Chatlog 2008-06-25

See original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

00:00:00 <msmith> PRESENT: ianh, bmotik, msmith, zhe, uli, ivan, bcuencagrau, ratnesh, sandro, pfps, baojie, jeffp, Alan_Ruttenberg, achille, rinke, calvanese
17:00:01 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:00:01 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-owl-irc
17:00:12 <pfps> Zakim, this will be owlwg
17:00:12 <Zakim> ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL()12:00PM scheduled to start 60 minutes ago
17:00:23 <pfps> RRSagent, make records public
17:00:32 <pfps> zakim, who is here?
17:00:32 <bmotik> bmotik has joined #owl
17:00:36 <Zakim> SW_OWL()12:00PM has not yet started, pfps
17:00:44 <Zakim> On IRC I see bmotik, RRSAgent, msmith, Zhe, uli, Zakim, ivan, bcuencagrau, Ratnesh, sandro, pfps, trackbot
17:00:47 <baojie> baojie has joined #owl
17:00:55 <Zhe> zakim, mute me
17:00:56 <Zakim> sorry, Zhe, I don't know what conference this is
17:01:18 <IanH> IanH has joined #owl
17:01:21 <pfps> zakim, this will be owlwg
17:01:21 <Zakim> ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL()12:00PM scheduled to start 61 minutes ago
17:01:28 <pfps> zakim, who is here?
17:01:28 <Zakim> SW_OWL()12:00PM has not yet started, pfps
17:01:29 <Zakim> On IRC I see IanH, baojie, bmotik, RRSAgent, msmith, Zhe, uli, Zakim, ivan, bcuencagrau, Ratnesh, sandro, pfps, trackbot
17:02:03 <uli> zakim, mute me
17:02:03 <Zakim> sorry, uli, I don't know what conference this is
17:02:09 <bmotik> Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:02:09 <Zakim> SW_OWL()12:00PM has not yet started, bmotik
17:02:10 <Zakim> On IRC I see IanH, baojie, bmotik, RRSAgent, msmith, Zhe, uli, Zakim, ivan, bcuencagrau, Ratnesh, sandro, pfps, trackbot
17:02:11 <sandro> zakim, this will be owl
17:02:11 <Zakim> ok, sandro, I see SW_OWL()12:00PM already started
17:02:14 <msmith> ScribeNick: msmith
17:02:15 <Zakim> +??P21
17:02:20 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:02:25 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:02:34 <bmotik> Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:02:39 <Zakim> -??P3
17:02:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, +1.603.897.aaaa, +1.202.408.aabb, ??P5, ??P8, +0186527aacc, ??P21
17:02:49 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
17:02:52 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
17:02:52 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-owl-irc#T17-02-52
17:02:53 <Ratnesh> zakim, ??P21 is Ratnesh
17:02:55 <Zakim> +Ivan
17:03:00 <sandro> RRSAgent, make log public
17:03:01 <Zhe> zakim, +1.603.897.aaaa is me
17:03:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, +1.603.897.aaaa, +1.202.408.aabb, ??P5, ??P8, +0186527aacc, ??P21, Ivan
17:03:12 <pfps> zakim, who is here?
17:03:13 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:03:14 <Zakim> On IRC I see IanH, baojie, bmotik, RRSAgent, msmith, Zhe, uli, Zakim, ivan, bcuencagrau, Ratnesh, sandro, pfps, trackbot
17:03:17 <Zakim> +Sandro
17:03:25 <Zakim> +Ratnesh; got it
17:03:27 <Zakim> -??P8
17:03:31 <Zakim> +Zhe; got it
17:03:33 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, ??P8 is me
17:03:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe, +1.202.408.aabb, ??P5, +0186527aacc, Ratnesh, Ivan, Sandro
17:03:39 <Zhe> Zakim, aaaa is me
17:03:45 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe, +1.202.408.aabb, ??P5, +0186527aacc, Ratnesh, Ivan, Sandro
17:03:49 <Zhe> zakim, mute me
17:03:57 <Zakim> +??P1
17:03:58 <Achille> Achille has joined #owl
17:04:03 <Zakim> I already had ??P8 as ??P8, bcuencagrau
17:04:05 <Zakim> +??P2
17:04:11 <Zakim> sorry, Zhe, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
17:04:13 <Zakim> On IRC I see IanH, baojie, bmotik, RRSAgent, msmith, Zhe, uli, Zakim, ivan, bcuencagrau, Ratnesh, sandro, pfps, trackbot
17:04:13 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
17:04:24 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted
17:04:29 <Zakim> -??P5
17:04:30 <JeffP> JeffP has joined #owl
17:04:34 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
17:04:36 <Zakim> sorry, bcuencagrau, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:04:38 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aadd
17:04:42 <Zakim> +??P4
17:04:47 <baojie> zakim, aadd is me
17:04:47 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P4
17:04:52 <Zakim> sorry, bcuencagrau, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:04:55 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P4 is me
