro> alan: +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:21:32 <IanH> Q?
Ian Horrocks: Q? ←
17:21:32 <msmith> subtopic: procedure for LC comments (in 2nd LC)
17:21:49 <Rinke> zakim, who is talking?
Rinke Hoekstra: zakim, who is talking? ←
17:21:49 <Zakim> I am sorry, Rinke; I don't have the necessary resources to track talkers right now
Zakim IRC Bot: I am sorry, Rinke; I don't have the necessary resources to track talkers right now ←
17:21:54 <sandro> ian: Last time, we treated last call comments from WG members like we treated them from outside. I think this was a mistake, overkill, with extra admin burden.
Ian Horrocks: Last time, we treated last call comments from WG members like we treated them from outside. I think this was a mistake, overkill, with extra admin burden. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:22:28 <msmith> ianh: last time we allowed lc comments from wg members. We should change this b/c: I think this was a mistake b/c it added administrative burden, and interested parties should have already reviewed
Ian Horrocks: last time we allowed lc comments from wg members. We should change this b/c: I think this was a mistake b/c it added administrative burden, and interested parties should have already reviewed ←
17:22:33 <IanH> Q?
Ian Horrocks: Q? ←
17:22:38 <sandro> ian: I would expect that folks in the WG have *already* *reviewed* these documents, and given their feedback already.
Ian Horrocks: I would expect that folks in the WG have *already* *reviewed* these documents, and given their feedback already. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:22:48 <sandro> Ian; I think we should be quicker in dealing with the comments.
Sandro Hawke: Ian; I think we should be quicker in dealing with the comments. ←
17:22:51 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:22:54 <msmith> ... we also need to be quicker responding to lc comments
... we also need to be quicker responding to lc comments ←
17:22:58 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
17:23:37 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:23:41 <msmith> bijan: are we pretty committed to thinking we have everything fixed (presentation and technical)? if so, then we can dispose of things pretty quickly.
Bijan Parsia: are we pretty committed to thinking we have everything fixed (presentation and technical)? if so, then we can dispose of things pretty quickly. ←
17:23:47 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
17:24:01 <sandro> rrsagent, make record public
Sandro Hawke: rrsagent, make record public ←
17:24:23 <schneid> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
Michael Schneider: zakim, [IPcaller] is me ←
17:24:23 <Zakim> +schneid; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +schneid; got it ←
17:24:27 <schneid> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:24:27 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted ←
17:24:27 <msmith> ianh: last time we took a long time just to allocate resources for response. that consumed a lot of time. chairs might delegate actions more this time around
Ian Horrocks: last time we took a long time just to allocate resources for response. that consumed a lot of time. chairs might delegate actions more this time around ←
17:24:31 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:24:35 <Zakim> -Alan_Ruttenberg
Zakim IRC Bot: -Alan_Ruttenberg ←
17:24:37 <msmith> bijan: that sounds great.
Bijan Parsia: that sounds great. ←
17:24:58 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:25:04 <pfps> *I* feel more confident. :-)
Peter Patel-Schneider: *I* feel more confident. :-) ←
17:25:08 <msmith> ... but if we're not committed enough to push against push back - then we're definitely going to take a long time. are we more confident this time?
... but if we're not committed enough to push against push back - then we're definitely going to take a long time. are we more confident this time? ←
17:25:37 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:25:51 <msmith> ... so, then we should be quick and avoid revisiting the same debates
... so, then we should be quick and avoid revisiting the same debates ←
17:25:55 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:26:06 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:26:21 <Zakim> +Jonathan_Rees
Zakim IRC Bot: +Jonathan_Rees ←
17:26:26 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:26:46 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
17:26:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, +1.603.897.aadd, christine, IanH, MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, baojie, bmotik (muted), uli (muted), JeffP,
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, +1.603.897.aadd, christine, IanH, MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, baojie, bmotik (muted), uli (muted), JeffP, ←
17:26:48 <JeffP> q+
17:26:49 <Zakim> ... Evan_Wallace, Rinke (muted), sebastian, schneid (muted), Jonathan_Rees
Zakim IRC Bot: ... Evan_Wallace, Rinke (muted), sebastian, schneid (muted), Jonathan_Rees ←
17:26:52 <Zakim> On IRC I see schneid, ivan_, ewallace, baojie, bmotik, uli, MarkusK_, christine, JeffP, Zhe, IanH, bcuencagrau, sebastian, Rinke, pfps, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, sandro,
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see schneid, ivan_, ewallace, baojie, bmotik, uli, MarkusK_, christine, JeffP, Zhe, IanH, bcuencagrau, sebastian, Rinke, pfps, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, sandro, ←
17:26:54 <Zakim> ... trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: ... trackbot ←
17:27:12 <msmith> jeffp: what are the deadlines for this lc?
Jeff Pan: what are the deadlines for this lc? ←
17:27:16 <IanH> ack JeffP
Ian Horrocks: ack JeffP ←
17:27:19 <msmith> ianh: 21 days from publish
Ian Horrocks: 21 days from publish ←
17:27:34 <msmith> sandro: apr 21 is expected pub date, so may 12 for end of lc period
Sandro Hawke: apr 21 is expected pub date, so may 12 for end of lc period ←
17:27:51 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:27:52 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:27:56 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
17:27:59 <alanr> on irc now...
Alan Ruttenberg: on irc now... ←
17:28:02 <msmith> ianh: last time we got comments well after end of comment period, we tried to deal with those. I'm not sure what happens with those?
Ian Horrocks: last time we got comments well after end of comment period, we tried to deal with those. I'm not sure what happens with those? ←
17:28:18 <msmith> bijan: if we set an intended CR date, that will help.
Bijan Parsia: if we set an intended CR date, that will help. ←
17:28:28 <msmith> sandro: june 1 was a nominal CR date
Sandro Hawke: june 1 was a nominal CR date ←
17:28:28 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
17:28:42 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
17:29:02 <bijan> We should respond to comments before end of LC period :)
Bijan Parsia: We should respond to comments before end of LC period :) ←
17:29:02 <msmith> alanr: we said 3 weeks for comments, 3 weeks for response. so 6 weeks from pub.
