This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.

Chatlog 2008-08-06

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 <scribenick> PRESENT: Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau, ratnesh, Ian_Horrocks, MarkusK, msmith, Achille, Rinke, Zhe, baojie, JeffP, m_schnei, Evan_Wallace
00:00:00 <scribenick> REGRETS: Carsten Lutz, Uli Sattler, Elisa Kendall, Evan Wallace
00:00:00 <scribenick> CHAIR: IanH
16:52:21 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:52:21 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/08/06-owl-irc
16:52:42 <IanH> IanH has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.08.06/Agenda
16:52:55 <IanH> Zakim, this will be owlwg
16:52:55 <Zakim> ok, IanH; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
16:53:23 <IanH> RRSAgent, make records public
16:55:18 <bcuencagrau> bcuencagrau has joined #owl
16:56:07 <ratnesh> ratnesh has joined #owl
16:56:26 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
16:56:33 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
16:56:45 <Zakim> +??P13
16:57:11 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, ??P13 is me
16:57:11 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it
16:57:46 <MarkusK> MarkusK has joined #owl
16:58:37 <IanH> ScribeNick: bcuencagrau
16:58:47 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
16:58:47 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
16:59:29 <Zakim> +??P20
16:59:38 <ratnesh> Zakim, ??P20 is me
16:59:46 <Zakim> +ratnesh; got it
16:59:50 <Zakim> +Ian_Horrocks
17:00:13 <Zakim> +??P0
17:01:13 <msmith> msmith has joined #owl
17:01:16 <Achille> Achille has joined #owl
17:01:28 <IanH> I should have said not too many important people here yet ;-)
17:01:44 <Zakim> + +1.202.408.aaaa
17:02:00 <Zakim> +[IBM]
17:02:25 <Achille> Zakim, ibm is Achille
17:02:25 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
17:02:26 <IanH> zakim [IBM] is Achille
17:02:35 <Zakim> +??P4
17:02:39 <Rinke> zakim, +??P4 is me
17:02:39 <Zakim> sorry, Rinke, I do not recognize a party named '+??P4'
17:02:54 <Rinke> Zakim, ??P4 is me
17:02:54 <Zakim> +Rinke; got it
17:02:57 <Rinke> zakim, mute me
17:02:57 <Zakim> Rinke should now be muted
17:03:02 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl
17:03:14 <bcuencagrau> Topic: Admin
17:03:15 <bcuencagrau> Ianh: start with administration issues
17:03:30 <pfps> looks fine to me
17:03:30 <Zakim> + +1.603.897.aabb
17:03:37 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Approval of minutes from last week
17:03:40 <Rinke> look fine to me as well
17:03:42 <Zhe> zakim, +1.603.897.aabb is me
17:03:42 <Zakim> +Zhe; got it
17:03:51 <Zhe> zakim, unmute me
17:03:51 <Zakim> Zhe was not muted, Zhe
17:03:51 <bcuencagrau> RESOLVED: minutes from last week approved
17:03:56 <pfps> look OK
17:03:58 <Rinke> they look ok
17:04:01 <bcuencagrau> IanH: What about F2F minutes?
