Chatlog 2008-07-23

From OWL
Jump to: navigation, search

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 <Achille> PRESENT: bparsia (muted), IanH (muted), Ivan (muted), uli (muted), Achille, Alan Ruttenberg, Zhe (muted), Sandro, msmith, rob, bmotik, Carsten, Rinke, ewallace, baojie, Elisa, pfps
00:00:00 <scribenick> REGRETS: Michael Schneider, Markus Krötzsch
00:00:00 <scribenick> CHAIR: alanr
17:18:48 <ivan> scribenick: Achille
17:18:55 <ivan> scribe: Achille
17:04:35 <rob> Zakim, +??P40 is probably me.
17:04:41 <Zakim> sorry, rob, I do not understand your question
17:04:48 <baojie> baojie has joined #owl
17:04:55 <rob> zakim, +??P40 might be me
17:05:08 <Zakim> I don't understand '+??P40 might be me', rob
17:05:13 <ivan> zakim, ??P40 is rob
17:05:17 <bmotik> bmotik has joined #owl
17:05:18 <Zakim> +rob; got it
17:05:45 <rob> zakim, mute me
17:05:45 <Zakim> rob should now be muted
17:05:59 <Achille> alanr: no agenda amendments
17:05:45 <Achille> alanr: PROPOSED: Accept previous minutes (July 16)
17:05:46 <IanH> They looked OK to me.
17:06:12 <IanH> They looked OK to me too
17:06:07 <msmith> the regrets are missing
17:06:25 <bmotik_> bmotik_ has joined #owl
17:06:39 <ewallace> ewallace has joined #owl
17:06:42 <Achille> alanr: let's wait for peter to decide to accept or reject the minutes
17:07:03 <ivan> zakim, bmotik_ is bmotik
17:07:03 <Zakim> sorry, ivan, I do not recognize a party named 'bmotik_'
17:07:04 <Achille> alanr: An agenda for the F2F3 is at
17:07:24 <Achille> alanr: Anything missing from the agenda for the F2F3?
17:07:27 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
17:07:31 <Rinke> Rinke has joined #owl
17:07:37 <Achille> topic: action items
17:08:05 <Achille> alanr: action 156 has been completed by Ian
17:08:28 <Zakim> +Carsten
17:08:36 <Carsten> zakim, mute me
17:08:36 <Zakim> Carsten should now be muted
17:08:49 <baojie>
17:08:50 <Achille> ewallace: action 167 done
17:09:20 <rob> zakim, who is here
17:09:20 <Zakim> rob, you need to end that query with '?'
17:09:26 <Achille> jie: i just sent an email summarizing the action at the last meeting  of RIF WG
17:09:27 <Zakim> +??P3
17:09:30 <rob> zakim, who is here?
17:09:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see bparsia (muted), IanH (muted), Ivan (muted), uli (muted), Achille, alanr, Zhe (muted), Sandro, msmith, rob (muted), baojie, Evan_Wallace, Carsten (muted), ??P3
17:09:32 <Rinke> zakim, ??P3 is me
17:09:34 <Zakim> On IRC I see Rinke, ewallace, bmotik, baojie, rob, sandro, alanr, Achille, Zhe, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, uli, bparsia, Carsten, trackbot
17:09:35 <Rinke> zakim, mute me
17:09:36 <Zakim> +Rinke; got it
17:09:36 <Zakim> Rinke should now be muted
17:10:09 <Achille> alanr: What is your sense of the status for the RIF WG
17:10:34 <Achille> jie: As far as this action is concerned, it is well on track
17:11:15 <Achille> alanr: Micheal is not here for action 152
17:11:27 <sandro>
17:11:33 <bmotik> Zakim, bmotik is with Achille
17:11:33 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
17:11:36 <Achille> sandro: Add food restrictions on the F2F3 page at
17:11:55 <Achille> topic: Proposal to resolve issues
17:12:28 <IanH> doing it
17:12:56 <Achille> alanr:  issue 125 should be left for the primer  not for the technical documents
17:13:07 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
17:13:07 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
17:13:10 <alanr> ack bparsia
17:13:13 <Elisa> Elisa has joined #owl
17:14:20 <Achille> bparsia: I think issue 125 should  just be an editorial issue 
17:14:30 <IanH> PROPOSED: resolve issue with no change to serialisation but document this and other "interesting" equivalences in user facing documents
17:14:49 <Achille> bparsia: I don't like the micro-management of this issue
17:14:54 <IanH> zakim, unmute me
17:14:54 <Zakim> IanH should no longer be muted
17:15:27 <ewallace> No!
