Chatlog 2008-09-17

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 <JeffP> PRESENT: MartinD, Alan_Ruttenberg, bcuencagrau, Ivan, Rinke, MarkusK, m_schnei, pfps, JeffP, Sandro, bmotik, baojie, msmith, uli, Zhe, Achille
00:00:00 <JeffP> REGRETS: Elisa Kendall
00:00:00 <JeffP> CHAIR: Alan_Ruttenberg
16:39:23 <JeffP> JeffP has changed the topic to:
16:39:49 <JeffP> Zakim, this will be owlwg
16:39:49 <Zakim> ok, JeffP; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 21 minutes
16:40:12 <JeffP> ScribeNick: JeffP
16:59:36 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
17:05:23 <JeffP> Topic: Admin
17:06:26 <Rinke> they look ok to me
17:06:27 <JeffP> PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (10 September)
17:06:43 <Rinke> +1
17:06:46 <MarkusK> +1
17:06:47 <MartinD> +1
17:06:53 <alanr> +1
17:07:04 <JeffP> RESOLVED:  Previous Minutes (10 September) accepted
17:07:16 <JeffP> SubTopic: Action items status
17:07:54 <JeffP> SubTopic: Due and overdue Actions
17:08:07 <JeffP> SubSubTopic: {{Action|172}} Develop list of possible conflicts between XML Schema datatypes and OWL datatypes with valuespace reasoning / Achille Fokoue
17:08:16 <JeffP> {{Action|172}} completed
17:08:42 <JeffP> {{Action|189}} Review RDF Mapping / Alan Ruttenberg  completed
17:09:18 <JeffP> {{Action|202}}?
17:09:23 <JeffP> SubTopic: Reviewing
17:09:44 <bcuencagrau> Maybe I will go
17:09:53 <JeffP> SubTopic: Fourth Face-to-Face (F2F) Meeting
17:10:12 <JeffP> alanr: anyone in the telecon who will come but not signed up yet
17:10:29 <JeffP> Achille: will be able to come
17:11:05 <JeffP> Topic: Proposal to publish Public Working Drafts (15 minutes)
17:11:12 <Achille> Achille: I am not sure yet if I will come, I will  know for sure by the end of this week. I hope I could make it
17:12:06 <JeffP> alanr: chairs are considering the editor lists for the drafts
17:12:24 <JeffP> ... will be contacting people during the week
17:13:04 <JeffP> ... now we need to decide whether to publish the drafts now or later?
17:13:33 <sandro> alan: may be minor editorial changes before publication, editors/contributors will change before pub, title may change....
17:13:47 <JeffP> sandro: will we decide the title after the re-publish?
17:15:04 <JeffP> JeffP: do we include Profiles?
17:15:08 <JeffP> alanr: no
17:15:10 <alanr> ack Ivan
17:15:28 <JeffP> Ivan: is that a Last Call working draft?
17:15:30 <sandro> PROPOSED: Publish Syntax, DL Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics, Mapping-to-RDF, and XML-Serialization soon (eg Sept 24) (probably with Profiles), -- subject to minor editorial changes, changes to the editors/contribs/authors information, and the titles.    These are ordinary WDs (and FPWD for RDF-Based Semantics).
17:16:09 <bmotik> +1
17:16:16 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:16:18 <uli> can hear, but not understand
17:16:33 <sandro> +1
17:16:34 <alanr> +1
17:16:35 <MarkusK> +1
17:16:36 <msmith> +1
17:16:36 <ivan> +1
17:16:37 <Achille> +1
17:16:38 <MartinD> +1
17:16:38 <uli> +1
17:16:38 <Zhe> +1
17:16:39 <baojie> =1
17:16:42 <baojie> +1
17:16:43 <sandro> +1 (W3C)
17:16:49 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
17:16:49 <msmith> +1 (C&P)
17:16:49 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
17:16:49 <Rinke> +1  (UvA)
17:16:50 <MarkusK> +1 (FZI)
17:16:52 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
17:16:53 <uli> +1 (Manchester)
17:16:54 <bcuencagrau> +1 (Oxford)
17:16:58 <alanr> +1 (science commons)
17:17:00 <baojie> +1 (RPI)
17:17:10 <JeffP> +1 (Aberdeen)
17:17:24 <alanr> pfps: +1 (Alcatel-Lucent)
17:17:42 <sandro> RESOLVED: Publish Syntax, DL Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics, Mapping-to-RDF, and XML-Serialization soon (eg Sept 24) (probably with Profiles), -- subject to minor editorial changes, changes to the editors/contribs/authors information, and the titles.    These are ordinary WDs (and FPWD for RDF-Based Semantics).