Alan Ruttenberg: we said 3 weeks for comments, 3 weeks for response. so 6 weeks from pub. ←
17:29:10 <msmith> sandro: ok, that means june 2
Sandro Hawke: ok, that means june 2 ←
17:29:14 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:29:21 <pfps> q+
17:29:23 <bijan> +1 to alanr
Bijan Parsia: +1 to alanr ←
17:29:27 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
17:29:32 <msmith> alanr: we should be explicit about schedule dates in LC publish
Alan Ruttenberg: we should be explicit about schedule dates in LC publish ←
17:29:34 <pfps> q-
17:29:44 <schneid> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
17:29:49 <msmith> sandro: yes, phrased in a friendly way
Sandro Hawke: yes, phrased in a friendly way ←
17:29:52 <alanr> +1 to being more friendly :)
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 to being more friendly :) ←
17:29:53 <pfps> q+
17:30:16 <msmith> sandro: doesn't want to over commit to dates
Sandro Hawke: doesn't want to over commit to dates ←
17:30:20 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
17:30:20 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should no longer be muted ←
17:30:26 <IanH> ack schneid
Ian Horrocks: ack schneid ←
17:30:31 <pfps> q-
17:30:49 <msmith> schneid: should we see if everyone is available for a f2f at the end of may
Michael Schneider: should we see if everyone is available for a f2f at the end of may ←
17:30:53 <pfps> q+
17:31:09 <msmith> ianh: we can check, but I think we're hoping to avoid another f2f.
Ian Horrocks: we can check, but I think we're hoping to avoid another f2f. ←
17:31:09 <sandro> June 1 is only 7 weeks away now, and we need 8 weeks lead time.
Sandro Hawke: June 1 is only 7 weeks away now, and we need 8 weeks lead time. ←
17:31:12 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
17:31:14 <schneid> q-
Michael Schneider: q- ←
17:31:16 <msmith> ... we can schedule one just in case
... we can schedule one just in case ←
17:31:19 <bijan> +1 to peter
Bijan Parsia: +1 to peter ←
17:31:23 <msmith> pfps: let's not have another f2f
Peter Patel-Schneider: let's not have another f2f ←
17:31:33 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
17:31:33 <ivan_> +1 to peter
Ivan Herman: +1 to peter ←
17:31:40 <msmith> ... let's schedule an extended telecon (whole afternoon) instead
... let's schedule an extended telecon (whole afternoon) instead ←
17:31:40 <sandro> "virtual F2F" is the goofy name I've heard for that.
Sandro Hawke: "virtual F2F" is the goofy name I've heard for that. ←
17:31:41 <JeffP> unless the f2f is in Europe :-)
Jeff Pan: unless the f2f is in Europe :-) ←
17:31:57 <msmith> ianh: it would be pretty tough to have another f2f at such short notice
Ian Horrocks: it would be pretty tough to have another f2f at such short notice ←
17:32:07 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:32:18 <msmith> ... doind it by telecon is more economical with everyone's time
... doind it by telecon is more economical with everyone's time ←
17:32:22 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:32:31 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:32:43 <msmith> topic: (Technical) Issues Arising
17:32:52 <alanr> zakim, mute me
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, mute me ←
17:32:52 <Zakim> sorry, alanr, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, alanr, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you ←
17:33:00 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:33:08 <msmith> subtopic: negative property assertions (in RL)
17:33:14 <alanr> zakim, who is here?
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, who is here? ←
17:33:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, +1.603.897.aadd, christine, IanH, MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, baojie, bmotik (muted), uli (muted), JeffP,
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, bcuencagrau (muted), bijan, +1.603.897.aadd, christine, IanH, MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, baojie, bmotik (muted), uli (muted), JeffP, ←
17:33:17 <Zakim> ... Evan_Wallace, Rinke (muted), sebastian, schneid, Jonathan_Rees
Zakim IRC Bot: ... Evan_Wallace, Rinke (muted), sebastian, schneid, Jonathan_Rees ←
17:33:18 <Zakim> On IRC I see alanr, schneid, ivan_, ewallace, baojie, bmotik, uli, MarkusK_, christine, JeffP, Zhe, IanH, bcuencagrau, sebastian, Rinke, pfps, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan,
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see alanr, schneid, ivan_, ewallace, baojie, bmotik, uli, MarkusK_, christine, JeffP, Zhe, IanH, bcuencagrau, sebastian, Rinke, pfps, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, ←
17:33:21 <Zakim> ... sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: ... sandro, trackbot ←
17:33:33 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:33:35 <alanr> zakim, Jonathan_Rees is alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, Jonathan_Rees is alanr ←
17:33:35 <Zakim> +alanr; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +alanr; got it ←
17:33:38 <sandro> Ciao, everyone. Back to RIF F2F.
Sandro Hawke: Ciao, everyone. Back to RIF F2F. ←
17:33:41 <alanr> zakim, mute me
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, mute me ←
17:33:41 <Zakim> alanr should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: alanr should now be muted ←
17:33:44 <uli> yes!
Uli Sattler: yes! ←
17:33:47 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
17:33:56 <msmith> jeffp: last telecon we discussed n.p.a.'s in RL. I did some investigation and I think it boils down to syntactic sugar.
Jeff Pan: last telecon we discussed n.p.a.'s in RL. I did some investigation and I think it boils down to syntactic sugar. ←
17:34:21 <msmith> ... jos's comment was about if such syntactic sugar is appropriate
... jos's comment was about if such syntactic sugar is appropriate ←
17:34:25 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:34:30 <pfps> pointer, please
Peter Patel-Schneider: pointer, please ←
17:34:41 <IanH> pointer to what?
Ian Horrocks: pointer to what? ←
17:34:42 <uli> q+ to answer to Jeff that 'we have learned from OWL lite that leaving out syntactic sugar from a profile is bad'
Uli Sattler: q+ to answer to Jeff that 'we have learned from OWL lite that leaving out syntactic sugar from a profile is bad' ←
17:34:46 <msmith> ... jjc's email laid out why the syntactic sugar is problematic
... jjc's email laid out why the syntactic sugar is problematic ←
17:34:49 <schneid> jeremy fears an idea he calls "negative triples" - whatever this is
Michael Schneider: jeremy fears an idea he calls "negative triples" - whatever this is ←
17:35:02 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
17:35:13 <bijan> It's harmless, it was requested, add it
Bijan Parsia: It's harmless, it was requested, add it ←
17:35:18 <uli> zakim, unmute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, unmute me ←
17:35:18 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should no longer be muted ←
17:35:19 <IanH> ack uli
Ian Horrocks: ack uli ←
17:35:19 <Zakim> uli, you wanted to answer to Jeff that 'we have learned from OWL lite that leaving out syntactic sugar from a profile is bad'
Zakim IRC Bot: uli, you wanted to answer to Jeff that 'we have learned from OWL lite that leaving out syntactic sugar from a profile is bad' ←
17:35:26 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:35:41 <Zakim> -bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: -bijan ←
17:35:46 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me ←
17:35:46 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted ←
17:36:02 <JeffP> q+
17:36:05 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
17:36:11 <msmith> uli: one design principle for all profiles is that if something can be expressed indirectly, it can be expressed directly. i.e., so each profile is maximal in a certain sense.
