Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Chatlog 2008-09-10
From OWL
See original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
16:52:00 <scribenick> PRESENT: Martin Dzbor, Sandro Hawke, Ian Horrocks, Boris Motik, Zhe Wu, Michael Schneider, Achille Fokoue, Uli Sattler, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Jie Bao, Alan Ruttenberg, Mike Smith, Bijan Parsia, Peter Patel-Schneider 16:52:00 <scribenick> REGRETS: Markus Krötzsch 16:52:00 <scribenick> CHAIR: Ian Horrocks 16:52:00 <scribenick> SCRIBE: Martin Dzbor 16:52:21 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl 16:52:21 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/10-owl-irc 16:52:34 <MartinD> RRSAgent, make records public 16:56:42 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started 16:56:49 <Zakim> + +0190827aaaa 16:57:01 <MartinD> zakim, aaaa is me 16:57:01 <Zakim> +MartinD; got it 16:57:21 <IanH> IanH has joined #owl 16:58:00 <Zakim> +Sandro 16:58:02 <MartinD> MartinD has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.09.10/Agenda 16:58:36 <Zakim> +Ian_Horrocks 16:58:43 <bmotik> bmotik has joined #owl 16:58:51 <IanH> zakim, Ian_Horrocks is IanH 16:58:51 <Zakim> +IanH; got it 16:58:52 <bmotik> Zakim, this will be OWL 16:58:53 <Zakim> ok, bmotik, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM already started 16:59:24 <IanH> RRSAgent, make records public 16:59:28 <Zakim> +??P6 16:59:31 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P6 is me 16:59:31 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it 16:59:34 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 16:59:34 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 16:59:34 <IanH> zakim, who is here? 16:59:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see MartinD, Sandro, IanH, bmotik (muted) 16:59:36 <Zakim> On IRC I see bmotik, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, baojie, sandro, alanr, trackbot 16:59:59 <IanH> omit: Martin, are you all set for scribing? 17:00:06 <MartinD> omit: hope so... :-) 17:00:14 <m_schnei> m_schnei has joined #owl 17:00:16 <MartinD> zakim, mute me 17:00:16 <Zakim> MartinD should now be muted 17:00:20 <bcuencagrau> bcuencagrau has joined #owl 17:00:29 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl 17:00:40 <IanH> zakim, who is here? 17:00:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Sandro, IanH, bmotik (muted) 17:00:41 <Zakim> On IRC I see Zhe, bcuencagrau, m_schnei, bmotik, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, baojie, sandro, alanr, trackbot 17:00:42 <uli> uli has joined #owl 17:01:00 <Zakim> + +1.603.897.aabb 17:01:12 <Zhe> zakim, +1.603.897.aabb is me 17:01:15 <Zakim> +??P13 17:01:19 <Zakim> +Zhe; got it 17:01:20 <Achille> Achille has joined #owl 17:01:22 <m_schnei> zakim, ??P13 is me 17:01:23 <Zhe> zakim, mute me 17:01:27 <Zakim> +m_schnei; got it 17:01:29 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted 17:01:32 <Zakim> +[IBM] 17:01:37 <Achille> Zakim, IBM is me 17:01:37 <Zakim> +Achille; got it 17:01:41 <Zakim> +??P14 17:01:48 <uli> zakim, ??P14 is me 17:01:48 <Zakim> +uli; got it 17:01:52 <uli> zakim, mute me 17:01:52 <Zakim> uli should now be muted 17:01:58 <Zakim> +??P16 17:02:00 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me 17:02:00 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted 17:02:05 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, ??P16 is me 17:02:05 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it 17:02:11 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me 17:02:11 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted 17:02:14 <IanH> zakim, who is here? 17:02:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Sandro, IanH, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), m_schnei (muted), Achille, uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted) 17:02:16 <Zakim> On IRC I see Achille, uli, Zhe, bcuencagrau, m_schnei, bmotik, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, baojie, sandro, alanr, trackbot 17:02:35 <MartinD> IanH: Let us start with today's agenda 17:02:45 <MartinD> Topic: Administrative points 17:02:58 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aacc 17:03:00 <MartinD> IanH: Any agenda amendments? 17:03:15 <baojie> Zakim, aacc is baojie 17:03:15 <Zakim> +baojie; got it 17:03:29 <MartinD> IanH: Previous minutes (available from http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-09-03) 17:04:04 <MartinD> PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (3 September) 17:04:07 <IanH> +1 17:04:12 <MartinD> MartinD: +1 17:04:15 <Zhe> +1 17:04:22 <uli> +1 ;) 17:04:34 <MartinD> RESOLVED: Accepted Previous Minutes from 3 September 2008 (as available from http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-09-03) 17:04:47 <MartinD> Subtopic: Pending actions 17:05:01 <Zakim> +Alan 17:05:09 <MartinD> IanH: Usual procedure, let's see how actions were completed, people may say why not completed, what is the status... 