Chatlog 2008-11-12

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 <MarkusK_> PRESENT: Peter Patel-Schneider, Markus Krötzsch, Ivan Herman, Jie Bao, Jos de Bruijn, Boris Motik, Alan Ruttenberg, Uli Sattler, Sandro Hawke, Zhe Wu, clu, Michael Schneider, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Mike Smith, Rinke Hoekstra, Achille Fokoue, Jeff Pan
00:00:00 <MarkusK_> REGRETS: Christine Golbreich, Evan Wallace, Ian Horrocks, Elisa Kendall 
00:00:00 <MarkusK_> CHAIR: Alan Ruttenberg
17:49:12 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:49:12 <RRSAgent> logging to
17:49:21 <pfps> Zakim, this is owlwg
17:49:21 <Zakim> pfps, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be owlwg".
17:49:28 <pfps> Zakim, this will be owlwg
17:49:28 <Zakim> ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes
17:49:39 <pfps> RRSagent, make records public
17:54:57 <schneid> schneid has joined #owl
17:55:22 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
17:55:29 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
17:57:33 <MarkusK_> MarkusK_ has joined #owl
17:58:01 <ivan> ivan has joined #owl
17:58:06 <Zakim> +??P7
17:58:16 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:58:16 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
17:58:18 <Zakim> +Ivan
17:58:34 <uli> uli has joined #owl
17:58:35 <ivan> zakim, drop me
17:58:35 <Zakim> Ivan is being disconnected
17:58:37 <Zakim> -Ivan
17:59:01 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:59:01 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
17:59:03 <Zakim> +Ivan
17:59:07 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aaaa
17:59:13 <bmotik> bmotik has joined #owl
17:59:29 <josb> josb has joined #owl
17:59:38 <alanr_> alanr_ has joined #owl
17:59:39 <Zakim> +josb
17:59:41 <Zakim> +??P11
17:59:44 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P11 is me
17:59:44 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
17:59:47 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:59:47 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:00:54 <Zakim> + +1.617.452.aabb
18:01:11 <baojie> baojie has joined #owl
18:01:13 <Zakim> +??P14
18:01:17 <alanr_> zakim, aabb is me
18:01:17 <Zakim> +alanr_; got it
18:01:21 <uli> zakim, ??P14 is me
18:01:21 <Zakim> +uli; got it
18:01:23 <alanr_> zakim, who is here?
18:01:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, +1.518.276.aaaa, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli
18:01:25 <Zakim> On IRC I see baojie, alanr_, josb, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, clu, alanr, sandro, trackbot
18:01:25 <uli> zakim, mute me
18:01:25 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
18:01:34 <baojie> Zakim, aaaa is me
18:01:34 <Zakim> +baojie; got it
18:02:19 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl
18:02:42 <Zakim> +Sandro
18:02:53 <Zakim> +Zhe
18:03:00 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
18:03:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe
18:03:42 <Zakim> + +0494212186aacc
18:03:56 <clu> zakim, aacc is me
18:03:56 <Zakim> +clu; got it
18:04:00 <clu> zakim, mute me
18:04:00 <Zakim> clu should now be muted
18:04:16 <bcuencagrau> bcuencagrau has joined #owl
18:04:20 <Zakim> +wonsuk
18:04:33 <msmith> msmith has joined #owl
18:04:39 <alanr_> zakim, who is here?
18:04:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe, clu (muted), wonsuk
18:04:41 <Zakim> On IRC I see msmith, bcuencagrau, Zhe, baojie, alanr_, josb, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, clu, sandro, trackbot
18:04:50 <schneid> zakim, wonsuk is me
18:04:59 <Zakim> +schneid; got it
18:05:03 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:05:10 <Zakim> +??P20
18:05:15 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, ??P20 is me
18:05:19 <alanr_> zakim, who is here
18:05:22 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:05:25 <alanr_> zakim, who is here?
18:05:30 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it
18:05:31 <Rinke> Rinke has joined #owl
18:05:34 <Zakim> alanr_, you need to end that query with '?'
18:05:36 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
18:05:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe, clu (muted), schneid (muted), bcuencagrau
18:05:51 <MarkusK_> Scribe: MarkusK_
18:05:53 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
18:05:57 <Zakim> On IRC I see Rinke, msmith, bcuencagrau, Zhe, baojie, alanr_, josb, bmotik, uli, ivan, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, clu, sandro, trackbot
18:06:02 <MarkusK_> Topic: Admin
18:06:05 <uli> Alan, you are very quiet
18:06:07 <Rinke> ScribeNick: MarkusK_
18:06:09 <Zakim> +msmith
18:06:23 <MarkusK_> Alan: Last minute agenda extension regarding question on XML literals
18:06:28 <MarkusK_> Previous minutes
18:06:40 <alanr_> zakim is slow
18:06:52 <Zakim> +Tom
18:06:54 <alanr_>
18:06:57 <Rinke> zakim, Tom is me
18:06:57 <Zakim> +Rinke; got it
18:07:05 <msmith> last week's minutes looked ok to me
18:07:36 <MarkusK_> Alan: I did mechanical cleanup on F2F4 2nd day minutes
18:07:42 <pfps> pfps has joined #owl
18:07:57 <MarkusK_> Alan: Contents should be in better shape now
18:08:19 <MarkusK_> Alan: Anyone looked at last week's minutes?
