Chatlog 2008-09-03

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, msmith, MartinD (muted), uli (muted), IanH, Sandro, bcuencagrau, JeffP, bmotik (muted), ivan, ewallace, baojie, Zhe, m_schnei, bparsia
00:00:00 <scribenick> REGRETS:     Markus Krötzsch,  Elisa Kendall, Achille Fokoue, Evan Wallace 
00:00:00 <scribenick> CHAIR: IanH
16:45:50 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:45:50 <RRSAgent> logging to
16:46:26 <IanH> IanH has changed the topic to:
16:46:50 <IanH> Zakim, this will be owlwg
16:46:50 <Zakim> ok, IanH; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 14 minutes
16:47:03 <IanH> RRSAgent, make records public
16:55:24 <uli> uli has joined #owl
16:56:15 <msmith> msmith has joined #owl
16:58:07 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
16:58:12 <Zakim> +msmith
16:58:15 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
16:58:39 <pfps> pfps has joined #owl
16:59:24 <Zakim> + +0190827aaaa
16:59:28 <MartinD> zakim, aaaa is me
16:59:28 <Zakim> +MartinD; got it
16:59:32 <Zakim> +??P4
16:59:35 <MartinD> zakim, mute me
16:59:35 <Zakim> MartinD should now be muted
16:59:40 <uli> zakim, ??P4 is me
16:59:40 <Zakim> +uli; got it
16:59:44 <uli> zakim, mute me
16:59:44 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
16:59:55 <uli> scribenick uli
16:59:56 <sandro> sandro has joined #owl
17:00:04 <bcuencagrau> bcuencagrau has joined #owl
17:00:36 <JeffP> JeffP has joined #owl
17:00:39 <uli> scribenick: uli
17:00:44 <Zakim> +IanH
17:00:57 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:00:57 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, MartinD (muted), uli (muted), IanH
17:01:00 <Zakim> On IRC I see JeffP, bcuencagrau, sandro, pfps, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, bmotik, MartinD, ewallace, trackbot
17:01:06 <Zakim> +Sandro
17:01:10 <uli> ScribeNick: uli
17:01:15 <ivan> ivan has joined #owl
17:01:40 <Zakim> +??P13
17:01:44 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, ??P13 is me
17:01:44 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it
17:02:01 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:02:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, MartinD (muted), uli (muted), IanH, Sandro, bcuencagrau
17:02:03 <Zakim> On IRC I see ivan, JeffP, bcuencagrau, sandro, pfps, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, bmotik, MartinD, ewallace, trackbot
17:02:05 <Zakim> +StuartTaylor
17:02:16 <Zakim> +??P15
17:02:16 <JeffP> zakim, StuartTaylor is me
17:02:17 <Zakim> +JeffP; got it
17:02:22 <bmotik> Zakim. ??P15 is me
17:02:32 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:02:32 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:02:34 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:02:34 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, MartinD (muted), uli (muted), IanH, Sandro, bcuencagrau, JeffP, bmotik (muted)
17:02:36 <Zakim> On IRC I see ivan, JeffP, bcuencagrau, sandro, pfps, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, bmotik, MartinD, ewallace, trackbot
17:02:59 <ivan> zakim, code?
17:02:59 <Zakim> the conference code is 69594 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), ivan
17:02:59 <uli> sure
17:03:04 <baojie> baojie has joined #owl
17:03:07 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl
17:03:29 <uli> Topic: Admin
17:03:29 <uli> subtopic: Agenda Amendments
17:03:34 <uli> none
17:03:44 <Zakim> +Danny
17:03:48 <uli> subtopic: Previous minutes
17:03:50 <ivan> zakim, Danny is ivan
17:03:50 <Zakim> +ivan; got it
17:03:51 <Zakim> +baojie
17:03:54 <pfps> minutes look fine to me
17:04:18 <uli> IanH: minutes accepted
17:04:22 <Zakim> +Zhe
17:04:27 <Zhe> zakim, mute me
17:04:27 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted
17:04:33 <uli> subtopic: Pending actions
17:04:43 <pfps> q+
17:04:55 <IanH> q?