17:05:21 <MartinD> IanH: if no objections, we assume actions are done... 17:05:26 <alanr> Action 189 not done yet 17:05:31 <m_schnei> omit: he did 17:05:42 <MartinD> IanH: Action 179 seems to be complete 17:05:55 <IanH> q? 17:06:15 <MartinD> IanH: Action 172 - Achille suggests next Tuesday as a day to complete the action 17:06:24 <IanH> q? 17:06:33 <MartinD> IanH: Action 189 - Alan says this is not done 17:06:46 <MartinD> Alanr: action 189 should be next week 17:07:01 <MartinD> IanH: Action 185 - should be done, if I remember correctly 17:07:17 <MartinD> IanH: yes, it is done 17:07:28 <msmith> msmith has joined #owl 17:07:28 <IanH> q? 17:07:29 <MartinD> IanH: Action 202 - was on Alan 17:07:53 <MartinD> AlanR: It is still pending, will provide update in the near future 17:07:53 <m_schnei> Zhe also finished his action 17:07:58 <Zhe> yes, it has been done 17:08:07 <MartinD> IanH: Action 181 done by Zhe 17:08:16 <IanH> q? 17:08:51 <Zakim> + +1.202.408.aadd 17:08:56 <MartinD> Sandro: Action 207, publication plan (as created last week) - join publication by RIF and OWL groups? 17:08:56 <IanH> q? 17:09:15 <MartinD> Sandro: This action should be made a bit clearer 17:09:57 <MartinD> IanH: Last week we agreed a rough plan how this publication can happen and there is an action on how this should be implemented 17:10:04 <IanH> q? 17:10:07 <msmith> Sandro, the context is at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-09-03#Pending_actions 17:10:11 <MartinD> IanH: Probably this week's deadline was a bit optimistic 17:10:46 <MartinD> Sandro: apparently, a joint recommendation is a good thing, if it can be achieved 17:10:49 <IanH> q? 17:11:03 <MartinD> Sandro: There need to be two resolutions to publish (from the two groups) and the join publication can go ahead... 17:11:36 <MartinD> IanH: If Sandro is the contact on both groups, it might be good to watch that the process is moving ahead, a kind of monitoring 17:11:51 <MartinD> IanH: we will fix the action text later 17:12:01 <IanH> q? 17:12:04 <MartinD> IanH: Action 174 is on Bijan 17:12:06 <IanH> zakim, who is here? 17:12:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Sandro, IanH, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), m_schnei (muted), Achille, uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), baojie, Alan, msmith 17:12:09 <Zakim> On IRC I see msmith, Achille, uli, Zhe, bcuencagrau, m_schnei, bmotik, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, baojie, sandro, alanr, trackbot 17:12:21 <uli> ...I will go down the corridor and knock... 17:12:23 <ewallace> ewallace has joined #owl 17:12:34 <MartinD> IanH: No Bijan yet, so we need to check later with him what is the status of this action 17:12:51 <MartinD> Subtopic: Reviewing of the current documents 17:13:08 <MartinD> IanH: Thank you to all who reviewed documents and gave feedback, good job! 17:13:24 <IanH> q? 17:13:32 <MartinD> IanH: One exception is the Profile - not a fault of reviewers, but there is still some discussion ongoing 17:13:40 <MartinD> IanH: We hope to conclude this within a few days 17:13:41 <bijan> bijan has joined #owl 17:14:03 <MartinD> IanH: According to the schedule from the last F2F meeting, we should publish the drafts by September 15... 17:14:04 <m_schnei> q+ 17:14:06 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider 17:14:09 <IanH> q? 17:14:13 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me 17:14:13 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted 17:14:18 <pfps> pfps has joined #owl 17:14:20 <MartinD> IanH: Perhaps people working on the documents may say if this is still realistic? Shall we go for each document? 17:14:21 <IanH> q? 17:14:55 <bijan> I'm nowhere near done my review, but I'm comfortable publishing without it (Syntax is a big document!) 17:14:55 <IanH> q? 17:15:04 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me 17:15:04 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted 17:15:05 <MartinD> m_schnei: Let's wait for the next stage, in my case we will finish the review by Friday... but there will be some potential points that may need further discussion 17:15:08 <IanH> q? 17:15:17 <m_schnei> q- 17:15:21 <MartinD> IanH: We can wait a few days to give people time to review things properly 17:15:36 <MartinD> IanH: Any objections to delaying the publication by a few days? 17:15:44 <IanH> q? 17:15:46 <bmotik> I'll try to handle the reviews of Syntax this weekend 17:15:58 <MartinD> IanH: What about syntax? Do we have a doc that reflects reviews by next week? 17:16:00 <pfps> It's done. 17:16:03 <bmotik> (Syntax is) done 17:16:10 <MartinD> IanH: Model theoretic semantics is done too 17:16:13 <IanH> q? 17:16:17 <MartinD> IanH: What about RDF? 17:16:24 <pfps> (RDF is) essentially done, needs a little bit more work 17:16:38 <MartinD> IanH: is it realistic to publish it next week? 17:16:42 <pfps> Yes, I expect it to be done later today 17:16:42 <IanH> q? 17:17:00 <pfps> q+ 17:17:05 <IanH> q? 17:17:09 <IanH> ack pfps 17:17:09 <MartinD> Alan: (?) Is there some proposal in there on importing? 