Chatlog 2008-08-20

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: Achille, Sandro, baojie, Rinke, MarkusK, m_schnei (muted), uli (muted), Zhe (muted), IanH (muted), bmotik (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, alan ruttenberg, Ivan (muted), JeffP, baojie, ivan, ewallace, jar, sandro
00:00:00 <scribenick> REGRETS: Bijan Parsia, JeffP, Carsten Lutz, Elisa Kendall, Evan Wallace
00:00:00 <scribenick> CHAIR: alanr_
16:56:17 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:56:17 <RRSAgent> logging to
16:56:23 <sandro> RRSAgent, make record public
16:58:05 <alanr_> alanr_ has joined #owl
16:58:11 <Zakim> +??P1
16:58:15 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P1 is me
16:58:15 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
16:58:23 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
16:58:23 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
16:58:29 <pfps> pfps has joined #owl
16:58:38 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aaaa
16:59:21 <uli> uli has joined #owl
16:59:45 <Zakim> +??P3
16:59:55 <MarkusK> MarkusK has joined #owl
17:00:00 <m_schnei> m_schnei has joined #owl
17:00:14 <bcuencagrau> bcuencagrau has joined #owl
17:00:19 <Zakim> +??P4
17:00:21 <Zakim> -??P3
17:00:25 <Rinke> zakim, ??P4 is me
17:00:25 <Zakim> +Rinke; got it
17:00:30 <Rinke> zakim, mute me
17:00:30 <Zakim> Rinke should now be muted
17:00:31 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl
17:00:32 <IanH> IanH has joined #owl
17:00:40 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:00:40 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:00:44 <Zakim> +??P3
17:00:56 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:00:57 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
17:01:02 <Zakim> +??P9
17:01:09 <Zakim> +??P7
17:01:09 <m_schnei> zakim, ??P9 is me
17:01:10 <Zakim> +m_schnei; got it
17:01:18 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:01:18 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:01:20 <uli> zakim, ??P7 is me
17:01:20 <Zakim> +uli; got it
17:01:22 <Zakim> -bmotik
17:01:24 <Zakim> + +1.603.897.aabb
17:01:25 <uli> zakim, mute me
17:01:25 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
17:01:30 <Zakim> +Ian_Horrocks
17:01:39 <msmith> msmith has joined #owl
17:01:42 <Zhe> zakim, ++1.603.897.aabb is me
17:01:42 <Zakim> sorry, Zhe, I do not recognize a party named '++1.603.897.aabb'
17:01:44 <IanH> zakim, Ian_Horrocks is IanH
17:01:44 <Zakim> +IanH; got it
17:01:49 <Zakim> +??P1
17:01:52 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P1 is me
17:01:52 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
17:01:55 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:01:56 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:02:01 <Zhe> zakim, +1.603.897.aabb is me
17:02:01 <Zakim> +Zhe; got it
17:02:04 <Zakim> +??P5
17:02:09 <Zhe> zakim, mute me
17:02:09 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted
17:02:23 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, ??P5 is me
17:02:23 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it
17:02:25 <uli> 41 hash on the phone?
17:02:26 <IanH> Anyone know why zakim has started to identify me as "Ian_Horrocks"?
17:02:26 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
17:02:28 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
17:02:28 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:02:38 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:02:38 <Zakim> bmotik was already muted, bmotik
17:02:45 <uli> Ian, because she is polite?
17:02:59 <Zakim> + +1.202.408.aacc
17:03:09 <IanH> Zakim being female would certainly account for a lot
17:03:14 <Zakim> + +1.617.253.aadd
17:03:16 <uli> for example?
17:03:28 <IanH> Pedantry?
17:03:37 <alanr_> zakim, aadd is alanr
17:03:37 <Zakim> +alanr; got it
17:03:42 <uli> naaa, if she was German, perhaps!
17:03:51 <uli> does zakim flirt?
17:03:55 <IanH> Zakim, mute me
17:03:55 <Zakim> IanH should now be muted
17:04:00 <JeffP> JeffP has joined #owl
17:04:25 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:04:26 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
17:04:27 <Zakim> +Ivan
17:04:40 <alanr_> zakim, who is here?
17:04:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, +1.518.276.aaaa, Rinke, MarkusK, m_schnei (muted), uli (muted), Zhe (muted), IanH (muted), bmotik (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider,
17:04:43 <Zakim> ... msmith, alanr, Ivan
17:04:44 <Zakim> On IRC I see JeffP, msmith, IanH, Zhe, bcuencagrau, m_schnei, MarkusK, uli, pfps, alanr_, RRSAgent, Rinke, baojie, Zakim, bmotik, ivan, ewallace, jar, sandro, trackbot
17:04:53 <uli> perhaps there are several versions of zakim, like for satnav voices?
17:04:55 <ivan> zakim, mute me
17:04:55 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
17:04:59 <baojie> Zakim, aaaa is baojie
17:04:59 <Zakim> +baojie; got it
17:05:03 <alanr_> zakim, who is here?