18:08:27 <MarkusK_> Pfps: Yes, they appear to be ok
18:08:46 <uli> something is causing  static noise 
18:09:01 <MarkusK_> Proposed: Accept minutes of Nov 5 Telco
18:09:22 <MarkusK_> Accepted:  Accept minutes of Nov 5 Telco
18:09:36 <pfps> I haven't had a chance to look at the F2F4 minutes since yesterday
18:09:37 <Zakim> +[IBM]
18:09:53 <Achille> Achille has joined #owl
18:09:58 <Achille> Zakim, IBM is me
18:09:58 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
18:10:10 <MarkusK_> Action item status
18:10:10 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - item
18:10:22 <msmith> I updated the action, it was actually done by markus k
18:10:36 <MarkusK_> Action 243 completed
18:10:36 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 243
18:10:59 <sandro> action-243 closed
18:10:59 <trackbot> ACTION-243 Edit test section of test & conf to include two links and explanatory text closed
18:11:00 <MarkusK_> Alan: I completed Action 242
18:11:19 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
18:11:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, baojie, josb, bmotik (muted), alanr_, uli (muted), Sandro, Zhe, clu (muted), schneid (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), msmith,
18:11:22 <Zakim> ... Rinke, Achille
18:11:23 <MarkusK_> Topic: Reviewing and Publishing
18:11:23 <MarkusK_> SubTopic: OWL2 Datatypes
18:11:31 <MarkusK_> Alan: Jos de Bruijn is joining OWL WG to look at issues related to datatypes, esp. regarding RIF-OWL compatibility.
18:11:38 <JeffP> JeffP has joined #owl
18:12:11 <josb>
18:12:24 <JeffP> {JeffP am only available on IRC)
18:12:28 <MarkusK_> Jos: We have a certain set of required datatypes in RIF. These are required, but you are free to implement further datatypes. The conformance conditions of RIF require that only the required datatypes are implemented but conformance can be parameterized to include further datatypes. Now OWL requires much more datatypes than RIF, so the extended conformance conditions would apply.
18:14:01 <bmotik> +q
18:14:10 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
18:14:10 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
18:13:30 <sandro> ID, IDREF, ENTITY
18:14:15 <MarkusK_> Jos: I was surprised to see the datatypes ID, IDREF, ENTITY being included in OWL since they were partly discouraged by WebOnt.
18:14:18 <alanr_> ack bmotik
18:14:34 <msmith> Where in the RIF documents is the description of conformance?
18:14:37 <MarkusK_> Boris: I can try to explain. The datatypes ID, IDREF, ENTITY essentially are just restricted types of strings. They have no relation to documents or anything so things are done like in XML Schema.
18:15:35 <schneid> RDF Semantics document tells people they should not use xsd:ENTITY and such: <>
18:15:42 <MarkusK_> Boris: Those particular special forms of strings should not cause problems since they are not relatvie to a document.
18:15:46 <sandro> boris: We understand ID, IDREF, and ENTITY to just be subtypes of string with a restricted syntax.   This is how they are done in XML Schema.  They are just strings with additional restrictions.    
18:16:00 <josb>
18:16:10 <MarkusK_> Jos: I think at least ENTITY seems to point to a document (see link pasted).
18:16:32 <MarkusK_> Boris: (reads from linked text)
18:16:34 <pfps> q+
18:16:40 <MarkusK_> Boris: Indeed, it mentions a document. I had not noticed this; this was not the intention in OWL. I will check version 1.1 of the spec.
18:16:38 <msmith>
18:16:52 <alanr_> says same thing in 1.1
18:17:00 <pfps> the 1.1 document appears to be incoherent
18:17:27 <Zakim> -uli
18:17:32 <MarkusK_> Jos: The intended interpretation is that entities need to be distinguished when taking the union of two documents.
18:17:41 <MarkusK_> Boris: this was not intended in OWL. Anything beyond simple strings would be out of scope.
18:17:52 <Zakim> +??P14
18:18:00 <uli> zakim, ??P14 is me
18:18:00 <Zakim> +uli; got it
18:18:10 <uli> zakim, mute me
18:18:10 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
18:18:26 <sandro> q?
18:18:31 <MarkusK_> Jos: Why was this a concern for WebOnt and RDF but not for OWL?
18:18:38 <josb>
18:19:21 <MarkusK_> Jos: this link is relevant to the discussion of ENTITIY.