17:17:34 <sandro> omit: that wasn't me, MartinD 17:17:42 <Zakim> -Alan 17:17:47 <IanH> q? 17:18:02 <MartinD> IanH: We still have some open issues, there will be editorial comments that would clarify parts that can change 17:18:06 <bmotik> I think it's done 17:18:09 <MartinD> IanH: What about XML serialization document? 17:18:09 <pfps> (XML Serialization is) done 17:18:18 <MartinD> IanH: OK, review of this document is done 17:18:32 <pfps> q+ 17:18:36 <IanH> q? 17:18:38 <MartinD> IanH: We're in a good shape, so we should be in position to vote on the publication of these documents next week 17:18:41 <IanH> ack pfps 17:19:02 <MartinD> pfps: Those people who did reviews should perhaps check that their comments are adequately resolved/addressed 17:19:18 <IanH> q? 17:19:35 <Zakim> +Alan 17:19:39 <MartinD> IanH: Typically, these reactions and checks are happening on the mailing lists, but reviewers should perhaps explicitly check that their comments and suggestion are making it into the revisions 17:19:40 <IanH> q? 17:19:51 <IanH> q? 17:20:37 <IanH> q? 17:20:49 <MartinD> IanH: When editors finish updates according to the reviews, they should send a message to the whole WG mailing list to alert (other) people who want to re-check... 17:20:59 <MartinD> IanH: So that we can hold the vote next week 17:21:07 <IanH> q? 17:21:19 <MartinD> IanH: Let us agree then that the editors should let Ian know about the status 17:21:22 <uli> Yes 17:21:29 <MartinD> IanH: All seem to be in principle happy with doc publication 17:21:41 <MartinD> Subtopic: SKOS last call draft 17:21:43 <pfps> q+ 17:21:48 <IanH> q? 17:21:53 <IanH> ack pfps 17:21:55 <MartinD> IanH: There were no volunteers last week to review this last call draft recommendation, so it is still on agenda 17:22:02 <MartinD> pfps: There is a review by me... 17:22:22 <MartinD> pfps: I am not quite sure what to do with my review, but it might act as a basis for the WG review/position? 17:22:25 <sandro> Want to talk also about the RIF Review on behalf of OWL2 17:22:25 <alanr> Goal would be to see what can/can't be represented in OWL2 17:22:28 <IanH> q? 17:22:32 <MartinD> pfps: There are more than one document in the SKOS draft 17:22:38 <IanH> q? 17:22:38 <m_schnei> AFAIK, only the SKOS reference is in the Last Call 17:22:38 <MartinD> IanH: Are there any volunteers now to take on this review? 17:22:53 <IanH> q? 17:23:01 <IanH> ack sandro 17:23:01 <Zakim> omit: Sandro, you wanted to ask about RIF Review for OWL 2 17:23:05 <IanH> q? 17:23:11 <m_schnei> I'm working on my own review (work in progress) 17:23:30 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me 17:23:30 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted 17:23:30 <IanH> q? 17:23:37 <MartinD> IanH: Can Jie perhaps check if someone from there wouldn't do it? 17:23:38 <IanH> q? 17:23:58 <MartinD> m_schnei: As I said I am also working on a review, but not sure if there should be an "OWL WG" official version 17:24:14 <alanr> q+ 17:24:17 <IanH> q? 17:24:21 <IanH> ack alanr 17:24:23 <MartinD> IanH: If Peter and Michael finish their reviews, we may consider them both and discuss (if needed) what can be reused in the OWL WG position 17:24:48 <MartinD> Alan: What aspects are you focusing on? E.g. to what extent SKOS relates to OWL profile(s)? 17:25:00 <MartinD> pfps: This has been partly done, details to follow later 17:25:18 <MartinD> m_schnei: I'm more interrested in RDF semantics and those factors 17:25:30 <IanH> q? 17:25:47 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me 17:25:47 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted 17:25:49 <MartinD> Alan: If you are willing to contribute your reviews, we can see if we agree on a common statement/review 17:26:03 <MartinD> IanH: Let's see what comes from Peter and Michael and act later 17:26:10 <MartinD> Subtopic: Next F2F meeting 17:26:23 <MartinD> IanH: May I ask you to indicate your status on the page of the next F2F meeting on the wiki? 17:26:37 <IanH> q? 17:26:40 <MartinD> MartinD: The URI of the meeting is http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F4 and the registration to TPAC is also available from there... 17:26:50 <MartinD> Subtopic: Review of RIF by OWL WG (agenda amendment) 17:26:54 <MartinD> Sandro: I have had suggestion for agenda amendment. It is about that RIF review from the OWL2 perspective 17:27:16 <pfps> Actually, I helped write it, so I'm not sure that I *reviewed* it 17:27:38 <MartinD> Sandro: RIF document review was done mostly with OWL1 focus, maybe there can be a check on whether OWL WG is still happy with it; in the light of OWL2? 17:27:41 <IanH> q? 17:27:49 <pfps> At first blush, I can't think of any changes required (but don't let me bias the review) :-) 17:27:50 <MartinD> Sandro: Ideally, we should have someone other than Peter who helped writing it 17:28:09 <sandro> See details on http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/ 17:28:14 <IanH> q? 17:28:29 <MartinD> IanH: Are there timelines? 