Chatlog 2008-11-19

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 <scribenick> PRESENT: msmith, IanH, Evan_Wallace, uli (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau, Sandro, bmotik, MarkusK_, Rinke, baojie, Zhe, Achille, Michael Schneider, Alan Ruttenberg, Christine
17:52:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:52:23 <RRSAgent> logging to
17:52:30 <pfps> Zakim, this will be owlwg
17:52:30 <Zakim> ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
17:52:40 <pfps> RRSAgent, make records public
17:55:05 <msmith> msmith has joined #owl
17:55:09 <IanH> IanH has joined #owl
17:55:35 <msmith> zakim, this will be owlwg
17:55:35 <Zakim> ok, msmith; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
17:55:45 <msmith> ScribeNick: msmith
17:55:47 <uli> uli has joined #owl
17:55:57 <msmith> RRSAgent, make records public
17:56:29 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
17:56:37 <Rinke> Rinke has joined #owl
17:56:39 <Zakim> +msmith
17:56:49 <ewallace> ewallace has joined #owl
17:56:59 <Zakim> +IanH
17:57:17 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:57:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see msmith, IanH
17:57:18 <Zakim> On IRC I see ewallace, Rinke, uli, IanH, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, baojie, trackbot, sandro
17:57:57 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
17:58:01 <Rinke> (I cannot dial in, but will try to follow as much as I can on IRC)
17:58:09 <MarkusK_> MarkusK_ has joined #owl
17:58:51 <Zakim> +??P10
17:59:01 <uli> zakim, ??P10 is me
17:59:01 <Zakim> +uli; got it
17:59:05 <uli> zakim, mute me
17:59:05 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
17:59:12 <bcuencagrau> bcuencagrau has joined #owl
17:59:43 <bmotik> bmotik has joined #owl
17:59:48 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
18:00:14 <Zakim> +??P12
18:00:17 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:00:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see msmith, IanH, Evan_Wallace, uli (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, ??P12
18:00:20 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, ??P12 is me
18:00:20 <Zakim> On IRC I see bmotik, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, ewallace, Rinke, uli, IanH, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, baojie, trackbot, sandro
18:00:23 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it
18:01:10 <msmith> ianh: regrets from Ivan, Alan
18:01:15 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:01:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see msmith, IanH, Evan_Wallace, uli (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau
18:01:17 <Zakim> On IRC I see bmotik, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, ewallace, Rinke, uli, IanH, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, baojie, trackbot, sandro
18:01:21 <Zakim> +??P13
18:01:24 <Zakim> +Sandro
18:01:30 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P13 is me#
18:01:30 <Zakim> +me#; got it
18:01:30 <msmith> Topic: Admin
18:01:37 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:01:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see msmith, IanH, Evan_Wallace, uli (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau, me#, Sandro
18:01:37 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P13 is me
18:01:40 <Zakim> On IRC I see bmotik, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, ewallace, Rinke, uli, IanH, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, baojie, trackbot, sandro
18:01:41 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:01:43 <Zakim> I already had ??P13 as me#, bmotik
18:01:44 <Zakim> sorry, bmotik, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
18:01:54 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl
18:02:00 <msmith> ianh: no agenda ammendments
18:02:02 <uli> last week's minutes look fine
18:02:02 <bmotik> Zakim, me# is bmotik
18:02:02 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
18:02:03 <Zakim> +Zhe
18:02:07 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:02:07 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:02:12 <pfps> last week's minutes look acceptable
18:02:15 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
18:02:15 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
18:02:17 <uli> oi!
18:02:24 <msmith> PROPOSED: Accept minutes of 2008-11-12 telecon at
18:02:25 <IanH> omit: PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (12 November)
18:02:32 <IanH> +1
18:02:35 <uli> +1
18:02:38 <Zhe> +1
18:02:41 <msmith> msmith: +1
18:02:44 <pfps> +1
18:02:48 <Rinke> +1
18:02:50 <msmith> RESOLVED: Accept minutes of 2008-11-12 telecon at
18:03:04 <pfps> F2F4 day 2 minutes are now OK (after Alan's cleanup)
18:03:10 <msmith> PROPOSED: Accept minutes of F2F4 Day 2 at
18:03:12 <Zakim> +baojie
18:03:14 <IanH> +1
18:03:19 <uli> +1
18:03:19 <msmith> msmith: +1
18:03:21 <pfps> +1
18:03:25 <baojie> +1
18:03:26 <bcuencagrau> +1
18:03:26 <msmith> RESOLVED: Accept minutes of F2F4 Day 2 at
18:03:51 <msmith> subtopic: Pending Review Actions
18:03:56 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:04:01 <pfps> I think that the actions are OK (and some were OK last week)
18:04:07 <msmith> ACTION-238 closed
18:04:08 <msmith> ACTION-242 closed
18:04:08 <msmith> ACTION-244 closed
18:04:08 <msmith> ACTION-246 closed
18:04:08 <trackbot> ACTION-238 Implement the resolutions from the 4F2F closed
18:04:08 <trackbot> ACTION-242 Will make a proposal regarding naming alignment between the functional syntax and RDF syntax based on the summary from closed
18:04:09 <trackbot> ACTION-244 Come up with an analysis of whether OWL 2 should include XMLLiteral closed
18:04:13 <trackbot> ACTION-246 Convert review comments to editors notes (except rinke's) closed
18:04:25 <IanH> omit: Q?