18:19:22 <pfps> q+ to ask why we are doing this sort of thing at a teleconference
18:19:32 <msmith> rdf-mt says, "xsd:QName and xsd:ENTITY require an enclosing XML document context"
18:19:40 <MarkusK_> Jos: Both RDF and OWL discourage the use of this type, pointing to this section.
18:19:42 <alanr_> ack pfps
18:19:42 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask why we are doing this sort of thing at a teleconference
18:19:59 <josb>
18:20:05 <schneid> +1 to PFPS
18:20:13 <MarkusK_> Pfps: Should this be discussed during the current telco? We are not sufficiently prepared. Let us take this to Email.
18:20:37 <schneid> I just stumbled over the RDFS paragraph a few days ago, not related to this discussion.
18:20:38 <MarkusK_> Sandro: It seemed to be an urgent issue that needed some discussion.
18:21:01 <MarkusK_> Alan: Should we simply remove the problematic types then? Or is anybody interested in having them?
18:20:56 <schneid> q+
18:20:58 <pfps> I'm perfectly happy to junk them
18:21:00 <uli> I would think that this would be too rushed
18:21:01 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:21:01 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:22:32 <alanr_> ack schneid
18:21:28 <MarkusK_> Schneid: I would feel incomfortable with keeping these datatypes in, because RDFS semantics says SHOULD NOT be used, while RDF-based Semantics would have it in its datatype map.
18:21:25 <msmith> I think junking them is ok, but suggest that proposal go to the list and be resolved next week.
18:21:33 <uli> +1 to Mike
18:21:37 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:21:37 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:21:48 <ivan> +1
18:21:49 <uli> yes
18:21:50 <JeffP> +1 to Mike
18:21:55 <MarkusK_> Alan: Then we can discuss this over email and schedule a proposal for next week.
18:22:14 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: XMLLiteral in OWL 2
18:22:14 <MarkusK_> Jos: XMLLiteral is a datatype not included in OWL 2, but required in RDF; in OWL 1 it was built-in. Is it a mistake that it is not in OWL 2?
18:22:16 <pfps> q+
18:22:23 <pfps> q+ on a point of order
18:22:25 <bmotik> q+
18:23:54 <ivan> ack pfps
18:23:54 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to comment on a point of order
18:23:04 <MarkusK_> Pfps: A link in the agenda is not accessible without a login.
18:23:12 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Sorry, I will fix this.
18:23:32 <MarkusK_> Pfps: What good can we do with this discussion now? I am clueless. More preparation would be useful.
18:24:07 <MarkusK_> Sandro: OK, but maybe Jos can still bring forward what the issue is, and then we can possibly move on.
18:24:10 <msmith> +1 to adding XMLLiteral if we can.
18:24:15 <ivan> XMLLiteral is not an xsd datatype
18:24:39 <MarkusK_> Boris: The only normative types in OWL 1.0 are strings and integers; I overlooked the XMLLiteral type.
18:24:41 <schneid> XMLLiteral is in the RDF namespace
18:24:53 <schneid> q+
18:24:58 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:24:58 <Zakim> schneid was not muted, schneid
18:24:58 <ivan> XMLLiteral is (the only) datatype defined in RDF
18:24:59 <alanr_> ack bmotik
18:25:06 <bmotik> ACTION: bmotik2 to Come up with an analysis of whether OWL 2 should include XMLLiteral
18:25:06 <trackbot> Created ACTION-244 - Come up with an analysis of whether OWL 2 should include XMLLiteral [on Boris Motik - due 2008-11-19].
18:25:07 <josb> I would expect an answer to my public comment to be an outcome of the action
18:25:10 <MarkusK_> Alan: We should come up with a proposal whether or not to include XMLLiteral in OWL 2
18:25:34 <josb>  rdf:XMLLiteral spec:
18:25:38 <MarkusK_> Schneid: XMLLiteral is mandatory in RDF and thus it is mandatory for the RDF-based semantics. I do not see why it is required for DL datatype maps though. XMLLiteral is already covered for OWL 2 Full.
18:28:16 <schneid>  rdf:XMLLiteral in RDF Semantics: <>
18:25:45 <alanr_> q?
18:25:49 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:25:49 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:25:50 <alanr_> acm schneid
18:25:52 <ivan> q?
18:25:54 <alanr_> ack schneid
18:26:01 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:26:01 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:26:29 <bmotik> -q
18:26:35 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
18:26:35 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
18:26:38 <MarkusK_> Thanks to Jos for attending, bye
18:26:43 <Zakim> -josb
18:26:48 <JeffP> bye
18:22:14 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Progress report on document changes
18:27:09 <sandro> Boris: my parts of to be done by the end of the week
18:27:29 <MarkusK_> Alan: I also noticed a link at the end where the full grammar should be
18:27:32 <schneid> Ivan, several of the RDF semantic conditions are about rdf:XMLLiteral
18:27:35 <MarkusK_> Boris: I can fix this too.