17:04:59 <Zakim> +baojie; got it
17:04:59 <IanH> zakim, aacc is me
17:05:02 <Zakim> I don't understand '??P4', bmotik
17:05:06 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
17:05:08 <Zakim> -??P1
17:05:12 <Zakim> +IanH; got it
17:05:12 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:05:24 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:05:26 <Zakim> +[IBM]
17:05:26 <uli> zakim, ??P2 is me
17:05:29 <Achille> Zakim, IBM is me
17:05:30 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:05:31 <uli> zakim, mute me
17:05:40 <Zakim> +uli; got it
17:05:44 <Zakim> + +0122427aaee
17:05:48 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
17:05:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe (muted), msmith, IanH, Ratnesh, Ivan, Sandro, uli, baojie, bmotik (muted), Achille, +0122427aaee
17:05:55 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
17:05:55 <JeffP> zakim, aaee is me
17:06:04 <Zakim> On IRC I see JeffP, Achille, IanH, baojie, bmotik, RRSAgent, msmith, Zhe, uli, Zakim, ivan, bcuencagrau, Ratnesh, sandro, pfps, trackbot
17:06:09 <msmith> Agenda at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.06.25/Agenda
17:06:12 <Zakim> +JeffP; got it
17:06:18 <Zakim> +??P8
17:06:24 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, ??P8 is me
17:06:30 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:06:38 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it
17:06:42 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe (muted), msmith, IanH, Ratnesh, Ivan, Sandro, uli (muted), baojie, bmotik (muted), Achille, JeffP, bcuencagrau
17:06:44 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
17:06:55 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:06:58 <Zakim> On IRC I see JeffP, Achille, IanH, baojie, bmotik, RRSAgent, msmith, Zhe, uli, Zakim, ivan, bcuencagrau, Ratnesh, sandro, pfps, trackbot
17:07:02 <alanr> alanr has joined #owl
17:07:04 <Zakim> +Alan
17:07:33 <msmith> topic: Admin
17:07:33 <msmith> subtopic: Roll Call
17:07:33 <msmith> Regrets, ElisaKendall, EvanWallace, CarstenLutz, Markus_Krötzsch
17:07:41 <msmith> subtopic: Agenda Amendments
17:07:51 <Rinke> Rinke has joined #owl
17:07:58 <msmith> ianh: no agenda amendments
17:08:06 <Zakim> -bmotik
17:08:20 <msmith> subtopic: Accept Previous3 Minutes (04 June)
17:08:26 <Zakim> +??P4
17:08:30 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P4 is me
17:08:30 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
17:08:32 <pfps> 4 june minutes look acceptable
17:08:36 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:08:36 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:08:38 <calvanese> calvanese has joined #owl
17:08:54 <msmith> RESOLVED: Accept Previous3 Minutes (04 June)
17:09:11 <msmith> subtopic: Accept Previous2 Minutes (11 June)
17:09:12 <pfps> 11 june minutes look acceptable
17:09:18 <IanH> +1
17:09:20 <msmith> PROPOSED: Accept Previous2 Minutes (11 June)
17:09:21 <uli> +1
17:09:26 <msmith> RESOLVED: Accept Previous2 Minutes (11 June)
17:09:38 <msmith> subtopic: Accept Previous Minutes (18 June)
17:09:40 <pfps> 18 june minutes are *perfect*  :-)
17:09:43 <msmith> PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (18 June)
17:09:52 <IanH> +1
17:10:09 <msmith> RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes (18 June)
17:10:31 <msmith> subtopic: F2F3
17:10:37 <Zakim> + +39.047.101.aaff
17:10:49 <msmith> ianh: clarify status on http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F3_People
17:11:00 <calvanese> zakim, mute me
17:11:00 <Zakim> sorry, calvanese, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:11:06 <msmith> topic: Action Item Status
17:11:06 <msmith> subtopic: Pending Review Actions
17:11:14 <calvanese> zakim, +39.047.101.aaff is me
17:11:14 <Zakim> +calvanese; got it
17:11:20 <calvanese> zakim, mute me
17:11:20 <Zakim> calvanese should now be muted
17:11:22 <Zakim> +??P18
17:11:23 <uli> zakim, unmute me
17:11:23 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted
17:11:30 <Rinke> zakim, ??P18 is me
17:11:34 <Zakim> +Rinke; got it
17:11:41 <Rinke> zakim, mute me
17:11:41 <Zakim> Rinke should now be muted
17:11:48 <msmith> ianh: on action-160 wasn't there question on top/bottom in profiles?  keys in profiles?  there was an action on uli re: top/bottom in profiles
17:12:09 <calvanese> zakim, unmute me
17:12:13 <uli> zakim, mute me
17:12:13 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
17:12:32 <msmith> uli: I sent an email on top/bottom in dl-lite.  diego?