17:04:59 <IanH> ack pfps
17:05:35 <uli> pfps: action 182 and 183 have empty bodies
17:05:41 <IanH> q?
17:05:58 <uli> IanH: something should be done
17:05:59 <baojie> +q
17:06:11 <uli> pfps: or we say now that they are done
17:06:37 <uli> IanH: we agree that action 182 and 183 are done, even though their bodies are empty
17:06:48 <IanH> q?
17:06:58 <IanH> ack baojie
17:07:09 <uli> baojie: there is an incomplete version on the wiki
17:07:35 <uli> IanH: asks for a pointer to this version
17:07:42 <IanH> q?
17:07:42 <pfps> q+
17:08:03 <uli> I will run down the corridor and remind bijan
17:08:32 <baojie> An incomplete pdf of Quick Reference Guide:
17:08:47 <uli> back!
17:08:57 <uli> i think so
17:09:13 <uli> IanH: action 150
17:09:22 <IanH> q?
17:09:28 <pfps> q-
17:09:34 <uli> baojie: we have come to a conclusion regarding owl:internationalizedString / rif:text, so it should be done - we  changed the specification, I post a link: 
17:09:52 <baojie>
17:10:42 <uli> IanH: can you come forward with a proposal re. internationalized string?
17:10:44 <bmotik> q+
17:10:50 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:10:50 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
17:10:58 <IanH> q?
17:11:07 <IanH> ack bmotik
17:11:18 <uli> bmotik: I think there is a draft with the basics
17:11:24 <baojie> preliminary spec:
17:11:45 <m_schnei> m_schnei has joined #owl
17:11:56 <pfps> what is the status of the wiki page, and what should happen to it?
17:12:01 <uli> IanH: who take care of looking at this spec and see how we modify ours? 
17:12:06 <IanH> q?
17:12:15 <bmotik> q+
17:12:17 <uli> ACTION: bmotik to modify OWL spec accordingly
17:12:17 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - bmotik
17:12:25 <Zakim> +??P21
17:12:28 <bmotik> ACTION: bmotik2 to modify OWL spec accordingly
17:12:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-206 - Modify OWL spec accordingly [on Boris Motik - due 2008-09-10].
17:12:36 <m_schnei> zakim, ??P21 is me
17:12:36 <Zakim> +m_schnei; got it
17:12:40 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:12:40 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:12:41 <bmotik> q+
17:12:43 <IanH> q?
17:12:45 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
17:12:45 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:12:53 <uli> pfps: it would be odd if, in our spec, we would point to a wiki page
17:13:16 <uli> sandro: we could publsih the (content of) wiki as a working draft
17:13:32 <uli> IanH: as a RIF or as an OWL publication?
17:13:34 <ivan> can be a joined
17:13:35 <IanH> q?
17:13:41 <sandro> sandro: I think it's OKAY as long we're only making the reference from a WD (pre-LC).   Maybe we should make it a WD?
17:13:42 <IanH> ack bmotik
17:13:43 <ivan> q+
17:14:17 <IanH> q?
17:14:19 <IanH> ack ivan
17:14:28 <uli> bmotik: we make the draft a WD and then reference it
17:14:54 <IanH> q?
17:15:04 <uli> ivan: I had a look at this and it looks as if its publication shouldn't cause any problems.
17:15:18 <uli> ivan: we can even have a joint RIF/OWL publication
17:15:44 <bparsia> bparsia has joined #owl
17:16:04 <uli> ACTION: sandro to take this publication plan forward  
17:16:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-207 - Take this publication plan forward   [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-09-10].
17:16:21 <uli> (I chose sandro already - he said 'yes' first)
17:16:26 <uli> wellcome, ivan
17:16:35 <Zakim> +??P22
17:16:46 <bparsia> zakim, ??p22 is me
17:16:46 <Zakim> +bparsia; got it
17:16:50 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
17:16:50 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
17:16:57 <msmith> q+
17:17:02 <IanH> q?
17:17:03 <uli> IanH: action 192 re. UNA and OWL QL has been done as seen in an email
17:17:07 <IanH> ack msmith
17:17:14 <uli> msmith: yes, we can close that one
17:17:29 <pfps> The consensus should result in a discussion / resolution agenda item for next week.