17:05:03 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, baojie, Rinke, MarkusK, m_schnei (muted), uli (muted), Zhe (muted), IanH (muted), bmotik (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith,
17:05:06 <Zakim> ... alanr, Ivan (muted)
17:05:07 <Zakim> On IRC I see JeffP, msmith, IanH, Zhe, bcuencagrau, m_schnei, MarkusK, uli, pfps, alanr_, RRSAgent, Rinke, baojie, Zakim, bmotik, ivan, ewallace, jar, sandro, trackbot
17:05:29 <Rinke> the scribe isn't here
17:05:47 <Rinke> q+ 
17:05:52 <Rinke> ack me
17:05:53 <alanr_> ack Rinke
17:06:21 <Rinke> zakim, mute me
17:06:21 <Zakim> Rinke should now be muted
17:06:23 <sandro> scribe: sandro
17:06:42 <Zakim> + +0122427aaee
17:06:49 <JeffP> zakim, aaee is me
17:06:49 <Zakim> +JeffP; got it
17:06:50 <sandro> Alan: Shall we review POWDER (which uses OWL)?    People, please look at this and see if it merits our attention.
17:06:54 <sandro> topic: Vacations
17:07:13 <bmotik> I'll be away next week.
17:07:23 <sandro> Alan: Perhaps we should cancel a meeting?   If you're going to miss one in the next few weeks, say so here and now.
17:07:23 <Rinke> I will be away the first two weeks of september
17:07:25 <ivan> I will be out for a trip on the 10th of September
17:07:53 <sandro> Topic: Previous Minutes
17:08:01 <sandro>
17:08:07 <pfps> no opinion on the minutes
17:08:11 <sandro> Alan: Any opinions?
17:08:22 <sandro> Alan: no one.   :-(
17:08:26 <Rinke> I think they're fine, but I wrote them
17:08:35 <IanH> I think they are fine too
17:08:38 <sandro> Alan: so, we'll try again next week.
17:08:41 <IanH> And I didn't write them
<sandro> Minutes of 13 August not yet approved
17:08:44 <sandro> Topic: Pending Review Actions
17:08:50 <sandro> SubTopic: ACTION-176
17:08:50 <trackbot> ACTION-176 -- Peter Patel-Schneider to draft a comment on XML Schema Datatypes 1.1 draft -- due 2008-08-22 -- CLOSED
17:08:50 <trackbot>
17:09:25 <sandro> Alan: Peter, have you had a chance to review my comments?
17:09:28 <sandro> Peter: nope.
17:09:30 <IanH> q+
17:09:36 <alanr_> ack Ianh
17:09:57 <uli> omit: we can't hear you!
17:09:58 <alanr_> omit: not hearing you Ian
17:09:58 <IanH> zakim, unmute IanH
17:09:58 <Zakim> IanH should no longer be muted
17:10:41 <Achille> Achille has joined #owl
17:10:50 <sandro> Ian: I thought it was done.     We all seemed to agree it was okay.....        The action was closed.....     I was surprised the response hadn't been sent off.
17:11:09 <sandro> Alan: I had some questions on re-reading it.  I'd appreciate at least look at them before sending it off.
17:11:13 <Zakim> +[IBM]
17:11:22 <Achille> Zakim, IBM is me
17:11:22 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
17:11:48 <sandro> ACTION: Alan to coordinate with Ian about the matter of ACTION-176
17:11:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-196 - Coordinate with Ian about the matter of ACTION-176 [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-08-27].
17:11:58 <IanH> zakim, mute me
17:11:58 <Zakim> IanH should now be muted
17:12:06 <sandro> subtopic: ACTION-177
17:12:10 <sandro> ACTION-177?
17:12:10 <trackbot> ACTION-177 -- Boris Motik to enact the resolution of ISSUE-126 (datatype system) in the spec -- due 2008-08-19 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:12:10 <trackbot>
17:12:11 <pfps> note that the end of LC for the document is 12 September 2008
17:12:39 <sandro> ACTION-193?
17:12:39 <trackbot> ACTION-193 -- Michael Schneider to m_schnei to look into reverse mapping change for issue 136 -- due 2008-08-19 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:12:39 <trackbot>
17:12:42 <sandro> ACTION-195?
17:12:42 <trackbot> ACTION-195 -- Alan Ruttenberg to look in to what happens with OWL-R ruleset applied to annotation properties with subproperty axioms -- due 2008-08-20 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:12:42 <trackbot>
17:13:43 <sandro> Alan: ACTION-193 is later on agenda today; ACTION-195 will be talked about at some point in the future.
17:13:51 <sandro> topic: Due and Overdue Actions
17:14:15 <sandro> Alan: Bijan's not on call, so skip ACTION-170, ACTION-168, ACTION-174
17:14:33 <sandro> Alan: Michael, can you adjust due date on ACTION-152, since you said you'd be late.
17:15:47 <m_schnei> I will adjust to the end of the week
17:15:53 <sandro> Alan: Thanks.