17:04:04 <Achille> +1 for the f2f
17:04:06 <Zhe> zakim, mute me
17:04:06 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted
17:04:11 <bcuencagrau> RESOLVED: F2F Minutes approved
17:04:20 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aacc
17:04:24 <JeffP> JeffP has joined #owl
17:04:34 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Action items
17:04:46 <bcuencagrau> IanH: First action is due to Boris
17:04:52 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Boris is not here
17:05:08 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Pass over this one
17:05:18 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:05:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), ratnesh, Ian_Horrocks, MarkusK, msmith, Achille, Rinke (muted), Zhe (muted), +1.518.276.aacc
17:05:21 <Zakim> On IRC I see JeffP, Zhe, Achille, msmith, MarkusK, ratnesh, bcuencagrau, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, baojie, pfps, Rinke, sandro, trackbot
17:05:35 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Sandro is on vacation, so we pass over the second issue
17:05:37 <pfps> Sandro did his action
17:05:40 <Zakim> +qreul
17:05:44 <Rinke> Boris says "2008-07-29 15:35:08: This action seems moot to me given the discussion about annotations that we had at the 3F2F. [Boris Motik]" in the notes of Action-171
17:05:48 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Jie completed his action
17:05:49 <JeffP> zakim, qreul is me
17:05:49 <Zakim> +JeffP; got it
17:05:59 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Sandro also did his action
17:06:33 <m_schnei> m_schnei has joined #owl
17:06:33 <bcuencagrau> Subtopic: Comment on XML Schema Datatypes 1.1 draft 
17:06:34 <bcuencagrau> pfps: issues with datatypes 
17:06:43 <msmith> requirement *with* timezone
17:06:57 <bcuencagrau> pfps: in particular how day and time should work
17:07:03 <Zakim> +??P15
17:07:15 <m_schnei> zakim, ??P15 is me
17:07:15 <Zakim> +m_schnei; got it
17:07:20 <bcuencagrau> pfps: XML Schema datatypes have a strange notion of identity
17:07:20 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:07:20 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:07:24 <ewallace> ewallace has joined #owl
17:07:43 <bcuencagrau> IanH: I do not see the problem. We are just saying that we are not considering time without time zones
17:07:51 <bcuencagrau> IanH: applications could still do otherwise
17:08:12 <bcuencagrau> pfps: I guess this would solve the problem
17:08:15 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
17:08:37 <bcuencagrau> IanH: We should still comment that XML Schema allowing for time without time zone is strange
17:09:09 <pfps> the problem is really that a missing timezone is a *value* not something missing
17:09:20 <bcuencagrau> IanH: suggest that peter sends his comments on behalf of the working group
17:09:40 <bcuencagrau> IanH: we should decide that next week
17:09:50 <bcuencagrau> IanH: due and overdue actions
17:09:53 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:09:53 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), ratnesh, Ian_Horrocks, MarkusK, msmith, Achille, Rinke (muted), Zhe (muted), +1.518.276.aacc, JeffP, m_schnei
17:09:56 <Zakim> ... (muted), Evan_Wallace
17:09:57 <IanH> q?
17:09:57 <bcuencagrau> IanH: First one from Diego
17:09:58 <Zakim> On IRC I see ewallace, m_schnei, JeffP, Zhe, Achille, msmith, MarkusK, ratnesh, bcuencagrau, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, baojie, pfps, Rinke, sandro, trackbot
17:10:35 <IanH> zakim, aacc is baojie
17:10:35 <Zakim> +baojie; got it
17:10:50 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Diego is not here
17:10:58 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Jie also had an action
17:11:13 <bcuencagrau> baoJie: this is in progress
17:11:20 <bcuencagrau> baoJie: maybe next week
17:11:43 <bcuencagrau> IanH: let's push it forward two weeks
17:12:02 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Bijan had another issue, but he is not on the call
17:12:17 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Alan's action is done
17:12:28 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Action 168, Bijan is not on the call
17:12:37 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
17:12:37 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:12:55 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Next two ones are also assigned to people who are not in the call
17:13:08 <bcuencagrau> IanH: next is due to michael schneider
17:13:28 <bcuencagrau> IanH: this action will be pushed for a week
17:13:29 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:13:29 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:13:41 <bcuencagrau> IanH: done with admin stuff
17:13:41 <pfps> is alan's action done?  where is the email exchange?
17:14:00 <IanH> q?