17:15:45 <Achille> ianh: I made the proposal as an easy way to fix the issue. Bijan would you prefer changing the serializarion
17:15:55 <Achille> bijan: no
17:15:49 <bmotik> +1 to close
17:15:58 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
17:15:58 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
17:16:14 <Achille> alanr: any opinion on this issue?
17:16:41 <Achille> boris: in the syntax document, I have already mentioned some equivalences 
17:16:53 <Achille> boris: this could be just one additional line 
17:17:05 <Achille> boris: I would like to close it
17:17:16 <Achille> boris: by adding it in the syntax document
17:17:02 <bparsia> I'm not saying I wouldn't put it in, but I think we should just close it 
17:17:06 <bparsia> I don't care
17:17:08 <bparsia> Close it
17:17:09 <bparsia> however
17:17:19 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
17:17:19 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
17:17:40 <bparsia> zakim,  mute me
17:17:40 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
17:17:53 <Achille> parsia: I'm not going to argue further. I will not vote against it 
17:18:02 <alanr> Proposed: resolve issue with no change to serialisation but document this and other "interesting" equivalences in user facing documents
17:18:08 <bmotik> +1
17:18:10 <ivan> +1
17:18:11 <IanH> +1
17:18:15 <uli> +1
17:18:15 <Rinke> +1
17:18:17 <Achille> achille: +1
17:18:17 <sandro> +1
17:18:17 <Zhe> +1
17:18:23 <alanr> +1
17:18:26 <Carsten> +1
17:18:29 <msmith> +1
17:18:47 <ewallace> +1 
17:19:20 <alanr> Resolved: resolve issue with no change to serialisation but document this and other "interesting" equivalences in user facing documents
17:19:31 <Achille> topic: issue discussion
17:19:51 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
17:19:51 <Zakim> bparsia was already muted, bparsia
17:20:03 <Achille> alanr: discussion on bijan's email on various options to N-ary datatypes 
17:20:21 <Achille>
17:20:46 <Achille> alanr: what should be our direction for N-ary datatype support ?
17:21:08 <Achille> alanr: I 'd like to add an option : "not to include N-ary datatype at all"
17:20:48 <bparsia> That was not included
17:21:26 <bparsia> I suspect manchester would object if we do not included the base hook
17:21:42 <Achille> alanr: what do implements think of N-ary datatypes?
17:22:14 <bmotik> Achille: I don't think we have a good story whether we are going to implement this feature
17:22:24 <bmotik> Achille: The implementation is done by our colleagues in China
17:22:35 <bmotik> Achille: This doesn't seem as something that they'll implement soon
17:22:48 <bmotik> Achille: It is quite complex and we do not have a clear path towards the implementation
17:22:50 <rob> zakim, unmute me
17:22:50 <Zakim> rob should no longer be muted
17:22:51 <alanr> ack rob
17:23:16 <Achille> rob: the use cases are not convincing
17:23:25 <Achille> rob: it is a low priority 
17:23:36 <Achille> rob: I do not particularly care about N-ary datatypes
17:23:38 <Zakim> +Elisa_Kendall
17:23:41 <rob> zakim, mute me
17:23:42 <Zakim> rob should now be muted
17:23:42 <bparsia> More details on the use cases are coming; I've had meetings with various people and some examples
17:24:03 <Achille> msmith: from customers, we hear that it is interesting
17:24:17 <Achille> msmith: it is a gap that i would like to close
17:24:34 <Achille> boris: I have the feeling that this will be hard to implement
17:24:46 <Achille> boris: I'm not convince of the usefulness of N-ary datatypes
17:24:52 <uli> zakim, unmute me
17:24:52 <Zakim> uli was not muted, uli
17:25:00 <Achille> uli: two things
17:25:16 <Achille> uli: various kinds of N-ary 
17:25:35 <Achille> uli: linear inequations vs. simple comparison operators only
17:25:47 <Achille> uli: I am now going to report from racer implementation
17:26:00 <Achille> uli: they did it because of customer's requirements
17:26:20 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
17:26:21 <rob> zakim, unmute me
17:26:21 <Achille> uli: they found it usefull and not very hard in practice
17:26:23 <Zakim> rob was not muted, rob
17:26:41 <Achille> rob: where are the success stories?