17:15:55 <IanH> zakim, unmute me
17:15:55 <Zakim> IanH was not muted, IanH
17:16:00 <baojie>
17:16:00 <sandro> ACTION-150?
17:16:00 <trackbot> ACTION-150 -- Jie Bao to initiate discussion with RIF WG and try to reach consensus -- due 2008-08-19 -- OPEN
17:16:00 <trackbot>
17:16:03 <Zakim> -m_schnei
17:16:36 <Zakim> +??P9
17:16:46 <m_schnei> zakim, ??P9 is me
17:16:46 <Zakim> +m_schnei; got it
17:16:52 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:16:52 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:17:17 <sandro> baojie: Axel revised the spec.  We agreed to use rdf:text as the name of the thing.   The semantics are almost the same.    Boris is concerned about unicode composition issues.   He proposed to use a new universe, as he did in datatype things.
17:17:27 <ivan> q+
17:17:33 <alanr_> ack ivan
17:17:34 <ivan> zakim, unmute me
17:17:34 <Zakim> Ivan should no longer be muted
17:17:42 <sandro> Alan: So we'll just check in next week.
17:17:57 <bmotik> q+
17:18:02 <alanr_> ack bmotik
17:18:07 <sandro> Ivan: I don't understand this issue of Unicode.    I know there are compound characters, but there are libraries around to handle them.
17:18:14 <baojie> Boris proposed to use Universal Character Set
17:18:58 <sandro> Boris: The problem is that in unicode, there are several ways to represent certain characters, eg accented characters.   That's why they have Normal Forms, etc maximally composed, maximally decomposed, etc.
17:19:35 <sandro> Boris: I looked into how XML Schema handles this.    Instead of Unicode, they use UCS.    I think this is what we want.   My proposal is to do exactly the same as XML Schema.
17:20:24 <sandro> Ivan: Okay.  I'm a little bit uncertain about that.   Maybe we need to check with XML Schema WG and I14N.        I mean, XML uses unicode, right?
17:20:28 <baojie>
17:20:51 <sandro> Alan: Ivan, how about you coordinate in the rdf-text group about this, with Jie.
17:21:05 <sandro> ACTION-194?
17:21:05 <trackbot> ACTION-194 -- Ian Horrocks to come up with a proposal for conformance -- due 2008-08-20 -- OPEN
17:21:05 <trackbot>
17:21:31 <sandro> Ian: it turned out to be more difficult than I expected, and I need a little more time.
17:21:34 <sandro> ACTION-192
17:21:37 <sandro> ACTION-192?
17:21:37 <trackbot> ACTION-192 -- Diego Calvanese to come up with proposal for UNA + function in language by global restriction, with Mike or Evren -- due 2008-08-20 -- OPEN
17:21:37 <trackbot>
17:21:45 <IanH> zakim, mute me
17:21:45 <Zakim> IanH should now be muted
17:21:56 <sandro> Mike: I haven't heard back from Diego yet.
17:22:05 <sandro> Topic: Quick Reference Card
17:22:19 <sandro> Alan: look at the great new Quick Reference Card!
17:22:24 <sandro> Alan: any comments?
17:22:25 <alanr_> q?
17:22:29 <Rinke> q+
17:22:30 <ivan> q+
17:22:36 <Rinke> ack me
17:22:37 <alanr_> ack Rinke
17:23:00 <sandro> Rinke: The first thing I thought was: This is Great!    Then I wondered why it's using the RDF syntax?!
17:23:11 <alanr_> ack ivan
17:23:20 <Rinke> zakim, mute me
17:23:20 <Zakim> Rinke should now be muted
17:23:28 <sandro> Ivan: (1) It would be good to have an HTML version, somehow.
17:23:34 <alanr_> q+ to address html
17:23:45 <sandro> Ivan: (2) To Rinke -- many people will use this stuff in RDF only..
17:23:50 <Rinke> zakim, unmute me
17:23:50 <Zakim> Rinke should no longer be muted
17:23:54 <alanr_> q?
17:24:01 <baojie> q+
17:24:01 <sandro> Ivan: Having both versions would be okay.   I, personally, would just use the RDF version.
17:24:12 <alanr_> ack baojie
17:24:14 <IanH> q+
17:24:16 <pfps> q+
17:24:20 <sandro> Jie: Like Ivan says--- RDF is more close to what an End User wants to say.
17:24:21 <uli> q+
17:24:25 <IanH> zakim, unmute me
17:24:25 <Zakim> IanH was not muted, IanH
17:24:36 <sandro> Alan: re: HTML -- yeah, we suggested they use PDF for now and move back to HTML later.
17:24:44 <alanr_> q?