Uli Sattler: one design principle for all profiles is that if something can be expressed indirectly, it can be expressed directly. i.e., so each profile is maximal in a certain sense. ←
17:36:38 <msmith> bmotik: jjc is wrong, there is no problem with the RDF. we either have it in the language or not.
Boris Motik: jjc is wrong, there is no problem with the RDF. we either have it in the language or not. ←
17:36:58 <msmith> ... in RL it is *not* syntactic sugar, they can't be expressed in other ways
... in RL it is *not* syntactic sugar, they can't be expressed in other ways ←
17:37:02 <ivan_> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
17:37:05 <pfps> jjc's message is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/att-0051/index.html
Peter Patel-Schneider: jjc's message is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/att-0051/index.html ←
17:37:13 <Zakim> +??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1 ←
17:37:16 <IanH> ack JeffP
Ian Horrocks: ack JeffP ←
17:37:19 <bijan> zakim, ??p1 is me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, ??p1 is me ←
17:37:19 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bijan; got it ←
17:37:58 <msmith> jeffp: bmotik's point that it is not syntactic sugar in RL is important
Jeff Pan: bmotik's point that it is not syntactic sugar in RL is important ←
17:38:01 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
17:38:06 <pfps> q+ to ask what the problem is
Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ to ask what the problem is ←
17:38:17 <msmith> ... folks at HP Bristol confirmed jjc's claim that the RDF will be problematic
... folks at HP Bristol confirmed jjc's claim that the RDF will be problematic ←
17:38:29 <msmith> ianh: do you have any better information about what the problem is?
Ian Horrocks: do you have any better information about what the problem is? ←
17:38:40 <uli> clarification: do we talk about negative property or negative class assertions?
Uli Sattler: clarification: do we talk about negative property or negative class assertions? ←
17:38:57 <ivan_> q-
Ivan Herman: q- ←
17:38:58 <bmotik> This is not correct.
Boris Motik: This is not correct. ←
17:39:06 <msmith> jeffp: if you have negative property assertions, you are negating triples, which is not specified in RDF
Jeff Pan: if you have negative property assertions, you are negating triples, which is not specified in RDF ←
17:39:16 <bmotik> Negative property assertions are accompanied by a set of semantic conditions just like any other construct.
Boris Motik: Negative property assertions are accompanied by a set of semantic conditions just like any other construct. ←
17:39:20 <bmotik> There is *no* problem here.
Boris Motik: There is *no* problem here. ←
17:39:21 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
17:39:24 <msmith> ... we need an agreement with the RDF working group
... we need an agreement with the RDF working group ←
17:39:59 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:40:09 <ivan_> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
17:40:10 <schneid> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
17:40:10 <msmith> bijan: that argument doesn't make sense because there are alternative encodings. the encoding we're using is intention revealing
Bijan Parsia: that argument doesn't make sense because there are alternative encodings. the encoding we're using is intention revealing ←
17:40:10 <pfps> q+ to say that functional properties already permits negative triples
Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ to say that functional properties already permits negative triples ←
17:40:15 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:40:47 <msmith> ianh: how long should we discuss this given that we're unlikely to change this now?
Ian Horrocks: how long should we discuss this given that we're unlikely to change this now? ←
17:41:03 <msmith> ianh: we voted for them to be in already.
Ian Horrocks: we voted for them to be in already. ←
17:41:04 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
17:41:07 <pfps> no will from me to chuck them out.
Peter Patel-Schneider: no will from me to chuck them out. ←
17:41:08 <bmotik> Absolutely not!
Boris Motik: Absolutely not! ←
17:41:27 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:41:34 <msmith> jeffp: I think we voted that they were in, unless I found problems. This is a problem.
Jeff Pan: I think we voted that they were in, unless I found problems. This is a problem. ←
17:41:42 <msmith> bijan: I disagree, this is not a new problem.
Bijan Parsia: I disagree, this is not a new problem. ←
17:41:48 <bijan> It's not a problem!
Bijan Parsia: It's not a problem! ←
17:41:52 <alanr> q?
Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←
17:41:56 <uli> Jeff, where exactly/technically is the problem?
Uli Sattler: Jeff, where exactly/technically is the problem? ←
17:42:05 <alanr> zakim, unmute me
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, unmute me ←
17:42:05 <Zakim> alanr should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: alanr should no longer be muted ←
17:42:06 <bijan> A problem would be that it wouldn't be implementable on a rules system
Bijan Parsia: A problem would be that it wouldn't be implementable on a rules system ←
17:42:12 <schneid> let's straw poll on "at risk"!
Michael Schneider: let's straw poll on "at risk"! ←
17:42:14 <msmith> ianh: I agree with bijan, it would take massive changes to revise current decision
Ian Horrocks: I agree with bijan, it would take massive changes to revise current decision ←
17:42:18 <bijan> That was explicitly the issue raised last time
Bijan Parsia: That was explicitly the issue raised last time ←
17:42:52 <bmotik> Let's work off the queue first.
Boris Motik: Let's work off the queue first. ←
17:42:56 <msmith> alanr: we can straw poll specifically for at risk, to solicit comments just for n.p.a.
Alan Ruttenberg: we can straw poll specifically for at risk, to solicit comments just for n.p.a. ←
17:43:05 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:43:07 <alanr> q-
Alan Ruttenberg: q- ←
17:43:08 <pfps> q-
17:43:13 <schneid> we heard that the jena team things there is a problem for their implementation - so at risk seems reasonable
Michael Schneider: we heard that the jena team things there is a problem for their implementation - so at risk seems reasonable ←
17:43:24 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:43:27 <schneid> (i don't think there is a problem in jena)
Michael Schneider: (i don't think there is a problem in jena) ←
17:43:31 <bijan> But we don't know what the problem is
Bijan Parsia: But we don't know what the problem is ←
17:43:36 <bijan> I'm very skeptical about the report
Bijan Parsia: I'm very skeptical about the report ←
17:43:44 <uli> schneid, "thinks" that there is a problem is different from 'has found a problem'!