17:18:10 <JeffP> Topic: Publish soon?
17:19:26 <JeffP> sandro: we should discuss the titles again
17:19:29 <m_schnei> I think we should not say "model-theoretic", it's a very technical aspect
17:19:47 <sandro>
17:20:08 <sandro> -> reply with OWL 1 versions
17:20:44 <alanr> Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics
17:20:49 <alanr> RDF-Compatible Model-Theoretic Semantics
17:21:03 <JeffP> alanr: could you explain it a bit  sandro?
17:21:05 <m_schnei> I never understood this "direct" MT semantics
17:21:41 <JeffP> sandro: ...
17:22:01 <m_schnei> +1 to "DL-Semantics"
17:22:02 <JeffP> ivan: Model-Theoretic Semantics might be too complext
17:22:10 <JeffP> ... while DL semantics seems to be fine
17:22:24 <sandro> sandro: "model-theoretic" is noise, "RDF-Compatible" is incorrect, "Direct" is kind of meaningless.
17:22:28 <JeffP> ... RDF-based semantics also ok
17:22:42 <uli> I am with Sandro
17:22:50 <Rinke> I am with Ivan
17:22:54 <ivan> DL Semantics, RDF Based Semantics
17:22:55 <alanr>  Semantics of OWL DL, EL, and QL
17:22:55 <alanr>      Semantics of OWL Full and RL
17:23:06 <m_schnei> +1 to ivan's proposal
17:23:11 <JeffP> Why don't we have one single Semantic Document???
17:23:30 <uli> I quite like Alan's suggestion
17:23:31 <sandro> Primary Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics
17:23:52 <m_schnei> +1 to separate
17:23:55 <Zhe> ivan, could you type out your proposal?
17:23:56 <ivan> ack ivan
17:23:56 <JeffP> alanr: having a single semantics document is also an option
17:24:15 <m_schnei> what is a "primary" semantics?
17:24:19 <JeffP> ... althought some of the editors wanted to make it separate
17:24:48 <JeffP> ivan: having two documents should be ok
17:24:58 <alanr> ack baojie
17:25:01 <uli> Ivan, the DL semantics could equally be called "Standard FOL semantics"
17:25:11 <uli> ...rather than "DL semantics"
17:25:29 <JeffP> Jie: a question for Michael -
17:25:36 <sandro> uli, are you saying it's not a Description Logic?
17:25:39 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
17:25:39 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:25:48 <ivan> zakim, mute me
17:25:48 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
17:25:54 <uli> sandro, the semantics isn't DL specific
17:26:18 <JeffP> ... do the two semantics lead to the same results?
17:26:57 <JeffP> m_schnei: ...
17:27:28 <JeffP> sandro: when I talked to Ian, I suggested Primary
17:27:50 <JeffP> ... Ian said the RDF one is really a reimplementation of the FOL one
17:27:54 <m_schnei> actually, the DL semantics guided the /development/ of the Full Semantics
17:27:59 <JeffP> ... I agree with Ian on that
17:28:28 <JeffP> ivan: I don't like that, ...
17:28:35 <sandro> In English, "Primary" does not mean better.
17:28:48 <sandro> It just mean "first".   Which often means it's not as good.
17:29:10 <JeffP> alanr: if the two semantics disagree, we need to decide what to do
17:30:06 <sandro> Rinke: "Semantics" and "RDF-Based Semantics"
17:30:15 <alanr> ack bcuencagrau
17:30:17 <m_schnei> I think the stress on "model-theoretic" was that there were two kinds of semantics in DAML-OIL
17:30:32 <sandro> Compromise position --- "Direct Semantics" and "RDF-Based Semantics"
17:30:32 <JeffP> bcuencagrau: what is wrong with the OWL 1.0 way
17:30:56 <ivan> +1 to sandro
17:30:57 <JeffP> sandro: how about Direct and RDF-based
17:31:35 <JeffP> alanr: shrawpoll ...