17:14:00 <bcuencagrau> IanH: We should summarize the discussions from the F2F
17:14:06 <pfps> yes
17:14:28 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Alan is on holiday, but he did contact Deb and got a response
17:14:29 <pfps> if we haven't seen the exchange, then the action isn't done
17:14:30 <bcuencagrau> Topic: Outcomes of and actions from Boston F2F 
17:15:13 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Summary of the outcomes from the F2F
17:15:48 <bcuencagrau> IanH: First thing. Datatypes
17:16:07 <bcuencagrau> IanH: we agreed on resolving on going with the email that Boris sent
17:16:29 <bcuencagrau> IanH: we decided to have float and double as having discreat points
17:16:42 <bcuencagrau> IanH: It turns out it is not difficult to implement
17:16:56 <bcuencagrau> ianH: We postponed the issue with rationals and n-ary
17:17:13 <bcuencagrau> IanH: we discussed about day and time and agree to align with XML Schema
17:17:20 <IanH> q?
17:17:25 <bcuencagrau> IanH: anyone disagreeing?
17:17:31 <Achille> +1 for ianh summary
17:17:40 <msmith> +1 to summary
17:17:41 <Rinke> +1 happy
17:17:43 <Zhe> +1
17:17:45 <baojie> +1
17:17:52 <bcuencagrau> IanH: people are happy
17:18:15 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Second, structural equivalence of literals based on syntactic form
17:18:41 <bcuencagrau> IanH: We do not consider if they are semantically equivalent
17:18:59 <bcuencagrau> ianH: then, annotations. This is postponed pending on details about rich annotations
17:19:09 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Still a lot to say about that
17:19:36 <bcuencagrau> IanH: profiles. We got the proposal to resolve
17:19:49 <bcuencagrau> ianH: Unification of OWL R flavour
17:19:57 <bcuencagrau> IanH: no unanimous approval
17:20:23 <bcuencagrau> IanH: OWL Full
17:20:55 <bcuencagrau> IanH: we can signal OWL Full sometimes without having an explicit annotation
17:20:59 <IanH> q?
17:21:04 <Rinke> I think it's really hacky
17:21:11 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Example <sameAs sameAs sameAs>
17:21:30 <bcuencagrau> IanH: agreed that it is Hacky but it avoids some problem
17:21:31 <pfps> ... but it's a *neat* hack (at least so far as RDF goes)
17:21:31 <msmith>  owl:intendedProfile
17:21:34 <m_schnei> q+
17:21:38 <Rinke> zakim, unmute me
17:21:38 <Zakim> Rinke should no longer be muted
17:21:41 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
17:21:41 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:21:49 <Rinke> zakim, mute me
17:21:49 <Zakim> Rinke should now be muted
17:21:50 <IanH> q?
17:22:02 <IanH> ack m_schnei
17:22:04 <bcuencagrau> Michael, i cannot hear you
17:22:14 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, unmute me
17:22:14 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should no longer be muted
17:22:47 <ewallace> no better
17:22:54 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
17:22:54 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:23:51 <bcuencagrau> m_schnei: I do not think that the olution has a practical value
17:23:56 <msmith> +1 to m_schnei.  if an ontology is otherwise syntactically DL its difficult to understand why someone would express a full intent
17:24:02 <IanH> q?
17:24:07 <pfps> q+
17:24:08 <bcuencagrau> m_schnei: people writing an OWL Full ontology would never write such a triple
17:24:21 <IanH> q?
17:24:28 <bcuencagrau> IanH: we should put this a s a suggestion, rather than as a requirement
17:24:32 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:24:32 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:24:51 <ewallace> It doesn't hurt to suggest it, if people care.
17:24:51 <bcuencagrau> pfps: people will hardly ever do it
17:25:17 <m_schnei> alternative would be, DL authors write NegativePropertyAssertion(sameAs sameAs sameAs) ;-)
17:25:22 <bcuencagrau> IanH: we can resolve the issue by putting this as a suggestion
17:25:33 <bcuencagrau> IanH: everyone happy?