Uli Sattler: schneid, "thinks" that there is a problem is different from 'has found a problem'! ←
17:43:45 <schneid> +1 to boris
Michael Schneider: +1 to boris ←
17:43:50 <pfps> +1 to boris
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to boris ←
17:43:54 <bijan> +1 to boris
Bijan Parsia: +1 to boris ←
17:44:02 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
17:44:10 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:44:10 <pfps> note that functional properties have exactly the same effect as negative property assertions
Peter Patel-Schneider: note that functional properties have exactly the same effect as negative property assertions ←
17:44:17 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
17:44:20 <JeffP> we lost ivan
17:44:20 <msmith> bmotik: all of this is fabricated. we are not negating parts of rdf graphs. the statements are positive and accompanied by a set of semantic conditions. I don't see a need to further discussion or vote.
Boris Motik: all of this is fabricated. we are not negating parts of rdf graphs. the statements are positive and accompanied by a set of semantic conditions. I don't see a need to further discussion or vote. ←
17:44:20 <schneid> q-
Michael Schneider: q- ←
17:44:28 <msmith> ack ivan_+
ack ivan_+ ←
17:44:37 <pfps> ack ivan_
Peter Patel-Schneider: ack ivan_ ←
17:44:52 <MarkusK_> +1 to Boris
Markus Krötzsch: +1 to Boris ←
17:45:03 <uli> Jeff, who asked for this?
Uli Sattler: Jeff, who asked for this? ←
17:45:08 <msmith> ianh: jeffp, are you suggesting removal from OWL 2 or OWL 2 RL?
Ian Horrocks: jeffp, are you suggesting removal from OWL 2 or OWL 2 RL? ←
17:45:12 <bijan> q+ to ask if jeff is going to lie in the road
Bijan Parsia: q+ to ask if jeff is going to lie in the road ←
17:45:18 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:45:18 <Rinke> But it would still be in full right?
Rinke Hoekstra: But it would still be in full right? ←
17:45:23 <msmith> jeffp: just OWL 2 RL, which is considered more RDF friendly
Jeff Pan: just OWL 2 RL, which is considered more RDF friendly ←
17:45:27 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:45:30 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
17:45:30 <Zakim> bijan, you wanted to ask if jeff is going to lie in the road
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan, you wanted to ask if jeff is going to lie in the road ←
17:45:34 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:45:35 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
17:45:35 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
17:45:35 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
17:45:55 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:45:58 <msmith> bijan: I think jeff would need to file a formal objection at this point.
Bijan Parsia: I think jeff would need to file a formal objection at this point. ←
17:46:25 <uli> +1 to Ivan's understanding
Uli Sattler: +1 to Ivan's understanding ←
17:46:31 <JeffP> q+
17:46:38 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:46:43 <msmith> ivan: I think this discussion is not specific to RL. JJC's comment is about n.p.a. in general.
Ivan Herman: I think this discussion is not specific to RL. JJC's comment is about n.p.a. in general. ←
17:47:00 <msmith> ianh: I agree, jjc was talking about n.p.a in OWL 2
Ian Horrocks: I agree, jjc was talking about n.p.a in OWL 2 ←
17:47:15 <bijan> q+ to oppose at risking!
Bijan Parsia: q+ to oppose at risking! ←
17:47:23 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:47:27 <bmotik> I really don't see a need for an "at risk" label. We should not emasculate the spec because some people have fixations.
Boris Motik: I really don't see a need for an "at risk" label. We should not emasculate the spec because some people have fixations. ←
17:47:30 <msmith> ivan: I support making it at risk to get additional feedback. if jjc is the only negative feedback, we can move on
Ivan Herman: I support making it at risk to get additional feedback. if jjc is the only negative feedback, we can move on ←
17:47:37 <bmotik> I strongly oppose an "at risk" label.
Boris Motik: I strongly oppose an "at risk" label. ←
17:47:41 <uli> +1 to bmotik
Uli Sattler: +1 to bmotik ←
17:47:54 <bijan> +1 to bmotik
Bijan Parsia: +1 to bmotik ←
17:47:55 <sebastian> +1 to boris
Sebastian Brandt: +1 to boris ←
17:47:58 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:48:01 <msmith> msmith: I also oppose "at risk" label
Mike Smith: I also oppose "at risk" label ←
17:48:02 <schneid> I thought "at Risk" targets to CR ?
Michael Schneider: I thought "at Risk" targets to CR ? ←
17:48:08 <IanH> ack JeffP
Ian Horrocks: ack JeffP ←
17:48:42 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
17:48:42 <msmith> jeffp: to ivan, jjc's comment is whole spec, but n.p.a is also in RL. I proposed removing it just from RL.
Jeff Pan: to ivan, jjc's comment is whole spec, but n.p.a is also in RL. I proposed removing it just from RL. ←
17:48:57 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:49:00 <schneid> In the RL rules it is simply: NPA(s p o) + s p o = false
Michael Schneider: In the RL rules it is simply: NPA(s p o) + s p o = false ←
17:49:05 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
17:49:05 <Zakim> bijan, you wanted to oppose at risking!
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan, you wanted to oppose at risking! ←
17:49:12 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:49:22 <msmith> ianh: ok, it's acceptable to comment on decision from last week. less acceptable to revisit long standing decisions
Ian Horrocks: ok, it's acceptable to comment on decision from last week. less acceptable to revisit long standing decisions ←
17:49:35 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:49:37 <bmotik> I *strongly* oppose labeling any part of the spec with "at risk" for exactly the reasons that Bijan mentions now.
Boris Motik: I *strongly* oppose labeling any part of the spec with "at risk" for exactly the reasons that Bijan mentions now. ←
17:49:45 <msmith> bijan: I oppose "at risk" because there is not a technical problem with supporting it.
Bijan Parsia: I oppose "at risk" because there is not a technical problem with supporting it. ←
17:49:50 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:50:00 <schneid> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:50:00 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted ←
17:50:02 <msmith> ... I think an "at risk" label would punt a difficult decision that we should make now.