17:26:48 <uli> zakim, unmute me
17:26:48 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted
17:26:58 <Carsten> YES
17:27:14 <rob> zakim, mute me
17:27:14 <Zakim> rob should now be muted
17:27:15 <Achille> uli: I'll go back to racer folks to gather more info
17:27:16 <Carsten> zakim, unmute me
17:27:16 <Zakim> Carsten should no longer be muted
17:27:29 <rob> zakim, unmute me
17:27:29 <Zakim> rob should no longer be muted
17:27:39 <Achille> carsten: they consider it very important
17:28:03 <rob> zakim, mute me
17:28:03 <Zakim> rob should now be muted
17:28:04 <ewallace> use cases from Product Modeling XG as well
17:28:10 <uli> zakim, mute me
17:28:10 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
17:28:12 <Carsten> zakim, mute me
17:28:12 <Zakim> Carsten should now be muted
17:28:15 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
17:28:15 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
17:28:15 <Achille> carsten: I disagree on the lack of success stories
17:28:24 <bparsia>
17:28:57 <Achille> bparsia: I spent some time with Robert Stevens and Alan Rector to push for more examples 
17:29:50 <Achille> bparsia: even with the simple examples (which could be handled by DL safe rules) , they want N-ary datatype
17:30:25 <rob> but what do you expect to infer?
17:30:25 <Achille> bparsia : this is particularly important for development time
17:30:45 <Carsten> Sure this simple. There are tons of other features in OWL without *sophisticated* use cases
17:30:52 <Achille> bparsia: the way it is done now is true precomputation
17:31:11 <Achille> bparsia: it does not work very well  
17:31:53 <Achille> bparsia: the owl model becomes too complex in order to get his requirements in
17:32:18 <Achille> bparsia: I'll send around his ontology soon
17:32:25 <alanr> q+ to ask whether conversations prioritize level?
17:32:38 <Achille> bparsia: I was convinced by his use case
17:32:44 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
17:32:44 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
17:33:08 <Achille> boris: we are not making progress by discussing what is the right use case
17:33:46 <Achille> boris: if we provide a hook to allow implementation to plug their own datatype implementation
17:34:09 <Achille> boris: it solves the problem and gives flexibility to implementors
17:34:30 <Achille> boris: I understand that there are some issues related to interoperability
17:35:17 <Achille> alanr: my sense is that, in OWL 1.0, there was no benefit with hook in the spec for datatype implementation
17:36:02 <Achille> alanr: so I advocate to leave N-ary datatypes out of the spec, but they can be extensions
17:36:06 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
17:36:06 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
17:36:25 <Achille> alanr: Bijan could you live without inequations,i.e. with only comparisons?
17:36:33 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to ask whether conversations prioritize level?
17:36:39 <Achille> bijan: comparisons would be better than nothing
17:37:13 <Achille> bparsia: there is already an implementation of linear inequations
17:37:30 <Achille> bparsia: pellet intends to have something in the space
17:37:50 <Achille> bparsia: so about 3 implementations will be available, and we can test interoperability
17:38:17 <Achille> bparsia: implementation should be encouraged - let's not raise the bar for implementation
17:38:30 <alanr> achille - record the 3 implementations?
17:38:52 <Achille>  achille: pellet, racer , fact++
17:39:14 <sandro> so ... Bijan is talking about an optional component of some sort ...      something "standard" but not required in any profile.       Interesting.
17:39:16 <Zakim> +Jonathan_Rees
17:39:27 <alanr> zakim, Jonathan_Rees is alanr
17:39:27 <Zakim> +alanr; got it
17:39:51 <Achille> bparsia: we should not worry too much about it before last call
17:39:54 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
17:39:54 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
17:41:12 <rob> I didn't see use cases where you get anything terribly useful as a result of implementing it.