18:27:57 <MarkusK_> Alan: Some remaining changes seems to be more than editorial
18:28:16 <MarkusK_> Boris: Yes, the original reviewers should be asked to look over it again after I finish. I will send a pointer by email.
18:28:27 <alanr_> q?
18:28:35 <MarkusK_> Sandro: I will provide a color-coded diff then.
18:28:45 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:28:45 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:29:02 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Mime types
18:29:11 <sandro>
18:29:28 <sandro> q?
18:29:29 <MarkusK_> Alan: Peter's email suggested mime types for functional and Manchester syntax. There are still question marks for XML syntax.
18:29:57 <sandro> q+
18:30:14 <MarkusK_> Alan: Do we still need to specify file extensions?
18:30:24 <MarkusK_> Pfps: I assume that file extensions should be specified. A three-character extension might be good. It should be possible to find un-occupied 3-char extensions. I propose oxl or just xml for XML syntax.
18:31:51 <MarkusK_> Sandro: I think it could be xml, but I need to check.
18:32:11 <MarkusK_> For RDF/XML the extension is rdf.
18:32:29 <MarkusK_> Alan: So the choice is between oxl and xml?
18:32:29 <alanr_> owx
18:32:31 <sandro> .xml or .oxl   (.owx)
18:32:33 <MarkusK_> Pfps: Yes
18:32:40 <MarkusK_> Sandro: owx is another option
18:33:06 <MarkusK_> Action: Sandro to check if it would be recommendable to use xml as file extension for XML syntax files.
18:33:06 <trackbot> Created ACTION-245 - Check if it would be recommendable to use xml as file extension for XML syntax files. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-11-19].
18:33:09 <ivan> good point
18:33:27 <MarkusK_> Alan: Using xml might cause confusion with some tools, e.g. Protege.
18:33:58 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Also web servers might like to have a separate extension for serving the right mime type.
18:34:14 <MarkusK_> Alan: Then we should probably not consider xml.
18:34:14 <sandro> action-245 closed
18:34:14 <trackbot> ACTION-245 Check if it would be recommendable to use xml as file extension for XML syntax files. closed
18:34:24 <MarkusK_> Pfps: ok
18:34:26 <Rinke> oxl = OMEGA Product Suite File 
18:34:27 <ivan> toss a coin
18:34:29 <MarkusK_> Sandro: ok
18:34:31 <sandro> owx
18:34:45 <MarkusK_> Alan: So the choice is between owx and oxl.
18:35:10 <msmith> Does mime registration limit us to 3 characters?
18:35:22 <sandro> No, but some people prefer it.
18:35:37 <Rinke> ... and some filesystems do as well 
18:35:43 <MarkusK_> Alan: There appears to be a file type for oxl but none for owx, which might support the latter. Peter, do you like owx?
18:35:57 <JeffP> xol?
18:36:04 <ivan> owx it is!
18:36:07 <MarkusK_> Pfps: I don't care.
18:36:17 <Zhe> owx is not bad
18:36:32 <MarkusK_> Alan: Ok, then let us use owx.
18:36:48 <MarkusK_> Pfps: I will edit all relevant documents to mirror this choice.
18:37:02 <ivan> :-)
18:37:16 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Could we fix who will contact IETF for registering the mime types?
18:38:13 <sandro> q?
18:38:15 <sandro> q-
18:38:30 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Alignment of functional syntax keywords and RDF syntax URIs
18:38:41 <MarkusK_> (Sandro takes over chairing)
18:39:09 <MarkusK_> Alan: The action was to have a smaller group of people to work-out a proposal. It might be good to have another week for a coherent proposal.
18:39:59 <pfps> q+
18:40:08 <sandro> ack pfps 
18:40:18 <MarkusK_>
18:40:27 <ivan> q+
18:41:07 <alanr_> q+
18:41:13 <alanr_> ack ivan
18:41:17 <MarkusK_> Ivan: One option for solving the dealock would be to not do any change.
18:41:41 <pfps> there are a couple of suggestions that don't seem to have much, if any, pushback
18:42:09 <bmotik> I'm afraid that the only noncontentious thing is ExistsSelf
18:42:26 <sandro> STRAWPOLL: Should we put effort into aligning the functional syntax and RDF names? 
18:42:29 <bmotik> -1
18:42:32 <ivan> +1
18:42:32 <bcuencagrau> -1
18:42:32 <alanr_> +1
18:42:35 <sandro> +1
18:42:38 <pfps> -1
18:42:44 <MarkusK_> 0
18:42:44 <schneid> -0
18:42:44 <msmith> 0
18:42:45 <JeffP> 0
18:42:48 <uli> -0
18:42:51 <Zhe> +1 consistency is always a good thing
18:42:53 <Rinke> +0.5
18:42:59 <Achille> 0
18:43:28 <sandro> baojie?   opinion?
