Chatlog 2008-10-08

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.

16:59:04 <scribenick> PRESENT: IanH, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), msmith, Sandro, uli (muted), pfps, ratnesh, Zhe, baojie, Rinke, ewallace, bcuencagrau, alan_ruttenberg, Achille, Christine, Elisa, m_schnei, Carsten
17:02:42 <IanH> ScribeNick: Zhe
17:02:56 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:02:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see IanH, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), msmith, Sandro, uli (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, ratnesh, Zhe, baojie, Rinke
17:02:59 <Zakim> On IRC I see Rinke, baojie, ewallace, bcuencagrau, uli, Zhe, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, msmith, IanH, ratnesh, bijan, pfps, alanr, sandro, trackbot
17:03:06 <Rinke> rrsagent, pointer?
17:03:06 <RRSAgent> See
17:03:22 <Rinke> rrsagent, make records public
17:03:24 <Zhe> Topic: Admin
17:03:35 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:03:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see IanH, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), msmith, Sandro, uli (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, ratnesh, Zhe, baojie, Rinke
17:03:37 <Zakim> On IRC I see Rinke, baojie, ewallace, uli, Zhe, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, msmith, IanH, ratnesh, bijan, pfps, alanr, sandro, trackbot
17:03:58 <Zakim> +[IBM]
17:04:29 <Achille> Achille has joined #owl
17:04:36 <Zhe> Agenda amendments. 
17:04:36 <Zhe> IanH: add issue 127 to the agenda
17:04:45 <Achille> Zakim, IBM is me
17:04:45 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
17:04:47 <bcuencag> bcuencag has joined #owl
17:04:59 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
17:05:02 <cgolbrei> cgolbrei has joined #owl
17:05:17 <Zakim> +??P15
17:05:21 <Zhe> IanH: other suggestions?
17:05:37 <uli> they are a bit laconic, but what can we do
17:05:38 <pfps> previous minutes are acceptable
17:05:45 <Zhe> Proposed: accept previous minutes Oct 1, 2008
17:05:49 <cgolbrei> zakim, +??P15 is cgolbrei
17:05:49 <Zakim> sorry, cgolbrei, I do not recognize a party named '+??P15'
17:05:58 <Elisa> Elisa has joined #owl
17:06:03 <Zhe> Resolved: previous minutes accepted.
17:06:11 <uli> zakim, ??P15 is cgolbrei
17:06:11 <Zakim> +cgolbrei; got it
17:06:12 <Zhe> Topic: Action item status
17:06:24 <Zhe> IanH: SKOS comments
17:06:31 <cgolbrei> zakim, ??P15 is cgolbrei
17:06:31 <Zakim> I already had ??P15 as cgolbrei, cgolbrei
17:06:44 <pfps> q+
17:06:58 <IanH> q?
17:07:17 <IanH> Alan?
17:07:20 <Zhe> IanH: action-189 review RDF Mapping 
17:07:34 <Zhe> IanH: suggest to Alan to drop it
17:07:44 <pfps> suggest dropping 189 as overtaken by events
17:07:59 <Zakim> +??P19
17:08:01 <Zhe> Alan:  I will do the review. So just leave it open. It does not have to be done before publishing.
17:08:20 <Bernardo> Bernardo has joined #owl
17:08:23 <Zhe> IanH: action-202: Alan Ruttenberg to have another try at punning proposal in the light of discussion with peter and come up with test cases 
17:08:23 <trackbot>
17:08:40 <Zakim> -??P19
17:08:44 <Zhe> Alan: Boris has a proposal worth discussion
17:08:47 <bijan> It's never going to get done
17:08:52 <Zhe> Resolved: close Action-202
17:08:56 <IanH> q?
17:08:57 <bijan> Mooted by events
17:09:01 <pfps> q-
17:09:02 <Zakim> +??P19
17:09:08 <Bernardo> Zakim, ??P19 is me
17:09:08 <Zakim> +Bernardo; got it
17:09:11 <Zhe> IanH: Action-174: Bijan Parsia to provide an rdf serialization for his rich annotation proposal 
17:09:32 <Zhe> IanH: Action-207: Sandro Hawke to keep rdf:text publication on track 
17:09:32 <trackbot>
17:09:34 <IanH> q?
17:10:13 <Zakim> +Elisa_Kendall
17:10:14 <IanH> q?
17:10:23 <Bernardo> I did
17:10:24 <IanH> q?
17:10:55 <Zhe> IanH: under the impression that not much has happended
17:11:03 <Zhe> sandro: it is moving. 