17:12:57 <uli> zakim, unmute me
17:12:57 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted
17:13:14 <msmith> calvanese: dl-lite has no top concept... there is no point to having it.  we don't believe it would impact properties, but there is not point. if it doesn't change computation properties, it is just by chance. you don't gain any expressivity
17:13:50 <msmith> ianh: its already that it doesn't add expressive power to DL
17:14:01 <uli> zakim, unmute me
17:14:01 <Zakim> uli was not muted, uli
17:14:09 <msmith> calvanese: yes, b/c you have nominals, that might not apply to profile which is strict subset
17:14:25 <msmith> uli: reason to add is not to add expressivity, it is to add useful syntactic sugar. e.g., rooting a property hierarchy from a top property
17:15:11 <msmith> ianh: with profiles, ruling things out is costly rather than having them. we should only rule things out if e.g., they have adverse impact on properties
17:15:27 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:15:27 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
17:15:33 <msmith> msmith: +1 to ianh
17:16:22 <uli> zakim, mute me
17:16:22 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
17:16:34 <msmith> calvanese: I partially agree.  adding construct gives indication it is to be used.  this may have bad impact, even if it can be simulated with existing constructs. similar argument for dl-lite profile
17:16:43 <JeffP> +1 calvanese
17:16:57 <Zakim> -Ratnesh
17:17:27 <msmith> bmotik: only profile now including top/bottom is EL++. I don't think property must be in profile for editor to hang things off it in UI
17:18:14 <uli> 1-
17:18:14 <msmith> ianh: we had discussion about top/bottom being useful and addressed if it *tempts* users in a negative way. it seems we can have it in dl-lite
17:18:21 <Zakim> +??P15
17:18:33 <Ratnesh> zakim, ??P15 is Ratnesh
17:18:33 <Zakim> +Ratnesh; got it
17:18:37 <msmith> calvanese: I'd like to check the details on whether we can have it
17:19:15 <msmith> ianh: revisit this in future telecon. top/bottom is in el++
17:19:30 <msmith> bmotik: not in owl-r
17:19:43 <msmith> ianh: should we action someone to investigate easy keys
17:19:58 <msmith> bmotik: no.  its clear no easy keys in dl-lite. I added it to owl-r. unknown for EL++
17:20:34 <msmith> jeffp: top/bottom in el++ ?
17:20:43 <msmith> bmotik: yes, checked with Carsten
17:20:53 <msmith> jeffp: it doesn't have nominals
17:21:03 <msmith> ianh: yes, presumably it doesn't hurt
17:21:13 <msmith> bmotik: yes, it doesn't hurt
17:21:18 <msmith> jeffp: what about el+
17:21:20 <bcuencagrau> EL++ without nominals
17:21:26 <msmith> bmotik: what's el+
17:21:46 <msmith> jeffp: el+ is supported by CEL
17:21:56 <JeffP> ok
17:22:04 <msmith> ianh: a bit off topic, we're only concerned with EL++ profile, not other fragments. interesting that CEL doesn't support all of EL++ since we'll need to follow-up moving forward the recs
17:23:36 <msmith> calvanese: follow-up on keys in dl-lite, and boris's comments on it adding recursion.  we'd like to see some version of keys, could we consider a restricted version.
17:23:41 <msmith> ianh: are you willing to take action
17:23:56 <msmith> action: calvanese to investigate top/bottom roles in dl-lite
17:23:56 <trackbot> Created ACTION-162 - Investigate top/bottom roles in dl-lite [on Diego Calvanese - due 2008-07-02].
17:24:12 <msmith>  action: calvanese to investigate easy keys in dl-lite
17:24:31 <msmith> ACCEPT ACTION-160 as completed
17:24:36 <msmith> subtopic: due and overdue actions
17:24:57 <msmith> ianh: action-155
17:25:12 <pfps> could we have a pointer to the document from the ACTION-155 page?
17:25:29 <msmith> ianh: there is a document, we also need implementation
17:25:40 <calvanese> zakim, mute me
17:25:40 <Zakim> calvanese should now be muted
17:25:46 <msmith> ianh: yes, we should add pointer to doc to action. bump date forward for action-155 pending arrival of an implementation?