17:28:46 <IanH> q? 17:29:02 <MartinD> Sandro: It's about next few days, so it may be a bit tough to do it within deadlines 17:29:24 <MartinD> IanH: Not many people volunteering, perhaps we need an email to reach to other people in the whole WG? 17:29:45 <MartinD> IanH: Administrative points are now concluded 17:29:49 <MartinD> Topic: Discussion on Issues 17:29:58 <MartinD> IanH: There are two resolution proposals 17:30:01 <IanH> q? 17:30:09 <msmith> q+ 17:30:12 <MartinD> IanH: Issue 133 on DL-Lite profile 17:30:15 <MartinD> Subtopic: Issue 133 (DL-Lite Profile modifications to include UNA) 17:30:25 <IanH> zakim, who is on the call? 17:30:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Sandro, IanH, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), m_schnei (muted), Achille, uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), baojie, msmith, Peter_Patel-Schneider, 17:30:28 <Zakim> ... Alan 17:30:39 <IanH> q? 17:30:43 <IanH> ack msmith 17:30:46 <MartinD> msmith: The proposal is to move functional property and key axioms from OWL 2 QL profile 17:31:09 <MartinD> msmith: We should also remove the existing global restrictions from the OWL 2 QL profile and there should be a core DL-Lite that does not have all those extensions ; DL-Lite_A seen as an extension which adds functional properties and keys but requires the UNA 17:31:15 <bcuencagrau> omit: +q 17:31:31 <MartinD> IanH: There might be some text in the profile document mentioning about these exceptions? 17:31:34 <IanH> q? 17:31:44 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, unmute me 17:31:44 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should no longer be muted 17:31:47 <MartinD> msmith: Yes, this should happen and Diego was also happy with the proposal (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0017.html) 17:31:51 <IanH> ack bcuencagrau 17:32:00 <MartinD> bcuencagrau: I am unclear what was proposed... 17:32:23 <IanH> q? 17:32:27 <MartinD> bcuencagrau: Do we have DL-Lite and then concerning assertions will we still have sameAs and differentFrom? 17:32:51 <MartinD> msmith: differentFrom is acceptable, sameAs probably not 17:33:02 <IanH> q? 17:33:21 <MartinD> bcuencagrau: We have basic features in the profile 17:33:29 <uli> "the intersection" of the choices is how I see it 17:33:34 <IanH> q? 17:33:52 <MartinD> msmith: There are only axioms, no unique axioms... 17:34:14 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me 17:34:14 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted 17:34:17 <IanH> q? 17:34:18 <MartinD> msmith: what we have in the document has been proposed a few months ago 17:34:28 <uli> Looks good to me 17:34:42 <bcuencagrau> I am fine with it too 17:34:48 <MartinD> IanH: Given there were no objections in emails, we propose to resolve this issue 17:35:01 <MartinD> PROPOSED: Resolve Issue 133 (DL-Lite Profile modified to include UNA) per Mike's email 17:35:04 <pfps> +1 17:35:07 <bcuencagrau> +1 17:35:07 <msmith> +1 17:35:08 <IanH> +1 17:35:10 <bmotik> +1 17:35:13 <MartinD> MartinD: +1 17:35:14 <Zhe> +1 17:35:17 <m_schnei> +1 17:35:22 <IanH> Mike's email = http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0017.html 17:35:35 <uli> +1 17:35:46 <MartinD> RESOLVED: Issue 133 (DL-Lite Profile modified to include UNA) per Mike's email (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0017.html) 17:36:03 <MartinD> Subtopic: Issue 119 (OWL 2 Full may become inconsistent due to self restrictions) 17:36:04 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me 17:36:04 <Zakim> bcuencagrau was already muted, bcuencagrau 17:36:11 <IanH> q? 17:36:17 <MartinD> IanH: This seems to be resolved by RDF semantics 17:36:34 <MartinD> IanH: Due to self-restrictions this could have been a problem, but it was resolved by Mike 17:36:39 <MartinD> IanH: It does not seem to be really controversial 17:36:42 <IanH> q? 17:36:58 <MartinD> PROPOSED: Resolve Issue 119 (OWL 2 Full may become inconsistent due to self restrictions) per Ian's email 17:37:03 <m_schnei> +1 17:37:06 <IanH> +1 17:37:09 <bcuencagrau> +1 17:37:09 <uli> +1 17:37:10 <msmith> +1 17:37:12 <Achille> +1 17:37:14 <MartinD> MartinD: Ian's email = http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0033.html 17:37:17 <MartinD> MartinD: +1 17:37:18 <pfps> +1 17:37:25 <bmotik> +1 17:37:29 <baojie> +1 17:37:36 <Zhe> +1 17:37:45 <MartinD> RESOLVED: Issue 119 (OWL 2 Full may become inconsistent due to self restrictions) per Ian's email (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0033.html) 17:38:18 <MartinD> Subtopic: Issue 130 (Conformance, warnings, errors) 17:38:31 <MartinD> IanH: This has been discussed last week, there were a few emails in the meantime... 17:38:35 <sandro> omit: q+ 17:38:36 <IanH> q? 17:38:43 <IanH> ack sandro 17:38:43 <MartinD> IanH: Shall we spend a few minutes to get a resolution? 