... I think an "at risk" label would punt a difficult decision that we should make now. ←
17:50:04 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
17:50:23 <bmotik> +1000 to Ivan
Boris Motik: +1000 to Ivan ←
17:50:33 <msmith> ivan: I don't understand why focusing on RL would make any difference. I added these rules to my RL implementation this afternoon and they were trivial
Ivan Herman: I don't understand why focusing on RL would make any difference. I added these rules to my RL implementation this afternoon and they were trivial ←
17:50:39 <JeffP> we are talking about existing RDF APIs but not just one implementation
Jeff Pan: we are talking about existing RDF APIs but not just one implementation ←
17:50:47 <msmith> ianh: we're going to do some polls
Ian Horrocks: we're going to do some polls ←
17:51:01 <bijan> JeffP, there's no change to any api
Bijan Parsia: JeffP, there's no change to any api ←
17:51:04 <IanH> STRAWPOLL: we mark as "at risk" negative property assertions in general
STRAWPOLL: we mark as "at risk" negative property assertions in general ←
17:51:08 <Rinke> -1
Rinke Hoekstra: -1 ←
17:51:09 <bmotik> -1000000
Boris Motik: -1000000 ←
17:51:09 <msmith> msmith: -1
Mike Smith: -1 ←
17:51:10 <baojie> 0
17:51:10 <pfps> -1
17:51:11 <MarkusK_> -1
Markus Krötzsch: -1 ←
17:51:12 <sebastian> -1
Sebastian Brandt: -1 ←
17:51:13 <bijan> -1
Bijan Parsia: -1 ←
17:51:13 <Zhe> 0
17:51:13 <ivan> +0.5
Ivan Herman: +0.5 ←
17:51:16 <alanr> 0
Alan Ruttenberg: 0 ←
17:51:17 <ewallace> -1
Evan Wallace: -1 ←
17:51:18 <JeffP> +1
17:51:19 <uli> -1
Uli Sattler: -1 ←
17:51:19 <schneid> -1
Michael Schneider: -1 ←
17:51:20 <bcuencagrau> -1
17:51:25 <christine> -1
Christine Golbreich: -1 ←
17:51:51 <alanr> zakim, mute me
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, mute me ←
17:51:51 <Zakim> alanr should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: alanr should now be muted ←
17:52:03 <msmith> ianh: jeffp, this vote is in conflict with your previous comment that you were only concerned with RL
Ian Horrocks: jeffp, this vote is in conflict with your previous comment that you were only concerned with RL ←
17:52:12 <JeffP> -1
17:52:12 <msmith> jeffp: I misread the vote, make it -1
Jeff Pan: I misread the vote, make it -1 ←
17:52:37 <msmith> ivan: I will not push for "at risk" in general
Ivan Herman: I will not push for "at risk" in general ←
17:52:37 <uli> ivan, but you just implemented them?!
Uli Sattler: ivan, but you just implemented them?! ←
17:52:44 <IanH> STRAWPOLL: we mark as "at risk" negative property assertions in RL profile
STRAWPOLL: we mark as "at risk" negative property assertions in RL profile ←
17:52:51 <Rinke> -1
Rinke Hoekstra: -1 ←
17:52:52 <msmith> -1
-1 ←
17:52:52 <bmotik> -1E72 (this time shorter)
Boris Motik: -1E72 (this time shorter) ←
17:52:55 <pfps> -1
17:52:56 <MarkusK_> -1
Markus Krötzsch: -1 ←
17:52:56 <bijan> -1
Bijan Parsia: -1 ←
17:52:57 <Zhe> 0
17:52:57 <bcuencagrau> -1
17:52:58 <sebastian> -1
Sebastian Brandt: -1 ←
17:52:58 <ivan> -1
Ivan Herman: -1 ←
17:52:59 <uli> -1
Uli Sattler: -1 ←
17:53:00 <baojie> 0
17:53:00 <schneid> 0
17:53:01 <JeffP> +1
17:53:01 <alanr> 0
Alan Ruttenberg: 0 ←
17:53:07 <ewallace> 0
Evan Wallace: 0 ←
17:53:42 <msmith> ianh: jeffp, are you lying in the road?
Ian Horrocks: jeffp, are you lying in the road? ←
17:53:55 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:53:56 <msmith> jeffp: I will stick to my opinion
Jeff Pan: I will stick to my opinion ←
17:53:59 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:54:00 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
17:54:00 <bmotik> Jeff should formally object if he wants
Boris Motik: Jeff should formally object if he wants ←
17:54:10 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:54:15 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
17:54:18 <msmith> ianh: you can formally object I guess?
Ian Horrocks: you can formally object I guess? ←
17:54:38 <msmith> bijan: I don't think he can object to it being "at risk", he can object to it being in the language
Bijan Parsia: I don't think he can object to it being "at risk", he can object to it being in the language ←
17:54:47 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:54:51 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
17:55:17 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:55:20 <bmotik> +q
Boris Motik: +q ←
17:55:33 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:55:45 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
17:56:00 <msmith> alanr: I don't see that much down side to saying it is at risk in RL. I don't think many people in the WG are thinking about RL and jeff is, that should be noted.
Alan Ruttenberg: I don't see that much down side to saying it is at risk in RL. I don't think many people in the WG are thinking about RL and jeff is, that should be noted. ←
17:56:15 <alanr> I didn't hear that. He wants it at risk.
Alan Ruttenberg: I didn't hear that. He wants it at risk. ←
17:56:19 <alanr> that's what's on the table.
Alan Ruttenberg: that's what's on the table. ←
17:56:31 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:56:37 <bijan> alanr, he said that
Bijan Parsia: alanr, he said that ←
17:56:40 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
17:56:43 <msmith> bijan: I don't think jeff is in a privileged position, many of us are thinking about RL. he is not advocating for at risk, he is advocating for removal.
Bijan Parsia: I don't think jeff is in a privileged position, many of us are thinking about RL. he is not advocating for at risk, he is advocating for removal. ←
17:57:00 <JeffP> q+
17:57:08 <uli> +1 to bmotik, again!