17:25:34 <ewallace> +1
17:25:35 <pfps> +1
17:25:35 <MarkusK> +1 to Ians suggestions
17:25:37 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:25:47 <ratnesh> +1
17:25:47 <Rinke> +1
17:25:53 <m_schnei> +1 to suggestion
17:25:56 <baojie> 0
17:25:57 <IanH> Subtopic: Strawpoll on resolving issue-111
17:26:14 <IanH> Strawpoll: Resolve issue by suggesting this triple be added by any users who want to *insist* on being an OWL Full ontology
17:26:16 <pfps> +1 to strawpoll 
17:26:19 <m_schnei> (but we could even opt to say nothing about it at all)
17:26:21 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:26:22 <MarkusK> +1
17:26:23 <msmith> +1, noting that this might be used in the test suite as well
17:26:24 <Zhe> +1
17:26:25 <JeffP> +1
17:26:28 <IanH> +
17:26:28 <Achille> +1
17:27:04 <msmith> and NegativePropertyAssertion(sameAs sameAs sameAs) isn't really syntactically DL :)
17:27:11 <bcuencagrau> IanH: now we can respond to Sandro, who raised the issue
17:27:23 <Rinke> +1
17:28:00 <bcuencagrau> IanH: I will come up with a proposal to resolve thi issue
17:28:10 <bcuencagrau> IanH: this is all about profiles
17:28:19 <bcuencagrau> IanH: We also discussed n-ary
17:28:37 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Bijan should provide a more flashed-out specification
17:28:51 <bcuencagrau> ianH: Then, we should decide what part of it should go in the spec
17:29:03 <IanH> q?
17:29:08 <pfps> q-
17:29:26 <Achille> +1 for the summary
17:29:53 <bcuencagrau> IanH: OWL Full. Michael has come up with a draft of the OWL Full semantics
17:30:06 <bcuencagrau> IanH: the doc will be reviewed by the end of August
17:30:14 <IanH> q?
17:30:17 <m_schnei> Full editor's draft (work in progress) <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Full_Semantics>
17:30:43 <bcuencagrau> IanH: There was a MOF metamodel presented at the F2F
17:31:08 <bcuencagrau> IanH: it is basically similar to what we have in the syntax document, but using the formal MOF syntax
17:31:31 <bcuencagrau> IanH: The main advantage is that it is good to have it in MOF syntax and use MOF tools#
17:31:46 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Lots of emails about thia
17:32:08 <bcuencagrau> IanH: some people are confused about the relation between this syntax and other syntaxes
17:32:12 <IanH> q?
17:32:22 <bcuencagrau> IanH: we can probably briefly discuss this
17:32:31 <ewallace> and conrad bock of NIST
17:33:08 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Michael, are you happy about this issue?
17:33:12 <IanH> Michael?
17:33:23 <bcuencagrau> IanH: seems that Michael is gone
17:33:57 <bcuencagrau> Ewallace: i did not work on the metamodel, but I helped raising the issue
17:34:09 <bcuencagrau> ewallace: I thought Conrad would come today
17:34:15 <Zhe1> Zhe1 has joined #owl
17:34:25 <bcuencagrau> IanH: User-faced docs
17:34:41 <bcuencagrau> IanH: not much to say about them because they are at an early stage
17:34:57 <m_schnei> ian, at F2F3 we have settled to say "mike" for msmith, and "michael" for m_schnei :)
17:35:22 <IanH> q?
17:35:29 <bcuencagrau> IanH: They are going to come back with a doc by early september
17:35:40 <bcuencagrau> IanH: the requirements doc is in better shape
17:35:51 <ewallace> Most of the work on the req's doc is to slim it down.
17:36:01 <bcuencagrau> IanH: quite long, the authors are trying to make it  shorter and compact
17:36:12 <bcuencagrau> IanH: anything to add?
17:36:28 <JeffP> :-)
17:36:31 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Test cases
17:36:34 <ewallace> In agreement
17:36:50 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Some progress has benn made
17:36:56 <MarkusK> right, the wiki will be ready soon, W3C says
17:37:04 <bcuencagrau> ianH: in a couple of weeks there should be more test cases into the wiki
17:37:17 <IanH> q?
17:37:18 <msmith> Encourage anyone that wants to create a test case to look at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/GuideToTestTemplate
17:37:22 <bcuencagrau> IanH: we should include tests for the profiles
17:37:28 <bcuencagrau> IanH: any comments?
