Chatlog 2008-09-10

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.

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
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:
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
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
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
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 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
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
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 =
17:35:35 <uli> +1
17:35:46 <MartinD> RESOLVED:  Issue 133 (DL-Lite Profile modified to include UNA) per Mike's email (
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 =
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 (
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
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
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:
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: 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>
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: 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