18:43:33 <schneid> consequently, one could then also ask for aligning the Manchester Syntax...
18:43:43 <Rinke> I don't really think differences in singular vs plural form are a problem
18:43:44 <pfps> there are various different kinds of consistency that could be aimed for here.   The current status is for a particular kind of consistency.
18:43:51 <bmotik> +q
18:43:58 <ivan> ack alanr_
18:44:02 <sandro> q?
18:44:05 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
18:44:05 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
18:44:05 <sandro> ack bmotik 
18:44:09 <MarkusK_> Sandro: If there was no effort involved, would there be objections changing the names?
18:44:34 <baojie> sorry, was off for a few minutes, I would vote +1
18:44:24 <MarkusK_> Boris: I voted with -1. In an ideal world, it would be great to have that alignment but in practice, forcing an alignment would make the functional syntax ugly. For instance, we do have singular names in RDF where we have n-ary constructs in functional-style syntax. Given that we cannot change RDF, I believe that the alignment is not practical.
18:44:46 <alanr_> q+
18:44:56 <sandro> boris: In an ideal world, yes, we'd like the same names. But the RDF syntax takes precidence, so the function syntax would start to get very ugly.
18:45:29 <sandro> boris: If we were designing two syntax from scratch, then sure, align them.
18:45:40 <sandro> boris: but since we can't change RDF, let's not make functional ugly.
18:45:41 <sandro> q?
18:45:43 <bcuencagrau> +q
18:45:45 <sandro> ack alanr_ 
18:45:46 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:45:46 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:46:23 <sandro> alan: let's accept plurality issues, but try to solve the other?
18:46:30 <MarkusK_> Alan: Maybe one could focus on alignments that are less problematic than the plurals/singulars. There are other issues that could possibly be changed with less effort. I will suggest this in an email.
18:46:38 <ivan> q+
18:46:57 <sandro> ack bcuencagrau 
18:46:57 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, unmute me
18:47:00 <Zakim> bcuencagrau was not muted, bcuencagrau
18:47:24 <msmith> q+ to mention the OWL XML schema
18:47:27 <MarkusK_> Bernardo: Do you then only suggest to change some names? I agree with Boris. We have a nice and well-developed functional syntax now. It has been developed for quite some time, and I would not like to implement major changes there now.
18:47:52 <sandro> q?
18:47:53 <alanr_> q+
18:48:06 <sandro> ack ivan 
18:48:12 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
18:48:12 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
18:48:44 <MarkusK_> Ivan: I also see that the complete alignment appears to be unrealistic. We only arrived at consensus in a few cases, while most of the namings remained disputed. Still there is a problem in understanding OWL 2 for people coming to OWL from the RDF world. A possible answer of course is that people from the DL world would prefer the current namings over the RDF-compatible ones. But changing only two or three names seems not to solve the problem anyway, so we might just avoid this extra work.
18:49:19 <bcuencagrau> +q
18:49:25 <bmotik> +q
18:50:27 <sandro> ack msmith 
18:50:27 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to mention the OWL XML schema
18:51:00 <ivan> +1 to msmith
18:51:09 <sandro> ack alanr_ 
18:51:11 <MarkusK_> MikeSmith: Note that the functional syntax is also aligned with the OWL XML syntax. Any change in the names would thus also affect the XML syntax.
18:51:08 <schneid> of course, every change in the FS would need to be followed by OWL/XML
18:51:17 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, unmute me
18:51:17 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should no longer be muted
18:52:06 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Many people may arrive at OWL as an extension of RDF and those people should be supported.
18:52:25 <sandro> q?
18:52:29 <sandro> ack bcuencagrau 
18:52:48 <MarkusK_> Sandro: An editorial improvement could be to (scribe did not get this, sorry)
18:53:01 <pfps> q+
18:53:05 <pfps> q-
18:53:10 <sandro> Alan: We could xref the function syntax to the RDF vocabulary, as an editorial fix.
18:53:13 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
18:53:13 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
18:53:13 <MarkusK_> Bernardo: One way to move forward would be to check if there are comments from the community after publishing the documents. So we may want to wait for comments before starting major changes.
18:53:33 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
18:53:33 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
18:53:36 <sandro> ack bmotik 
18:53:48 <MarkusK_> Sandro: The downside would be that this may require a second last call.
18:54:26 <MarkusK_> Boris: We should keep in mind that OWL is indeed serving two partially overlapping communities. I am not convinced that changing some names would solve the problem that those different approaches bring. And there are various documents addressing the view of the RDF community, including the Primer that shows explicitly how to translate syntactic forms.
18:54:14 <sandro> (Hey, let's have two different languages, with different names! :-)
18:54:38 <sandro> q?
18:55:09 <uli> good points, Boris
18:55:11 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:55:11 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:55:18 <alanr_> q?
