Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Chatlog 2008-06-25
From OWL
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§ion=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