17:17:44 <IanH> q?
17:17:54 <uli> IanH: action 202 must wait for next week, as must 172
17:18:09 <uli> IanH: I will chase Achille re. 172
17:18:13 <bparsia> I've had no action joy this week
17:18:32 <uli> IanH: action 168 has been on for some time
17:18:37 <IanH> q?
17:18:41 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
17:18:41 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
17:18:59 <uli> q+
17:19:05 <IanH> q?
17:19:20 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
17:19:20 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
17:19:24 <IanH> q?
17:19:25 <uli> zakim, unmute me
17:19:25 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted
17:19:29 <IanH> ack uli
17:20:07 <bparsia> works for me!
17:20:23 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
17:20:23 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
17:20:27 <IanH> q?
17:20:38 <uli> bparsia: have done some testing, am waiting for Robert
17:21:01 <uli> uli: perhaps we should see whether there is some w3c official route and not bother Robert
17:21:23 <uli> bparsia: there are some easy problems, e.g., diagrams not alt-ed correctly
17:21:33 <IanH> q?
17:21:49 <uli> sandro: doesn't know of official w3c 'route'
17:22:15 <uli> bparsia: we could do a proper accessibility audit
17:22:32 <uli> IanH: so action 168 remains on you?
17:22:46 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
17:22:46 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
17:22:52 <uli> bparsia: couldn't we move it to a general "to-do" list?
17:22:56 <uli> IanH: ok, will do 
17:22:58 <bparsia> agreed
17:23:01 <IanH> q?
17:23:14 <bparsia> works for me
17:23:15 <uli> IanH: action 170 is mooted by events
17:23:33 <IanH> q?
17:23:34 <uli> IanH: action 174? 
17:23:37 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
17:23:37 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
17:23:52 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
17:23:52 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
17:23:53 <uli> bparsia: actually yes, bit also might be mooted shortly
17:23:58 <bparsia> yep
17:24:08 <uli> IanH: ok, so we move it by 1 week
17:24:17 <uli> subtopic: Reviewing
17:24:26 <uli> IanH: I saw already some reviews
17:24:32 <m_schnei> yes, thanks for the reviews so far!
17:24:37 <uli> IanH: anybody else?
17:24:40 <pfps> perhaps the review page could be updated as reviews come in?
17:24:47 <uli> IanH: reviews are due on september 8, in 5 days
17:24:52 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:24:52 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:24:57 <IanH> q?
17:25:00 <bmotik> I just muted me
17:25:04 <uli> zakim, mute me
17:25:04 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
17:25:08 <bmotik> myself
17:25:45 <uli> IanH: a slight problem with the profiles document, other docs should be able to be reviewed by september 8
17:25:58 <pfps> q+
17:26:11 <IanH> q?
17:26:16 <uli> IanH: the SKOS people have their SKOS reference out for last call 
17:26:34 <uli> pfps: I have already produced a review for the SKOS semantics document
17:26:48 <uli> IanH: and this is different from the reference?
17:26:49 <m_schnei> only the SKOS ref is in LC
17:26:58 <ivan>
17:27:02 <ivan> SKOS Reference
17:27:14 <IanH> q?
17:27:15 <uli> pfps: forget - I meant powder!
17:27:19 <IanH> ack pfps
17:27:38 <m_schnei> q+
17:27:42 <uli> IanH: so, volunteers to review LC draft for SKOS reference?
17:27:42 <pfps> -1
17:27:43 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
17:27:43 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:28:15 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:28:15 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:28:18 <uli> m_schnei: I started to do a personal look-through, but only with OWL full glasses on, and would prefer to keep it that way
17:28:23 <JeffP> I could try
17:28:23 <ivan> +q
17:28:25 <ivan> q+
17:28:26 <uli> IanH: anybody else?
17:28:40 <IanH> ack m_schnei
17:28:43 <m_schnei> q-
17:28:51 <IanH> ack ivan
17:28:56 <uli> ivan: the major issue is related to the annotation discussion -- where are we with ours?