Uli Sattler: +1 to bmotik, again! ←
17:57:09 <MarkusK_> +1 to Boris, again; there is no problem, it's done, let's keep it
Markus Krötzsch: +1 to Boris, again; there is no problem, it's done, let's keep it ←
17:57:15 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:57:21 <IanH> ack JeffP
Ian Horrocks: ack JeffP ←
17:57:23 <msmith> bmotik: there is no implementation problem.
Boris Motik: there is no implementation problem. ←
17:57:27 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:57:38 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:57:41 <Rinke> if the problem really really is RDF-compatibility, then not including it in RL, but including it in Full is really nonsensical
Rinke Hoekstra: if the problem really really is RDF-compatibility, then not including it in RL, but including it in Full is really nonsensical ←
17:57:55 <msmith> jeffp: the problem is not implementation, it is with compatibility. we should hear from people building RDF APIs, an area about which we're not experts
Jeff Pan: the problem is not implementation, it is with compatibility. we should hear from people building RDF APIs, an area about which we're not experts ←
17:58:00 <ivan> JeffP, the problem is _not_ with RL... (in my view)
Ivan Herman: JeffP, the problem is _not_ with RL... (in my view) ←
17:58:01 <bijan> I've build RDF apis
Bijan Parsia: I've build RDF apis ←
17:58:06 <bijan> I've contribtuted to them
Bijan Parsia: I've contribtuted to them ←
17:58:09 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:58:12 <bijan> q_
Bijan Parsia: q_ ←
17:58:13 <bijan> q-
Bijan Parsia: q- ←
17:58:28 <msmith> ianh: I don't think we can propose to overturn previous decision. the only think is to decide if we mark at risk.
Ian Horrocks: I don't think we can propose to overturn previous decision. the only think is to decide if we mark at risk. ←
17:58:33 <bijan> You can look at the design and see it has no effect on the RDF level
Bijan Parsia: You can look at the design and see it has no effect on the RDF level ←
17:58:34 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:58:43 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:59:06 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
17:59:09 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:59:15 <bmotik> I'll formally object to removing it!
Boris Motik: I'll formally object to removing it! ←
17:59:18 <bijan> What a strange belief
Bijan Parsia: What a strange belief ←
17:59:28 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:59:31 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:59:37 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
17:59:39 <msmith> jeffp: I would like to remove it from RL altogether, if not mark it "at risk"
Jeff Pan: I would like to remove it from RL altogether, if not mark it "at risk" ←
17:59:55 <alanr> zakim, mute me
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, mute me ←
17:59:55 <Zakim> alanr should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: alanr should now be muted ←
18:00:05 <bijan> Yes, you don't have to add a "addNegativeTriple"
Bijan Parsia: Yes, you don't have to add a "addNegativeTriple" ←
18:00:06 <JeffP> q+
18:00:12 <bijan> Thus, no change to *any* rdf api
Bijan Parsia: Thus, no change to *any* rdf api ←
18:00:17 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:00:24 <msmith> ivan: if there is a problem with n.p.a. , the issue is not specific to RL. this is why I voted to make "at risk" in general
Ivan Herman: if there is a problem with n.p.a. , the issue is not specific to RL. this is why I voted to make "at risk" in general ←
18:00:58 <msmith> jeffp: if RDF people are going to support OWL 2, then OWL 2 RL will be their initial target.
Jeff Pan: if RDF people are going to support OWL 2, then OWL 2 RL will be their initial target. ←
18:01:02 <bijan> IT ADDS NO EXPRESSIVE POWER
Bijan Parsia: IT ADDS NO EXPRESSIVE POWER ←
18:01:02 <msmith> ivan: I agree.
Ivan Herman: I agree. ←
18:01:13 <schneid> and also no problem in OWL 2 Full: NPAs are expressible in OWL 1 Full
Michael Schneider: and also no problem in OWL 2 Full: NPAs are expressible in OWL 1 Full ←
18:01:29 <IanH> PROPOSAL: We will mark as "at risk" negative property assertions in OWL RL
PROPOSED: We will mark as "at risk" negative property assertions in OWL RL ←
18:01:31 <bmotik> -1 (I'll formally object to this decision if this goes through.)
Boris Motik: -1 (I'll formally object to this decision if this goes through.) ←
18:01:34 <pfps> -0.5 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: -0.5 ALU ←
18:01:38 <ivan> -1
Ivan Herman: -1 ←
18:01:40 <msmith> -1
-1 ←
18:01:40 <bcuencagrau> -1
18:01:41 <MarkusK_> -1 (FZI)
Markus Krötzsch: -1 (FZI) ←
18:01:41 <uli> -1 (Manchester)
Uli Sattler: -1 (Manchester) ←
18:01:41 <schneid> 0
18:01:42 <alanr> 0
Alan Ruttenberg: 0 ←
18:01:42 <baojie> 0
18:01:43 <sebastian> -1
Sebastian Brandt: -1 ←
18:01:43 <Zhe> 0
18:01:45 <Rinke> -1 (Amsterdam)
Rinke Hoekstra: -1 (Amsterdam) ←
18:01:45 <JeffP> +1 (Aberdeen)
18:01:45 <christine> 0
18:01:49 <ewallace> 0
Evan Wallace: 0 ←
18:02:26 <JeffP> ok
18:02:39 <msmith> ianh: jeff, are you satisfied that we've exhausted this issue
Ian Horrocks: jeff, are you satisfied that we've exhausted this issue ←
18:02:51 <alanr> indeed - can get comments at lc and cr
Alan Ruttenberg: indeed - can get comments at lc and cr ←
18:03:02 <ivan> +10000 to Ian
Ivan Herman: +10000 to Ian ←
18:03:04 <alanr> Yes, Jeff - please do explain this clearly!
Alan Ruttenberg: Yes, Jeff - please do explain this clearly! ←
18:03:11 <JeffP> I will try
18:03:14 <alanr> thanks
Alan Ruttenberg: thanks ←
18:03:36 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:03:44 <IanH> ack JeffP
Ian Horrocks: ack JeffP ←
18:03:48 <msmith> topic: test cases
18:03:58 <alanr> q+ perhaps discuss syntax translation test criteria?
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ perhaps discuss syntax translation test criteria? ←
18:04:13 <pfps> +1 to default approval of test cases
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to default approval of test cases ←
18:04:16 <alanr> q+ to perhaps discuss syntax translation test criteria?