17:26:01 <ivan> no
17:26:26 <msmith> ianh: ok, that's what we'll do
17:26:40 <msmith> ianh: action-156, action-157
17:26:47 <msmith> alanr: push them both a week
17:26:52 <msmith> ianh: ok
17:27:15 <msmith> topic: Issues
17:27:15 <msmith> subtopic: Proposals to Resolve Issues
17:27:15 <msmith> subsubtopic: ISSUE-21 (import-target-match) and ISSUE-24 (1-version-allowed-policy)
17:27:53 <msmith> ianh: proposal to resolve says "per pfps email and subsequent discussion", are we really here?  it doesn't seem complete
17:28:07 <msmith> alanr: we're close, have 1 issue open. is inconsistent independent of header? bmotik and I disagreed. it may be case inconsistency is noticed by user, not maintainer, we'd like to state this
17:29:06 <msmith> bmotik: one ontology saying something about another is recipe for disaster. breaks encapsulation.  let's people say anything about anything.detecting these incompatibilities and maintenance could get out of hand
17:29:35 <alanr> how is this different from having axioms on a class in two different ontologies?
17:29:40 <Rinke> Not sure whether this has anything to do with the issues per se? Seems that the issues are being overloaded with side-issues that prevent them from being resolved. 
17:29:49 <alanr> detecting is trivial
17:30:31 <msmith> alanr: I'm not persuaded
17:31:04 <msmith> bmotik: allowing one ont to say something about another seems to me as a conceptual hack
17:31:26 <Rinke> +1 to separate issue!
17:31:29 <msmith> alanr: you're arguing conceptual integrity vs. use case from personal experience. we can spin this off to another issue and resolve the rest
17:31:40 <uli> zakim, unmute me
17:31:40 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted
17:31:56 <msmith> uli: +1 on separate issue. +1 to bmotik that this will open can of worms and may be difficult to explain behavior
17:33:02 <msmith> ianh: I see what you mean, just as you don't have control over another on, you may not have control over statements saying what onts are incompatible
17:33:10 <msmith> bmotik: already what we have is an improvement
17:33:19 <msmith> alanr: not sure that's the case for owl 1
17:33:26 <msmith> bmotik: but there was no semantics
17:33:37 <msmith> alanr: yes, problem was no teeth to semantics
17:34:06 <msmith> bmotik: tool is more that welcome to do this.  seems to be extrapolating from one use case
17:34:37 <msmith> ianh: given we have agreement other than this, can we move forward closing ISSUE-21 and ISSUE-24 and open new issue to discuss versioning?
17:34:48 <msmith> alanr: incompatible with, not versioning
17:34:50 <pfps> fine by me
17:34:56 <Rinke> +1
17:35:07 <msmith> ianh: yes, incompatibleWith
17:35:55 <IanH> PROPOSED: resolve Issue 21 and Issue 24 Imports and Versioning, per update from Boris, Peter's email and subsequent discussion, modulo opening new issue on incompatibleWith
17:36:34 <msmith> bmotik: if we move forward splitting, I think we should take everything out
17:36:49 <msmith> alanr: I disagree unless strong opposition.  it would be a step backwards
17:37:09 <msmith> ianh: if we resolve in favor of your approach, doesn't that mean ripping out what's there now?
17:37:27 <msmith> alanr: ontology header is better than nothing, if we remove it we may have to readd it later
17:37:40 <msmith> bmotik: I'd prefer to discuss if we need incompatibleWith at all
17:38:19 <msmith> alanr: it seems we're now moving backwards
17:38:39 <msmith> pfps: I suggest going as proposal says, discuss incompatible with as separate issue
17:38:48 <msmith> bmotik: out of document?
17:39:06 <msmith> pfps: minimal change to current doc.  it is an interim state, even if no one likes it
17:39:12 <msmith> bmotik: ok
17:39:34 <IanH> PROPOSED: resolve Issue 21 and Issue 24 Imports and Versioning, per update from Boris, Peter's email and subsequent discussion, but open new issue on status of incompatibleWith
17:39:46 <pfps> +1 to resolve this way 
17:39:49 <bmotik> +1
17:39:51 <alanr> +1
17:39:53 <uli> +1
17:39:53 <Rinke> +1
17:39:56 <IanH> +1
17:39:58 <ivan> 0
17:39:59 <msmith> msmith: +1
17:40:03 <baojie> 0
17:40:08 <Ratnesh> +1
17:40:17 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:40:25 <IanH> RESOLVED: resolve Issue 21 and Issue 24 Imports and Versioning, per update from Boris, Peter's email and subsequent discussion, but open new issue on status of incompatibleWith
17:40:37 <Zhe> +1
17:40:38 <alanr> happy happy
17:40:42 <alanr> joy joy
17:40:46 <bmotik> ACTION to bmotik2: Update the strucutral spec according to resolution of ISSUE 21 and ISSUE 24
17:40:46 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to
17:41:00 <bmotik> ACTION bmotik2: Update the strucutral spec according to resolution of ISSUE 21 and ISSUE 24
17:41:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-163 - Update the strucutral spec according to resolution of ISSUE 21 and ISSUE 24 [on Boris Motik - due 2008-07-02].