17:31:56 <alanr> Model-Theoretic Semantics
17:31:56 <alanr> RDF-Based Semantics
17:31:58 <alanr> 1
17:32:01 <alanr> 2
17:32:07 <alanr> Semantics of OWL DL, EL, and QL
17:32:07 <alanr>      Semantics of OWL Full and RL
17:32:11 <alanr> 2)
17:32:20 <ivan> s/2)/3)/
17:32:21 <alanr> First Order Semantics
17:32:26 <alanr> Primary Semantics
17:32:30 <alanr> Direct Semantics
17:33:16 <msmith> rinke's suggestion was "semantics" and "rdf semantics", correct?  i.e., no qualifier at all for the DL semantics
17:33:22 <Rinke> yes
17:33:30 <alanr> Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics
17:33:30 <alanr> * RDF-Compatible Model-Theoretic Semantics
17:33:36 <bcuencagrau> yes
17:33:38 <sandro> 1 - Model-Theoretic Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics
17:33:38 <sandro> 2 - Semantics of OWL DL, EL, and QL ;   Semantics of OWL Full and RL
17:33:38 <sandro> 3 - First Order Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics
17:33:38 <sandro> 4 - Primary Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics
17:33:38 <sandro> 5 - Direct Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics
17:33:39 <sandro> 6 - Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics; RDF-Compatible Model-Theoretic Semantics
17:33:40 <baojie> +1 to Rinke's proposal
17:33:46 <m_schnei> Is "DL Semantics" out ?
17:33:53 <Rinke> 7- Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics
17:34:05 <sandro> 7 - DL Semantics;  RDF-Based Semantics
17:34:11 <alanr> + the ones you would like
17:34:18 <alanr> + likes - wonts
17:34:19 <Rinke> sure
17:34:19 <sandro> 8 - Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics
17:34:50 <bcuencagrau> +5,6 -2,3,4
17:35:00 <baojie> +8
17:35:05 <Achille> +1 +6  -4
17:35:13 <sandro> I like 2, 4, 5;   dislike 1, 6, 8;  Favorite: 5
17:35:13 <m_schnei> +7, -3,4,5
17:35:33 <ivan> Like 5, 7,; do not like 4, 2; favourite 5
17:35:33 <JeffP> JeffP: +6
17:35:33 <msmith> +(8,7) -(2,3)
17:35:35 <uli> uli has left #owl
17:35:36 <Zhe> + 6 8, -4 5
17:35:36 <Rinke> + 8,5 - 1,4,6
17:35:37 <MartinD> +3,8  -4,5,6
17:35:45 <bmotik> + to 1, 3, 4, 5, 6; - to 2, 7, 8
17:36:18 <uli> uli has joined #owl
17:36:23 <JeffP> alanr: we should review this and discuss this in mailing list, so that we will have a vote next week
17:36:32 <m_schnei> OWL Full is first order, too, even if it doesn't look this way
17:36:37 <JeffP> Topic: Status reports: Other documents
17:36:39 <uli> sorry, I got thrown out - i will vote again
17:37:43 <JeffP> SubTopic: Conformance and Test Cases
17:38:12 <JeffP> SubTopic: Profiles
17:38:29 <JeffP> alanr: Profiles seems to be in a good shape
17:39:17 <JeffP> msmith: ...
17:39:34 <JeffP> alanr: could you draft something and add to the test case doc?
17:39:34 <ivan> +1 to proposal
17:39:39 <JeffP> msmith: ok
17:39:40 <msmith> action: msmith to add an editor's note to test and conformance document re: disposition of test cases
17:39:40 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - msmith
17:39:59 <msmith> action: smith to add an editor's note to test and conformance document re: disposition of test cases
17:39:59 <trackbot> Created ACTION-208 - Add an editor's note to test and conformance document re: disposition of test cases [on Michael Smith - due 2008-09-24].
17:40:20 <msmith> +1000 on profiles
17:40:25 <ivan> :-)
17:40:40 <Rinke> +1 on +1000 on profiles
17:40:50 <ivan> :-) :-)
17:40:52 <uli> +  2  3 4 5  8;  -  6  7
17:41:19 <JeffP> alanr: assuming the reviewers say yes, shall we vote next week?
17:41:34 <JeffP> ... some expressed that is a good idea
17:42:59 <JeffP> alanr: JeffP, could you submit your review by this week?
17:43:11 <JeffP> JeffP: will try to submit by next telecon
17:43:14 <m_schnei> me
17:43:19 <bcuencagrau> I can
17:43:31 <m_schnei> I had already said this in the past
17:43:32 <JeffP> alanr: any one could review conformance?
17:43:35 <msmith> I will as well
17:43:51 <JeffP> ... it is a short doc
17:44:14 <bcuencagrau> Sure
17:44:19 <JeffP> ... reviewers: m_schnei, bcuencagra, msmith
17:44:22 <m_schnei> yes
17:44:24 <msmith> action: smith to review conformance, due sept-21
17:44:24 <trackbot> Created ACTION-209 - Review conformance, due sept-21 [on Michael Smith - due 2008-09-24].