17:29:08 <IanH> q?
17:29:14 <m_schnei> but does skos refer to owl 2 at all?
17:29:43 <uli> Ivan: all the rest isn't really complicated, but we should check on issues around annotations 
17:30:07 <uli> IanH: ok, I will send emails around to likely suspects
17:30:15 <uli> IanH: F2F4
17:30:18 <m_schnei> true, skos:related and skos:broaderTransitive are intended to be disjoint properties
17:30:30 <uli> subtopic: F2F4
17:30:49 <uli> IanH: you need to book early if you want to profit from special rate
17:31:17 <m_schnei> i found a hotel for about 70EUR in the neighbourhood :)
17:31:29 <uli> sandro: 'special rate' is insane, I suggest to look around in the neighbourhood
17:31:47 <uli> IanH: or you can look around on the internet?
17:32:11 <uli> sandro: but then you don't contribute to the meeting room rates 
17:32:38 <IanH>
17:32:40 <uli> IanH: and don't forget to register to TPAC
17:32:49 <sandro> s/insane/shockling high, esp in US$/
17:33:06 <uli> sandro, we can remove all the above
17:33:32 <uli>
17:33:33 <bparsia> Perhaps a link to tpac from the f2f4 page?
17:33:35 <sandro> REGISTER HERE:
17:33:39 <ivan> there is a link on the wiki page, too
17:34:07 <uli> topic: Issues
17:34:07 <uli> subtopic: Issues 131 and 116
17:34:54 <uli> IanH: Issue 131, 141 and 130 seem to be related, a bit more to discuss on 130. 
17:34:56 <IanH> q?
17:35:10 <m_schnei> q+
17:35:14 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
17:35:14 <Zakim> m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
17:35:16 <uli> IanH: but with the drafts we have in the wiki, perhaps we can resolve 131 and 141
17:35:54 <uli> m_schnei: I am perfectly happy with proposal for 116
17:36:11 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:36:11 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:36:24 <uli> IanH: any other opinions?
17:36:38 <Zhe> q+
17:36:42 <IanH> q?
17:36:44 <m_schnei> q-
17:36:45 <Zhe> zakim, unmute me
17:36:45 <Zakim> Zhe should no longer be muted
17:36:52 <uli> IanH: I have discussed this earlier with Alan, and he seems ok
17:37:02 <uli> i can't hear you, Zhe
17:37:29 <IanH> q?
17:37:36 <IanH> ack zhe
17:37:37 <Zhe> I thought we are waiting for RPI's response on unification idea
17:37:48 <uli> baojie: I didn't follow this discussion closely
17:38:37 <bparsia> +1 to move forward and let people react
17:38:38 <uli> IanH: I have discussed these with Jim, and seems to be fine and he will review the document anyway.
17:38:39 <JeffP> reasonable
17:38:53 <uli> sorry, Zhe, baojie, I couldn't tell who was talking
17:39:04 <Zhe> np
17:39:59 <sandro> from my notes "Alan: Close issue-131 by saying we're happy with the current structure of Profiles.   There's one semantics for OWL RL, which the OWL Full semantics...."
17:40:22 <uli> PROPOSED: resolve issue 131 and 116 as per Ian's email
17:40:35 <bmotik> +1
17:40:40 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:40:41 <bparsia> +1
17:40:46 <sandro> Sandro: we're still haggling about conformance, which is no longer connected here.
17:40:56 <uli> thanks, sandro
17:41:13 <m_schnei> +1 (FZI)
17:41:33 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
17:41:35 <msmith> +1
17:41:49 <uli> we could be more precise saying "under 1 in Ian's email"
17:41:57 <sandro> +1 (with us being clear that CONFORMANCE is not addressed here)
17:42:01 <IanH> +1
17:42:04 <Zhe> +1
17:42:06 <uli> +1
17:42:16 <baojie> +1
17:42:16 <ivan> +1
17:42:22 <MartinD> +1
17:42:28 <uli> RESOLVED: resolve issue 131 and 116 as per Ian's email
17:42:28 <JeffP> +1
17:43:21 <IanH> q?