17:11:10 <Zhe> IanH: we will then call the action done.
17:11:20 <IanH> q?
17:11:26 <m_schnei> m_schnei has joined #owl
17:11:26 <Zhe> IanH: action-227: Alan Ruttenberg to email to Elisa and other interested person about metamodel 
17:11:26 <trackbot>
17:11:40 <Zhe> alanr: it is done
17:11:45 <pfps> timeframe?
17:12:01 <IanH> q?
17:12:05 <Zhe> Alanr: is it feasible to get it done before F2F4
17:12:33 <pfps> the clock is ticking quite fast here
17:12:42 <Zhe> Elisa: Not sure. I can get the latest models from them. Some portion depends on availability of other people
17:12:35 <ewallace> What tool can load this?
17:12:44 <IanH> q?
17:13:02 <Zhe> IanH: action-217: Jie Bao to get to the RIF to ensure that RDF changes are done properly 
17:13:02 <trackbot>
17:13:32 <Zhe> Jie: I need one more week
17:13:45 <Zhe> IanH: Are you confident it can be done by next week? I will then update the due date.
17:13:55 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:14:05 <Zhe> Topic: Brief discussion on F2F4
17:14:09 <m_schnei> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
17:14:09 <Zakim> +m_schnei; got it
17:14:13 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:14:13 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:14:34 <Zhe> IanH: Now there is a draft agenda. We need to get it out later today. We may come to it if anyone has comments/suggestion on the agenda
17:15:06 <IanH> q?
17:15:20 <Zhe> Topic: Reviewing and Publishing
17:15:36 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:15:38 <Zhe> sandro: There is one more thing on the todo list. We need to fix broken links. Anyone wants to fix broken links?
17:15:42 <m_schnei> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
17:15:42 <Zakim> +m_schnei; got it
17:15:47 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:15:47 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:15:57 <bmotik> q+
17:16:00 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:16:00 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
17:16:00 <IanH> q?
17:16:15 <Zhe> Boris: what links are broken? in reference ?
17:16:22 <Zhe> sandro: There are about 6~7 of them. Most are references. Just fix on the wiki, and run check links.
17:16:50 <Zhe> Boris: I can do that
17:17:20 <Zhe> IanH: we are good to go then
17:17:39 <Zhe> sandro: I think so. I am generating another version now. Not sure if web master can publish today.
17:17:41 <alanr> q+
17:17:47 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:17:47 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:17:50 <IanH> q?
17:17:55 <Zhe> IanH: The expectation is to get it ready for pulibshing today.
17:18:00 <bmotik> q-
17:18:09 <IanH> ack alanr
17:18:19 <Zhe> alanr: We are missing one editor comment on the conformance.
17:18:29 <m_schnei> q+
17:18:33 <IanH> q?
17:18:36 <Zhe> IanH: I am not convinced when looking at the comment. Not sure if it is a problem.
17:18:54 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
17:18:54 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:18:55 <IanH> q?
17:19:10 <Zakim> -Alan
17:19:23 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:19:23 <Zakim> bmotik was already muted, bmotik
17:19:50 <Zhe> m_schnei: datatype map conformance requires at least all of the datatype from OWL 2 datatype maps 
17:20:43 <Zhe> IanH: If you only use a subset, it does not make you inconsistent.
17:21:06 <IanH> q?
17:21:17 <Zhe> m_schnei: I will have another look then. 
17:21:26 <Zhe> IanH: Maybe I will put in an editor note anyway. If we agree it is ok, then we can take it out. I will do it right after the tele conf
17:21:42 <IanH> q?
17:21:44 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:21:44 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:22:05 <m_schnei> works for me
17:22:06 <IanH> q?
17:22:13 <bmotik> q+ to ask a qustion to sandro
17:22:13 <m_schnei> q-
17:22:18 <IanH> q?
17:22:20 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:22:20 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
17:22:26 <IanH> ack bmotik
17:22:31 <Zakim> bmotik, you wanted to ask a qustion to sandro
17:22:31 <IanH> q?
17:22:33 <Zhe> bmotik: Sandro, just a brief question, is it just the Profiles needs fixing?
17:22:49 <Zhe> sandro: they are all in profiles doc.
17:22:33 <Zakim> +Alan
17:22:39 <IanH> q?
17:22:46 <alanr> sorry - had to attend to something
17:23:10 <alanr> q+ to ask if someone is taking notes
17:23:14 <Zhe> sandro: It is the fragments (part after URL #)
17:23:24 <IanH> q?
17:23:35 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:23:35 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:23:36 <alanr> q-
17:23:40 <IanH> q?
17:23:42 <Zhe> IanH: I will add the note to the conformance 
17:24:05 <Zhe> IanH: Is there anything else with publishing progress? Done then.
17:24:22 <IanH> q?
17:24:22 <Zhe> IanH: Review Manchester Syntax doc
17:24:34 <Zhe> IanH: Do we want people to review? 
17:24:35 <IanH> q?
17:24:48 <Zhe> pfps: It has been reviewed. 
17:24:56 <IanH> q?
17:24:57 <Zhe> alanr: I am not toally done. Should be done today.
17:25:03 <IanH> q?
17:25:35 <pfps> There are 2.5 reviews for Manchester.
17:25:46 <pfps> One significant comment - using labels instead of names.
17:25:50 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl
17:26:40 <IanH> q?
17:26:41 <Rinke> Review comment from AlanRuttenberg 05:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
17:26:41 <Rinke> The use of labels to to replace URIs is central to productive use of Manchester syntax when URIs are not meaningful, as is common in many ontologies. In addition it is often recommended that, in general, URIs not have meaninful information encoded in their strings (see e.g. Given this and the goal of making the Manchester syntax readable and user friendly, this specification should say precisely how to use labels in 
17:26:42 <Zhe> IanH: Regarding M Syntax, is it anything we can usefully discuss?
17:27:00 <m_schnei> I don
17:27:02 <Zhe> pfps: comment M Syntax use URI as name. Suggestion is to use rdfs:label as the name.
17:27:08 <IanH> q?
17:27:11 <alanr> q+
17:27:21 <bijan> I don't understand this
17:27:21 <IanH> q?
17:27:25 <IanH> ack alanr
17:27:36 <m_schnei> I don't understand this, too
17:27:51 <Zhe> alanr: In the Protege, many ontologies use opaque ids or URIs. It would be more user friendly if lables are used. I think we know how to do it. I have sent email about how.
17:28:34 <IanH> q?
17:28:39 <pfps>   rdfs:label annotation value, not rdfs:comment annotation value
17:28:40 <uli> could you post a link to the email, Alan?
17:29:00 <IanH> q?
17:29:11 <Zhe> alanr: when you look at a class definition, it is not understandable from P4 (Protege)
17:29:14 <IanH> q?
17:29:17 <Zhe> uli: Is this an OWL or a P4/tools issue?
17:29:19 <bijan> q+
17:29:22 <uli> zakim, unmute me
17:29:22 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted
17:29:24 <pfps> q+
17:29:36 <alanr> I think so
17:29:38 <Zhe> uli: are we sure this is really owl issue, but not P4 issue.
17:29:41 <IanH> q?
17:29:42 <alanr> we are defining the format 
17:29:46 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
17:29:46 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
17:29:48 <Zhe> IanH: I don't know
17:29:50 <IanH> ack uli
17:29:50 <Zakim> uli, you wanted to ask whether this is an OWL or a P4/tools issue
17:29:55 <m_schnei> I thought that I have used Manchester syntax many times in Topbraid, and never found something missing
17:29:57 <IanH> ack bijan
17:29:57 <uli> zakim, mute me
17:29:58 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
17:30:08 <IanH> q?
17:30:30 <alanr> q+
17:30:49 <Zhe> bijan: This could be handled by smart editors. It is possible not to make this change.
17:31:03 <IanH> q?
17:31:05 <bijan> zakim, mute me
17:31:05 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
17:31:53 <Zhe> pfps: This is largely due to editors using different presentation methods
17:32:00 <IanH> q?
17:32:01 <pfps> q-
17:32:06 <IanH> ack alanr
17:32:22 <Zhe> alanr: the motivation to have M syntax is to have an accessible, useful syntax
17:32:26 <bijan> Which is does
17:32:29 <pfps> q+
17:32:39 <bijan> q+
17:32:47 <IanH> q?
17:32:54 <IanH> ack pfps
17:33:00 <Zhe> pfps: we introduce a new, weird way to damage ontologies
17:33:10 <alanr> why do we need it?
17:33:24 <alanr> if just for the primer, not justified, imo
17:33:31 <bijan> Oo, that's a good point (Peter's)
17:33:38 <IanH> q?
17:33:41 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
17:33:41 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
17:33:42 <IanH> ack bijan
17:33:48 <pfps> q-
17:33:57 <Zhe> bijan: the current version does meet all criteria Alan said. It is unclear to me that this technique needs to be incorporated 
17:34:39 <IanH> q?
17:34:43 <bijan> zakim, mute me
17:34:43 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
17:35:01 <bijan> q+
17:35:08 <Carsten> Carsten has joined #owl
17:35:10 <IanH> ack alanr
17:35:10 <Zhe> alanr: If the sole use is for primer, then there is no need for publishing.
17:35:12 <pfps> q+
17:35:24 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
17:35:24 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
17:35:53 <Zhe> IanH: just a few more comments and then we need to move on
17:35:54 <m_schnei> +1 to ian, I first have to understand the basic problem
17:36:05 <Zhe> bijan: it is 100% a spec. 
17:36:08 <alanr> I was reacting to Peter's comment. I propose to publish it as a note to supplement primer, meets our goal and primer requirement.
17:36:39 <pfps> q-
17:36:44 <pfps> Bijan covered my points. We need more compelling argument, if we don't have this feature then the value is gone
17:36:56 <alanr> qq+
17:36:57 <alanr> q+
17:37:04 <bijan> zakim, mute me
17:37:04 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
17:37:13 <IanH> ack alanr
17:37:27 <bijan> I'm fine debating the feature
17:37:30 <Zhe> alanr: it seems quite easy to deal with it 
17:37:37 <bijan> I strongly object to the esclation of the significance of it
17:37:38 <Zhe> IanH: We will come back to it.
17:37:52 <Zhe> IanH: Quick reference guide status? Due by end of Oct?
17:37:52 <alanr> I strongly object to your strong objection ;-)
17:38:11 <pfps> there are some reviews in already, but not all
17:38:21 <IanH> q?
17:38:28 <bijan> I object on the grounds that the drama is counterproductive and based on clear inaccuracy (e.g., that it's not a spec).
17:38:34 <Zhe> Elisa: we did get some feedback. Jie is going to respond. That card has been used many times. Feedback is fantastic. Need restructuring and more work. Peter has some good suggestions on re-org. We will try it. Hopefully we can get it done in the few weeks. Our goal is to complete a revision/re-org by f2f
17:39:56 <uli> I would offer to have a look at the design before you implement it
17:40:58 <alanr> uli: email was
17:40:59 <IanH> q?
17:41:07 <uli> Elisa, if i wouldn't think that this would be a useful doc I wouldn't have offered
17:41:22 <baojie> Original card by Li and Tim:
17:41:25 <Zakim> +??P26
17:41:25 <Zhe> IanH: leave it to you and uli to talk offine and work together
17:41:34 <Carsten> zakim, ??pp26 is me
17:41:34 <Zakim> sorry, Carsten, I do not recognize a party named '??pp26'
17:41:34 <IanH> q?
17:41:42 <Carsten> zakim, ??p26 is me
17:41:42 <Zakim> +Carsten; got it
17:41:45 <Carsten> zakim, mute me
17:41:45 <Zakim> Carsten should now be muted
17:41:45 <Zhe> Elisa: we can set a call to have Jie, Elisa, Uli to talk through re-org issues
17:41:46 <uli> sure
17:41:54 <IanH> q?
17:42:11 <Zhe> Topic: Issue discussions
17:42:44 <Zhe> IanH: proposal to resolve issue 130: Conformance, warnings, errors 
17:42:48 <trackbot>
17:43:26 <IanH> q?
17:43:38 <Zhe> IanH: anyone against resolving this issue?
17:44:28 <pfps> PROPOSED: close issue 130 as in T&C
17:44:41 <bmotik> +1
17:44:42 <pfps> +1
17:44:44 <m_schnei> +1 (FZI)
17:44:44 <msmith> +1
17:44:45 <sandro> +1
17:44:46 <ewallace> +1
17:44:46 <alanr> +1
17:44:47 <IanH> +1
17:44:47 <bijan> +1
17:44:47 <uli> _1
17:44:48 <Zhe> Zhe: +1
17:44:48 <Rinke> +1
17:44:54 <Achille> +1
17:44:56 <uli> +1 that is
17:44:57 <Elisa> +1
17:45:06 <IanH> RESOLVED: close issue 130 as in T&C
17:45:30 <Zhe> IanH: Issue discussions. lift issue 127
17:45:34 <Zhe> IanH: issue-127: documents contain bits of nary datatype but these are not yet in OWL 2
17:45:34 <trackbot>
17:45:46 <bijan> q+
17:45:49 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
17:45:50 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
17:45:53 <Zhe> IanH: what are we going to do if we don't have nary in the SPEC?
17:45:56 <IanH> q?
17:46:00 <IanH> ack bijan
17:46:15 <alanr> we have had discussion
17:46:18 <Zhe> bijan: We have hooks right now
17:46:26 <Zhe> IanH: What are the hooks?
17:46:29 <IanH> q?
17:46:42 <Zhe> bijan: For example, we can have a list of property restrictions and then we can have nary predicate, onProperties can take a list. That is the base level.
17:46:43 <alanr> q+ to ask instead what is the status of the n-ary
17:46:53 <IanH> q?
17:47:07 <IanH> q?
17:47:08 <m_schnei> datatype complements also
17:47:23 <Zhe> alanr: Those are the kinds of things I was referring to
17:47:25 <bmotik> q+
17:47:31 <IanH> ack alanr
17:47:31 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to ask instead what the status of the n-ary
17:47:55 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:47:55 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
17:48:08 <IanH> ack bmotik
17:48:27 <Zhe> bmotik: To be precise, the hooks is the datarange class 
17:48:41 <IanH> q?
17:48:46 <Zhe> IanH: What if we don't have it?
17:49:00 <alanr> We have extensibility of datatype map
17:49:06 <m_schnei> q+
17:49:23 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:49:23 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:49:34 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
17:49:34 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:49:35 <IanH> q?
17:50:05 <bmotik> bmotik: The Syntax document contains an explanation of what the hooks are in Section 7 and Section 8.4
17:50:29 <Zhe> m_schnei: I want to add that the hook is also on compelmentOf
17:50:31 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:50:31 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:50:38 <IanH> q?
17:50:40 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
17:50:40 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:50:47 <Zhe> IanH: Would it be a problem if all have arity 1
17:50:51 <IanH> ack m_schnei
17:51:07 <Zhe> m_schnei: maybe fine
17:51:15 <alanr> q?
17:51:16 <IanH> q?
17:51:16 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:51:17 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:51:48 <ewallace> So why don't we just put N-ary in OWL 2?
17:52:09 <alanr> If there is progress made and hope for a spec by f2f, then I suggest we postpone in anticipation.
17:52:13 <msmith> I believe Bijan is referring to this document
17:52:17 <Zhe> bijan: Have a paper on how to compute satisfiability. I don't know who else objects the hooks.
17:52:30 <IanH> q?
17:52:36 <alanr> q+
17:52:42 <IanH> q?
17:53:11 <IanH> q?
17:53:16 <IanH> ack alanr
17:53:17 <Zhe> alanr: I am happy to know the progress. I object because we don't want to add things that are not understandble by reasoners.
17:53:34 <bijan> q+ to ask if this is datatypes
17:53:41 <IanH> q?
17:54:17 <IanH> q?
17:54:59 <msmith> discussion at f2f3
17:55:00 <Zhe> bijan: there were objections (from Boris) on difficulty ground to add nary datatype
17:55:10 <m_schnei> q+
17:55:16 <IanH> q?
17:55:21 <IanH> ack bijan
17:55:21 <Zakim> bijan, you wanted to ask if this is datatypes
17:55:34 <bmotik> I look forward to learning about your results!
17:55:38 <Zhe> bijan: I hope to convince Boris to include it after working out details. We already have extension point for data type
17:55:41 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
17:55:41 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:55:43 <IanH> q?
17:55:59 <alanr> over objection
17:56:15 <alanr> and still under discussion
17:56:42 <IanH> q?
17:57:00 <alanr> +1
17:57:15 <IanH> q?
17:57:18 <Zhe> IanH: Maybe we can postpone once we make further progress with document
17:57:19 <alanr> (and is hopeful that document will be completed)
17:58:00 <Zhe> m_schnei: I think I remember from last F2F, putting concrete n-ary datatype in has big impact on implementors
17:58:07 <sandro> [ Apologies, I need to run off to another meeting.   Enjoy.... ]
17:58:11 <bijan> Yes, we're there :)
17:58:17 <Zakim> -Sandro
17:58:20 <alanr> q+
17:58:24 <bijan> The conformance problem would be solved by pointing to an additional recommendation
17:58:34 <bijan> Yes!
17:58:42 <IanH> q?
17:58:47 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
17:58:47 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
17:59:01 <IanH> ack m_schnei
17:59:05 <IanH> ack alanr
17:59:31 <Zhe> alanr: I object to leave it completely open in the document
17:59:33 <uli> I don't think that this will happen, Alan
17:59:41 <alanr> uli: great!
17:59:48 <trackbot>
17:59:51 <m_schnei> m_schnei: I remember the idea was that we put the hooks in the core OWL 2 language, and then (either we or a different WG) specifies certain n-ary datatypes (comparisons, etc.) as "standard extensions"
17:59:48 <Zhe> IanH: issue-144: missing base triple in serialization of axioms with annotations. 
17:59:53 <IanH> q?
18:00:01 <m_schnei> q+
18:00:04 <IanH> q?
18:00:05 <bijan> Let's dump reificatioN!
18:00:05 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
18:00:05 <Zakim> m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
18:00:07 <pfps> no change from last time :-)
18:00:12 <IanH> ack m_schnei
18:00:36 <Zhe> m_schnei: Not having the base triple  will cause some syntatic non-monotonicity. After adding annotations will remove original assertions, it is not a problem for FULL semantics because base triple will be re-created.
18:02:04 <Zhe> m_schnei: However, it will be a problem for SPARQL, you have to re-create it 
18:01:58 <IanH> q?
18:02:03 <bmotik> q+
18:02:16 <IanH> q?
18:02:17 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
18:02:18 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
18:02:19 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
18:02:19 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
18:02:21 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:02:34 <Zhe> bmotik: It still does not solve the problem if the triple is not there. adding a reification rule.
18:03:53 <Zhe> ... tools can always add it. 
18:04:14 <Zhe> ... we should say tool should put related triples together in serialization, to address efficiency problem
18:04:46 <Zhe> ... for triple stores
18:02:34 <alanr> what tool would remove the triple?
18:03:08 <alanr> q+
18:03:11 <IanH> q?
18:03:35 <m_schnei> q+
18:03:56 <IanH> q?
18:04:12 <IanH> ack alanr
18:04:29 <Zhe> alanr: having a de-reification rule is not feasible. Two versions of ontologies will require two versions of query
18:04:43 <bijan> q+ to ask about this "common scenarios"
18:04:57 <bmotik> q+
18:05:02 <IanH> q?
18:05:06 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
18:05:06 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:05:10 <uli> when would we then have trouble, Alan?
18:05:13 <IanH> ack m_schnei
18:06:11 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:06:11 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
18:06:14 <Zhe> m_schnei: why not just put it in?
18:06:15 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
18:06:15 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
18:06:24 <Zhe> bijan: i don't know
18:06:28 <IanH> ack bijan
18:06:28 <Zakim> bijan, you wanted to ask about this "common scenarios"
18:06:31 <IanH> q?
18:06:54 <msmith> m_schnei, just putting it in breaks the RDF -> functional mapping
18:06:57 <m_schnei> q+
18:07:01 <alanr> its not just axioms. it's entity annotations as well
18:07:27 <IanH> q?
18:08:05 <IanH> q?
18:08:06 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:08:07 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:08:08 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:08:17 <alanr> q+
18:08:18 <Zhe> bijan: it is new and not well supported by RDF. we still need some smart technique to process it
18:08:45 <Zhe> bmotik: cannot distinguish axiom wo annotation and axiom with annotation
18:08:54 <IanH> q?
18:08:55 <uli> Bijan, in the above, did "it" mean "OWL"?
18:09:07 <bijan> Axiom annotations
18:09:08 <alanr> they should not be!
18:09:15 <bijan> +1 to boris
18:09:29 <msmith> e.g., SubClassOf(A B) and SubClassOf( Annotation( dc:creator "msmith" ) A B)
18:09:41 <uli> thanks, Bijan
18:09:55 <alanr> msmiths - smileys mess up your message
18:10:07 <IanH> q?
18:10:19 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
18:10:19 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:10:30 <IanH> ack m_schnei
18:11:13 <IanH> q?
18:11:22 <msmith> it would add axioms that didn't exist
18:11:42 <bmotik> q+
18:11:47 <Zhe> m_schnei: I don't see the problem
18:11:55 <IanH> q?
18:11:56 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
18:11:56 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
18:11:56 <bmotik> Consider the following axioms:
18:11:58 <IanH> ack alanr
18:12:01 <bmotik> SubClassOf( A B )
18:12:03 <bmotik> and
18:12:12 <msmith> q+
18:12:15 <bmotik> SubClassOf( Label("bla") A B )
18:12:32 <bmotik> The first gets translated into one triple only
18:12:45 <Zhe> alanr: I am confused. it does not even make sense to have an un-annotated axiom and an annotated version in one ontology
18:12:48 <bmotik> The second gets translated into the four triples only.
18:13:00 <uli> Alan, we won't be able to prevent these "duplicate axioms" and I don't think we should!
18:13:00 <IanH> q?
18:13:02 <m_schnei> yes, thats fine
18:13:08 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:13:09 <bijan> q+ to support distinguishing it
18:13:11 <Zhe> bmotik: what do you mean by adding annotation
18:13:37 <Zhe> ... P4 will retract and add a new one
18:13:47 <Zhe> ... however it is beyond the point
18:13:41 <m_schnei> at least, the original semantics have to be the same after a roundtrip through RDF
18:13:51 <alanr> so you have 4 annotations and you add a fifth and you "retract" the 4 annotations and add a *new* axiom with 5 annotations?
18:13:52 <bijan> I wrote SubClassOf( A B ). Then I merge with an ontology that had SubClassOf(Label("bla") A B)
18:14:03 <m_schnei> q+
18:14:08 <IanH> q?
18:14:09 <bijan> SubClassOf(Label("Bla" A  B )
18:14:09 <uli> e.g., we could have "the same axiom" from different imports and that have been created by different people
18:14:21 <Zhe> bmotik: from a pure definition's perspective, it can happen. It will be strange to forbid it.
18:14:21 <bijan> It'd be nice to notice that there are two!
18:14:22 <alanr> They should be considered the *same* axiom
18:14:29 <msmith> q-
18:14:35 <alanr> q+
18:14:38 <bijan> E.g., that one was written by me (without a label).
18:14:40 <IanH> q?
18:14:42 <m_schnei> q-
18:14:47 <bijan> The other one wasn't (and has a label)
18:14:55 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:14:55 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
18:15:12 <IanH> q?
18:15:17 <IanH> ack bijan
18:15:17 <Zakim> bijan, you wanted to support distinguishing it
18:15:20 <uli> how far would we go? E.g., how much normalization/rewriting would we consider to decide "equality of axioms"? 
18:15:20 <IanH> q?
18:15:26 <alanr> if you compare you should see that there is an added annotation to *the* axiom
18:15:44 <IanH> q?
18:15:48 <uli> +1 to Bijan
18:15:49 <alanr> Second case is not at risk
18:15:51 <Zhe> q+
18:16:18 <bmotik> q+
18:16:37 <bijan> I didn't undersatnd what alan said was "very clear"
18:16:37 <IanH> ack alanr
18:16:49 <bijan> I meant *merge* not import
18:16:51 <m_schnei> q+
18:16:53 <bijan> That's why I said *merge*
18:17:04 <bijan> You are kidding
18:17:09 <m_schnei> we have an imports closure
18:17:25 <bijan> I merge ontologies all the time
18:17:29 <IanH> q?
18:17:30 <bijan> Cut and paste
18:17:32 <pfps> q+ to ask why the "know"
18:17:33 <bijan> i've written tools to do it
18:17:36 <bijan> P4 does it
18:17:50 <IanH> q?
18:17:55 <uli> I have done it and seen people doing it (the cut and paste) 
18:18:00 <m_schnei> ok, I will write down my points and send it to the list
18:18:05 <pfps> q-
18:18:09 <m_schnei> q-
18:18:19 <IanH> ack Zhe
18:18:27 <bijan> Refactor>>Extract/Remove Axioms will move sets of axioms from one ontology to the other
18:18:48 <uli> Zhe: I have been stressing efficiency for a long time, I don't know whether Boris's suggestion (on putting relevant triples together) is feasible in practice. 
18:18:53 <pfps> a number of people have produced countering efficiency claims
18:19:01 <IanH> q?
18:19:37 <IanH> Zhe: why is it useful to distinguish axioms with and without annotations?
18:19:52 <alanr> I am the same when a few skin cells slough off
18:20:07 <alanr> one can certainly redefine identity appropriately
18:20:10 <IanH> q?
18:20:15 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:20:35 <uli> Alan, I think your comparisons don't work
18:20:41 <alanr> because?
18:20:45 <msmith> +1 to boris, the current definition of structural consistency is very nice from a software implementation perspective
18:21:03 <uli> if we have the same axiom from different authors in different files, we might care
18:21:16 <m_schnei> we don't care about perfect roundtrip anymore, remember!
18:21:18 <alanr> not an issue when in different files
18:21:23 <m_schnei> we have "semantic" roundtripping
18:21:26 <bijan> I care about roudntripping
18:21:28 <IanH> q?
18:21:34 <bijan> And preserving it as much as possible
18:21:35 <uli> oups, i forgot
18:21:43 <alanr> if merging two files and you want to preserve source file, then annotate with provenance
18:21:46 <uli> but still, when you copy and paste, then you need this
18:21:54 <uli> this distinction, i mean
18:21:56 <alanr> you can do anything with cut and paste
18:22:07 <IanH> STRAWPOLL: we should add the base triple?
18:22:09 <alanr> it's a matter of comparing what's priority
18:22:10 <pfps> -1 down with base triples
18:22:23 <Zhe> Zhe: +1 with base triples
18:22:27 <msmith> -1
18:22:28 <Bernardo> -1 to base triples
18:22:28 <bijan> -1
18:22:31 <m_schnei> +1 to base triple (we do not care about roundtripping since 6 months or so)
18:22:32 <baojie> 0 (need to think more)
18:22:32 <Achille> 0
18:22:34 <bmotik> -1 to base triples
18:22:34 <alanr> +1 to base triples
18:22:38 <uli> -1
18:22:41 <ewallace> 0
18:22:47 <Rinke> -0
18:22:47 <IanH> -1
18:22:49 <ratnesh> -1
18:22:50 <Carsten> 0
18:22:52 <alanr> (one of Sandro or Ivan would vote +1, I expect)
18:23:01 <pfps> q+
18:23:09 <pfps> q-
18:23:14 <bmotik> q+
18:23:19 <Zhe> IanH: we are kind of split 
18:23:25 <IanH> q?
18:23:31 <Carsten>  7:2 = split in the middle?
18:23:38 <Zhe> bmotik: if I see a convincing way to roundtrip it
18:23:40 <alanr> I'm not guessing
18:23:48 <msmith>  7:3 I think
18:23:55 <Carsten> sorry
18:24:05 <uli>  8:3?
18:24:08 <msmith>  8:3
18:24:26 <Zhe> IanH: the point is that it is not just one person against the rest
18:24:38 <alanr> different if we count by institution ;-)
18:24:55 <Zhe> IanH: issue-137: Table 4 in RDF mapping introduces incompatibility with OWL 1 
18:24:56 <trackbot>
18:24:57 <IanH> q?
18:25:03 <alanr> q+
18:25:04 <bmotik> -q
18:25:07 <bmotik> q-
18:25:14 <IanH> q?
18:25:19 <IanH> ack alanr
18:26:03 <bijan> Er... that's not a use case
18:26:16 <bijan> "RDF not an XML solution" just isn't a use case
18:26:45 <IanH> q?
18:27:00 <Zhe> alanr: there is no reason to have additional inclusion mechnism other than owl import
18:27:56 <IanH> q?
18:28:04 <Zhe> bijan: i don't agree with it. I am not convinced.
18:28:32 <IanH> q?
18:28:33 <Zhe> bijan: use xml include
18:28:37 <IanH> q?
18:28:42 <IanH> q?
18:28:53 <Zhe> alanr: not happy with it. 
18:29:16 <pfps> n-triples as a rec?  where is it coming from?
18:29:25 <bijan> n-triples is already a rec
18:29:26 <bijan> q+
18:29:31 <IanH> q?
18:29:54 <IanH> q?
18:30:16 <alanr> yes - turtle
18:30:19 <IanH> q?
18:30:27 <alanr> it's not a turtle problem
18:30:33 <IanH> q?
18:30:38 <IanH> ack bijan
18:30:43 <alanr> we can do this in owl, folks don't like the solution
18:31:03 <alanr> so there is a compromise offered
18:31:06 <bijan> I don't see any movement will happen...we'll problaby not get consensus
18:31:12 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
18:31:14 <Zakim> -msmith
18:31:15 <Zakim> -bijan
18:31:17 <Zakim> -Bernardo
18:31:21 <Rinke> stop don't go!
18:31:35 <pfps> F2F agenda looks good
18:31:36 <Zhe> IanH: F2F4 agenda? anyone looked at it?
18:31:37 <uli> Yes, But i need to look again
18:31:38 <Rinke> +1
18:31:46 <m_schnei> not yet looked at it
18:31:51 <Zakim> -baojie
18:31:55 <bijan> you'll have to explain (in email) how the compromise isn't just your position ...I don't see how it's different 
18:32:12 <alanr> my position was to fix the mapping to handle it
18:32:19 <Zhe> IanH: please get back to me with your comments in the next hour.
18:32:20 <alanr> peter offered to have some inclusion mechanism instead
18:32:35 <uli> oh, yes: I was wondering whether the second session of Day 2 is really reserved to repairs...this seems really long