18:04:29 <msmith> topic: Reviewing and Publishing
18:05:06 <msmith> ianh: dec 1 was tentative deadline for last call publishing.  we are now getting close
18:05:10 <IanH> omit: Q?
18:05:22 <msmith> ianh: last call checklist has been completed (excepting items already on agenda)
18:05:22 <sandro> q+ sotd
18:05:27 <msmith> ianh: any questions?
18:05:35 <IanH> omit: Q?
18:05:43 <sandro>
18:05:44 <IanH> ack sandro
18:05:52 <IanH> ack sotd
18:06:04 <msmith> sandro: we should start on text  describing status of documents
18:06:08 <pfps> q+
18:06:17 <msmith> sandro: it should include changes from previous publish
18:06:25 <msmith> sandro: and some context for new documents
18:06:31 <msmith> ianh: is this in each document?
18:06:51 <IanH> q?
18:06:54 <msmith> sandro: people should use the wiki link (provided above) and it will be put in the doc during publishing
18:07:07 <msmith> ianh: changes wrt last draft?
18:07:10 <IanH> ack pfps
18:07:17 <msmith> sandro: yes, last published working draft
18:07:37 <msmith> pfps: we have a problem with location of features document
18:07:49 <msmith> sandro: yes, but it doesn't matter for publication
18:08:10 <msmith> ianh: yes, and all non-correct locations being redirected (or some other resolution)
18:08:19 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
18:08:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see msmith, IanH, Evan_Wallace, uli (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Sandro, Zhe, baojie, MarkusK_
18:08:27 <msmith> sandro: we need an action for this.  we discussed it before and nothing happened
18:08:45 <msmith> ianh: i can take an action.  we also said requirements should occur in the name somewhere
18:09:13 <alanr> alanr has joined #owl
18:09:16 <msmith> ianh: I remember  "requirements and new features"
18:09:46 <sandro> ACTION: ian consult with editors on title and clean up wiki location of requirement document
18:09:46 <trackbot> Created ACTION-248 - Consult with editors on title and clean up wiki location of requirement document [on Ian Horrocks - due 2008-11-26].
18:09:57 <pfps> q-
18:10:22 <msmith> ianh: on Round 4 page, this is an action on each editor to handle their documents?
18:10:27 <IanH> q?
18:10:29 <bmotik> I'll handle the documents I've been editing, no prolem.
18:10:33 <Achille> Achille has joined #owl
18:10:41 <Zakim> +[IBM]
18:10:48 <Achille> Zakim, IBM is me
18:10:48 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
18:10:49 <msmith> ianh: should we create actions explicitly?  I will do so after the telecon (to avoid the time required now)
18:11:34 <sandro> action: ian make sure SOTD text on gets filled in
18:11:34 <trackbot> Created ACTION-249 - Make sure SOTD text on gets filled in [on Ian Horrocks - due 2008-11-26].
18:11:53 <IanH> q?
18:12:11 <msmith> subtopic: Other Considerations
18:12:16 <sandro> issue-145?
18:12:16 <trackbot> ISSUE-145 -- RESOLVED: Which serializations should have mime types and file extensions (and what should they be) -- CLOSED
18:12:16 <trackbot>
18:12:21 <msmith> subsubtopic: ISSUE-145
18:12:32 <IanH> q?
18:12:37 <pfps> yay!
18:12:39 <msmith> ianh: I understand this to be resolved. Sandro considers himself the contact to IETF
18:13:03 <sandro> action: sandro send mime-type registrations in to IETF when we do last-call publications
18:13:03 <trackbot> Created ACTION-250 - Send mime-type registrations in to IETF when we do last-call publications [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-11-26].
18:13:31 <IanH> q?
18:13:43 <sandro> Zakim, who is on the call?
18:13:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see msmith, IanH, Evan_Wallace, uli (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Sandro, Zhe, baojie, MarkusK_, Achille
18:13:43 <msmith> subsubtopic: Check with XML Schema WG on name of dateTime ...
18:13:46 <IanH> q?