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ to perhaps discuss syntax translation test criteria? ←
18:04:23 <msmith> ianh: previous approval procedure required action. I think we should switch to defaul approval of test cases
Ian Horrocks: previous approval procedure required action. I think we should switch to defaul approval of test cases ←
18:04:24 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:04:28 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
18:04:29 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to perhaps discuss syntax translation test criteria?
Zakim IRC Bot: alanr, you wanted to perhaps discuss syntax translation test criteria? ←
18:04:32 <pfps> ... or someone could notice a structural problem with a test
Peter Patel-Schneider: ... or someone could notice a structural problem with a test ←
18:04:33 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:05:08 <uli> q+
Uli Sattler: q+ ←
18:05:12 <msmith> alanr: the only unresolved issue regarding tests was criteria for translation tests. should we discuss this now?
Alan Ruttenberg: the only unresolved issue regarding tests was criteria for translation tests. should we discuss this now? ←
18:05:15 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:05:17 <pfps> Umm, bi-entailment does not actually check that the models are the same
Peter Patel-Schneider: Umm, bi-entailment does not actually check that the models are the same ←
18:05:27 <msmith> ... clarification on default. what would be subject to default?
... clarification on default. what would be subject to default? ←
18:05:33 <bijan> Syntax translation should be in terms of..e.r..syntax, thus structure,yes?
Bijan Parsia: Syntax translation should be in terms of..e.r..syntax, thus structure,yes? ←
18:05:38 <msmith> q+ to comment on default approval
q+ to comment on default approval ←
18:05:42 <alanr> ok. pfps - what would the test be?
Alan Ruttenberg: ok. pfps - what would the test be? ←
18:05:42 <uli> zakim, unmute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, unmute me ←
18:05:42 <Zakim> uli was not muted, uli
Zakim IRC Bot: uli was not muted, uli ←
18:05:44 <IanH> ack uli
Ian Horrocks: ack uli ←
18:06:20 <msmith> uli: regarding syntax translation criteria, we can't test model equivalence because you would need to run infinite tests
Uli Sattler: regarding syntax translation criteria, we can't test model equivalence because you would need to run infinite tests ←
18:06:29 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:06:32 <msmith> alanr: so we have statement in RDF mapping that is untestable?
Alan Ruttenberg: so we have statement in RDF mapping that is untestable? ←
18:06:35 <bijan> It's demonstratable
Bijan Parsia: It's demonstratable ←
18:06:45 <msmith> uli: yes, but untestable is different from demonstrable
Uli Sattler: yes, but untestable is different from demonstrable ←
18:06:50 <pfps> we have lots of untestable stuff in our documents - most of the theorems are "untestable"
Peter Patel-Schneider: we have lots of untestable stuff in our documents - most of the theorems are "untestable" ←
18:06:59 <bijan> But you can't check it in specific cases
Bijan Parsia: But you can't check it in specific cases ←
18:07:03 <bijan> Mechanically
Bijan Parsia: Mechanically ←
18:07:04 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:07:06 <msmith> uli: if you had such a test, you can test the implementation of a translator
Uli Sattler: if you had such a test, you can test the implementation of a translator ←
18:07:45 <alanr> The mappings presented in this document are backwards-compatible with that of OWL 1 DL: every OWL 1 DL ontology encoded as an RDF graph can be mapped into a valid OWL 2 DL ontology using the mapping from Section 3 such that the resulting OWL 2 DL ontology has exactly the same set of models as the original OWL 1 DL ontology
Alan Ruttenberg: The mappings presented in this document are backwards-compatible with that of OWL 1 DL: every OWL 1 DL ontology encoded as an RDF graph can be mapped into a valid OWL 2 DL ontology using the mapping from Section 3 such that the resulting OWL 2 DL ontology has exactly the same set of models as the original OWL 1 DL ontology ←
18:07:49 <IanH> ack msmith
Ian Horrocks: ack msmith ←
18:07:49 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to comment on default approval
Zakim IRC Bot: msmith, you wanted to comment on default approval ←
18:07:50 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
18:07:51 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
18:08:12 <uli> sure, let's do this by email
Uli Sattler: sure, let's do this by email ←
18:08:33 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:08:38 <msmith> ianh: uli was saying there are properties that exist which we can't necessarily test.
Ian Horrocks: uli was saying there are properties that exist which we can't necessarily test. ←
18:08:45 <msmith> alanr: I will follow-up on email.
Alan Ruttenberg: I will follow-up on email. ←
18:08:48 <uli> sure
Uli Sattler: sure ←
18:09:01 <alanr> zakim, mute me
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, mute me ←
18:09:01 <Zakim> alanr should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: alanr should now be muted ←
18:09:02 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:09:47 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
18:09:48 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:09:59 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
18:10:00 <msmith> msmith: I think we should have some quick oversight before approval.
Mike Smith: I think we should have some quick oversight before approval. ←
18:10:09 <msmith> bmotik: I don't want default approval.
Boris Motik: I don't want default approval. ←
18:10:21 <msmith> ... one or two tools should pass test before approval
... one or two tools should pass test before approval ←
18:10:22 <alanr> had to step away from phone - back now
Alan Ruttenberg: had to step away from phone - back now ←
18:10:30 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:10:52 <msmith> bmotik: suggestion, two tools should pass the test. then default approval.
Boris Motik: suggestion, two tools should pass the test. then default approval. ←
18:11:03 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
18:11:07 <msmith> ... then the whole test ssuite should be run periodically.
... then the whole test ssuite should be run periodically. ←
18:11:11 <msmith> ianh: what is status
Ian Horrocks: what is status ←
18:11:15 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:11:21 <msmith> q+
q+ ←
18:11:27 <pfps> +1 to some intermediate status
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to some intermediate status ←
18:11:44 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
18:12:11 <msmith> alanr: this sounds fine. there should be a mechanism for tests that fail to be approved.
Alan Ruttenberg: this sounds fine. there should be a mechanism for tests that fail to be approved. ←
18:12:52 <msmith> ianh: yes, I was thinking 3 statuses. no state. reasonable. approved.