17:41:24 <msmith> rob, which "it"
17:41:24 <Zakim> -alanr
17:41:33 <Achille> msmith: it seems to me that some people are not implementing N-ary because the trade off between ease of implementation/usefulness is not in favor of ease of implementation.
17:41:35 <rob> n-ary datatypes of any kind.
17:41:42 <bparsia>
17:41:45 <msmith> rob, thanks
17:42:24 <Achille> topic: Issue 133: DL-Lite Profile modified to include UNA 
17:42:24 <Achille> alanr: let's postpone issue 133 for when diego is around
17:42:52 <Achille> topic: Issue 87: rational datatype
17:43:30 <bmotik> Achille: I haven't paid much attention to this proposal.
17:43:46 <bmotik> Achille: We haven't seen a use case.
17:43:50 <rob> zakim, unmute me
17:43:52 <Zakim> rob was not muted, rob
17:44:23 <msmith> q+ to clarify what we're talking about
17:44:46 <Achille> rob: allowing constant as rational would not change the semantics at all
17:45:03 <Achille> rob: if it is not in the XML schema, so maybe it is not important
17:45:25 <Achille> rob: defining rational as a value space seems insane
17:45:49 <rob> zakim, mute me
17:45:49 <Zakim> rob should now be muted
17:46:00 <bmotik> Achille: We care a lot about XML Schema.
17:46:31 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to clarify what we're talking about
17:46:37 <bmotik> Achille: We are not entusiastic about rational numbers because they depart from XML Schema.
17:47:25 <uli> zakim, unmute me
17:47:25 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted
17:47:43 <bparsia>
17:47:51 <Achille> uli: I agree with mike that nobody even suggested a rational value space
17:47:53 <bparsia> (for a critique of thelack of rationals in xml schema)
17:48:18 <Achille> uli: having rational constants could be very useful if we have comparisons
17:48:49 <rob> if you have that stuff then you have an implicit encoding for them, anyway
17:48:56 <Achille> uli: it could be useful in the context of comparisons
17:49:08 <uli> zakim, mute me
17:49:08 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
17:49:19 <Achille> bparsia: I do not want to solve equation in rational, but in reals
17:49:29 <bparsia> zakim, muteme
17:49:29 <Zakim> I don't understand 'muteme', bparsia
17:49:34 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
17:49:34 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
17:50:01 <bparsia> Rational constants are much less serious than having a real value space, for sure
17:50:07 <Achille> topic: General Discussion
17:50:55 <Achille> alanr: I addressed the error caught by Peter on the annotation's proposal
17:51:16 <bparsia> q+ to explain bundles
17:51:22 <bparsia> zakim, umute me
17:51:22 <Zakim> I don't understand 'umute me', bparsia
17:51:28 <Zakim> bparsia, you wanted to explain bundles
17:51:33 <Achille> alanr: we could start by some evaluation about if the proposal works and what to do if it does not
17:51:46 <Zakim> -rob
17:52:15 <Achille> alanr: I thought that you had a name for an axiom
17:52:34 <Achille> alanr: which means that you can have as many statements about the axiom as you want
17:52:53 <Achille> bijan: we do not want people to coin names for all axioms
17:53:06 <Achille> bijan: it has to be done by the implementation
17:53:22 <Achille> alanr: I believe my proposal achieve this same goal
17:53:33 <Achille> bijan: that's orthorgonal to space
17:53:43 <Achille> alanr: this proposal does not have spaces
17:54:03 <Achille> alanr: if there is a strong desire for spaces we can add it later
17:54:19 <Achille> msmith: only one level of annotation?
17:54:33 <Achille> alanr: yes, for now only one level of annotations
17:54:57 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
17:54:57 <Zakim> bparsia was not muted, bparsia
17:55:07 <Achille> alanr: Bijan, what is your sense about the effectiveness of this approach?