17:24:45 <ivan> ack alanr_ 
17:24:46 <Zakim> alanr_, you wanted to address html
17:24:48 <Rinke> zakim, mute me
17:24:48 <Zakim> Rinke was already muted, Rinke
17:24:51 <alanr_> ack IanH
17:24:53 <ivan> ack IanH 
17:25:22 <pfps> q- 
17:25:28 <m_schnei> q+
17:25:29 <uli> zakim, ack me
17:25:30 <Zakim> unmuting uli
17:25:30 <Zakim> I see m_schnei on the speaker queue
17:25:33 <ivan> ack uli 
17:25:35 <sandro> Ian: I am shocked, positively shocked to hear "RDF is what the end users want".    If that's where we end up, then we've failed, because we'll have so few users!
17:25:36 <IanH> zakim, mute me
17:25:36 <Zakim> IanH should now be muted
17:25:39 <Rinke> I just tried to respond to Ivan that I think RDF is fine, but indeed having the other syntaxes is even better
17:26:05 <alanr_> q?
17:26:18 <alanr_> ack m_schnei
17:26:19 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
17:26:19 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:26:21 <uli> zakim, mute me
17:26:21 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
17:26:24 <sandro> Uli: I'd like the guide a little more structured.   So classes aren't next to restrictions, etc.   The way it is now, it took me a long time to figure out Where Is What, and Why is something Where?
17:26:40 <sandro> m_schnei: The original OWL 1 guide had ONLY RDF.
17:26:43 <m_schnei>
17:26:47 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:26:47 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:27:13 <sandro> Alan: Regarding "only RDF", Jie, could you bring back to these folks that there was some concern about this, and maybe that there be an alternative versions?
17:27:39 <sandro> ACTION: Jie to explore options for Quick Reference having (also) other OWL syntaxes
17:27:39 <trackbot> Created ACTION-197 - Explore options for Quick Reference having (also) other OWL syntaxes [on Jie Bao - due 2008-08-27].
17:28:08 <sandro> Topic: Proposals To Resolve Issues
17:28:21 <sandro> subtopic: ISSUE-111 -- There's no way to signal the intended semantics of an OWL document
17:28:38 <alanr_>
17:29:02 <alanr_> q?
17:29:31 <sandro> PROPOSED: Resolve issue-111 as described in
17:29:34 <IanH> +1
17:29:39 <alanr_> +1
17:29:40 <Rinke> +1
17:29:40 <msmith> +1
17:29:41 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:29:42 <MarkusK> +1
17:29:44 <uli> +1
17:29:44 <Zhe> +1
17:29:47 <baojie> =1
17:29:54 <Achille> +1
17:29:54 <Achille> +1
17:29:56 <sandro> +1
17:30:01 <ivan> +1
17:30:06 <pfps> +1, although it is rather strange to refer to a message that talks about RPI abstaining
17:30:20 <baojie> +1
17:30:24 <sandro> RESOLVED: Resolve issue-111 as described in
17:30:40 <m_schnei> So this same^3 triple will *not* go into the Full spec
17:30:44 <Rinke> no
17:30:57 <pfps> I'll add something to the primer
17:31:12 <sandro> ACTION: pfps to implement resolution to ISSUE-111 in Primer
17:31:12 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - pfps
17:31:17 <sandro> ACTION: peter to implement resolution to ISSUE-111 in Primer
17:31:18 <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - peter
17:31:18 <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ppatelsc, phaase)
17:31:26 <sandro> ACTION: ppatelsc to implement resolution to ISSUE-111 in Primer
17:31:26 <trackbot> Created ACTION-198 - Implement resolution to ISSUE-111 in Primer [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2008-08-27].
17:31:37 <sandro> subtopic: Issue-16 -- Entity annotations status
17:31:48 <sandro> (Ian temp chairing)
17:32:01 <IanH>
17:32:44 <alanr_> q+
17:32:52 <sandro> PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-16 as per allowing annotations on annotations everywhere
17:33:00 <alanr_> I like this proposal, with the following caveats.
17:33:00 <alanr_> 1) The resolution of the proposal should speak to the serialization of annotations on annotations but not imply a resolution on the semantics or pragmatics of annotation properties. That issue is still under discussion.
17:33:00 <alanr_> 2) The proposal continues a practice of reifying without including the original triple that has not been resolved by the working group. That matter would be resolved separately.
17:33:02 <sandro> Alan: I sent an e-mail responose....
17:33:07 <sandro> alan: now in IRC
17:33:28 <IanH> q?
17:33:36 <IanH> ack alanr_
17:34:10 <IanH> q?
17:34:12 <pfps> q+
17:34:20 <IanH> q?
17:34:21 <ivan> ack pfps 
17:34:24 <IanH> ack pfps
17:35:03 <sandro> pfps: I don't think it precludes any furthur changes.
17:35:15 <sandro> PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-16 as per allowing annotations on annotations everywhere, with caveats as in
17:35:18 <ivan> s/furthur/further/
17:35:34 <bmotik> +1
17:35:34 <alanr_> +1
17:35:34 <pfps> +1 :-)
17:35:34 <Rinke> +1
17:35:35 <uli> +1
17:35:36 <MarkusK> +1
17:35:37 <msmith> +1
17:35:38 <IanH> +1
17:35:40 <JeffP> +1
17:35:44 <Zhe> +1
17:35:44 <Achille> +1
17:35:45 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:35:48 <alanr_> q?