17:38:54 <MartinD> Sandro: We exchanged some emails and mostly we're happy 17:39:09 <IanH> q? 17:39:10 <MartinD> Sandro: There was a proposal to amend some text, I liked that proposal 17:39:29 <MartinD> IanH: Shall we then make a change agreed in the email; summarized in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0107.html? 17:39:32 <Zhe> omit: q+ 17:39:33 <pfps> Make change and produce a proposal 17:39:39 <IanH> q? 17:39:41 <Zhe> zakim, unmute me 17:39:41 <Zakim> Zhe should no longer be muted 17:39:43 <MartinD> IanH: OK, let's assume we go for the change 17:39:52 <IanH> ack Zhe 17:39:54 <alanr> pointer 17:40:10 <alanr> omit: q+ 17:40:19 <sandro> Details can be found in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0029.html 17:40:22 <IanH> q? 17:40:31 <sandro> In particular, the text starting "An OWL 2 RL...." 17:40:33 <MartinD> IanH: I will update the conformance document with the modified text and I will send an email how was this implemented, so that people can comment 17:40:56 <IanH> q? 17:40:59 <IanH> ack alanr 17:41:02 <IanH> q? 17:41:05 <MartinD> IanH: Proposals from the author regarding words like "could", "should",... will be made into the text too 17:41:06 <MartinD> Alan: Yesterday we discussed with Sandro - there are two meanings of "unknown" 17:41:07 <MartinD> Alan: "unable to complete", e.g. due to resource limitations 17:41:08 <MartinD> Alan: Another is due to finished but "not guaranteed entailment" algorithm 17:41:10 <MartinD> Alan: And then, if the answer "doesn't make sense", we may not have a terminating message 17:41:19 <sandro> UNKNOWN, Reason = 17:41:19 <sandro> - Resource Limits Reached 17:41:19 <sandro> - Finished Incomplete Algorithm 17:41:19 <sandro> - Unexpected Error 17:41:50 <IanH> q? 17:42:22 <IanH> q? 17:42:36 <sandro> omit: q+ is this a test case question or an API question? 17:42:40 <IanH> q? 17:42:45 <sandro> Want to ask - is this a test case question or an API question? 17:42:56 <MartinD> Alan: A proposal for something that would make it clear(er) that an algorithm ran out of resources vs. not knowing the answer 17:43:09 <m_schnei> "Out of Resource" sounds pretty technical for a formal spec... 17:43:16 <IanH> q? 17:43:21 <IanH> ack sandro 17:43:21 <Zakim> omit: sandro, you wanted to ask is this a test case question or an API question? 17:43:23 <MartinD> Alan: Even if these messages ("UNKNOWN") are present in OWL1, there is no reason why to keep previous language 17:43:37 <MartinD> Sandro: I pasted the three meanings of "unknown" above 17:44:05 <MartinD> Sandro: But not sure how useful this is; it probably does not help in test cases, so not sure how valuable this would be in API 17:44:05 <m_schnei> {True, False, Unknown} is better than {True,False} in Prolog 17:44:27 <sandro> omit: I DON'T think it helps in the test cases. 17:44:29 <IanH> q? 17:44:38 <alanr> omit: q+ 17:44:39 <MartinD> IanH: One can perhaps distinguish even more cases to complement values of true and false 17:44:41 <IanH> q? 17:44:46 <IanH> ack alanr 17:44:50 <MartinD> IanH: Any opinions from the implementers? 17:45:30 <IanH> q? 17:45:35 <MartinD> IanH: One case where it makes sense is when the check has been done, so it may be undesirable to return just unknown (?) 17:45:49 <sandro> Something like: "Completed-Unknown"... 17:45:54 <IanH> q? 17:46:21 <IanH> q? 17:46:22 <m_schnei> omit: q+ 17:46:25 <MartinD> IanH: Say {True, False, UnexpectedError, CompletedComputationButNoAnswer } 17:46:26 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me 17:46:26 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted 17:46:27 <IanH> q? 17:46:32 <sandro> +1 to four cases for OWL RL 17:46:36 <pfps> +0 17:47:03 <MartinD> m_schnei: One can put comments re conformance, e.g. for OWL Full it cannot be avoided that "unknown" will come out 17:47:11 <IanH> q? 17:47:21 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me 17:47:21 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted 17:47:33 <uli> Perhaps we can see the different alternatives in writing? 17:47:39 <Zhe> +1 to Ian's suggestion of possible values 17:47:44 <IanH> ack m_schnei 17:47:47 <MartinD> IanH: I will have another pass on the document and see if people like it 17:47:49 <IanH> q? 17:48:22 <MartinD> Sandro: We should say that, in general, one "could" be returning "unknown" (there is nothing wrong with returning this value), otherwise there may be a conflict with an OWL test case? 17:48:35 <MartinD> Sandro: What about query answering issues? 17:49:10 <IanH> q? 17:49:25 <MartinD> IanH: We can mention something like XML query answering and show how these entailment checks would impact on QA... rather than having a complete new section on QA 17:49:40 <MartinD> Subtopic: Issue 144 (Missing base triple in serialization of axioms with annotations) 17:49:41 <IanH> q? 17:49:48 <Zhe> q+ 17:49:53 <sandro> omit: SCRIBE-CORRECTION: No, what I said was that there is nothing wrong with returning "unknown" in OWL RL. 17:49:55 <MartinD> IanH: This is an issue raised by Zhe, so perhaps he could summarize the point... 17:49:58 <IanH> ack Zhe 17:50:05 <alanr> Also note the message here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2008Jul/0002.html 17:50:12 <MartinD> Zhe: We discussed this in the WG before... 