17:43:24 <uli> IanH: can we have a similar resolution wrt 116?
17:43:53 <uli> PROPOSED: resolve issue 116 as per Ian's email
17:44:01 <pfps> +1
17:44:02 <bmotik> +1
17:44:09 <sandro> +1
17:44:11 <sandro> :-)
17:44:29 <JeffP> :-)
17:44:35 <ivan> this just makes the point that we really really resolved it
17:44:53 <uli> IanH: rules generating literals in subject position
17:45:06 <IanH> Q?
17:45:10 <IanH> q?
17:45:12 <uli> IanH: issue 141
17:45:13 <Zhe> q+
17:45:24 <IanH> ack zhe
17:45:28 <uli> IanH: this is already made clear in the document
17:45:57 <ivan> not predicate but subject position
17:46:08 <uli> Zhe: just to make sure: if this "literal in subject position" happens, what do we do?
17:46:42 <uli> IanH: the rule sets works on a generalization of triples
17:46:46 <IanH> q?
17:47:09 <uli> Zhe: what is the best approach to avoid generation of "illegal rfd triples"?
17:47:32 <JeffP> They are triples but not RDF triples
17:47:39 <uli> IanH: we already say in the spec that these are "generalized" triples, so this is ok and you won't see these since you can't ask for them
17:48:03 <ivan> q+
17:48:05 <uli> Zhe: I see - so I guess it's fine
17:48:11 <IanH> q?
17:48:13 <ivan>
17:48:14 <IanH> ack ivan
17:48:19 <uli> ivan: this is editorial - the above is a note regarding the same problem which could be added to the document
17:48:28 <pfps> As far as the basic conformance is concerned, there is no way to tell if the system is generating these generalized triples.
17:49:08 <m_schnei> one implication is that you get with generalized triples every entailment which you got before (without)
17:49:12 <IanH> q?
17:49:44 <uli> PROPOSED: resolve issue 141 as per Peter's email
17:49:46 <pfps> +1, surprise :-)
17:49:46 <JeffP> +1
17:49:48 <bmotik> +1
17:49:48 <bijan> +1
17:49:49 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:49:50 <uli> +1
17:49:52 <IanH> +1
17:49:54 <MartinD> +1
17:49:54 <m_schnei> +1 (FZI)
17:49:58 <ivan> +1
17:50:03 <Zhe> +1
17:50:06 <msmith> +1
17:50:34 <sandro> +1
17:50:38 <baojie> +1
17:51:03 <uli> RESOLVED: resolve issue 141 as per Peter's email
17:51:22 <IanH> q?
17:51:33 <IanH> q?
17:51:33 <uli> subtopic: Issue 130
17:51:35 <uli> IanH: for issue 130, we have a proposal
17:51:39 <IanH> q?
17:51:49 <sandro> q+
17:51:53 <IanH> q?
17:52:05 <uli> IanH: so, can we resolve it like this next week?
17:52:06 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:52:06 <Zakim> bmotik was already muted, bmotik
17:52:52 <uli> sandro: I still see the issue that Michael raised, and I would like a simple solution to this
17:52:56 <IanH> q?
17:52:59 <uli> sandro, which problem is this?
17:53:04 <m_schnei> q+
17:53:08 <sandro> ack sandro 
17:53:45 <IanH> ack sandro
17:54:04 <uli> IanH: perhaps sandro has overlooked the precise meaning of this, i.e., that reasoners cannot flip flop between answers
17:54:28 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
17:54:28 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:54:29 <uli> sandro: perhaps the problem isn't so bad
17:54:32 <IanH> q?
17:54:38 <IanH> ack m_schnei
17:54:47 <uli> m_schnei: all I wanted with my remark was to explicate this
17:54:51 <sandro> q?
17:54:54 <uli> m_schnei, what?
17:55:12 <sandro> m_schnei: I just wanted it documented
17:55:32 <IanH> q?
17:55:37 <m_schnei> m_schnei: I want to clarify that I just want to have this conformance behaviour made explicit, I do *not* deny this
17:55:59 <uli> IanH: we should say that, all conformant systems should always agree on their answer 
17:56:17 <uli> sandro: what about negative entailments? Do we need another reasoner for them?