17:36:02 <sandro> RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-16 as per allowing annotations on annotations everywhere, with caveats as in
17:36:29 <pfps> I can make the changes, outside of syntax
17:36:57 <pfps> ok
17:37:16 <sandro> ACTION: ppatelsc to implement resolution to ISSUE-16 (except for syntax diagrams)
17:37:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-199 - Implement resolution to ISSUE-16 (except for syntax diagrams) [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2008-08-27].
17:37:41 <sandro> ACTION: boris to implement syntax diagram changes due to resolution of ISSUE-16
17:37:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-200 - Implement syntax diagram changes due to resolution of ISSUE-16 [on Boris Motik - due 2008-08-27].
17:37:54 <IanH> zakim, mute me
17:37:54 <Zakim> IanH should now be muted
17:37:56 <sandro> subtopic: Issue-136 -- Allow the use of owl:members with owl:AllDifferent
17:38:48 <sandro> PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-136, Allow the use of owl:members with owl:AllDifferent per
17:38:49 <Rinke> Was msmith satisfied with this answer ?
17:38:59 <msmith> rinke, I won't object
17:39:06 <msmith> I'm not convinced this improves anythin
17:39:16 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
17:39:16 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:39:22 <alanr_> q?
17:39:48 <msmith> 0
17:39:54 <IanH> 0
17:39:56 <ivan> +1
17:39:58 <Rinke> 0
17:39:58 <bcuencagrau> 0
17:39:59 <sandro> msmith: I don't think this solves anything, since we're adding something we don't expect people to use, but it's okay.
17:40:02 <sandro> sandro: +0
17:40:03 <baojie> 0
17:40:06 <JeffP> 0
17:40:07 <bmotik> 0
17:40:07 <alanr_> 0
17:40:09 <uli> 0
17:40:11 <pfps> +0
17:40:15 <Zhe> +0
17:40:18 <m_schnei> +1
17:40:19 <MarkusK> 0
17:40:36 <sandro> RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-136, Allow the use of owl:members with owl:AllDifferent per
17:40:51 <sandro> Alan: with the most ambivalent/neutral vote yet.
17:41:17 <sandro> Topic: Issue 131 We should unify OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full profiles
17:41:31 <ivan> q+
17:42:06 <sandro> Alan: I'd like to hear the state of understanding on this.
17:42:07 <alanr_> ack ivan
17:42:10 <Zhe> zakim, unmute me
17:42:10 <Zakim> Zhe should no longer be muted
17:42:22 <Zhe> q+
17:42:27 <sandro> Ivan: I am not sure this is a good time to discuss this.  Ian's action (not yet done) is crucial for this issue.
17:42:50 <IanH> q+
17:42:56 <m_schnei> +1 to Ivan: we have to settle on conformance
17:43:01 <sandro> Ivan: My impression is that all the discussions, at the end, converge on conformance.  Until then, I don't see what we would discuss.
17:43:27 <sandro> Alan: Ivan, if you have thoughts about this, how about helping Ian shape it....?
17:43:31 <pfps> q+
17:43:38 <ivan> ack Zhe 
17:43:51 <sandro> Zhe: I agree with Ivan.   The core problem is "conformance", and I think Ian is clear about my standing on that.
17:44:03 <sandro> Alan: Ian, do you concur?
17:44:31 <pfps> q-
17:44:59 <sandro> Ian: Yes and no.   I wanted conformance proposal done for this, but... it's clear to me that proposal for conformance for unified OWL-RL would be the same as for OWL-R-Full as it's now stated.   How do you see conformance would be different?
17:45:32 <baojie> Alan, Ian: now I'm confused about the poll for ISSUE -111.  "REsolve issue-111 as described in" means that we are agreeing with Jim' objection, or agreeing the Bijan's proposal?
17:45:50 <sandro> Alan: Can Ivan and Zhe offer suggestions on e-mail on this?
17:45:57 <IanH> q+
17:46:02 <sandro> Ivan: we would just be repeating things we've been through already?
17:46:17 <alanr_> ack Ianh
17:46:19 <sandro> Ivan: I think that would be redundant.
17:46:43 <m_schnei> jie, our resolution of issue 111 means that the sameAs triple goes into the Primer and *not* into the Full spec
17:46:47 <ivan> q+
17:46:54 <alanr_> ack ivan
17:46:54 <IanH> q?
17:46:55 <sandro> Ian: Okay, we'll see what text I come up with.
17:47:16 <m_schnei> jie, we agreed on the three points mentioned in this mail
17:47:17 <sandro> Ivan: Yes.  Also, I am curious to see how final profile document will look.