17:45:02 <m_schnei> ACTION: m_schnei to review conformance, due sept-21
17:45:02 <trackbot> Created ACTION-210 - Review conformance, due sept-21 [on Michael Schneider - due 2008-09-24].
17:45:57 <JeffP> SubTopic: Quick Reference Guide
17:46:18 <JeffP> Jie: folks are not sure about Manchester syntax
17:46:32 <JeffP> ... since it does not cover OWL Full ontologies
17:46:52 <msmith> jie, the functional syntax does not support all owl full ontologies
17:47:00 <JeffP> ... and it is difference from the one we have (?) right now
17:47:02 <msmith> nor does owlxml
17:47:11 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:47:48 <JeffP> ... the syntax we have right now is the RDF syntax
17:48:16 <JeffP> alanr: what is the status of the RDF syntax part right now?
17:48:17 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:48:17 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:48:35 <JeffP> Jie: the Profile part can be done in two weeks
17:49:20 <JeffP> uli: will we have different Quick Guide for different people?
17:50:05 <m_schnei> every syntax which supports property assertions and bNodes in all positions perfectly supports (extended) RDF :)
17:50:24 <JeffP> uli: Jie, could you illustrate the differences
17:50:33 <JeffP> Jie: ...
17:50:41 <JeffP> uli: any other differences?
17:51:05 <JeffP> Jie: again, it cannot express OWL Full ontologies
17:52:20 <JeffP> uli: this is only a quick reference, some of the detailed restrictions could be ignored in the reference
17:52:44 <baojie> Yes, we need some M syntax guru on the M version
17:53:36 <JeffP> ivan: on the RDF side, it is basically syntax independent
17:53:48 <JeffP> ... I don't know which one more widely used
17:54:23 <JeffP> alanr: agree with uli that let the editors finish the RDF syntax part first
17:54:32 <JeffP> then discuss further
17:54:43 <JeffP> SubTopic: Requirements
17:54:55 <JeffP> alanr: anyone can comment on this?
00:00:00 <msmith> m_schnei: I object to the chair's practice of polling for responses from specific WG members.  If I have an opinion that I want to share, I will do so.
00:00:00 <msmith> pfps: I have objected to this practice in the past.
00:00:00 <pfps> The previous comment is not from this meeting, instead it occured during the meeting of 24 September.  I also believe that Alan called on Michael directly, by name, and did not just do a general call for comments.
17:55:15 <JeffP> Topic: Issues (50 minutes) - Address as many as possible during allocated time
17:55:27 <JeffP> SubTopic: {{Issue|140}} (Named Property Chains) per Ian's email
17:55:38 <JeffP>
17:56:36 <sandro> PROPOSED: Resolve {{Issue|140}} as postponed (as per
17:56:39 <uli> +1
17:56:41 <Rinke> +1
17:56:44 <Achille> +1
17:56:44 <bmotik> +1
17:56:48 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:56:48 <Zhe> +1
17:56:48 <JeffP> +1
17:56:49 <MarkusK> +1
17:56:50 <MartinD> +1
17:56:52 <baojie> +1
17:56:55 <alanr> +1
17:56:55 <msmith> 1
17:57:10 <alanr> pfps: +1
17:57:16 <sandro> +1
17:57:22 <sandro> RESOLVED: Resolve {{Issue|140}} as postponed (as per
17:57:35 <JeffP> SubTopic: {{Issue|71}} (datarange language range) per Boris's email
17:57:44 <alanr>
17:57:45 <JeffP>
17:58:13 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close {{Issue|71}} as per
17:58:29 <bmotik> +1
17:58:30 <bmotik> We can incorporate the changes before the draft -- I'll do it over the weekend
17:58:31 <Achille> +1
17:58:34 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:58:36 <alanr> +1
17:58:37 <MartinD> +1
17:58:41 <Rinke> that's the wrong link
17:58:43 <uli> +1
17:58:44 <baojie> +1
17:58:44 <msmith> +1
17:58:45 <Zhe> +1
17:58:51 <alanr>
17:59:03 <Rinke> +1
17:59:07 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close {{Issue|71}} as per
17:59:08 <JeffP> +1
17:59:12 <bmotik> +1
17:59:19 <Rinke> +1
17:59:26 <sandro> +0 (not sure I get it)
17:59:31 <ivan> +1
17:59:36 <alanr> pfps: +1
17:59:42 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close {{Issue|71}} as per
17:59:43 <bmotik> ACTION: bmotik2 to Implement resolution of {{Issue|71}} (before publishing the documents)
17:59:43 <trackbot> Created ACTION-212 - Implement resolution of {{Issue|71}} (before publishing the documents) [on Boris Motik - due 2008-09-24].