17:37:46 <bcuencagrau> msmith: people can already create test cases
17:38:20 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Manchester syntax?
17:38:41 <bcuencagrau> ianH: we agreed for it not to be rec. track, but possibly as a note
17:38:52 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Alan raised some concerns
17:38:58 <pfps> the document is at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/ManchesterSyntax
17:39:39 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Last thing: publication schedule
17:39:49 <bcuencagrau> IanH: we are currently behind schedule
17:40:06 <bcuencagrau> IanH: We should really move on and finalize some of the docs
17:40:19 <bcuencagrau> IanH: We should be getting them towards Last Call
17:40:29 <bcuencagrau> IanH: This should happen by the next F2F
17:40:47 <bcuencagrau> IanH: now the documents should be reviewed
17:41:30 <bcuencagrau> IanH: We agreed that the core docs have changed quite a lot
17:41:37 <m_schnei> q+
17:41:42 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
17:41:42 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:41:43 <bcuencagrau> ianH: We could probably publish them again by September
17:41:45 <IanH> q?
17:41:47 <pfps> I thought that we had agreed to publish the whole core.
17:41:51 <IanH> ack m_schnei
17:42:04 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, unmute me
17:42:04 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should no longer be muted
17:42:04 <pfps> ... precisely because of Michael's argument.
17:42:16 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
17:42:16 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:42:51 <bcuencagrau> m_schnei: there was an argument to publish them all together because they depend on each other
17:42:59 <IanH> q?
17:43:06 <bcuencagrau> m_schnei: they should be ready simultaneously
17:43:15 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:43:15 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:43:44 <msmith> q+
17:43:49 <bcuencagrau> IanH: So, we decided to publish the new versions of the Working Drafts in September
17:44:00 <bcuencagrau> ianH: We are now looking for reviewers
17:44:05 <IanH> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Reviewing
17:44:19 <m_schnei> m_schnei: the documents should be published simultanuously, since they are dependent on each other.
17:44:59 <m_schnei> m_schnei: if you change e.g. the functional syntax, then the RDF mapping, the DL semantics, the XML syntax, and perhaps the primer has to be changed too
17:45:03 <bcuencagrau> IanH: The RDF-based semantics is the only doc. for which we have 3 reviewers
17:45:14 <Rinke> I guess I could review the XML Serialization
17:45:16 <bcuencagrau> IanH: the other docs need reviewing
17:45:27 <Rinke> yup
17:45:31 <JeffP> I could review the profile doc
17:45:31 <MarkusK> I will have a look at the Semantics
17:45:44 <Achille> Profile and serialization
17:45:54 <MarkusK> yes, model theoretic
17:46:09 <Achille> XML serialization
17:46:19 <bcuencagrau> Achille: I will review XML Serialization
17:46:33 <bcuencagrau> IanH: We need someone else to review the Syntax
17:46:53 <Rinke> It's a big document
17:47:09 <bcuencagrau> IanH: We could split the doc
17:47:18 <bcuencagrau> IanH: I will send another email around
17:47:42 <bcuencagrau> IanH; This is all about F2F
17:47:43 <bcuencagrau> Topic: Issues
17:47:46 <bcuencagrau> IanH: now, the issues
17:47:54 <IanH> q?
17:47:55 <bcuencagrau> Subtopic: Issue 108
17:48:02 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Issue 108, we have a proposal to resolve
17:48:35 <bcuencagrau> msmith: We would like to get the profiles doc published but there are some issues to address
17:48:47 <bcuencagrau> msmith: one of them being the unification of OWL R
17:49:32 <msmith> ok.  then I agree
17:49:36 <bcuencagrau> IanH: I have pointed out the ideal situation
17:49:57 <bcuencagrau> IanH: We should resolve the critical issues in the following couple of weeks
17:50:08 <bcuencagrau> IanH: one of them is the issue of profiles names
17:50:43 <JeffP> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profile_Names
17:50:45 <bcuencagrau> IanH: It seems that the least controversial way is to use a simple two letter naming scheme
17:50:53 <Rinke> And Ian's email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0453.html
17:51:45 <bcuencagrau> The proposal is on the table, second row
17:51:57 <JeffP> Why not OWL 2 FL?