17:47:20 <sandro> q+
17:47:28 <alanr_> ack sandro
17:47:41 <msmith> q+
17:47:54 <alanr_> ack msmith
17:48:01 <ivan> ack msmith 
17:48:10 <pfps> empty :- OWLWG finishesat :_x
17:48:50 <msmith> yes
17:49:06 <baojie> I think I misunderstood the poll (ISSUE-111). Per AC's instruction, RPI should abstain  then. 
17:49:10 <sandro> Sandro: What I'd really like to see is a couple of test cases here, around entailments and non-entailments in the OWL-RL profile on OWL-Full documnets.
17:49:12 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
17:49:12 <Zakim> m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
17:49:26 <sandro> Topic: Issue-116 Should Axiomatic Triples (be) added to OWL-R Full?
17:50:02 <IanH> q+
17:50:05 <sandro> m_schnei: This issue was raised in the split OWL-R situation.  If the languages are unified, then the situation is unclear to me.   It is very questionable whether the triples should go into the language.
17:50:23 <sandro> Ian: Which of the existing languages should the triples go into?
17:50:58 <IanH> q+
17:51:09 <sandro> m_schnei: If there were an OWL-R-Full that were an extension to RDFS, then the triples would belong.   With the unified language, without it being an RDFS extension, then I don't think the triples make sense any more, but it's hard to be sure.
17:51:21 <sandro> Alan: Shall we postpone this as well?
17:51:40 <sandro> Alan: Or will this help clarify the form of the unification/divergence of OWL-R
17:52:07 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
17:52:18 <sandro> Ian: As I keep trying to explain, the unified languages *is* OWL-R-Full, then given Michael's statement above, the triples should be in the unified language.
17:52:20 <JeffP> q+ to ask why the unified language is OWL R Full?
17:52:25 <alanr_> ack IanH
17:52:31 <ivan> ack IanH 
17:52:43 <sandro> Ian: Really, this is an implementation technique, more than a profile.   Do the implementors want to implement axiomatic triples?
17:52:47 <sandro> q?
17:52:52 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:52:52 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:52:53 <IanH> q?
17:53:03 <Zhe> q+
17:53:16 <sandro> Alan: There's an issue where Ian and Michael are not seeing the same thing.......      I'd like us to get on the same page on this.
17:53:18 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
17:53:18 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:53:25 <sandro> Alan: Michael, Ian says it shouldn't matter.
17:54:25 <sandro> m_schnei: OWL-R-Full has always been an extension to RDFS.    Completely specified by rules + RDFS.   A reasoner would be Sound and Complete if it did exactly the rules + RDFS.     This is NOT what we are talking about in the unified OWL-R language.
17:55:35 <IanH> No, No No!!!
17:55:09 <IanH> q+
17:55:17 <ivan> the second and third questions are the same imho
17:55:19 <sandro> Alan: Can we separate these?    
17:55:46 <sandro> m_schnei: I think the question is irrelevant if we unify.     issue-116 is for me dependent on unificiation.
17:56:01 <alanr_> ack JeffP
17:56:01 <Zakim> JeffP, you wanted to ask why the unified language is OWL R Full?
17:56:23 <sandro> JeffP: What does the Unified Language look like?   Does it still have syntactic restrictions?
17:56:28 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:56:28 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:56:29 <alanr_> ack Zhe
17:57:01 <sandro> Zhe: I was under the impression that we decided to add the axiomatic triples at F2F3.
17:57:21 <m_schnei> q+
17:57:47 <sandro> Zhe: If conformance proposal is flexible, then adding rules/triples becomes an implementation issue.
17:57:59 <alanr_> ack IanH
17:58:01 <ivan> ack IanH 
17:58:11 <sandro> ian: It's not much related to conformance.
17:58:25 <sandro> Ian: the question is, are people like Zhe happy to have these extra triples?
17:58:39 <sandro> q+ to mention Jena's approach
17:59:15 <sandro> Ian: In OWL-R-Full there would be some "this was complete" declaration, and in the unified case there would not be that.   So the question is whether implementors want these triples.
17:59:18 <JeffP> can someone answer my question?
17:59:35 <sandro> Alan: This suggests a blog post might go out, to OWL-R implementors, getting feedback.
17:59:36 <m_schnei> q-
17:59:41 <sandro> ack sandro 
17:59:41 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to mention Jena's approach
17:59:44 <IanH> q?
18:00:15 <msmith> there are many owl rule variants in Jena
18:00:21 <uli> Jeff, no
18:00:23 <alanr_> q?
18:00:32 <JeffP> thanks, uli
18:00:49 <sandro> Sandro: I remember Jena having a user-switch about such triples.  So maybe there is no right answer.
18:01:01 <ivan> jeff, you should really read the related email thread, it is one of the longest thread we had in the wg:-)
18:01:02 <alanr_> q?
18:01:05 <sandro> Topic: Issue 138 Name of dateTime datatype
18:01:13 <msmith> f2f strawpoll on this at
18:01:15 <bmotik> q+
18:01:35 <alanr_> ack bmotik
18:02:02 <sandro> bmotik: I think we should use owl:dateTime, since the semantics and value spaces are different.