18:56:00 <MarkusK_> Ivan: So how should we continue?
18:56:24 <schneid> we had pretty much a draw in the straw poll, with half of the votes being 0
18:56:34 <MarkusK_> Sandro: This can be discussed on the mailing lists; if not enough people continue to work on this, we need to give up on the alignment.
18:56:45 <MarkusK_> Alan: I will send a mail with some suggestions for discussion
18:56:51 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Manchester syntax
18:57:08 <MarkusK_> Pfps: Some months ago, I mailed that Manchester syntax is ready for review. There have been some at least partial reviews since then. I have addressed most of those comments, but one major comment resulted in issue-146.
18:58:23 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Any other comments before publishing this?
18:59:11 <MarkusK_> Alan: Some review comments are still in the document, maybe these should be turned into editor's notes.
18:59:31 <MarkusK_> Pfps: I still wait for responses from the authors of some of these comments.
19:00:25 <MarkusK_> Alan: I guess I would like my comments turned into editor's notes without open issues. If Peter agrees with that.
19:01:18 <Rinke> (my two remaining review comments have been addressed, as far as I'm concerned they may be removed)
19:01:23 <MarkusK_> Pfps: For this document there appears to be disagreement between the editor and the reviewers. Keeping the comments as notes will not solve the problem in the end.
19:01:42 <schneid> q+
19:01:50 <ivan> q+
19:02:00 <Rinke> I don't have an alternative either
19:02:00 <MarkusK_> Sandro: But we can ask the public for comments on open issues.
19:02:14 <Rinke> yes
19:02:34 <MarkusK_> Pfps: OK, I can turn the comments into editor's notes, and we can then go forward with publication.
19:02:42 <schneid> q-
19:02:57 <sandro> ACTION: Pfps convert review comments to editors notes (except rinke's)
19:02:57 <trackbot> Created ACTION-246 - Convert review comments to editors notes (except rinke's) [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2008-11-19].
19:03:14 <msmith> and in test&conf (responding to the question where to find examples for making editor's notes on the wiki)
19:04:06 <schneid> there's also an EdNote resulting from some open disagreement between the editor and one of the reviewers of the RDF-Based Semantics ... :)
19:03:29 <ivan> q?
19:03:33 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Can we propose to publish? Should publication be as soon as possible or in combination with other publications?
19:04:08 <MarkusK_> Alan: Maybe we can at least resolve now to publish.
19:04:33 <sandro> PROPOSED: Publish ManchesterSyntax as FPWD, after Peter's just-discussed editors notes are added, in our next round of publications.
19:05:29 <MarkusK_> Alan: So "next round" would mean the next time we publish; is this at Last Call?
19:05:36 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Yes, that would be useful.
19:04:40 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
19:04:45 <Rinke> +1 (UvA)
19:04:46 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
19:04:48 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
19:04:50 <bcuencagrau> +1 (Oxford)
19:04:53 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
19:04:55 <ivan> +1 (w3c)
19:04:58 <alanr_> +1
19:04:58 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
19:05:11 <sandro> +1
19:05:12 <alanr_> +1 (science commons)
19:05:19 <uli> +1 (Man)
19:05:33 <msmith> +1 (C&P)
19:05:38 <sandro> RESOLVED: Publish ManchesterSyntax as FPWD, after Peter's just-discussed editors notes are added, in our next round of publications.
19:05:42 <baojie> +1 (RPI)
19:05:48 <sandro> ack ivan 
19:06:16 <MarkusK_> Ivan: There is one open issue related to the Manchester Syntax; I do not understand what it says.
19:06:31 <MarkusK_> Sandro: This one is on the agenda, maybe we can get to this.
19:06:43 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Datarange extensions
19:07:24 <MarkusK_> Alan: We have had some reviews, and the question now is if we can make this a publishable WG note.
19:07:12 <bmotik> q+
19:07:18 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
19:07:18 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
19:07:22 <alanr_> ack bmotik
19:07:45 <MarkusK_> Boris: I think the document is good, but some of the comments need to be addressed. I think all reviewers agreed that this should be published as a note. Some open issues remain, but I do not see why those should not be solvable.
19:07:57 <uli> q+
19:08:05 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
19:08:05 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
19:08:09 <uli> zakim, unmute me
19:08:09 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted
19:08:41 <MarkusK_> Uli: We plan to address all the reviewers' comments, but this won't happen by next week.
19:08:55 <uli> zakim, mute me
19:08:55 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
19:09:22 <MarkusK_> Alan: OK; so let us continue to work on this.
19:09:28 <sandro> Alan: consensus seems to be that this is moving along nicely to end up as a Note.
19:09:49 <bmotik> Given this outcome, could we perhaps resolve ISSUE-127 now/soon?