17:52:32 <m_schnei> q+
17:52:35 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Jim Hendler complained about changing the name of OWL Full
17:52:35 <msmith> 1-
17:52:37 <msmith> q-
17:52:38 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
17:52:38 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:52:41 <IanH> q?
17:52:55 <IanH> ack m_schnei
17:53:05 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:53:05 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:53:05 <bcuencagrau> m_schnei: this means that we only need to name the profiles
17:53:05 <bcuencagrau> m_schnei: this means that we only need to name the profiles
17:53:25 <bcuencagrau> IanH: We should just use the three middle columns
17:53:48 <m_schnei> m_schnei: we don't have to talk about OWL Full, since the issue is only about names for the *profiles*
17:54:43 <IanH> PROPOSAL: Resolve Issue-108 by using profile names from row 3 or table at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profile_Names; OWL DL and OWL Full are unchanged.
17:54:53 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:54:54 <Rinke> +1
17:54:54 <IanH> +1
17:54:54 <MarkusK> +1
17:54:55 <ewallace> +1
17:54:56 <JeffP> +1
17:54:56 <Zhe1> +1
17:54:58 <Achille> +1
17:54:59 <pfps> +1 to finally resolve this xxxxxx issue as EL/QL/RL
17:55:07 <msmith> +1 (notes revision of wiki page is  2008-07-29T20:17:27)
17:55:37 <MarkusK> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profile_Names
17:55:49 <baojie> +1
17:55:50 <MarkusK>  sorry: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Profile_Names&oldid=10193
17:56:08 <IanH> RESOLVED: Resolve Issue-108 by using profile names from row 3 or table at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profile_Names (to wit, OWL EL, OWL QL, OWL RL); OWL DL and OWL Full are unchanged.
17:56:16 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:56:19 <MarkusK> +1
17:56:34 <bcuencagrau> IanH: issue resolved
17:56:49 <msmith> q+
17:56:52 <bcuencagrau> IanH: I skip over 133. Diego is not here
17:56:54 <IanH> q?
17:57:14 <bcuencagrau> msmith: We may keep on postponing this issue
17:57:28 <Rinke> +1 to msmith
17:57:32 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Next week we will resolve it with or without Diego
17:57:45 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Italians do not work in August
17:57:58 <pfps> one is better than two
17:57:59 <m_schnei> q+
17:58:03 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
17:58:03 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:58:12 <msmith> q-
17:58:14 <IanH> ack m_schnei
17:58:18 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:58:18 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:58:36 <pfps> q+
17:58:42 <IanH> q?
17:58:42 <bcuencagrau> IanH: The next issue has Ivan as a protagonist and he is not here
17:58:46 <IanH> ack pfps
17:59:13 <bcuencagrau> pfps: This issue should be resolved ASAP
17:59:29 <m_schnei> is anything else depending on this name?
17:59:32 <bcuencagrau> IanH: This issue is mostly a matter of taste
17:59:33 <bcuencagrau> Subtopic: Issue 130
17:59:45 <bcuencagrau> Issue 130: new one
17:59:53 <m_schnei> except, probably, the GRDDL issue
18:00:16 <bcuencagrau> IanH: what and where are we going to say about conformance warnings?
18:00:23 <pfps> pointer?
18:00:52 <msmith> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#conformance
18:00:59 <IanH> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#conformance
18:01:07 <IanH> q?
18:01:33 <pfps> q+
18:01:35 <JeffP> I need more time to think
18:01:46 <IanH> q?
18:02:13 <bcuencagrau> pfps: I think what we did in OWL 1 is reasonable
18:02:17 <bcuencagrau> IanH: I agree
18:02:40 <msmith> q+
18:02:40 <bcuencagrau> IanH: We take as a starting point the OWL 1 doc
18:02:43 <pfps> +1 to using the OWL 1 wording as the model for the OWL 2 stuff
18:03:06 <bcuencagrau> pfps: What about the Quick |Reference Doc?