17:50:32 <MartinD> Zhe: If we don't include the base triple to the annotated axioms we may put unnecessary burden on implementations 17:50:33 <IanH> q? 17:50:33 <bmotik> omit: q+ 17:50:35 <m_schnei> q+ 17:50:39 <pfps> q+ 17:50:42 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me 17:50:42 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted 17:50:48 <MartinD> Zhe: We are suggesting to simply include it, which makes life easier 17:50:50 <IanH> q? 17:50:54 <IanH> ack bmotik 17:50:55 <alanr> q+ 17:51:20 <MartinD> Boris: It seems like reasonable thing to do but the problem is that an axiom is not represented as one thing vs. two things 17:51:39 <MartinD> Boris: What if you find both - base axiom and the reified one... then what? 17:52:00 <MartinD> Boris: We may decide, e.g. on forgeting the base one if a reified axiom is found... 17:52:06 <IanH> q? 17:52:08 <MartinD> Boris: However, this may cause some mapping issues! 17:52:35 <MartinD> Boris: Then there is another issue = including the triple does not tell you what to do with it or if it is not found, what to do with it 17:53:00 <MartinD> Boris: ideally we would need something along lines "from reified triple define the original" 17:53:05 <IanH> q? 17:53:11 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me 17:53:11 <Zakim> m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei 17:53:23 <MartinD> Boris: Should we start adding original triples if we find a reified one? 17:53:39 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me 17:53:39 <Zakim> bcuencagrau was already muted, bcuencagrau 17:53:48 <MartinD> Boris: Finally, I don't think this will occur often enough, so that it can cause problems with efficiency and performance... 17:53:54 <IanH> q? 17:54:09 <IanH> ack m_schnei 17:54:25 <MartinD> m_schnei: Without the added triples it seems more stable... 17:54:39 <pfps> Boris has made my points 17:54:41 <pfps> q- 17:54:52 <MartinD> m_schnei: Would current RDF serialization help with this? 17:55:31 <MartinD> m_schnei: If it is not always avoidable to have triple in (if you want to annotate the triple without having access to the orig. ontology), would you define new ontology? 17:55:33 <IanH> q? 17:55:47 <MartinD> m_schnei: There might arise problems with axiom closure in such a scenario 17:55:58 <MartinD> m_schnei: I would not be in favour, not necessary IMHO 17:56:07 <IanH> q? 17:56:17 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me 17:56:17 <Zakim> m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei 17:56:22 <bmotik> omit: q+ 17:56:39 <MartinD> Alan: What about missing base triple -- there is a syntax for it, so no major issue... 17:57:08 <IanH> q? 17:57:12 <pfps> omit: q+ 17:57:13 <MartinD> Alan: Regarding Michael's comment, not sure this would be a really problem, perhaps only in some profiles? 17:57:18 <IanH> ack alanr 17:57:18 <m_schnei> Of course, you can have two ontology files, one having the spo, the other having the reification, and then having the second import the first 17:57:20 <Zhe> omit: q+ 17:57:33 <MartinD> Alan: Issues are not really with performance, more about monotonicity... 17:57:35 <pfps> Want to ask why Alan's example is non-monotonic 17:57:41 <IanH> ack bmotik 17:58:00 <msmith> omit: q+ 17:58:27 <alanr> Last statement (SCRIBE NOTE: from Michael re inferring SPO-s?) re OWL RL seems wrong. OWL RL has specific syntax. 17:58:31 <MartinD> Boris: If triple is not there, one can reverse-parse it... but what would OWL-RL parser do with this? If you have RDF graph without this triple, you are missing on some inferences 17:58:43 <alanr> Conformance allows OWL RL entailment checker to take and RDF 17:58:49 <MartinD> Boris: There is no guarantee the triple will be included (as it should)... 17:58:53 <IanH> q? 17:59:18 <m_schnei> Yes, OWL Full infers the spo 17:59:28 <IanH> q? 17:59:33 <MartinD> Boris: Then about monotonicity, we already have in OWL Full semantics, there is a possibility to get to non-reified version by means of reasoning... 17:59:34 <alanr> Where is there that reification implies base triple? 17:59:36 <alanr> It wasn't in RDF 17:59:57 <MartinD> pfps: I don't think Alan's example is non-mononotonic 18:00:00 <IanH> q? 18:00:03 <IanH> ack pfps 18:00:03 <Zakim> omit: pfps, you wanted to ask why Alan's example is monotonic 18:00:06 <bmotik> omit: q+ 18:00:08 <IanH> ack Zhe 18:00:09 <MartinD> Zhe: I still want to stress the performance issue 18:00:11 <IanH> q? 18:00:23 <MartinD> Zhe: If an application wants to use this type of annotation 18:00:49 <MartinD> Zhe: ...you can imagine this is an additional burden to keep checking on information on every single triple 18:00:51 <pfps> Want to say something about doing a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the relative costs 18:01:19 <MartinD> Zhe: If base triple is out, it's possible, but it's not efficient... if there is a mix of annotated and non-annotated axioms, what should we do? 18:01:20 <uli> Zhe, perhaps this can be overcome by some clever data structures? 18:01:26 <IanH> q? 18:01:37 <MartinD> Zhe: Should we accept axiom with annotation and forget the ones without annotation? 