17:41:03 <msmith> subsubtopic: ISSUE-81 (reification, negative assertions)
17:41:05 <Achille> Achille has joined #owl
17:41:53 <msmith> ianh: ISSUE-81 can be resolved using bmotik's proposal to use an alternative vocabulary for reification. any reasons not to resolve?
17:42:18 <IanH> PROPOSED: resolve Issue 81 Reification of Negative Property Assertions, per Boris's email 
17:42:21 <pfps> +1 to proceed apace
17:42:24 <bmotik> +1
17:42:25 <Rinke> +1
17:42:26 <IanH> +1
17:42:27 <msmith> msmith: +1
17:42:28 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:42:37 <ivan> +1
17:42:37 <Ratnesh> +1
17:42:46 <uli> +1
17:42:58 <IanH> RESOLVED: resolve Issue 81 Reification of Negative Property Assertions, per Boris's email (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jun/0156.html)
17:43:06 <alanr> +1
17:43:09 <ivan> happy happy
17:43:15 <Zhe> +1
17:43:16 <JeffP> +1
17:43:35 <msmith> subtopic: Other Issue Discussions
17:43:35 <msmith> subsubtopic: ISSUE-108 (profilenames)
17:43:47 <Rinke> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jun/0171.html
17:43:57 <msmith> ianh: brief revisit of profile naming (ISSUE-108) (as in Carsten's email) at least OWL-R and OWL-EL names are ok, DL-Lite needs a name. Carsten proposed calling it owl-db, but that's likely to be contentious
17:44:10 <bmotik_> bmotik_ has joined #owl
17:44:52 <Zhe> :_
17:44:59 <bmotik__> bmotik__ has joined #owl
17:45:29 <msmith> msmith: why can't we call it dl-lite?
17:45:30 <calvanese> unmute me
17:45:39 <calvanese> unmute me
17:45:40 <alanr>  we want to market to a larger community!!
17:45:48 <msmith> ianh: owl-lite is deprecated, owl dl-lite seems rather long winded
17:45:51 <calvanese> zakim, unmute me
17:45:51 <Zakim> calvanese should no longer be muted
17:46:04 <sandro> "OWL2 Lite" ?
17:46:21 <alanr> OWL-D
17:46:27 <msmith> calvanese: we believe name owl-db would be suitable, since owl-r people like owl-r lets use owl-db. owl-d doesn't evoke anything related to dl-lite. I am not in favor of owl-d. owl-db name implies something
17:46:30 <Zhe> zakim, unmute me
17:46:30 <Zakim> Zhe should no longer be muted
17:46:50 <alanr> OWL-I
17:47:07 <msmith> zhe: is this profile specific for db modeling integration and nothing else?
17:47:44 <alanr> quantify "large"?
17:47:50 <uli> zakim, who is speaking
17:47:50 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is speaking', uli
17:47:50 <msmith> calvanese: profile was created to connect to large databases.  we believe it is specifically suited to databases. also conceptually matches expressivity of databases
17:47:55 <alanr> millions, 100s of millions?
17:48:03 <JeffP> zakim, who is talking?
17:48:07 <alanr> 10s of billions?
17:48:16 <Zakim> JeffP, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Sandro (4%), Ratnesh (9%), calvanese (27%), Zhe (82%)
17:48:33 <msmith> zhe: misleading to me because dl-lite can be provided to other domains. plus gives users belief dedicated to storing owl. gives impression only implementable with db, nothing else. dl-lite could apply to sparql endpoint as well
17:49:00 <Ratnesh> zakim,  mute me
17:49:00 <Zakim> Ratnesh should now be muted
17:49:42 <msmith> calvanese: one point is that its implemented using database technologies
17:49:55 <msmith> zhe: is this implementation specific?
17:50:02 <msmith> calvanese: its how the profile came about. its tuned to these features
17:50:45 <msmith> ianh: useful exchange, and what we suspected.  owl-db is controversial.  any other less controversial names?
17:50:45 <Rinke> Profile names are easily interpreted as denoting disjoint `features'
17:50:55 <msmith> bmotik: why not 1,2,3 or A,B,C?