18:03:11 <IanH> q?
18:03:15 <IanH> ack pfps
18:03:19 <IanH> ack msmith
18:03:41 <bcuencagrau> msmith: the doc only talks about syntax checkers and consistency checkers
18:04:11 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Thi is true. Some of the profiles are more targeted towards query answering
18:04:28 <bcuencagrau> IanH: But we could take this text as a starting point
18:04:38 <ewallace> Not really
18:04:54 <IanH> q?
18:05:05 <bcuencagrau> +q
18:05:14 <msmith> Could we spread it out?  syntax conformance in syntax.  semantic conformance in semantics, etc.
18:05:22 <bcuencagrau> IanH: nobody really noticed this
18:05:23 <IanH> q?
18:05:26 <Rinke> that sounds good actually
18:05:32 <msmith> q+
18:05:41 <Rinke> referring to msmith's suggestion
18:05:44 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, unmute me
18:05:44 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should no longer be muted
18:05:51 <Rinke> msmith: "Could we spread it out?  syntax conformance in syntax.  semantic conformance in semantics, etc."
18:06:07 <bcuencagrau> bcuencagrau: what about the profiles doc?
18:06:10 <bcuencagrau> IanH: maybe
18:06:24 <JeffP> +1 profile
18:06:25 <IanH> q?
18:06:30 <bcuencagrau> -q
18:06:38 <IanH> ack bcuencagrau
18:06:40 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
18:06:40 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
18:06:41 <IanH> q?
18:06:46 <IanH> ack msmith
18:06:49 <bcuencagrau> msmith: we could split it
18:07:00 <ewallace> +1 to MSmith suggestion
18:07:09 <bcuencagrau> msmith: sntactic conformance in the syntax doc, etc
18:07:20 <IanH> q?
18:07:32 <Rinke> +1 to split
18:07:36 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Seems reasonable to split it up into docs
18:07:37 <bcuencagrau> Subtopic: Issue 104
18:07:48 <bcuencagrau> IanH: We could move on to 104
18:08:12 <m_schnei> q+
18:08:16 <bcuencagrau> IanH: this has been here for a while
18:08:24 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
18:08:24 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:08:28 <IanH> q?
18:08:30 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
18:08:35 <IanH> q?
18:08:41 <IanH> ack m_schnei
18:09:04 <bcuencagrau> m_schnei: in the OWL 1 spec there was a list of URIs which was disallowed
18:09:38 <IanH> q?
18:09:57 <bcuencagrau> mschnei: For example, should we allowed for rdf:List?
18:09:59 <IanH> q?
18:10:38 <bcuencagrau> m_schnei: The other issue is the use of reification vocabulary
18:10:56 <IanH> q?
18:11:08 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
18:11:08 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
18:11:32 <IanH> q?
18:11:35 <bcuencagrau> IanH: I do not see the point for using the reification vocabulary. There could be an argument for the List vocabulary
18:11:37 <m_schnei> this is simply a (slight?) backwards compatibility issue
18:12:05 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
18:12:05 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:12:15 <bcuencagrau> IanH: It seems that we may be ready to resolve the issue
18:12:40 <pfps> +1 to break this compatability
18:12:48 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
18:12:48 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
18:13:19 <bcuencagrau> IanH: We propose to close this issue but acknowledging that there is a backwards compatibility issue
18:13:56 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
18:13:56 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:15:00 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
18:15:00 <Zakim> m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
18:15:10 <bcuencagrau> IanH: possibly resolve by taking no action
18:15:17 <IanH> Subsubtopic: Strawpoll on resolving issue-104
18:15:18 <IanH> STRAWPOLL: Resolve ISSUE-104 by taking no action
18:15:23 <pfps> +1 to no action and thus break compatability
18:15:28 <bcuencagrau> +1
18:15:29 <m_schnei> actually, there *is* disallowed vocabulary in the Functional Spec by listing different namespaces
18:15:30 <Rinke> +!