18:01:50 <IanH> q? 18:01:57 <IanH> ack msmith 18:02:05 <MartinD> msmith: Axiom with and without annotation are structurally different 18:02:12 <bmotik> +1 to msmith 18:02:18 <IanH> q? 18:02:22 <MartinD> msmith: This is already in the specification 18:02:26 <IanH> ack bmotik 18:02:51 <MartinD> Boris: We can address the concerns with performance without altering the core spec 18:03:27 <MartinD> Boris: People may produce RDF graphs... it is safer to assume that one gets RDF graph that needs checking if things are in it 18:03:40 <MartinD> Boris: We can think about ways to handle certain common cases 18:03:42 <IanH> q? 18:04:05 <alanr> Question: How does RDF semantics 4.18 avoid asserting positive triple for negative property assertion? 18:04:07 <MartinD> Boris: The biggest problem with reifications is their occurrence in different part of file = problem for parsers that need to trace this 18:04:10 <IanH> q? 18:04:31 <MartinD> Boris: My potential suggestion - implementation could/should put reified triples together, one after another... 18:04:40 <alanr> We don't have control of this in the RDF world 18:04:45 <IanH> q? 18:04:46 <MartinD> Boris: This would allow more efficient handling... 18:05:27 <alanr> What about RDF pipes, etc? 18:05:31 <MartinD> Boris: Of course, we don't have any control over this... but OWL things are written in files, so we may recommend it? 18:05:41 <IanH> q? 18:05:46 <IanH> ack pfps 18:05:46 <Zakim> omit: pfps, you wanted to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the relative costs 18:05:50 <IanH> q? 18:05:57 <MartinD> Peter: There was a point about performance issue, 18:06:09 <MartinD> pfps: Reading a triple is expensive, even compared to running rules 18:06:19 <IanH> q? 18:06:21 <alanr> A whole lot? 1/3 of # axioms that are annotated 18:06:23 <alanr> http://pipes.deri.org/ 18:06:29 <bmotik> omit: q+ 18:06:40 <MartinD> pfps: If we had more triples, we are likely to increase the amount of I/O required, right? 18:06:41 <IanH> q? 18:06:49 <MartinD> Zhe: Maybe by 20-30% 18:07:15 <IanH> q? 18:07:21 <MartinD> Peter: Yes, but that's quite substantial... unless we do an actual analysis, I am not prepared to support that we would save actual resources 18:08:05 <MartinD> Zhe: If annotation axioms do not include the base triple, we need to do additional joins in the tables... 18:08:08 <alanr> Table joins are more expensive than I/O 18:08:38 <pfps> I'm not prepared to admit that in a decent implementation rule processing is more expensive than adding triples 18:08:43 <IanH> q? 18:08:47 <MartinD> IanH: It seems to be hard to establish what takes more time - loading triples into table or doing joins.... 18:09:18 <MartinD> Boris: I want briefly about RDF pipes... unlikely that you cannot ship related triples 18:09:24 <IanH> q? 18:09:29 <IanH> ack bmotik 18:09:37 <alanr> Re pipes: not if they go through some hash table as part of their processing 18:09:46 <alanr> ...which is likely 18:10:17 <alanr> Anyways, implementation has to handle worse case 18:10:22 <MartinD> Boris: If we are processing arbitrary RDF graph, if we have guarantees that in reasonable cases the triples would be close, one can implement a thing that would basically read X triples and replace them with the base triple (if that's needed) 18:10:38 <IanH> q? 18:10:39 <Zakim> -Alan 18:10:44 <IanH> q? 18:10:56 <MartinD> Boris: If we make sure the triples are close to each, we can leave the spec as it is, and you have control over your implementations 18:11:22 <IanH> q? 18:11:29 <MartinD> IanH: What about doing the thing in tables, in a similar way as you said, filling tables once? 18:11:35 <Zakim> +Alan 18:11:55 <MartinD> Boris: True but one may actually save on filling and re-filling the table because the axiom comes later... 18:11:59 <IanH> q? 18:12:02 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me 18:12:02 <Zakim> m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei 18:12:26 <MartinD> IanH: Sounds interesting... appropriate to take discussion offline for the interested parties, so that they come up with a proposal to resolve this... 18:12:35 <IanH> q? 18:12:37 <MartinD> IanH: Ideally by not having to have base triples? 18:12:42 <IanH> ack m_schnei 18:12:50 <MartinD> m_schnei: I/O is perhaps not interesting 18:13:11 <IanH> q? 18:13:20 <MartinD> m_schnei: If we find the version of the triple but not the original triple... what is *wrong* with this (disregarding I/O performance) 18:13:37 <MartinD> IanH: There is no reverse mapping for OWL Full though 18:13:44 <IanH> q? 18:13:48 <MartinD> m_schnei: I mean OWL DL 18:13:53 <IanH> q? 18:14:00 <m_schnei> q- 18:14:04 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me 18:14:04 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted 18:14:14 <MartinD> IanH: But the discussion is now about OWL RL, so ... let's take this offline and see if things are resolved this way 18:14:21 <MartinD> Subtopic: Issue 109 (Namespace for elements and attributes in the XML serialization) 18:14:34 <IanH> q? 18:14:37 <MartinD> IanH: Last time we were close to resolving namespaces in this issue, right? 