17:55:18 <Achille> bparsia: I do not know yet
17:55:54 <Achille> alanr: Peter has a strong concern about the idea of having two files 
17:56:07 <Achille> bijan: I agree with Peter
17:56:42 <IanH> zakim, unmute me
17:56:42 <Zakim> IanH should no longer be muted
17:56:46 <Achille> bparsia: People are in general opposed to multiple file solutions. It is a non-starter
17:57:12 <Achille> alanr: the main reason to having them in separate files is to facilitate SPARQL queries 
17:58:01 <Achille> bparsia: it is not substantially easier with a multiple file solution
17:58:30 <Achille> ianh: I agree with bijan. I remember similar issues raising in the context of DAML/OIL
17:59:01 <bmotik> Achille: I'm on the same page as Bijan.
17:59:27 <Achille> Boris: I have not been able to see the proposal
17:59:41 <Achille> Boris: I would prefer a single file in general
18:00:35 <Achille> alanr: we need bijan and boris to have a close look at the proposal
18:00:55 <Achille> bparsia: you should also contact Deborah 
18:01:05 <alanr> action: bparsia to analyze and comment on Annotation_System_2
18:01:05 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - bparsia
18:01:15 <Achille> bparsia: she was interested in the issue
18:01:24 <alanr> action: bmotik to analyze and comment on Annotation_System_2
18:01:24 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - bmotik
18:01:45 <alanr> action: alanr to ask Deb about nesting level of annotations on annotations.
18:01:45 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - alanr
18:02:30 <Achille> topic: issue 16
18:02:53 <Achille> alanr: we should not discuss this issue since it is subsumed by rich annotation
18:03:12 <Achille> topic: issues of time and date related datatypes
18:03:16 <Rinke> action: alan to ask Deb about nesting level of annotations on annotations
18:03:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-169 - Ask Deb about nesting level of annotations on annotations [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-07-30].
18:03:29 <Rinke> action: bijan to analyze and comment on Annotation_System_2
18:03:29 <trackbot> Created ACTION-170 - Analyze and comment on Annotation_System_2 [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-07-30].
18:03:42 <Rinke> action: boris to analyze and comment on Annotation_System_2
18:03:42 <trackbot> Created ACTION-171 - Analyze and comment on Annotation_System_2 [on Boris Motik - due 2008-07-30].
18:03:58 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
18:03:58 <Zakim> bparsia was not muted, bparsia
18:04:00 <alanr> ack bparsia
18:04:00 <Achille> alanr: most problems have to do with time zone and non-time zone datatypes
18:04:08 <ewallace> calendar elements are the problem mentioned in Boris' email
18:04:17 <Achille> bparsia: they are nonstarters
18:05:01 <Achille> bparsia: there are so many ways to integrate the notion of time in owl. It is not clear that our solution will not be too constraining 
18:05:03 <alanr> q+ to make suggestion
18:05:05 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
18:05:05 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
18:05:53 <Achille> alanr: two levels of supports: 1) actual time point or interval 2) the second level are intervals
18:06:27 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to make suggestion
18:06:27 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
18:06:30 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
18:07:03 <Achille> bparsia: any implementers interested in supporting it?
18:07:24 <Achille> bparsia: it is not clear how to design a solution that fit XML schema
18:08:04 <Achille> alanr: we can do something close to owl real (a departure from XML schema)
18:08:20 <Achille> boris: supporting xsd:dateTime is not trival
18:08:41 <Achille> boris: supporting recurring intervals is even more complex
18:08:52 <bparsia> What about the simpler version: No support
18:09:10 <bparsia> THen the next simplest: treat them as strings (roughly) with colors
18:09:10 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
18:09:18 <Achille> alanr: it will be useful to support some simple manipulation with time instants
18:09:30 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
18:09:30 <Zakim> bparsia was not muted, bparsia
18:09:32 <alanr> ack bparsia
18:09:45 <pfps> pfps has joined #owl
18:09:47 <Achille> bparsia: there are simpler options:
18:09:54 <Achille> bparsia: 1) do nothing
18:10:21 <Achille> bparsia: 2) support them but in a very minimal way
18:10:37 <Achille> bparsia: maybe just treat them as string
18:10:54 <Achille> bparsia: i.e. no commitment to any temporal model
18:11:51 <msmith>
18:12:00 <alanr> q+ to comment on tz
18:12:10 <Achille> boris: for instant, it could be doable . I am not sure xsd:dateTime is the right type (I do not really understand its value space)
18:12:30 <Achille> boris: with a fixed time zone, it could be easy to support
18:12:57 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to comment on tz
18:13:13 <bmotik> Achille: I would like us to keep in sync as much as we can with XML Schema
18:13:26 <bmotik> Achille: There are many existing implementations of XML Schema
18:13:31 <ewallace> TimeLine = Time Axis or Time Scale?