17:51:07 <alanr> the only reasonable mnemonic is "R"
17:51:20 <msmith> ianh: we have reasonable names for EL++ and OWL-R which people are comfortable with.  isn't 1,2,3 silly?
17:51:28 <msmith> bmotik: what's wrong with current names?
17:51:38 <msmith> ianh: owl dl-lite is too much of a mouthful
17:52:06 <msmith> alanr: only name with good pneumonic is OWL-R, EL++ is historical and only relevant to small audience. I support getting away from historical names and suggest 1 letter (fairly meaningless) names
17:52:25 <sandro> +1 get away from history.   
17:53:07 <alanr> yes, peter, but for how many others?
17:53:08 <sandro> "DL" is another bad name.
17:53:10 <msmith> bmotik: owl dl-lite is too much of a mouthful, what about just dl-lite. el++ has established itself, it doesn't need the owl prefix
17:53:18 <alanr> I agree, that DL is another bad name
17:53:48 <msmith> ianh: that may be a step too far
17:53:49 <alanr> OWL-C for OWL-DL (OWL-Complete)
17:54:02 <alanr> OWL-A for (OWL-Anything for OWL-Full)
17:54:04 <Rinke> DL-Lite is about assertions, why not OWL-A
17:54:22 <msmith> sandro: we are worst people to pick names.  someone should subject a marketing department to this not us. knowledge of history is an impediment
17:55:15 <msmith> ianh: another side, the marketing people ask you to explain because they  know nothing.  so, names they create will depend on who explains them
17:55:24 <Rinke> agree with Sandro, one complaint that came up in my  little survey was that people didn't know what the names meant
17:55:33 <ivan> +1 to Rinke
17:55:46 <msmith> sandro: names should be targeted at people making the purchase decision
17:55:56 <msmith> calvanese: name is indication, choice will be made on features. I made several good arguments for why owl-db is good for dl-lite. I didn't hear compelling, non-marketing counterarguments
17:56:12 <alanr> I was convinced
17:57:14 <msmith> zhe: why not call owl-r owl-db?  oracle is largest database in the world and implements owl-r?
17:57:25 <JeffP> We can call it OWL-Aberdeen 
17:57:43 <ivan> JeffP: I would prefer OWL-Amsterdam!
17:57:48 <JeffP> hehe
17:57:49 <Rinke> me too!
17:57:49 <msmith> ianh: enough of this discussion.  owl-db is just too attractive, so probably no one can have it
17:57:57 <sandro> +1 to random city names.  :-)
17:58:12 <ivan> rowl, dowl?
17:58:14 <calvanese> zakim, mute me
17:58:14 <Zakim> calvanese should now be muted
17:58:21 <Rinke> howl?
17:58:21 <alanr> who gets OWL-Bagdad?
17:58:22 <msmith> subsubtopic: ISSUE-67 (reification)
17:58:59 <msmith> ianh: anyone?
17:59:11 <msmith> pfps: I don't think anything needs to be done, current status is fine
17:59:22 <msmith> ianh: current status is that we're using rdf reification
17:59:30 <msmith> alanr: I'm happy with current reification. as long as triple being reified is included
17:59:32 <Zhe> second alanr
17:59:52 <msmith> bmotik: I don't think we should output triple being reified. this can be handled in the semantics
18:00:09 <alanr> that's not an argument against. It's an argument that says we can also do it a different way
18:00:49 <msmith> zhe: conceptually, bmotik is 100% correct.  but with tons of annotations this makes implementers life difficult. what's the objection to adding the triple
18:01:23 <msmith> alanr: yes, what's argument against?  this is a divergence from rdf semantics
18:01:56 <alanr> I put a proposal for how to solve this on the email
18:02:11 <msmith> bmotik: impossible to know when mapping rdf to ontology if ontology contained axiom or just annotation of axiom. I consider sticking with current better solution
18:02:51 <msmith> msmith: +1 to supporting annotation of non-present axioms
18:03:08 <alanr> There is also rdf/xml support for concise  reification when it includes the triple
18:03:36 <msmith> pfps: I don't believe argument that additional processing burden is accurate since it introduces an additional triple to parse
18:03:54 <msmith> zhe: bmotik, I believe you proposed solutions via email to some of these problems. pfps, oracle believes not including triple will make life harder
18:04:59 <msmith> alanr: support for concise reification in RDF/XML, but only in some circumstances
18:05:10 <sandro> (er, no, you still need to parse the triples even when not using the RDF/XML trick.)