18:14:49 <IanH> q? 18:14:49 <MartinD> IanH: No conclusions have been reached yet 18:15:31 <MartinD> Sandro: We are waiting for getting some objective opinion on the conflicting points... we need to find technical differences to rule one way or another 18:16:11 <MartinD> IanH: So at the end of discussion we will somehow need to flip the coin, unless there is an agreement between protagonists 18:16:19 <MartinD> Sandro: Do we have pros and cons of the two proposals? 18:16:28 <Zakim> +??P5 18:16:31 <IanH> q? 18:16:38 <MartinD> IanH: We looked at it from different angles and the point is purely in different opinions 18:17:01 <bijan> bijan has joined #owl 18:17:04 <MartinD> Alan: Is this an architectural issue? 18:17:16 <bijan> I won't accept TAG arbitration 18:17:22 <MartinD> Alan: If this is on stake, why not bringing someone else in? 18:17:25 <bijan> zakim, who is here 18:17:25 <Zakim> bijan, you need to end that query with '?' 18:17:35 <bijan> zakim, who is here? 18:17:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see MartinD (muted), Sandro, IanH, bmotik, Zhe, m_schnei (muted), Achille, uli (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), baojie, msmith, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Alan, ??P5 18:17:38 <Zakim> On IRC I see bijan, pfps, ewallace, msmith, Achille, uli, Zhe, bcuencagrau, m_schnei, bmotik, IanH, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, baojie, sandro, alanr, trackbot 18:17:44 <bijan> zakim, ??p5 is me 18:17:44 <Zakim> +bijan; got it 18:17:46 <bijan> omit: q+ 18:17:51 <IanH> q? 18:18:12 <MartinD> Alan: Is there a suggestion where we can ask for ideas? e.g. XML WG 18:18:35 <IanH> I would listen to TAG opinion 18:18:38 <MartinD> Alan: do we need more time to this? Perhaps next week? 18:18:54 <alanr> omit: yes 18:18:58 <IanH> q? 18:19:02 <IanH> ack bijan 18:19:37 <MartinD> Bijan: I am curious about these situations, there should be some evidence which we don't have at the moment... mere judgments are not really making much difference here. One more person will have an opinion, but we should go for some evidence... 18:19:53 <MartinD> IanH: In the end, there will have to be a vote on this in WG 18:20:52 <MartinD> IanH: ...so it's really about other members of WG to make up their minds and in voting go one way or another... so far it's mainly W3C and Manchester objecting (with most being indifferent) 18:21:02 <IanH> q? 18:21:07 <MartinD> IanH: So what about that coin idea = if no decision reached 18:21:14 <alanr> I object to that 18:21:51 <MartinD> IanH: When do we expect to make this decision? 18:22:04 <MartinD> Alan: Why don't we see what happens next week? 18:22:29 <MartinD> Bijan: The issue is that one can hardly expect to get any new information to change mind 18:22:41 <IanH> q? 18:22:58 <MartinD> Alan: It's not about changing minds but about other people getting information to understand what's going on 18:23:26 <MartinD> IanH: Let's wait until the next week if additional information appears, if not, just call for a vote 18:23:38 <IanH> q? 18:23:43 <alanr> +1 18:23:44 <pfps> omit: q+ 18:23:46 <MartinD> Subtopic: Issue 138 (Name of dateTime datatype) 18:23:47 <MartinD> IanH: The next issue is about a new datatype proposed for dateTime... 18:23:48 <bijan> +1 to owl:datetime 18:23:51 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 18:23:51 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 18:24:15 <pfps> q? 18:24:19 <IanH> q? 18:24:20 <MartinD> IanH: We are waiting for the response to Peter's email 18:24:22 <IanH> ack pfps 18:24:33 <MartinD> Peter: Perhaps we should put this in some documents... 18:24:52 <bmotik> Yes 18:24:58 <MartinD> Peter: Not as a resolved decision but just to make sure it's not forgotten and IMHO, owl:dateTime would be the safe choice 18:24:58 <IanH> q? 18:25:01 <bmotik> There is aleady an editor's note 18:25:19 <MartinD> Peter: This would be in syntax, Boris says it would there 18:25:55 <MartinD> Alan: (?) What is the definition of punning at the moment? 18:25:58 <IanH> q? 18:26:10 <bijan> I think it's what peter says it was 18:26:11 <m_schnei> Shouldn't there be an email discussion in the past about the "which punning" question? 18:26:28 <MartinD> Alan: There are a few definitions going, so which is the one we subscribe to? To explain it to people 18:26:40 <MartinD> IanH: Alright, these other issues are probably longer to discuss 18:26:42 <MartinD> Topic: AOB 18:26:53 <MartinD> IanH: There are no proposal for additional items on agenda, so let's conclude 18:26:54 <Zakim> -msmith 18:26:55 <m_schnei> omit: bye 18:26:56 <Zakim> -bmotik 18:26:56 <uli> omit: bye bye 18:27:01 <Zakim> -uli 18:27:01 <IanH> omit: bye 18:27:02 <Zakim> -baojie 18:27:02 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider 18:27:04 <Zakim> -bijan 18:27:04 <Zakim> -Sandro 18:27:05 <msmith> msmith has left #owl 18:27:05 <Zakim> -Achille 18:27:07 <sandro> Thanks, Ian :-) 18:27:08 <Zakim> -IanH 18:27:09 <Zakim> -Alan 18:27:10 <Zakim> -m_schnei 18:27:13 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau 18:27:25 <MartinD> IanH: And thanks to you all for participation too