19:10:03 <MarkusK_> Topic: Issues
19:10:12 <sandro> subtopic: issue-127
19:10:29 <MarkusK_> (Alan is back chairing)
19:10:28 <bmotik> +1 to close
19:10:33 <bmotik> q+
19:10:42 <sandro> ack uli
19:10:43 <alanr_> ack uli
19:10:54 <alanr_> ack bmotik
19:10:56 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
19:10:56 <Zakim> bmotik was not muted, bmotik
19:11:01 <ivan> q+
19:11:02 <uli> zakim, mute me
19:11:02 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
19:11:16 <MarkusK_> Boris: Does anything speak against closing Issue 127?
19:11:43 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
19:11:43 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
19:11:47 <ivan> q-
19:11:55 <schneid> we had /3/ proposals to close this in the last few days, AFAIR :)
19:12:07 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-127 given the work on Data Range Extension is proceeding nicely
19:12:09 <bmotik> +1
19:12:12 <sandro> +1
19:12:13 <alanr_> +1
19:12:13 <msmith> +1
19:12:13 <ivan> +1
19:12:14 <Rinke> +1
19:12:14 <schneid> +1
19:12:14 <MarkusK_> +1
19:12:14 <pfps> +1
19:12:17 <Zhe> +1
19:12:18 <bcuencagrau> +1
19:12:23 <uli> +1
19:12:24 <JeffP> 0
19:12:26 <baojie> +1
19:12:33 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close issue-127 given the work on Data Range Extension is proceeding nicely
19:12:56 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Issue-87
19:13:08 <MarkusK_> (Sandro is chairing this)
19:13:50 <MarkusK_> Alan: It is considered useful to add rational numbers as a datatype. The question was how this should be realized, and what conformance would require for this datatype. Also it was asked if we should have a dedicated lexical representation for rationals.
19:14:05 <bmotik> q+
19:14:18 <msmith> q+
19:14:20 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
19:14:20 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
19:14:23 <sandro> ack bmotik 
19:15:17 <MarkusK_> Boris: Regarding the dedicated lexical form, I do not see any problems. There might be some implementation challenges involved. One would probably store rationals as pairs of integers. We do not need arithmetics, since OWL does not include much arithmetics anyway. But comparing floats and rationals might be a slight challenge for implementors.
19:15:28 <alanr_> q+ to mention finite number of floats between rationals
19:16:13 <msmith> q-
19:16:43 <sandro> ack alanr_ 
19:16:43 <Zakim> alanr_, you wanted to mention finite number of floats between rationals
19:16:46 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
19:16:46 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
19:16:51 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
19:16:51 <Zakim> bcuencagrau was already muted, bcuencagrau
19:17:11 <bmotik> q+
19:17:33 <MarkusK_> Alan: I was also wondering about the comparison. Maybe we should put this in and tag it as an "at risk" feature. There was also a problem relating to counting floats.
19:17:33 <sandro> a?
19:17:36 <sandro> q?
19:17:37 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
19:17:37 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
19:17:42 <sandro> ack bmotik 
19:17:54 <schneid>  xsd:double just specifies a finite subset of all rationals
19:18:17 <alanr_> q+
19:18:45 <sandro> ack alanr_ 
19:18:46 <MarkusK_> Boris: Yes, but the value space of rationals is dense, i.e. there are infinitely many values between each pair of distinct rational numbers. Even if there are only finitely many constants, the number of rationals is not a problem.
19:19:32 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
19:19:32 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
19:19:33 <MarkusK_> Alan: Yes, but there might e.g. be a data range of floats bounded by rational constants
19:19:58 <MarkusK_> Sandro: This discussion probably should be continued elsewhere.
19:19:41 <msmith> +1
19:19:46 <alanr_> +1
19:20:10 <sandro> STRAWPOLL:  go ahead with Rationals in OWL2, marked as At Risk until we get implementation experience
19:20:11 <ivan> +1 (why putting it on the agenda next week?)
19:20:14 <bmotik> +1
19:20:17 <MarkusK_> +1
19:20:17 <baojie> +1
19:20:18 <uli> +1
19:20:19 <pfps> +1
19:20:19 <Achille> +1
19:20:19 <Zhe> +1
19:20:22 <schneid> +1 (even without "at risk")
19:20:23 <alanr_> +1
19:20:23 <bcuencagrau> +1
19:20:24 <Rinke> +1
19:20:29 <JeffP> 0
19:20:49 <bmotik> Perhaps we can come up by the next week with questions that need to be answered in order to remove "at risk"
19:20:55 <MarkusK_> Sandro: It appears to be too early to make this a full resolution, since it was not announced on the agenda.
19:21:06 <ivan> q+
19:21:12 <sandro> Subtopic: issue-146
19:21:22 <MarkusK_> (Sandro chairing)
19:22:16 <MarkusK_> Sandro: We probably could let this issue sit until we have feedback on Manchester syntax.
19:22:17 <sandro> we're going to let this sit....