18:05:27 <Zakim> -Rinke
18:05:29 <msmith> bmotik: are you proposing we use this special syntax
18:06:00 <msmith> alanr: if triple is in serialization, on can put an id on the predicate to indicate reification. there is no shorthand for only the reified part
18:06:17 <msmith> ianh: closing discussion soon
18:07:19 <alanr> no bad ida
18:07:29 <alanr> better to add a special annotation so they are parallel
18:08:14 <alanr> I don't understand
18:08:20 <ivan> me neither
18:08:26 <msmith> bmotik: one could use following procedure.... if re-ified and non-reified version are present... but this is non-monotonic.  question to zhe - if hint that reified triples in RDF/XML should use this shorthand, would that be ok?
18:08:43 <ivan> I do not think we can do that, Boris
18:09:05 <Zhe> sounds good
18:09:10 <msmith> ianh: take to email, then revisit discussion
18:09:39 <msmith> topic: General Discussion
18:09:39 <msmith> subtopic: Schedule
18:10:12 <msmith> ianh: agenda has short list of things needing attention. features: 1) rich annotations, 2) nary datatypes. no bijan?  :( perhaps uli on nary?
18:10:27 <uli> Bijan isn't here
18:10:32 <sandro> zakim, where is bijan?
18:10:32 <Zakim> sorry, sandro, I do not understand your question
18:10:52 <uli> zakim, unmute me
18:10:52 <Zakim> uli was not muted, uli
18:11:18 <msmith> uli: what are you after?
18:11:36 <msmith> ianh: I'd like some comments on schedule?
18:12:14 <msmith> uli: we could be moving really faster.  I won't be around for next two weeks, otherwise I'd say proposal in 1 week
18:12:27 <msmith> ianh: a concrete proposal for what should be added to spec? but not now?
18:12:51 <alanr> probably depends on what happens next week and the week after too...
18:12:57 <msmith> uli: depends on this week.
18:13:05 <uli> zakim, mute me
18:13:05 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
18:13:07 <msmith> ianh: this is reasonable guesstimate
18:13:43 <msmith> alanr: we should get quick check-in on prioritizing things.  rich annotations, nary. how are people on nary? priorities, benefits vs cost of delaying? when do we say it's out?
18:14:45 <msmith> ianh: is my answer some number of weeks?
18:15:11 <msmith> alanr: I would like to hear from people.  I'd like to hear input.
18:15:35 <msmith> ianh: is it significant delay worthy?
18:15:39 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
18:15:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe, msmith, IanH, Ivan, Sandro, uli (muted), baojie, Achille, JeffP, bcuencagrau (muted), Alan, bmotik, calvanese (muted), Ratnesh
18:15:43 <Zakim> ... (muted)
18:15:51 <msmith> msmith: I think nary are important and would be prepared to wait some
18:15:58 <uli> "How horrible would you think failing on n-ary be?"
18:16:04 <pfps> i'm prepared to wait forever as long as it isn't more than 15 minutes (thanks Oscar Wilde)
18:16:11 <bmotik> I believe that n-ary datatypes are a high-risk feature
18:16:39 <Achille> we can leave without nary
18:16:44 <alanr> I'm concerned about unknowns with n-aries, and known issues, like difficulty in combinations.
18:16:48 <msmith> bmotik: adding nary adds a huge burden to developers.  some algorithmic issues haven't been resolved and I'm skeptical
18:16:57 <msmith> msmith: notes Carsten also absent
18:17:04 <uli> good point
18:17:06 <Achille> it is not worth delaying the spec for it
18:17:11 <uli> zakim, unmute me
18:17:11 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted
18:17:16 <msmith> ianh: not time now to get to into the details
18:17:30 <ivan> owl3?
18:17:38 <msmith> uli: not having any nary support would be regretted later as something we missed
18:17:50 <msmith> ianh: perhaps we should set some implementation bar. 2 implementations to get to rec, correct?
18:18:41 <msmith> sandro: in general, should only add things for which we think reasonable to there may be two implementations. if we're unsure, that means its at risk
18:18:49 <pfps> +1 to "at risk"iness
18:19:19 <msmith> alanr: that doesn't help because there's significant work to get it into the spec
18:19:47 <msmith> ianh: i agree with that, but the implementation point clarifies just how much expressive power we want to add. those wanting it very powerful must weight that against cost of implementing it so that it can proceed
18:20:46 <msmith> alanr: so far focused on one type of concrete domain extension, < > simple arithmetic. perhaps allen interval relations instead.  I'm taking this up with carsten
18:20:56 <uli> alanr, can you explain this?