Ian Horrocks: yes, I was thinking 3 statuses. no state. reasonable. approved. ←
18:12:56 <IanH> ack msmith
Ian Horrocks: ack msmith ←
18:12:59 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
18:13:35 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:13:36 <alanr> submitted, proposed, approved-default, approved-explicit, rejected-explicit
Alan Ruttenberg: submitted, proposed, approved-default, approved-explicit, rejected-explicit ←
18:14:03 <MarkusK_> +1 to Mike
Markus Krötzsch: +1 to Mike ←
18:14:06 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
18:14:13 <pfps> +1 to Mike
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to Mike ←
18:14:22 <pfps> q+
18:14:25 <msmith> msmith: the test framework can support this process.
Mike Smith: the test framework can support this process. ←
18:14:45 <pfps> q+ to say that approved-default is more likely to be correct than approved-explicit
Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ to say that approved-default is more likely to be correct than approved-explicit ←
18:14:50 <msmith> alanr: we need an easy way to see approved default vs. approved by wg action
Alan Ruttenberg: we need an easy way to see approved default vs. approved by wg action ←
18:14:56 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
18:14:56 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to say that approved-default is more likely to be correct than approved-explicit
Zakim IRC Bot: pfps, you wanted to say that approved-default is more likely to be correct than approved-explicit ←
18:15:17 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:15:25 <msmith> alanr: we also need support for submitted tests that are never satisfied by tools. what happens then?
Alan Ruttenberg: we also need support for submitted tests that are never satisfied by tools. what happens then? ←
18:15:34 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:15:39 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:16:01 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
18:16:48 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:16:52 <msmith> bijan: tests that are wrong will get resolved by the tools.
Bijan Parsia: tests that are wrong will get resolved by the tools. ←
18:16:58 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:17:05 <alanr> +1 on "too-hard" tests according to bijan
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 on "too-hard" tests according to bijan ←
18:17:10 <pfps> +1 to Mike's suggestion
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to Mike's suggestion ←
18:17:14 <msmith> ... perhaps a new category for tests that no one will pass
... perhaps a new category for tests that no one will pass ←
18:17:36 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:17:51 <msmith> ianh: we're all pretty much in agreement with "ready for testing" status
Ian Horrocks: we're all pretty much in agreement with "ready for testing" status ←
18:18:16 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:18:32 <msmith> yes, I would like primer examples, when primer is stablized to become test cases
yes, I would like primer examples, when primer is stablized to become test cases ←
18:18:35 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:18:53 <msmith> q+
q+ ←
18:18:59 <IanH> ack msmith
Ian Horrocks: ack msmith ←
18:20:11 <uli> jj
Uli Sattler: jj ←
18:20:16 <MarkusK_> msmith: There was an open issue on how to organize tests that use the same input but produce different outcomes for direct semantics and RDF-based semantics. This is solved now and we can handle this.
Mike Smith: There was an open issue on how to organize tests that use the same input but produce different outcomes for direct semantics and RDF-based semantics. This is solved now and we can handle this. [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ] ←
18:20:23 <msmith> msmith: we can clean up test cases on future agendas
Mike Smith: we can clean up test cases on future agendas ←
18:20:27 <msmith> ianh: agreed.
Ian Horrocks: agreed. ←
18:20:29 <uli> bye bye
Uli Sattler: bye bye ←
18:20:29 <JeffP> thanks, bye
18:20:29 <Zakim> -bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: -bijan ←
18:20:29 <Zhe> bye
18:20:30 <ivan> we can talk about grddl
Ivan Herman: we can talk about grddl ←
18:20:30 <alanr> thanks Ian!
Alan Ruttenberg: thanks Ian! ←
18:20:32 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: -Evan_Wallace ←
18:20:33 <MarkusK_> bye
Markus Krötzsch: bye ←
18:20:33 <Rinke> thanks, bye!
Rinke Hoekstra: thanks, bye! ←
18:20:33 <Zakim> - +1.603.897.aadd
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.603.897.aadd ←
18:20:34 <Zakim> -JeffP
Zakim IRC Bot: -JeffP ←
18:20:37 <Zakim> -alanr
Zakim IRC Bot: -alanr ←
18:20:39 <Zakim> -MarkusK_
Zakim IRC Bot: -MarkusK_ ←
18:20:39 <Zakim> -bmotik
Zakim IRC Bot: -bmotik ←
18:20:39 <ivan> sorry
Ivan Herman: sorry ←
18:20:40 <Zakim> -IanH
Zakim IRC Bot: -IanH ←
18:20:41 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
Zakim IRC Bot: -bcuencagrau ←
18:20:43 <schneid> bye
Michael Schneider: bye ←
18:20:43 <Zakim> -baojie
Zakim IRC Bot: -baojie ←
18:20:45 <Zakim> -sebastian
Zakim IRC Bot: -sebastian ←
18:20:46 <Zakim> -uli
Zakim IRC Bot: -uli ←
18:20:46 <Zakim> -Rinke
Zakim IRC Bot: -Rinke ←
18:20:50 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
18:20:52 <Zakim> -christine
Zakim IRC Bot: -christine ←
18:20:52 <Zakim> -schneid
Zakim IRC Bot: -schneid ←
18:20:58 <IanH> RRSAgent, make records public
Ian Horrocks: RRSAgent, make records public ←
18:21:14 <msmith> thanks ian
thanks ian ←
18:21:16 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: -Peter_Patel-Schneider ←
18:21:17 <IanH> Thanks Mike for scribing!
Ian Horrocks: Thanks Mike for scribing! ←
18:21:18 <msmith> bye
bye ←
19:35:01 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, msmith, in SW_OWL()1:00PM
(No events recorded for 73 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: disconnecting the lone participant, msmith, in SW_OWL()1:00PM ←
19:35:05 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended ←
19:35:06 <Zakim> Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, +1.202.408.aaaa, msmith, +86528aabb, bijan, +2, +1.603.897.aadd, bcuencagrau, IanH, Rinke, MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, +1.518.276.aaee, christine,
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, +1.202.408.aaaa, msmith, +86528aabb, bijan, +2, +1.603.897.aadd, bcuencagrau, IanH, Rinke, MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, +1.518.276.aaee, christine, ←
19:35:08 <Zakim> ... baojie, uli, +22427aaff, Alan_Ruttenberg, JeffP, Evan_Wallace, bmotik, sebastian, schneid, alanr
Zakim IRC Bot: ... baojie, uli, +22427aaff, Alan_Ruttenberg, JeffP, Evan_Wallace, bmotik, sebastian, schneid, alanr ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#1) generated 2009-04-21 11:09:30 UTC by 'ihorrock2', comments: None