19:22:52 <ivan> q-
19:22:55 <MarkusK_> Ivan: I really do not understand Issue 146. I would like a more detailed explanation via email.
19:23:19 <sandro> ACTION: Alan make a detailed proposal for edits to ManchesterSyntax to address issue-146 - due Jan 15
19:23:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-247 - make a detailed proposal for edits to ManchesterSyntax to address issue-146 [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-01-15].
19:23:56 <sandro> Subtopic: deprecated
19:24:08 <sandro>
19:24:18 <bmotik> q+
19:24:21 <pfps> q+
19:24:36 <MarkusK_> Alan: Since we have punning, we can no longer distinguish deprecation of properties and classes. A simple way to fix this would be to have two separate annotation properties as deprecation markers: one for classes and one for properties.
19:24:43 <Zakim> -Rinke
19:24:45 <sandro> ack bmotik 
19:24:46 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
19:24:48 <Zakim> bmotik was not muted, bmotik
19:24:49 <sandro> q?
19:25:04 <pfps> q-
19:25:24 <MarkusK_> Boris: So the suggestion is to have two distinct annotation properties?
19:25:29 <MarkusK_> Alan: Yes.
19:25:48 <ivan> q+
19:25:51 <schneid> or more: for individuals, classes, datatypes, dataproperties, objectproperties
19:25:54 <sandro> ack ivan 
19:25:56 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
19:25:56 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
19:25:57 <MarkusK_> Boris: Isnt't it that you deprecate a URI rather than a particular use/view of it?
19:26:11 <MarkusK_> Alan: No, my intention is to deprecate a particular view on a URI.
19:26:24 <MarkusK_> Ivan: Are there any use cases?
19:26:27 <bmotik> +1 to ivan
19:26:37 <bmotik> q+
19:26:41 <MarkusK_> Alan: Yes, you could have a legacy document that contains a deprecated property. But you can no longer tell that that use was deprecated, and not, e.g., the class.
19:27:00 <sandro> q?
19:27:37 <MarkusK_> Ivan: Conceptually, URIs still refer to one thing, and this is what I expect to deprecate. Thus the deprecation refers to all uses of the URI.
19:27:54 <sandro> q?
19:28:01 <schneid> q+
19:28:02 <MarkusK_> Alan: My assumption was that single uses of URIs might be deprecated.
19:28:23 <MarkusK_> Ivan: If I am in OWL Full, I also deprecate a URI.
19:28:41 <bmotik> In OWL Full, there is no distinction between a property and a class
19:28:43 <sandro> ack bmotik 
19:28:44 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
19:28:44 <Zakim> bmotik was not muted, bmotik
19:29:20 <MarkusK_> Boris: The reason for having deprecated class and deprecated property in OWL 1 seems to be a side effect but not a very thought-through design. For instance, there is no way of deprecating individuals. I do not think that this OWL 1 deprecation was actually used a lot either. Maybe we do not require to spend more effort on this.
19:29:56 <ivan> ???
19:30:04 <alanr_> q?
19:30:10 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
19:30:10 <Zakim> schneid was not muted, schneid
19:31:00 <schneid> zakim, mute me
19:31:00 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
19:31:03 <MarkusK_> Schneid: One could imagine that someone wants to deprecate only the class use of a URI but not the property use, but this will probably never happen in practice.
19:31:07 <uli> bye
19:31:10 <Zhe> bye
19:31:10 <Zakim> -bmotik
19:31:11 <sandro> ADJOURNED
19:31:13 <Zakim> -alanr_
19:31:14 <Zakim> -msmith
19:31:15 <msmith> bye
19:31:15 <Zakim> -uli
19:31:17 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
19:31:17 <Zakim> -Zhe
19:31:18 <msmith> msmith has left #owl
19:31:18 <Zakim> -baojie
19:31:23 <Zakim> -clu
19:31:24 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
19:31:28 <Zakim> -Ivan
19:31:36 <ivan> ivan has left #owl
19:31:40 <uli> uli has left #owl
19:31:46 <Zakim> -Achille
19:31:52 <sandro> RRSAgent, make log public
19:32:02 <sandro>
19:32:17 <MarkusK_> Bye
19:32:17 <Zakim> -Sandro
19:32:21 <Zakim> -MarkusK_
19:34:17 <Zakim> -schneid
19:34:18 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
19:34:20 <Zakim> Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, Ivan, +1.518.276.aaaa, josb, bmotik, +1.617.452.aabb, alanr_, uli, baojie, Sandro, Zhe, +0494212186aacc, clu, schneid, bcuencagrau,
19:34:23 <Zakim> ... msmith, Rinke, Achille
19:35:47 <alanr_> alanr_ has left #owl
19:42:01 <alanr> alanr has joined #owl
19:58:43 <alanr> alanr has left #owl
21:58:03 <Zakim> Zakim has left #owl