17:56:37 <IanH> q?
17:56:53 <IanH> q?
17:57:15 <IanH> q?
17:57:26 <m_schnei> you cannot always say from "false" that the converse is true, in particular not under OWA
17:57:36 <IanH> q?
17:57:39 <uli> sandro: oracle wasn't interested in negative/theorem 1 checks
17:57:50 <sandro> Sandro: Are people going to implement the theorem-1 check?  
17:57:53 <uli> Zhe: flexibility for user is a good thing
17:58:30 <uli> Zhe: it will be difficult to tell which rules are bottleneck, so theorem 1 check could be useful
17:58:51 <IanH> q?
17:58:57 <uli> Zhe: I don't know yet what exactly we will implement, but we may implement it
17:59:28 <bijan> SHOULD!
17:59:28 <uli> IanH: for the test, should we strengthen 'may' to 'should'?
17:59:34 <IanH> q?
17:59:37 <ivan>  q+
17:59:58 <sandro> ack ivan 
18:00:18 <IanH> q?
18:00:27 <bijan> I'll call at MUST
18:00:33 <uli> ivan: I would prefer 'may' since otherwise the implementor load is too high
18:01:04 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:01:04 <Zakim> sorry, bijan, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
18:01:14 <ivan> q+
18:01:16 <bparsia> q+
18:01:17 <uli> sandro: we shouldn't allow reasoners to say 'false' unless it's really false
18:01:19 <IanH> q?
18:01:36 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
18:01:36 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
18:01:39 <m_schnei> zhe, even if you only implement a /partial/ /forward/ chainer, then you have an implicit entailment checker: just look in the resulting inference graph and only say "yes", if some entailment is in, and say "no" otherwise
18:01:39 <uli> sandro: we should call that part 'must' and otherwise, use 'unknown'
18:01:42 <bparsia> +1 to sandro's must proposal
18:02:03 <sandro> sandro: How about you MUST do theorem-1 checking before returning FALSE, BUT you can return UNKNOWN if you don't want to do that checking.
18:02:27 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
18:02:27 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
18:02:38 <uli> bparsia: I like sandro's suggestion - having this check available will enhance interoperability, and the 'unknown' option is a good compromise
18:02:57 <IanH> q?
18:03:03 <ivan> ack bparsia 
18:03:12 <IanH> ack ivan
18:03:16 <uli> IanH: but if we change to "must", then we must explain what implementors could do who wouldn't want to implement the test
18:03:42 <sandro> sandro: absolutely -- we need text here which makes sense to people without thinking it all through at this level.
18:03:54 <IanH> q?
18:03:57 <IanH> q?
18:04:03 <uli> ivan: from Zhe's presentation in Manchester, how would the 'must' work with this?
18:04:04 <Zhe> q+
18:04:35 <uli> IanH: tricky since we talk about entailments, but we are also interested in queries. So a false is then a 'no, it's really not in the query'
18:04:36 <IanH> q?
18:04:44 <IanH> ack zhe...
18:04:55 <sandro> Ian: in real life, people do query answering. So the "false" is kind of like not answering the query.
18:05:22 <uli> Zhe: I would prefer 'may' since 'should' or 'must' would be a burden
18:05:41 <uli> IanH: but sandro's proposal also allow you to return 'unknown' and this gives us more honesty: 'false' really means false!
18:06:14 <IanH> q?
18:06:15 <bparsia> q+
18:06:28 <bparsia> (to answer this)
18:06:32 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
18:06:32 <Zakim> bparsia was not muted, bparsia
18:06:36 <IanH> q?
18:06:36 <uli> Zhe: but in a forward chaining system, where could be return such an 'unknown'?
18:06:39 <IanH> ack bparsia
18:06:48 <sandro> ack bparsia 
18:07:14 <uli> bparsia: on load time, or in the query
18:07:15 <IanH> q?
18:07:39 <uli> sandro: so, user asks query 'q', and didn't get a certain result - does this mean that rules couldn't find this result or that it shouldn't be in answer?