18:13:33 <Achille> boris: I think we would have to go away from XML Schema
18:14:37 <alanr> xml schema: dateTime values are ordered by their ·timeOnTimeline· value.
18:14:53 <Achille> bparsia: number case is a much easy case. I think we are less force in the case of time to depart from XML Schema
18:15:28 <Achille> bparsia: i'm unclear what the constraints are and where we are going
18:15:29 <uli> zakim, unmute me
18:15:30 <Zakim> uli was not muted, uli
18:16:25 <alanr> this is the sense that I intended - very easy way
18:16:30 <Achille> uli: Just remember some discussions we had, there are some simple usecases which can be supported if we had some datetime constants
18:16:44 <uli> zakim, mute me
18:16:44 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
18:16:53 <Rinke> I agree with uli
18:17:04 <Achille> alanr: there are serious questions about date time datatype 
18:17:28 <Achille> alanr: do we think it is worth thinking about this issue further?
18:17:39 <msmith> +1 to think about this further
18:17:44 <Achille> alanr: or just a sentiment poll?
18:17:54 <Rinke> +1 to think further
18:18:07 <sandro> +1 more work for free is great!   :-)
18:18:08 <ewallace> +1 to generation of a proposal for simple time rep
18:18:13 <Zhe> +1 need more time
18:18:16 <Achille> achille: 0
18:18:19 <bmotik> 0
18:18:20 <baojie> 0
18:18:21 <ivan> 0
18:18:23 <alanr> +1
18:18:26 <Elisa> +1 for the simple case
18:18:32 <bparsia> -1 to requesting more work of overloaded people...
18:18:33 <uli> +1 for a bit more thought
18:18:51 <IanH> 0 not *too* much more thought
18:18:58 <Achille> alanr: objection from bijan
18:19:23 <Achille> alanr: I'll leave it to uli and boris about how to proceed further
18:19:53 <Achille> alanr: going back to the datatype issue: how and whether to support the float 
18:21:10 <Achille> ewallace: I'm not prepare to talk about this issue today
18:21:23 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
18:21:23 <Zakim> bparsia was not muted, bparsia
18:21:48 <msmith> q+
18:21:53 <Achille> bparsia: the proposal is just fine
18:22:02 <alanr>$56a68a80$7212a8c0@wolf
18:22:36 <Achille> bparsia: we are supporting the more commun case and the more likely to be effective case
18:22:38 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
18:22:38 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
18:23:05 <alanr> q+ to express uncertainty about whether range constraints are useful
18:23:06 <Achille> msmith: I need a clarification from boris. would float acceptable in datatype restriction?
18:23:37 <Achille> boris: i do not see a problem in using it in description as long as it is not discrete
18:23:57 <Achille> boris: can be supported for a few facets
18:24:15 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to express uncertainty about whether range constraints are useful
18:25:27 <Achille> achille: alanr could you type your previous point. i did not get it
18:25:53 <Achille> achille: thanks!
18:27:23 <alanr> I am uncertain whether it makes sense to have a float datatype which is effectively faceted range on possible reals. Certainly think that lexical support support and checking is useful.
18:26:22 <Achille> alanr: any question about the next f2f?
18:26:33 <Zakim> -uli
18:26:34 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
18:26:34 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
18:26:36 <Zakim> -msmith
18:26:37 <Zakim> -Elisa_Kendall
18:26:39 <Zakim> -bparsia
18:26:40 <uli> uli has left #owl
18:26:41 <Zakim> -alanr.a
18:26:43 <Zakim> -Sandro
18:26:44 <Zakim> -Zhe
18:26:44 <Zakim> -Ivan
18:26:45 <Zakim> -Carsten
18:26:47 <Zakim> -IanH
18:26:55 <Zakim> -Rinke
18:27:19 <Achille> rrsagent, make log public