18:02:05 <ewallace> I would vote differently today than I did on the above strawpoll
18:02:07 <msmith> q+
18:02:15 <alanr_> ack msmith
18:02:29 <sandro> bmotik: "This datatype is inspired by xsd:dateTime, but there are significant differences"
18:02:33 <alanr_> also value space is different
18:02:59 <sandro> bmotik: The syntactic form of literals is very similar, but the semantics are very different.
18:03:10 <sandro> q+ to ask if we've pushed XSD-WG on this
18:03:31 <alanr_> q?
18:03:33 <sandro> bmotik: The identity is significantly different.
18:03:38 <alanr_> ack sandro
18:03:38 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask if we've pushed XSD-WG on this
18:04:14 <JeffP> +1 sandro
18:06:51 <alanr_> q?
18:07:20 <sandro> ACTION: Sandro review Peter's letter to XSD
18:07:21 <trackbot> Created ACTION-201 - Review Peter's letter to XSD [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-08-27].
18:07:46 <sandro> Sandro: we can't just go invent our own thing here. We have an obligation to coordination with XSD working group
18:07:56 <IanH> Not worth discussing now
18:08:09 <sandro> alan: skipping issue-130 for now.
18:08:45 <sandro> topic: Issue 118 Should bNodes in OWL 2 DL have existential or skolem semantics? Boris' email (questions about NegativePropertyAssertion)
18:08:55 <sandro> (Ian chairing this section)
18:08:59 <IanH> q?
18:09:02 <alanr_> q+
18:09:12 <IanH> ack alanr_
18:09:16 <IanH> q?
18:09:32 <sandro> alan: I've been trying to understand the question of of why NPAs are not included.     
18:10:08 <sandro> alan: We can say there's a PA with a bNode in it -- why can't we negate that?    Boris and I disagreed about where the Exists was with respect to the Negation.
18:10:16 <bmotik> q+
18:10:28 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:11:56 <sandro> bmotik: In OWL 1.0, if you had a (implicit) existential, you could always transform your ontology with bNodes to one which didn't have bNodes.     But with Negative assertions, you can't do this any more.    Exists-Not-.....     How could you reason with that?  We don't really know.    If you prohibit bNodes in NPAs you have exactly as in OWL 1.0, which we know how to handle.
18:12:02 <alanr_> q?
18:12:08 <sandro> alan: not-exists is the other case.
18:12:09 <IanH> q?
18:13:07 <sandro> bmotik: not-exists would change the approach.    bnodes are quantified in front of the Entire Graph.       So the negation is inside the existential.      
18:13:22 <sandro> bmotik: not-exists wouldn't allow bnodes to span multiple assertions.
18:14:18 <sandro> alan: It probably doesn't matter for me....
18:14:52 <sandro> STRAWPOLL: All in favor of this solutition to issue-118 ?
18:14:57 <ivan> 0
18:14:59 <bmotik> +1
18:15:00 <baojie> 0
18:15:02 <bcuencagrau> +1
18:15:02 <pfps> +1 
18:15:02 <Achille> 0
18:15:03 <IanH> +1
18:15:06 <Zhe> 0
18:15:07 <msmith> 0 (need to get back to speed on issue)
18:15:09 <uli> +1
18:15:09 <MarkusK> +1
18:15:13 <Rinke> +1
18:15:15 <alanr_> 0
18:15:17 <m_schnei> 0
18:15:20 <sandro> sandro: +1
18:15:24 <JeffP> 0
18:16:03 <sandro> Ian: Perhaps we'll put this on the agenda for next week.
18:16:14 <sandro> Topic: Issue 114 Which combinations of punning should be allowed?
18:16:16 <IanH> q?
18:16:37 <bmotik> +q
18:16:39 <pfps> q+
18:16:47 <ivan> q+
18:16:49 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:17:17 <alanr_> q+
18:17:27 <IanH> ack pfps
18:17:36 <sandro> Boris: In RDF you can pun everything with everything.   We can't provide MORE.  We need to provide a little less -- two-sorted-logic -- so I understood the proposal to be to leave the spec as it is.
18:17:44 <IanH> q?
18:17:55 <sandro> Peter: maybe Alan meant close-issue-with-no-change.
18:17:56 <IanH> ack ivan
18:18:19 <alanr_> will clarify
18:18:19 <IanH> ack alanr_
18:18:24 <sandro> Ivan: I read it differently.   I read it as punning between datatype property and object property would be allowed, but this was disallowed in some F2F.
18:18:38 <ivan> ah
18:18:43 <IanH> q?
18:19:16 <IanH> q?
18:19:32 <pfps> q+
18:19:39 <IanH> ack pfps
18:19:42 <ivan> in rdf you could have punning between an ontology uri and a class
18:19:46 <sandro> Alan: To be clear: I meant that we don't allow any more punning than RDF allows.    The cases I'm wondering about ....       Well, I'm looking for an affirmative change to the spec, to clarify this -- eg punning between ontology URIs and individual URIs.      Punning between categories other than Properties/Classes/Individuals.