18:08:10 <IanH> q?
18:08:14 <m_schnei> q+
18:08:26 <uli> Zhe: but how would 'unknown' be helpful there?
18:08:27 <IanH> q?
18:09:07 <sandro> sandro: on query results, systems should include a flag saying whether complete reasoning was done or not.    that's the equivalent of this false/unknown thing in the conformance definition.
18:09:09 <uli> bparsia: with SPARQL owl, i looked at racerPro and Sher, and there it is important as well to have a mechanism to indicate to the user how complete you are
18:09:24 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
18:09:24 <Zakim> m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
18:09:24 <IanH> q?
18:09:29 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
18:09:29 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
18:09:34 <IanH> ack m_schnei
18:09:38 <IanH> q?
18:10:05 <uli> m_schnei, I can't understand you
18:10:52 <sandro> m_schnei: you have to at least implement the full ruleset, and have it not FOL entailed, before you can return FALSE
18:10:55 <uli> heavy breathing
18:11:14 <sandro> (I have a response to m_schnei, but .... maybe I'll save it.)
18:11:45 <IanH> q?
18:11:51 <uli> IanH: using 'unknown' would be a mechanism to indicate to the user that the results to a query may be partial
18:12:06 <uli> Zhe: i don't see the additional value
18:12:26 <bparsia> q+
18:12:31 <IanH> q?
18:12:33 <uli> IanH: it prevents implementors from having unsound systems and calling them conformant
18:12:34 <m_schnei> m_schnei: you are only allowed to say "False", if the entailment does not exist w.r.t. the /complete/ ruleset. so the NULL reasoner is not allowed. An implementer MAY go beyond the whole ruleset, up to the complete full semantics
18:13:03 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
18:13:03 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
18:13:17 <uli> sandro: I would like to have a flag that distinguishes complete from incomplete reasoners
18:13:40 <uli> sandro: but can any OWL RL rule implementation ever be conformant?
18:13:53 <m_schnei> the /ruleset/ is the lower bound of RL conformance
18:13:58 <IanH> q?
18:14:08 <uli> IanH: sure - they are *sound*, we only talk about non-entailments, cases where things are *not* returned
18:14:16 <IanH> q?
18:14:19 <IanH> ack bparsia
18:14:25 <uli> sandro: and then you could use theorem 1 to find complete cases
18:14:31 <m_schnei> btw, if the ruleset entails something, then you can savely say "True", because then OWL Full would produce the same entailment
18:14:49 <sandro> ian: Theorem 1 gives you the completeness guarantee -- it says that if the ontology looks like this, complete-rule-reasoning is complete-ontology-reasoning.
18:15:08 <uli> bparsia: users from bioontology really value complete reasoning, and so we should be able to signal this 
18:15:35 <ivan> q+
18:15:37 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
18:15:37 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
18:15:39 <IanH> q?
18:15:41 <uli> IanH: let's take the discussion on-line, implement the suggested modifications and discuss next week
18:15:57 <sandro> q+ to ask if query answering should be covered in Conformance
18:16:07 <sandro> q- ivan
18:16:12 <uli> ivan: i would still like to see the consequences for an implementation being written down
18:16:27 <IanH> q?
18:16:32 <IanH> ack sandro
18:16:32 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask if query answering should be covered in Conformance
18:16:47 <Zhe> q+
18:17:01 <uli> sandro: let's write it down - but where do we write about query answering? In the conformance document?
18:17:04 <IanH> ack zhe
18:17:21 <bparsia> I'd be open to flagging it as "depeding on implementor feedback"
18:17:33 <bparsia> I'd rather have the stronger and weaken, then do the weaker and then strengthen
18:18:02 <uli> IanH: the tricky bit is the dependency between profiles and conformance: we can't review profiles before we fixed conformance
18:18:04 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
18:18:04 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
18:18:10 <IanH> q?
18:18:53 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
18:18:53 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
18:19:03 <uli> bparsia: why don't we make conformance really strict (so that poking holes in it is easier) and then review them together
18:19:07 <IanH> q?
18:19:16 <uli> sandro: who updates the draft?