18:00:26 <m_schnei> ACTION: on m_schnei to implement resolution of {{Issue|71}} in RDF Based Semantics (before publishing the documents)
18:00:26 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
18:00:34 <m_schnei> ACTION: m_schnei to implement resolution of {{Issue|71}} in RDF Based Semantics (before publishing the documents)
18:00:34 <trackbot> Created ACTION-213 - Implement resolution of {{Issue|71}} in RDF Based Semantics (before publishing the documents) [on Michael Schneider - due 2008-09-24].
18:00:52 <JeffP> ivan: I prefer having the language patterns in RDF spec
18:01:31 <JeffP> bmotik: we could progress with datatypes
18:01:55 <m_schnei> I will at least /repeat/ the facet in the RDF Based Semantics
18:01:58 <JeffP> ... I agree with you on having a separate doc and copy / paste later on
18:02:18 <JeffP> ivan: maybe you could add a editorial note
18:02:31 <JeffP> bmotik: ok
18:03:07 <JeffP> ivan: the point is the separate doc could be reusable for other purposes
18:03:44 <JeffP> alanr: the choices are still open
18:04:43 <JeffP> m_schnei: seems that I will need to do something on the RDF semantics doc too
18:04:44 <bmotik> I just added this sentence to rdf:text: "It is currently not clear whether this document will contain a definition of facets on rdf:text."
18:05:09 <bmotik> I can add a note to the Syntax document as well.
18:05:12 <JeffP> ivan: I am fine with the note
18:05:38 <m_schnei> I will add the text to the RDF Based Semantics: "It is currently not clear whether the OWL DL Syntax will contain a definition of facets on rdf:text." :)
18:05:39 <JeffP> SubTopic: {{Issue|134}} Metamodel for OWL 2
18:06:25 <JeffP> alanr: should we have metamodel in the rec or just leave it in a note
18:06:50 <alanr> straw poll - worth doing work on the metamodel issue?
18:07:06 <JeffP> bmotik: we already have metamodel in the spec
18:07:21 <JeffP> ... so I don't understand the quesetion
18:07:42 <uli> would it be more accessible, for example for visually impaired people?
18:08:01 <JeffP> bmotik: I doubt it
18:08:10 <JeffP> ... it is in an XML file
18:08:18 <uli> thanks!
18:08:38 <JeffP> bmotik: now it is normative
18:08:42 <uli> apart from more work, would the XML have any impact?
18:09:40 <JeffP> ... will replace existing diagrams with ones from PeterH
18:10:05 <JeffP> uli: would the XML have any impact?
18:10:13 <JeffP> ... or just additional work?
18:11:07 <JeffP> bmotik: people could generate metamodel transformation
18:11:20 <JeffP> ... so as to make the spec more useful
18:11:41 <JeffP> ivan: how much work is needed?
18:12:30 <JeffP> bmotik: need to use some software to produce the diagram
18:13:24 <JeffP> ivan: there is still extra costs
18:13:44 <JeffP> ... I prefer making it a note
18:13:55 <JeffP> ... my innitial reaction only
18:14:13 <JeffP> bmotik: two possibilities: one as Appendix in some doc
18:14:58 <JeffP> ... one in a separate note
18:15:18 <JeffP> ... it is only a diagram
18:15:33 <MarkusK> +1 to boris
18:15:52 <JeffP> Achille: ok with the metamodel
18:16:03 <JeffP> ... but not sure note or rec
18:16:46 <uli> which 'mikel'?
18:16:52 <ivan> :-)
18:19:04 <JeffP> bmotik: we could ask PeterH to upload it to the wiki
18:19:16 <JeffP> ... it is an XML doc
18:19:32 <MarkusK> there is a whitelist of allowed formats, I assume .xml is not there by default
18:19:58 <JeffP> alanr: any open source software that we could use?
18:20:13 <JeffP> bmotik:don't know, maybe
18:20:22 <JeffP> alanr: could you find out?
18:20:27 <JeffP> bmotik: sure
18:20:50 <JeffP> SubTopic: {{Issue|137}} Table 4 in RDF mapping introduces incompatibility with OWL 1
18:20:56 <MartinD> MartinD has left #OWL
18:22:39 <JeffP> alanr: it is not clear if RDF needs a import mechanism
18:24:51 <JeffP> ivan: it would be helpful if I understand the motivation better
18:26:39 <JeffP> alan explains the context
18:27:52 <JeffP> ivan: we will look into it seriously
18:28:20 <JeffP> ... we need more discussions
18:28:29 <JeffP> sandro: agree