18:19:56 <IanH> q?
18:20:00 <alanr_> don't understand what it means to pun dogs and cats
18:20:08 <alanr_> q+
18:20:12 <IanH> q?
18:20:15 <sandro> Peter: You can pun individuals/ontologies/cats/dogs, etc in RDF.   You can pun anything in RDF.      To say we are restricting ourselves to RDF is to say nothing.
18:20:23 <IanH> q?
18:20:26 <sandro> Alan: What does it mean to say you can pun cats and dogs???
18:20:29 <IanH> ack alanr_
18:20:33 <IanH> q?
18:21:03 <IanH> q?
18:21:09 <Rinke> you can do punning between cats and dogs. Simply call your cat a dog, and you're done... right?
18:21:12 <pfps> q+
18:21:21 <IanH> ack pfps
18:21:33 <sandro> Alan: Punning means you have two things with the same name that are not the same thing.     If you have two URIs, one URI for Cats, one for Dogs, .....        ....    In OWL 2 punning ...
18:21:40 <IanH> q?
18:21:48 <alanr_> q?
18:21:56 <sandro> Peter: So in that view, RDF has no punning.   So you're saying there is no punning.
18:22:18 <sandro> Ian: strawpoll about not making changes to spec.
18:22:35 <sandro> Alan: Let's not isolate folks.
18:22:58 <sandro> Ian: Just taking temperature
18:23:21 <sandro> Ian: It doesn't decide anything, and we've done it before.
18:24:27 <alanr_> q+
18:24:33 <IanH> q?
18:24:36 <pfps> disallowed is object/data/annotation property *and* class/datatype punning, right
18:24:36 <sandro> Ian: Only punning disallowed is ObjectProperty/DataProperty right now.  Other punning is allowed.
18:24:41 <Rinke> what would be disallowed beyond this, in alan's proposal?
18:24:50 <pfps> q+
18:24:57 <alanr_> ack alanr
18:24:57 <sandro> Ian: I'd like to know what the other types of punning are and how they are interpeted.
18:24:58 <ivan> ack alanr_ 
18:25:02 <IanH> q?
18:25:31 <sandro> q+
18:25:34 <sandro> ack pfps 
18:25:37 <alanr_> I will send an email, as suggested
18:25:38 <ivan> ack pfps 
18:25:44 <sandro> ack sandro 
18:25:58 <bmotik> A description of what kinds of punning are allowed is here:
18:26:06 <bmotik> We've discussed this to the death already
18:26:43 <sandro> Sandro: Maybe some test cases would clarify it.
18:27:03 <sandro> STRAWPOLL: Should we close issue-114 without any changes to spec?
18:27:09 <pfps> +1
18:27:11 <uli> +1
18:27:12 <bmotik> +100000
18:27:12 <msmith> +1
18:27:13 <alanr_> -1
18:27:13 <MarkusK> +1
18:27:14 <bcuencagrau> +1
18:27:16 <JeffP> -0 (not decided yet)
18:27:24 <Rinke> +0.5 
18:27:25 <sandro> sandro: -0 (not decided yet)
18:27:26 <m_schnei> 0 (not interested in this discussion anymore)
18:27:26 <Zhe> +0.5 (still wants to understand Alan's concerns)
18:27:26 <ivan> 0
18:27:31 <baojie> 0 (not clear about the issue)
18:27:31 <Achille> 0.5
18:27:44 <ewallace> +1 (but want Alan to clarify his concerns on email)
18:28:02 <ivan> q+
18:28:13 <alanr_> q+
18:28:20 <IanH> q?
18:28:25 <sandro> Ian: So, Alan, you have some work do to --- some explanation or test cases of what the concern is.
18:28:52 <IanH> q?
18:28:55 <uli> q+
18:28:57 <IanH> ack ivan
18:28:59 <uli> q-
18:29:01 <sandro> Ivan: The mail that Boris just posted was helpful.   Somewhere in the primer, maybe, there should be a list of punning situations.
18:29:22 <sandro> Ivan: The mail of Boris is just a table, which is technically fine, but as a user it's hard to follow.
18:29:57 <msmith> q+
18:30:01 <msmith> q-
18:30:03 <ivan> ack alanr_ 
18:30:04 <sandro> Alan: I will try to give a use case and try to clarify my previous proposal, and re-read that message and ask quesitons.   I think if we had somthing of this form in the documentation, this would satisfy my concern, which is clarity.
18:30:07 <IanH> q?
18:30:26 <ewallace> sounds like test case(s) is what is needed
18:31:15 <alanr_> action: alan to have another try at proposal in the light of discussion with peter and come up with test cases
18:31:15 <trackbot> Created ACTION-202 - Have another try at proposal in the light of discussion with peter and come up with test cases [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-08-27].
18:30:27 <sandro> Ian: AOB?
18:31:13 <sandro> ADJOURN