18:21:07 <alanr> uli, yes, via email
18:21:22 <msmith> bmotik: allen interval for time intervals will not solve problems for owl
18:21:44 <alanr> won't solve all time problems for time. But may solve some some time problems
18:21:46 <msmith> bmotik: nary datatypes won't help this ...(scribe interpret) because they only apply to data properties on a single individuals (not comparison between multiple events)
18:22:37 <msmith> ianh: will ask bijan next week about this
18:23:01 <msmith> ianh: also discussion about datatypes in general, what should be supported.  is this going to derail us?
18:23:20 <msmith> bmotik: thinks we can resolve.  we have to resolve. I don't think solution is difficult
18:23:21 <alanr> I have concerns that this will take time.
18:23:54 <Zakim> -calvanese
18:24:17 <uli> ;)
18:24:23 <uli> yes
18:24:26 <uli> very
18:24:36 <msmith> ianh: ISSUE-118 is languishing. any champion for this issue?
18:25:24 <msmith> alanr: I've suggested unnamed and bnodes as alternative constructs
18:25:47 <msmith> ianh: documents need to be produced.  test, ufds
18:25:48 <alanr> action: alan to send email re: suggestions (again) for unnamed individuals *in addition* to bnodes
18:25:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-164 - Send email re: suggestions (again) for unnamed individuals *in addition* to bnodes [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-07-02].
18:26:30 <alanr> mike, you know about action=raw ? to get raw mediawiki pages?
18:26:46 <msmith> msmith: alanr, no.  thanks
18:27:18 <msmith> msmith: re tests, I'm targeting f2f3 as a milestone.  two parts, the tests, and the documents. I'll try to get something to the group before f2f3 on each
18:27:32 <alanr> mike, see http://svn.neurocommons.org/svn/trunk/product/wiki/get-ncpage-ontology.pl
18:27:49 <msmith> ianh: none for ufd
18:28:00 <msmith> pfps: I think bijan is working on primer
18:28:09 <msmith> topic: additional business
18:28:17 <msmith> ianh: no additional business, adjourn
18:28:21 <Zakim> -uli
18:28:24 <Zakim> -Ivan
18:28:25 <Zakim> -baojie
18:28:26 <Zakim> -JeffP
18:28:26 <Zakim> -Achille
18:28:28 <Zakim> -bmotik
18:28:28 <Zakim> -Ratnesh
18:28:30 <Zakim> -Zhe
18:28:32 <Zakim> -Sandro
18:28:33 <Zakim> -IanH
18:28:38 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
18:28:41 <sandro> msmith, I put some notes about scribing here: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Scribe_Conventions#After_scribing_.28New_Style_Minutes.29
18:28:45 <Zakim> -msmith
18:29:02 <msmith> rrsagent, pointer
18:29:02 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-owl-irc#T18-29-02
18:29:14 <alanr> e.g http://sw.neurocommons.org/cgi-bin/get-ncpage-ontology.pl?page=CommonsPurl:Record/Ncbi_gene&section=purlRdf
18:29:26 <sandro> Zakim, list attendees
18:29:26 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Peter_Patel-Schneider, +1.202.408.aabb, +0186527aacc, Ivan, Sandro, Ratnesh, Zhe, msmith, +1.518.276.aadd, baojie, bmotik, IanH, uli,
18:29:30 <Zakim> ... +0122427aaee, Achille, JeffP, bcuencagrau, Alan, calvanese, Rinke
18:29:39 <Zakim> -Alan
18:31:07 <msmith> zakim, bye
18:31:07 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, +1.202.408.aabb, +0186527aacc, Ivan, Sandro, Ratnesh, Zhe, msmith, +1.518.276.aadd, baojie, bmotik, IanH, uli,
18:31:07 <Zakim> Zakim has left #owl
18:31:10 <Zakim> ... +0122427aaee, Achille, JeffP, bcuencagrau, Alan, calvanese, Rinke
18:31:21 <msmith> rrsagent, make log public
18:31:32 <msmith> rrsagent, draft minutes
18:31:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-owl-minutes.html msmith
18:31:39 <msmith> rrsagent, bye
18:31:39 <RRSAgent> I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-owl-actions.rdf :
18:31:39 <RRSAgent> ACTION: calvanese to investigate top/bottom roles in dl-lite [1]
18:31:39 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-owl-irc#T17-23-56
18:31:39 <RRSAgent> ACTION: bmotik2 to Update the strucutral spec according to resolution of ISSUE 21 and ISSUE 24 [2]
18:31:39 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-owl-irc#T17-41-00
18:31:39 <RRSAgent> ACTION: alan to send email re: suggestions (again) for unnamed individuals *in addition* to bnodes [3]
18:31:39 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-owl-irc#T18-25-48