18:19:38 <uli> ACTION: IanH to update the conformance document with 'unkown'
18:19:38 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - IanH
18:20:12 <IanH> q?
18:20:29 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
18:20:29 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
18:20:31 <m_schnei> I already saw the distinct "ox" namespace in the POWDER semantics ;-)
18:21:07 <uli> subtopic: Issue 109
18:21:22 <IanH> q?
18:21:36 <uli> bparsia: it would be good to not have to change namespaces
18:22:11 <IanH> q?
18:22:22 <uli> sandro: can we have a pointer to this
18:22:26 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
18:22:26 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
18:22:59 <bmotik> q+
18:23:01 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
18:23:01 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
18:23:03 <uli> subtopic: issue 138
18:23:06 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:23:28 <ivan> q+
18:23:29 <msmith> q+
18:23:29 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:23:30 <IanH> q?
18:23:30 <uli> bmotik: let's use owl:datetime since the datatype is different from the xsd one
18:23:31 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:23:32 <bparsia> +1 to boris
18:23:58 <uli> ivan: [procedural] didn't we want to ask xsd people about that?
18:24:23 <uli> IanH: didn't sandro want to edit this message from peter?
18:24:36 <pfps> Sandro sent a message, but didn't ask for any action.
18:24:53 <pfps> I'm willing to edit the document, I guess.
18:25:07 <pfps> ??
18:25:16 <IanH> q?
18:25:19 <uli> IanH: I observe confusion -- pfps, can you edit the mail and send it? To make it more punchy?
18:25:27 <ivan> ack ivan 
18:25:39 <uli> sandro: it should say more clearly what they should do.
18:25:42 <msmith> q?
18:25:52 <IanH> q?
18:26:08 <IanH> q?
18:26:09 <uli> IanH: would their answer have any influence of what we do about datetime namespace
18:26:13 <IanH> ack msmith
18:26:49 <uli> msmith: bmotik convinced me that xsd and owl datetime are really different, so perhaps we don't need to waste time by asking them?
18:26:52 <bparsia> +1
18:26:52 <IanH> q?
18:27:01 <bmotik> It already is owl:dateTime.
18:27:02 <IanH> q?
18:27:05 <pfps> +epsilon
18:27:07 <uli> IanH: so msmith suggest to just go ahead with owl:datetime?
18:27:17 <bmotik> I used owl:dateTime in anticipation of this discussion. There is an editorial comment about it.
18:27:24 <pfps> OK by me
18:27:30 <uli> ivan: we should keep the issue open, but use owl:datetime
18:27:40 <bmotik> q+
18:27:43 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
18:27:43 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
18:27:44 <IanH> q?
18:27:49 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:27:49 <sandro> ack bmotik 
18:28:04 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:28:04 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:28:21 <pfps> +1
18:28:23 <uli> bmotik: we  already use owl:datetime, so we can't do anything else on this now
18:28:33 <uli> IanH; AOB?
18:28:33 <Zhe> q+
18:28:41 <IanH> q?
18:28:47 <IanH> ack Zhe
18:28:54 <uli> Zhe: i want to open an issue about base triples? 
18:29:16 <uli> IanH: you raised it, and it is now open, and we can discuss this next week
18:29:24 <uli> IanH: AOB?
18:29:28 <JeffP> thanks, bye
18:29:32 <Zakim> -bmotik
18:29:33 <Zhe> bye
18:29:33 <uli> meeting is closed, thanks
18:29:33 <Zakim> -msmith
18:29:35 <IanH> bye
18:29:36 <Zakim> -JeffP
18:29:37 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
18:29:37 <Zakim> -Zhe
18:29:37 <msmith> msmith has left #owl
18:29:38 <Zakim> -bparsia
18:29:39 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
18:29:40 <Zakim> -IanH
18:29:41 <Zakim> -uli
18:29:41 <Zakim> -baojie
18:29:41 <sandro> thanks, Ian.   :-)
18:29:43 <Zakim> -ivan
18:29:49 <Zakim> -m_schnei
18:29:51 <Zakim> -MartinD
18:29:57 <MartinD> MartinD has left #OWL