18:15:32 <msmith> +1
18:15:34 <MarkusK> +1
18:15:35 <m_schnei> +1
18:15:37 <Rinke> +1
18:15:37 <baojie> +1
18:15:44 <IanH> +1
18:15:45 <Achille> +1
18:15:46 <JeffP> +1
18:16:38 <bcuencagrau> IanH: We should skip 118
18:16:49 <Zhe1> +1
18:16:50 <bcuencagrau> Subtopic: Issue 129
18:17:07 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Issue 129 is related to the previous one
18:17:33 <IanH> q?
18:17:35 <pfps> no change means disallow list vocabulary
18:17:44 <bcuencagrau> IanH: if we used List vocabulary in OWL 2 DL, this would be in conflict with our proposal
18:17:55 <bcuencagrau> IanH: in issue 104
18:17:58 <m_schnei> m_schnei: disallowing xsd: as a whole is not different from disallowing rdfs: because the Functional spec explicitly allows the annotation properties from RDFS (kind of overwriting disallowing the whole namespace)
18:18:10 <IanH> q?
18:18:15 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Therefore our proposal for resolving 129 implies a proposal to resolve 104
18:18:17 <m_schnei> q+
18:18:23 <IanH> q?
18:18:24 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
18:18:25 <Zakim> m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
18:18:25 <pfps> out damned list :-)
18:18:50 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
18:18:50 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
18:19:06 <bcuencagrau> IanH: it is not a very active issue
18:19:08 <msmith> I believe this issue lost some steam when object/data property punning left
18:19:21 <MarkusK> yes, msmith is right
18:19:23 <bcuencagrau> IanH: Strawpoll on this one
18:19:28 <Rinke> there's a thread starting at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008May/0164.html
18:19:31 <IanH> Subsubtopic: Strawpoll on resolving issue-129
18:19:30 <IanH> STRAWPOLL: Resolve ISSUE-129 by taking no action
18:19:59 <m_schnei> +1
18:20:06 <bcuencagrau> +1
18:20:09 <Achille> +1
18:20:13 <IanH> +1
18:20:13 <JeffP> +1
18:20:14 <Rinke> +1 
18:20:20 <pfps> +1 to letting lists dangle
18:20:20 <Zhe1> +1
18:20:23 <ratnesh> +1
18:20:29 <baojie> 0 not 100% clear
18:20:31 <Rinke> (rdf lists don't add much)
18:20:34 <MarkusK> +1
18:21:27 <m_schnei> q+ 
18:21:32 <baojie> +1
18:21:40 <m_schnei> q-
18:21:46 <IanH> q?
18:22:07 <bcuencagrau> IanH: We are done!!
18:22:16 <bcuencagrau> IanH: additional business?
18:22:20 <IanH> q?
18:22:23 <m_schnei> jie, use of the rdf:List vocabulary was already disallowed in OWL 1 DL, so nothing changes here
18:22:32 <pfps> we *could* knock of rich annotations :-)
18:22:36 <bcuencagrau> IanH: no additional business
18:22:47 <JeffP> bye
18:22:47 <Zhe1> thanks.
18:22:48 <Rinke> thanks, bye!
18:22:49 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, unmute me
18:22:49 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should no longer be muted
18:22:51 <Zakim> -msmith
18:22:52 <Zakim> -Achille
18:22:52 <Zakim> -Zhe
18:22:52 <ratnesh> bye
18:22:53 <Zakim> -ratnesh
18:22:53 <Zakim> -JeffP
18:22:54 <m_schnei> bye
18:22:54 <Zakim> -baojie
18:22:54 <Zakim> -MarkusK
18:22:55 <msmith> msmith has left #owl
18:22:59 <Zakim> -Rinke
18:23:07 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
18:23:12 <Zakim> -m_schnei
18:23:20 <Zakim> -Ian_Horrocks
18:23:25 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
18:23:26 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended