Chatlog 2008-10-15

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.

16:53:59 <scribenick> PRESENT: bijan (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, IanH, calvanese, baojie, uli (muted), Ivan (muted), bmotik (muted), Zhe, Ratnesh, christine, clu, bernardo, Alan_Ruttenberg, Evan, msmith, Markus
16:53:59 <scribenick> REGRETS: Michael Schneider
16:53:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:53:59 <RRSAgent> logging to
16:54:07 <bmotik> rrsagent. make log public
16:54:11 <baojie> baojie has joined #owl
16:54:14 <bmotik> rrsagent, make log public
16:54:55 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
16:54:59 <bijan> zakim, mute me
16:54:59 <Zakim> sorry, bijan, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
16:55:02 <Zakim> +??P7
16:55:07 <bijan> zakim, ??p7 is me
16:55:07 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
16:55:12 <bijan> zakim, mute me
16:55:12 <Zakim> sorry, bijan, muting is not permitted when only one person is present
16:55:16 <bijan> Grr
16:56:16 <IanH> IanH has joined #owl
16:56:16 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
16:56:18 <pfps> zakim, mute me
16:56:18 <Zakim> sorry, pfps, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
16:56:23 <bijan> zakim, mute me
16:56:23 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
16:56:33 <Zakim> + +39.047.101.aaaa
16:57:00 <calvanese> zakim, aaaa is me
16:57:00 <Zakim> +calvanese; got it
16:57:01 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
16:57:02 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, calvanese
16:57:04 <Zakim> On IRC I see IanH, baojie, RRSAgent, Zakim, bmotik, bijan, pfps, calvanese, clu, sandro, trackbot
16:57:13 <Zakim> -calvanese
16:57:56 <uli> uli has joined #owl
16:58:01 <Zakim> +IanH
16:58:07 <Zakim> +calvanese
16:58:59 <IanH> ScribeNick: calvanese
16:59:00 <ivan> ivan has joined #owl
16:59:35 <uli> hm, dialling in seems to be difficult today
16:59:47 <Zakim> +baojie
17:00:00 <Zakim> +??P16
17:00:04 <Zakim> +??P17
17:00:05 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P16 is me
17:00:06 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
17:00:12 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:00:13 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
17:00:16 <Zakim> +Ivan
17:00:18 <Zakim> -bmotik
17:00:27 <uli> zakim, ??P17 is me
17:00:28 <Zakim> +uli; got it
17:00:30 <ivan> zakim, mute me
17:00:30 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
17:00:38 <Zakim> +??P16
17:00:42 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P16 is me
17:00:42 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
17:00:46 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:00:46 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:00:48 <uli> zakim, mute me
17:00:48 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
17:01:11 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:01:11 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, IanH, calvanese, baojie, uli (muted), Ivan (muted), bmotik (muted)
17:01:13 <Zakim> On IRC I see ivan, uli, IanH, baojie, RRSAgent, Zakim, bmotik, bijan, pfps, calvanese, clu, sandro, trackbot
17:01:14 <Ratnesh> Ratnesh has joined #owl
17:01:32 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl
17:01:33 <calvanese> Topic: Admin
17:01:40 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:01:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, IanH, calvanese, baojie, uli (muted), Ivan (muted), bmotik (muted)
17:01:42 <Zakim> On IRC I see Zhe, Ratnesh, ivan, uli, IanH, baojie, RRSAgent, Zakim, bmotik, bijan, pfps, calvanese, clu, sandro, trackbot
17:01:43 <Zakim> +Zhe
17:01:43 <MarkusK_> MarkusK_ has joined #owl
17:01:49 <calvanese> IanH: roll call
17:01:55 <pfps> q+
17:01:59 <IanH> q?
17:02:00 <calvanese> IanH: agenda amendments?
17:02:09 <Zhe> zakim, mute me
17:02:09 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted
17:02:15 <bijan> +2
17:02:27 <IanH> q?
17:02:36 <IanH> ack ??p17
17:02:38 <uli> q-
17:02:38 <pfps> q-
17:02:40 <Zakim> +??P20
17:02:43 <Zakim> +??P24
17:02:45 <uli> 56
17:02:51 <Zakim> -??P24
17:02:52 <Ratnesh> Zakim, ??P20 is me
17:02:53 <Zakim> +Ratnesh; got it
17:03:00 <pfps> pfps: propose to put issue-56 into "under consideration for resolution" section
17:03:02 <calvanese> pfps: pfps move issue 56 under consideration for resolution
17:03:09 <bmotik> bmotik has joined #owl
17:03:13 <alanr> alanr has joined #owl
17:03:18 <msmith> msmith has joined #owl
17:03:21 <calvanese> IanH: moved
17:03:24 <Zakim> + +49.421.218.6.aabb
17:03:28 <Zakim> +??P28
17:03:34 <calvanese> Ianh: no other amendments
17:03:37 <pfps> minutes are OK
17:03:37 <uli> yes
17:03:40 <clu> zakim, aabb is me
17:03:40 <Zakim> +clu; got it
17:03:40 <uli> look fine
17:03:40 <calvanese> IanH: previous minutes?
17:03:41 <Zakim> +Alan_Ruttenberg
17:03:44 <clu> zakim, mute me
17:03:45 <Zakim> clu should now be muted
17:03:53 <Zakim> +msmith
17:03:57 <bcuencagrau> bcuencagrau has joined #owl
17:03:58 <calvanese> RESOLVED: accept previous minutes
17:04:30 <calvanese> IanH: action item status
17:04:37 <bcuencagrau> bcuencagrau has joined #owl
17:04:50 <calvanese> ... no pending review actions
17:05:03 <calvanese> ... due and overdue actions
17:05:13 <calvanese> ... Action 189
17:05:34 <pfps> isn't action-189 for reviewing mapping for the *previous* publication?
17:05:43 <bernardo> bernardo has joined #owl
17:06:04 <calvanese> ... alan: proposes to close the action
17:06:21 <Zakim> +??P32
17:06:21 <calvanese> RESOLVED: close action 189
17:06:28 <bernardo> Zakim, ??P32 is me
17:06:28 <Zakim> +bernardo; got it
17:06:32 <bernardo> Zakim, mute me
17:06:32 <Zakim> bernardo should now be muted
17:06:58 <calvanese> Ianh: action 217
17:07:25 <baojie> Jie Bao
17:07:34 <calvanese> baojie: continue for another week
17:07:53 <pfps> q+
17:08:00 <IanH> q?
17:08:04 <IanH> ack pfps
17:08:06 <calvanese> IanH: action amendments for agenda F2F next week?
17:08:26 <calvanese> pfps: sent email on amendment
17:08:37 <calvanese> ... there is a disturbing asymmetry
17:08:40 <alanr> q+
17:08:47 <IanH> ack alanr
17:09:33 <IanH> q?
17:09:39 <calvanese> alanr: have a session where to discuss options
17:10:09 <ewallace> ewallace has joined #owl
17:10:18 <calvanese> IanH: discuss later on agenda amendment
17:10:24 <calvanese> pfps: sounds fine
17:10:40 <calvanese> Ianh: no other agenda amendments
17:11:06 <pfps> q-
17:11:13 <calvanese> ... no teleconf next week because of F2F
17:11:26 <calvanese> Topic: reviewing and publishing
17:11:43 <calvanese> Ianh: first public draft published oct. 8
17:11:51 <uli> thanks, Sandro and others!
17:11:52 <pfps> hear, hear!
17:11:54 <calvanese> ... thank to all editors and contributors
17:11:56 <ivan> clap clap clap
17:11:56 <IanH> q?
17:12:20 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
17:12:28 <calvanese> Ianh: reviewing remaining documents
17:12:31 <IanH> q?
17:12:50 <bijan> q+
17:11:26 <calvanese> SubTopic: Manchester Syntax
17:12:51 <calvanese> alanr: my review is not fully completed. not satisfied
17:12:56 <calvanese> ... not sure how to proceed
17:12:56 <bijan> q-
17:13:00 <bijan> THat was my question
17:13:14 <calvanese> Ianh: does this affect finishing the review?
17:13:14 <cgolbrei> cgolbrei has joined #owl
17:13:26 <calvanese> alanr: no, I'll finish the review
17:14:01 <Zakim> +??P21
17:14:10 <calvanese> IanH: comment that alan is not satisfied with editor's response. not sure how to proceed
17:14:17 <calvanese> alanr: take it as issue
17:14:24 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:14:28 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, IanH, calvanese, baojie, uli (muted), Ivan (muted), bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), Ratnesh, clu (muted), MarkusK_,
17:14:33 <Zakim> ... Alan_Ruttenberg, msmith, bernardo (muted), Evan_Wallace, ??P21
17:14:38 <Zakim> On IRC I see cgolbrei, ewallace, bernardo, msmith, alanr, bmotik, MarkusK_, Zhe, Ratnesh, ivan, uli, IanH, baojie, RRSAgent, Zakim, bijan, pfps, calvanese, clu, sandro, trackbot
17:14:40 <cgolbrei> ??P21 cgolbrei
17:14:46 <calvanese> Ianh: alan will submit an issue on this
17:14:55 <ivan> zakim, ??P21 is christine
17:14:55 <Zakim> +christine; got it
17:14:55 <uli> zakim, ??P21 is cgolbrei
17:14:56 <Zakim> I already had ??P21 as christine, uli
17:11:26 <calvanese> SubTopic: Quick Reference Guide
17:15:02 <calvanese> Ianh: anything to report on quick reference guide
17:15:05 <IanH> q?
17:15:41 <calvanese> Zhe: at meeting of task force decided to redesign the card(?)
17:15:58 <ivan> q+
17:16:06 <ivan> zakim, unmute me
17:16:06 <Zakim> Ivan should no longer be muted
17:16:06 <IanH> q?
17:16:08 <baojie>
17:16:29 <IanH> q?
17:16:32 <IanH> ack ivan
17:16:36 <calvanese> IanH: when new version of card(?) available, then new reviewing round
17:16:47 <bijan> q+
17:17:13 <IanH> q?
17:17:19 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
17:17:19 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
17:17:22 <calvanese> Ianh: proposes to close reviewing actions on the card
17:17:24 <IanH> q?
17:17:35 <calvanese> bijan: why developed on external wiki?
17:17:53 <uli> baojie
17:18:04 <uli> ...answered to Bijan
17:18:07 <ivan> +1 to bijan
17:18:13 <bijan> zakim, mute me
17:18:13 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
17:18:14 <calvanese> ... we should do all the working group work on the working group wiki
17:18:28 <calvanese> ACTION: move reference card work on owl wiki
17:18:28 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - move
17:19:00 <calvanese> ACTION: baojie move reference card work on owl wiki
17:19:00 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - baojie
17:19:02 <IanH> q?
17:19:13 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
17:19:13 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
17:19:20 <baojie> try Jie Bao?
17:19:23 <IanH> q?
17:19:25 <pfps> ACTION: JieBao move reference card work on owl wiki
17:19:25 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - JieBao
17:20:30 <calvanese> IanH: can BiJan discuss this with task force
17:20:49 <calvanese> bijan: ok
17:21:03 <calvanese> SubTopic: Requirements
17:21:03 <calvanese> IanH: what is the latest state with requirement?
17:21:13 <bijan> Bijan: I was wondering if the TF has determined whether they'll use HTML for the quick reference card.
17:21:16 <uli> Diego, this is cgolbrei
17:21:33 <calvanese> cgolbrei: since review updated requirements to take into account comments
17:22:20 <calvanese> ... actions till Oct. 20 to be done.  by then we will have a complete version of requirements
17:22:27 <IanH> q?
17:22:31 <bijan> q-
17:22:31 <ewallace> yes
17:22:35 <calvanese> ... in touch with Ivan to improve narrative of usecases
17:22:41 <IanH> q?
17:22:44 <bijan> zakim, mute me
17:22:44 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
17:22:51 <cgolbrei> evan
17:22:51 <ivan> :-)
17:22:53 <calvanese> IanH: so good progress has been done
17:22:55 <uli> s/Ivan/Evan
17:22:57 <bijan> I've not reviewed the requirements in quite some time
17:22:59 <ivan> s/ivan/evan/
17:22:59 <calvanese> s/ivan/evan
17:23:05 <baojie> QRG is transferred to OWL Wiki
17:23:09 <calvanese> s/ivan/evan/
17:23:15 <bijan> I've had reservations about it...if we hit a point where you'd like my (critical) feedback, let me know
17:23:25 <calvanese> Topic: Issues
17:24:17 <calvanese> IanH: there are a few issues remaining that have been talked to death, but still no clear right or wrong answer
17:24:44 <IanH> q?
17:24:49 <calvanese> ... we have just to vote with a majority on these.  this is the reason for the slight change of title on this first part of the issues
17:25:01 <calvanese> IanH: no procedural questions
17:25:14 <calvanese> SubTopic: Issue 109
17:25:14 <calvanese> IanH: Issue 109 about namespaces
17:25:28 <IanH>
17:25:46 <calvanese> IanH: this email contains a reasonable summary of the issue
17:25:48 <bijan> that's the proposal
17:26:05 <pfps> Ian posted in one of my messages.  Ivan is free to agree with it. 
17:26:10 <calvanese> ivan: this is Peter's email, not mine
17:26:20 <IanH>
17:26:33 <calvanese> IanH: this is the one from Ivan that summarizes the discussion
17:27:05 <bijan> Key bit:
17:27:06 <bijan> From that point on the disagreement between Bijan and me is, I believe, 
17:27:06 <bijan> a kind of a judgement call:
17:27:06 <bijan> - Bijan believes that introducing a _different_ URI for the purpose of 
17:27:07 <bijan> #2 is too expensive, so to say, in terms of the user community, and that 
17:27:07 <bijan> issue of this extra 'price' should have a higher priority than other 
17:27:07 <calvanese> IanH: Ivan gives a short summary of the issue
17:27:08 <bijan> considerations
17:27:10 <bijan> - I am concerned that mixing two very different features/roles on the 
17:27:12 <bijan> same URI is not a clear design and may be misleading (see also my remark 
17:27:14 <bijan> below), and I do not feel the 'price' referred to by Bijan to be high 
17:27:16 <bijan> enough to overrule this concern.
17:28:01 <calvanese> Ivan: summarizes issue 109
17:28:07 <bijan> q+
17:28:40 <IanH> q?
17:28:44 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
17:28:44 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
17:28:46 <calvanese> IanH: there is no new info to bring on this issue
17:29:17 <calvanese> bijan: would like to see a pointer to another place that says that it is bad engineering practice
17:29:56 <calvanese> ... it is not just a beaty contest, since it changes how I have to write software
17:30:03 <bijan> zakim, mute me
17:30:03 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
17:30:16 <bijan> I've shown material effects!
17:30:28 <bijan> Yep
17:30:31 <bijan> Yes
17:30:35 <IanH> q?
17:30:38 <bijan> q-
17:30:39 <IanH> ack bijan
17:30:40 <calvanese> IanH: the long discussion we already had didn't seem to converge
17:30:44 <bijan> zakim, mute me
17:30:44 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
17:31:22 <bijan> If there's a -1 then ask if we're going to lie down in the road
17:31:47 <calvanese> IanH: we could start with a straw poll first, and then try to find out which direction people are going
17:31:58 <alanr> q+
17:32:02 <IanH> q?
17:32:29 <ivan> q+
17:32:31 <bijan> "lie down in the road" is old w3c lingo for "make a formal objection"
17:32:33 <ivan> ack alanr
17:32:38 <IanH> ack alanr
17:32:58 <IanH> ack ivan
17:33:02 <IanH> q?
17:33:03 <pfps> Straw Poll: same = same namespace, different = different namespace (caps for road kill)??
17:33:21 <calvanese> ivan: whatever the outcome is, w3c does not want to use this as a formal objection.
17:33:39 <calvanese> ... we will go with the majority, and would not make a formal objection out of that
17:33:47 <bijan> Manchester has not determined whether we'd formally object
17:34:02 <pfps> mixed case for Manchester :-)
17:34:06 <calvanese> IanH: straw poll
17:34:09 <ewallace> 0
17:34:12 <baojie> 0
17:34:14 <ivan> different
17:34:14 <pfps> same
17:34:18 <bijan> same
17:34:40 <IanH> STRAWPOLL: same = same namespace, different = different, 0 = don't care
17:34:50 <Zhe> 0
17:34:50 <pfps> ame :-)
17:34:51 <bijan> ame
17:34:52 <ewallace> 0
17:34:53 <msmith> same
17:34:53 <ivan> different
17:35:00 <uli> same
17:35:03 <bmotik> 0
17:35:04 <bernardo> same
17:35:04 <cgolbrei> same
17:35:05 <alanr> 0
17:35:05 <baojie> 0
17:35:05 <MarkusK_> same
17:35:10 <calvanese> 0
17:35:13 <clu> 0
17:35:42 <bijan> Yes
17:36:04 <calvanese> IanH; same is in vast majority.  sandro sent email that he would vote "different"
17:36:14 <alanr> also manchester
17:36:33 <bijan> So are we settled?
17:36:58 <calvanese> IanH: only W3C voting different
17:37:11 <calvanese> IanH: let's have now a formal vote
17:37:58 <IanH> PROPOSAL: close issue-109 by resolving to use a single namespace for everything and that that namespace is the old OWL namespace and that we use it for the XML syntax elements and attributes.
17:38:11 <bijan> Ok by me
17:38:21 <pfps> I believe that the above is adequate
17:38:29 <pfps> q+
17:38:35 <IanH> q?
17:38:40 <bijan> Separate issue?
17:38:40 <IanH> ack pfps
17:38:44 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
17:38:46 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
17:38:56 <calvanese> pfps: there is a proposal for attributes having no namespace
17:39:38 <bijan> zakim, mute me
17:39:38 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
17:39:50 <uli> or add (pending decision about namespacing of attributes in general)
17:39:54 <IanH> PROPOSAL: close issue-109 by resolving to use a single namespace for everything and that namespace is the old OWL namespace and that we use it for the XML syntax elements and attributes.
17:39:58 <ewallace> 0 NIST
17:39:59 <pfps> +1 (Alcatel-Lucent)
17:40:01 <uli> +1 (Manchester)
17:40:03 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
17:40:04 <msmith> +1 (C&P)
17:40:05 <ivan> -1 (W3C)
17:40:09 <bernardo> 0 (OX)
17:40:09 <baojie> +1 (RPI)
17:40:09 <alanr> 0 (Science Commons)
17:40:11 <calvanese> 0 (FUB)
17:40:15 <cgolbrei> +1 uvsq
17:40:17 <Zhe> 0 (ORACLE)
17:40:39 <IanH> RESOLVED: close issue-109 by resolving to use a single namespace for everything and that namespace is the old OWL namespace and that we use it for the XML syntax elements and attributes.
17:40:50 <IanH> q?
17:41:01 <IanH> q?
17:41:07 <calvanese> pfps: can we resolve the part on attributes now?
17:41:08 <bijan> But I've heard no objection
17:41:11 <bijan> Sandro is for it
17:41:18 <bijan> All discussion is positive
17:41:34 <pfps> let's go for it!
17:41:40 <calvanese> IanH: have we discussed this adequately, and are we in a position to decide on it now?
17:41:44 <bijan> And it's standard XML practice
17:41:48 <calvanese> ivan: seems to be a nobrainer
17:41:55 <bijan> Yes
17:42:03 <IanH> PROPOSAL: attributes should have no namespace.
17:42:11 <bijan> attirbutes in owl/xml
17:42:35 <IanH> PROPOSAL: attributes in owl/xml should have no namespace.
17:42:36 <bijan> +1
17:42:41 <ivan> 1
17:42:45 <pfps> +1 (Alcatel-Lucent)
17:42:47 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
17:42:48 <uli> +1
17:42:49 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
17:42:49 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons)
17:42:50 <ewallace> +1 (NIST)
17:42:51 <ivan> 1 (W3C)
17:42:55 <msmith> +1 (C&P)
17:42:57 <IanH> +1
17:42:59 <Ratnesh> +1 (DERI)
17:43:02 <baojie> 1(RPI)
17:43:05 <bernardo> +1
17:43:06 <calvanese> +1 (FUB)
17:43:12 <cgolbrei> +1 (UVSQ)
17:43:16 <IanH> RESOLVED: attributes in owl/xml should have no namespace.
17:43:35 <IanH> q?
17:43:50 <calvanese> SubTopic: Issue 114
17:43:50 <calvanese> IanH: Issue 114 - which combinations of punning should be allowed?
17:43:58 <IanH> q?
17:44:04 <alanr> q+
17:44:10 <IanH> q?
17:44:14 <IanH> ack alanr
17:44:15 <calvanese> ... nobody seems to object to the proposal for resolution
17:44:15 <bmotik> q+
17:44:38 <uli> Alan, you phone line comes and goes
17:45:03 <IanH> q?
17:45:05 <pfps> q+
17:45:09 <calvanese> alanr: summarizes issue 114
17:45:31 <bijan> zakim, mute me
17:45:31 <Zakim> bijan was already muted, bijan
17:45:43 <IanH> q?
17:45:52 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:45:52 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
17:46:06 <IanH> q?
17:46:10 <IanH> ack bmotik
17:46:33 <IanH> q?
17:46:36 <uli> yes
17:46:44 <uli> yes
17:46:46 <bernardo> yes
17:46:47 <calvanese> bmotik: i think I have a good set of answers to alan's questions
17:46:51 <msmith> yes, I can hear you both fine
17:47:09 <uli> re-dial?
17:47:12 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
17:47:12 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
17:47:20 <bijan> Ian can can you hear me?
17:47:38 <alanr> ok I've got
17:47:41 <alanr> it
17:47:42 <uli> we still hear you
17:47:48 <bijan> zakim, mute me
17:47:48 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
17:48:28 <calvanese> bmotik: the rhs of annotiations would also be URIs
17:48:48 <calvanese> ... this is technical, and difficult to discuss via phone
17:49:27 <IanH> q?
17:49:30 <calvanese> IanH: it would be fare to postpone the discussion today, and have a discussion via email.  then resolve it at the F2F
17:49:35 <pfps> q-
17:50:23 <calvanese> SubTopic: Issue 138
17:50:23 <calvanese> IanH: Issue 138 on name of dateTime
17:50:34 <calvanese> pfps: summarizes issue
17:50:36 <IanH> q?
17:50:40 <ivan> q+
17:50:41 <msmith> q+
17:50:49 <IanH> ack ivan
17:51:23 <pfps> q+
17:51:32 <calvanese> ivan: clarify next week with the XML schema people all remaining questions
17:51:36 <IanH> ack msmith
17:51:57 <IanH> ack pfps
17:51:58 <calvanese> msmith: there is still an issue with identity being different
17:52:15 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:52:15 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:52:28 <bijan> Isnt' this just words?
17:52:40 <msmith> q+
17:52:43 <bijan> I.e., does it matter if we call our identity "xsd equality"?
17:52:50 <calvanese> pfps: xml schema 1.1 identity is data structure identity. we are not using that as our semantic notion of identity.  we are using equality
17:53:17 <IanH> q?
17:53:25 <calvanese> msmith: I will try to find out when the xml-schema people meet next week
17:53:38 <pfps> s/msmith/ivan/
17:53:59 <bmotik> q+ to answer this
17:54:05 <IanH> ack msmith
17:54:12 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:54:12 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
17:54:21 <IanH> ack bmotik
17:54:21 <Zakim> bmotik, you wanted to answer this
17:54:37 <IanH> q?
17:55:11 <pfps> there is explicit wording in the xsd 1.1 document saying that smushing real and double is OK
17:55:28 <msmith> ok
17:55:31 <msmith> I'm happier, thanks
17:55:32 <calvanese> bmotik: we are doing here something similar to what done with numbers in general
17:55:46 <IanH> q?
17:56:00 <calvanese> IanH: we postpone issue 138 till we speak with the xml-schema people
17:57:16 <calvanese> SubTopic: Issue 56
17:57:16 <calvanese> IanH: as agreed at the beginning, we are moving issue 56 forward
17:57:20 <bijan> q+
17:57:25 <IanH> q?
17:58:04 <calvanese> pfps: the issue is out of scope for our working group. there are better places to discuss it
17:58:13 <IanH> q?
17:58:16 <calvanese> ... e.g. OWLED
17:58:27 <alanr> misunderstanding
17:58:32 <alanr> no SHOULDs involved
17:58:35 <alanr> WG Note
17:58:53 <bijan> I have a meta point
17:59:01 <calvanese> pfps: summarizes the issue, and explain what "this" is
17:59:02 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
17:59:02 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
17:59:35 <calvanese> bparsia: I don't see that a discussion would change people's positions
17:59:40 <bijan> zakim, mute me
17:59:40 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
17:59:40 <ivan> an aside: Michael SperbergMcQueen will not be in Mandelieu:-( But Henry Thompson and Liam Quinn will be there
18:00:03 <bijan> q+
18:00:07 <IanH> q?
18:00:11 <pfps> q+
18:01:11 <IanH> q?
18:01:12 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:01:12 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
18:01:17 <IanH> ack bijan
18:02:08 <calvanese> pfps: owled would allow us to do the work on this outside the working group, and save resources
18:02:17 <IanH> q?
18:02:21 <pfps> pfps:  my view of the issue is to prepare a document that specifies repairs that tools should do to move RDF documents to OWL 2 Dl
18:02:21 <IanH> ack pfps
18:02:26 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:02:26 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:02:32 <calvanese> s/pfps/bparsia/
18:02:50 <calvanese> pfps: I agree with bijan
18:02:58 <msmith> yes, bijan is the only Pellet person at the f2f
18:03:10 <IanH> q?
18:03:35 <ivan> q+
18:03:38 <bijan> Manchester qua OWL Lint (CO-ODE) don't want to do it either :)
18:03:39 <IanH> q?
18:03:50 <pfps> i'm not interested in doing it at the F2F
18:04:00 <bijan> Why?
18:04:04 <IanH> q?
18:04:05 <pfps> yes, why?
18:04:07 <IanH> ack ivan
18:04:18 <msmith> q+
18:04:25 <calvanese> IanH: the question seems to be whether to discuss this in the working group or ouside, not whether to discuss this at all
18:04:27 <IanH> q?
18:04:35 <msmith> q-
18:04:38 <bijan> q+
18:04:49 <IanH> q?
18:05:10 <msmith> +1 to Ivan.  From Pellet implementer perspective, this is not high priority in WG time
18:05:20 <pfps> +1 to Ivan
18:05:25 <bijan> +1 to ivan
18:05:30 <IanH> q?
18:06:01 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:06:01 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
18:06:04 <IanH> q?
18:06:12 <IanH> ack bijan
18:06:28 <alanr> q+
18:06:32 <calvanese> IanH: we can decide at the beginning of the f2f whether we discuss this
18:07:06 <IanH> q?
18:07:17 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:07:17 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:07:18 <IanH> ack alanr
18:07:34 <calvanese> IanH: bijan, is it ok to leave deciding on that at the beginning of the f2f?
18:07:39 <pfps> pointer please!
18:07:40 <bijan> I have *always* objected to doing in the wg
18:07:46 <pfps> q+
18:07:47 <bijan> q+
18:07:49 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:07:49 <Zakim> bijan was already muted, bijan
18:07:50 <IanH> q?
18:07:53 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:07:53 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
18:08:16 <alanr> +1
18:08:37 <IanH> q?
18:08:44 <ewallace> roadmap discussion, future tasks for life of OWL WG
18:09:32 <calvanese> alanr: I would not object to rename the session at the f2f from "discussion on issue 56" to "discussion on open issues"
18:09:34 <pfps> pfps: I don't remember a straw poll on repairs - I would like a pointer
18:09:37 <IanH> q?
18:09:43 <IanH> ack pfps
18:09:48 <IanH> ack bijan
18:10:10 <alanr> Nor did I suggest that Bijan said that
18:10:23 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:10:23 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:10:32 <IanH> q?
18:10:42 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:10:42 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
18:11:00 <calvanese> animated discssion going on between alanr, bijan
18:11:00 <IanH> q?
18:11:13 <calvanese> PROPOSED: amend agenda of f2f
18:11:20 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:11:20 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:12:18 <calvanese> RESOLVED: amend agenda of f2f such that session on issue 56 is changed to "discussion on future working group activities"
18:12:39 <alanr> q+
18:12:39 <IanH> q?
18:12:54 <IanH> ack alanr
18:13:03 <pfps> q+
18:13:08 <ivan> q+
18:13:16 <IanH> q?
18:13:20 <calvanese> SubTopic: Issue 145
18:13:20 <calvanese> IanH: we move to issue 145
18:13:50 <calvanese> alanr: summarizes issue 145
18:13:54 <IanH> q?
18:14:16 <bijan> application/xml+owl
18:14:23 <IanH> ack pfps
18:14:35 <bijan> what's the question?
18:14:45 <IanH> q?
18:14:55 <calvanese> pfps: I have nothing against having mime types for the manchester syntax etc., but I am confused why the xml syntax should have a mime type
18:14:58 <alanr> Sandro said
18:14:59 <alanr> The Last Call drafts for any syntax we expect to be transmitted over the
18:14:59 <alanr> web need to include mime type registrations.  For example, see the one I
18:14:59 <alanr> did for RIF BLD:
18:15:00 <alanr>
18:15:00 <alanr> So someone needs to draft that for the OWL XML serialization.
18:15:07 <bijan> It's pretty easy
18:15:09 <alanr> end of what sandro said
18:15:11 <IanH> Question is: do we*need* a mime type for the XML syntax
18:15:14 <bijan> but tedious
18:15:18 <calvanese> ivan: to have a mime type we have to officially submit a request to ???
18:15:20 <IanH> q?
18:15:26 <ivan> s/???/IETF/
18:15:27 <IanH> ack ivan
18:15:59 <bijan> Example registration:
18:16:19 <calvanese> ivan: the obvious serialization of owl will inherti the mime type from RDF, so this is not an issue
18:16:39 <pfps> register early, register often :-0
18:16:46 <IanH> q?
18:16:54 <calvanese> IanH: is there any downside to registering mime types for the various syntaxes?
18:17:20 <pfps> sandro :-)
18:17:57 <calvanese> IanH: we can take this offiline
18:18:14 <calvanese> ACTION: IanH to find a volunteer for this
18:18:14 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - IanH
18:18:16 <IanH> q?
18:18:49 <calvanese> SubTopic: Issue 142
18:18:49 <calvanese> IanH: move to Issue 142
18:18:54 <IanH> q?
18:19:02 <bmotik> q+
18:19:04 <alanr> q+
18:19:07 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
18:19:07 <Zakim> bmotik was not muted, bmotik
18:19:18 <IanH> q?
18:19:22 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:19:24 <calvanese> IanH: are we doing anything to prove that Theorem 1 in the profiles document is true?
18:19:49 <calvanese> bmotik: a full proof of the theorem would require pages and pages, and would probably be useless
18:19:51 <IanH> q?
18:20:00 <ivan> q+
18:20:01 <calvanese> ... I can provide a proof sketch
18:20:03 <IanH> q?
18:20:19 <IanH> q?
18:20:23 <IanH> ack alanr
18:20:26 <ivan> ack alanr
18:20:37 <calvanese> ACTION: bmotik to provide proof sketch for Theorem 1 in profiles document
18:20:37 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - bmotik
18:20:39 <bmotik> q+
18:20:43 <pfps> q+
18:20:46 <IanH> q?
18:21:23 <pfps> Alan is not reading the theorem correctly
18:21:33 <IanH> q?
18:21:38 <ivan> ack ivan
18:21:49 <calvanese> IanH: I believe annotations don't belong to the theorem
18:22:02 <alanr> let O1 and O2 be OWL 2 RL ontologies in both of which no URI is used for more than one type of entity (i.e., no URIs is used both as, say, a class and an individual), and where all axioms in O2 are assertions of the following form with a, a1, ..., an named individuals:
18:22:05 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:22:10 <alanr> so O1 can have annotations
18:22:11 <calvanese> ivan: does the theorem have to be proved?
18:22:20 <alanr> and O2 can have sameas
18:23:06 <calvanese> bmotik: agrees with Ian that we don't talk about entailments of annotations in OWL-DL
18:23:18 <pfps> Theorem 1 does not allow annotations in the consequent!!!
18:23:57 <IanH> q?
18:24:59 <calvanese> pfps: alan is wrong, boris is right, since annotations cannot be in the consequent
18:25:01 <bijan> I agree with boris and peter as well
18:25:04 <IanH> q?
18:25:07 <bijan>  re: the theorem
18:25:09 <pfps> q-
18:25:11 <IanH> ack pfps
18:25:13 <IanH> q?
18:25:14 <calvanese> IanH: so differences in annotations do not impact on the theorem
18:25:19 <alanr> q+
18:25:37 <calvanese> boris: answers Ivan's question
18:25:57 <calvanese> ... it is intuitively kind of clear that this holds.
18:26:03 <bijan> It's super ugly
18:26:19 <IanH> q?
18:26:21 <bijan> See the Jermey and Dave Turner "proof" about OWL Full consistency
18:26:28 <bijan> 60,000 lines of isabelle code
18:26:29 <calvanese> ... there is a transformation between derivations
18:26:46 <pfps> so change it into a conjecture?
18:27:32 <pfps> no
18:27:38 <calvanese> alanr: provides his understanding of the theorem
18:27:41 <pfps> no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no
18:27:47 <bmotik> q+
18:27:53 <uli> but O2 is the 'question" ontology!
18:28:06 <pfps> we have already said how it happens
18:28:12 <IanH> q?
18:28:14 <calvanese> ... I'm not sure how annotations are ruled out
18:28:22 <IanH> ack alanr
18:28:43 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:28:59 <calvanese> boris: explains that putting sameas in O2 does not make a difference
18:29:27 <IanH> ack
18:29:30 <IanH> q?
18:29:43 <uli> makes sense
18:29:51 <bijan> +1 to conjecture
18:29:52 <calvanese> ... if you put sameas in O1, this would have additional consequences, but in O2 you are not allowed to answer questions that would detect such consequences
18:29:58 <ivan> q+
18:29:58 <uli> makes sense if with proof sketch
18:30:01 <pfps> q+
18:30:03 <bernardo> reasonable
18:30:04 <IanH> q?
18:30:07 <IanH> ack ivan
18:30:17 <bijan> q+
18:30:22 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:30:22 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
18:30:26 <calvanese> IanH: PROPOSED: change theorem to conjecture
18:30:28 <IanH> q?
18:30:35 <uli> if we are all happy with it?
18:30:45 <pfps> ideal solution is theorem+sketch
18:30:55 <calvanese> alanr: this calls for comments that request a proof
18:31:06 <IanH> ack pfps
18:31:09 <alanr> ok. I think I understand now. Thank's Boris
18:31:15 <calvanese> pfps: acceptable situation is theorem + proof sketch
18:31:27 <IanH> q?
18:31:32 <IanH> ack bijan
18:31:38 <calvanese> bijan: why do we care?
18:31:42 <IanH> q?
18:31:47 <pfps> q-
18:32:30 <IanH> q?
18:32:41 <IanH> q?
18:32:46 <calvanese> IanH: we need at least a sketch proof
18:32:47 <bijan> I think it is
18:32:54 <ivan> ewallace: we do not know
18:33:05 <IanH> q?
18:33:22 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:33:22 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
18:33:26 <IanH> q?
18:33:33 <Zhe> how long will it take Boris to produce the sketch?
18:33:58 <calvanese> bparsia: it is not hight priority to proof the theorem. we all believe that it holds.  boris has better things to do
18:34:09 <Zhe> :)
18:34:11 <calvanese> s/proof/prove/
18:34:24 <bijan> If that's suffices, then sure
18:34:30 <pfps> a short sketch would be useful
18:34:51 <IanH> q?
18:34:52 <calvanese> bmotik: I can produce the sketch in 5 sentences. If it takes more, I agree with Bijan that it is a waste of time.
18:35:08 <calvanese> ... I try to produce the 5 lines before the f2f
18:35:20 <calvanese> IanH: additional other business?
18:35:27 <uli> bye
18:35:28 <Zhe> bye
18:35:30 <Ratnesh> bye
18:35:31 <calvanese> ... closes the discussion