18:13:59 <msmith> ianh: pfps has been point man with XML Schema WG
18:14:27 <msmith> pfps: I just sent a message to someone in that WG, asking for pointer to final resolution.
18:14:39 <msmith> pfps: I will ask about publication schedule
18:15:02 <msmith> ianh: assuming no satisfactory answer on publication or datatype name.  what's the plan?
18:15:15 <msmith> ianh: can we make the name of the datatype "at risk" or something?
18:15:15 <IanH> q?
18:15:22 <msmith> sandro: I think we can do that
18:15:32 <msmith> ianh: "subject to change", etc.
18:15:51 <IanH> q?
18:15:53 <msmith> sandro: in general we want at risk to be binary (options are A or B), not be open ended
18:16:02 <msmith> pfps: we can do that for the datatype name
18:16:07 <IanH> q?
18:16:17 <bmotik> It already says that
18:16:31 <bmotik> It's not.
18:16:34 <bmotik> highlighted
18:16:36 <msmith> ianh: someone needs to make sure it is binary in document
18:16:42 <msmith> sandro: is it marked at risk?
18:16:49 <bmotik> q+
18:16:53 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
18:16:53 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
18:16:54 <IanH> q?
18:16:58 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:16:58 <msmith> ianh: a couple other things are marked at risk
18:17:19 <msmith> bmotik: is there a style for at risk?  it's marked with an editor's note.  is that sufficient
18:17:36 <msmith> sandro: take a look at the RIF BLD for a template
18:17:52 <msmith> bmotik: // reading from spec //
18:18:07 <msmith> sandro: we should more formally call out "at risk"
18:18:25 <msmith> sandro: in the status of the document section
18:18:54 <pfps> I made the change that the fallback is owl:dateTime
18:19:03 <msmith> ianh: we should explicitly say something about the outcome if the risked scenario comes to pass
18:19:11 <IanH> q?
18:19:19 <msmith> ianh: take this offline
18:19:22 <IanH> q?
18:19:39 <pfps> q+
18:19:41 <msmith> bmotik: several other editorial notes are present.  E.g., bug related to xs:decimal
18:19:43 <IanH> q?
18:20:12 <IanH> q?
18:20:13 <msmith> ianh: I suggest saying something more or less the same.
18:20:16 <IanH> ack pfps
18:20:23 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:20:23 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:20:29 <msmith> pfps: XML Schema WG has fixed this, they haven't published the fix
18:20:45 <msmith> pfps: I will ask for a pointer so that we can reuse their wording
18:21:27 <msmith> sandro: procedural threat - we can't normatively reference less mature specifications
18:21:51 <msmith> ianh: this is the point of the next item.  can we point to XML Schema 1.1
18:22:07 <msmith> sandro: we can for last call and CR, but not for PR and Rec
18:22:37 <pfps> q+
18:22:37 <msmith> sandro: this could require a different URI for the property if the XML Schema WG can't move fast enough
18:22:43 <IanH> q?
18:22:48 <IanH> ack pfps
18:22:49 <msmith> sandro: this is bone-headed and we look for a workaround
18:23:07 <msmith> pfps: we could squat on xsd:our-datetime if we know what it is
18:23:18 <IanH> q?
18:23:48 <msmith> pfps: for decimal, they will be changing the minimal implementation text.  we will copy it.  if it changes, its ugly but we don't expect that to happen
18:23:54 <IanH> q?
18:24:23 <msmith> subsubtopic: Freezing Features
18:24:38 <IanH> q?
18:24:44 <msmith> ianh: we have to decide that we're not going to introduce or change features at this point
18:24:55 <msmith> ianh: or we won't be able to keep our schedule
18:25:00 <msmith> ianh: any objections to this?
18:25:08 <msmith> ianh: when are we going to freeze the documents?
18:25:09 <pfps> no objection from me
18:25:14 <uli> freeze, yes
18:25:45 <msmith> sandro: any changes need to have more review.  so, hopefully no more review
18:26:24 <msmith> sandro: there isn't a formal requirement to freeze for publishing.  I make a snapshot (probably in the next few days)
18:26:31 <IanH> q?
18:26:42 <msmith> sandro: I don't have a sense of the state editor's believe the documents to be in
18:26:58 <msmith> ianh: I was expecting to say something like "by the end of this week"
18:27:17 <msmith> ianh: then sandro can snapshot and we have one week for typos, etc.
18:27:30 <msmith> sandro: ok, any changes after that require chair approval
18:27:37 <pfps> fine by me
18:27:39 <bmotik> Great!
18:27:39 <bcuencagrau> Yes
18:27:39 <msmith> ianh: editors, is this ok?
18:27:41 <MarkusK_> yes
18:27:47 <msmith> msmith: yes
18:28:02 <msmith> ianh: person that might object is mschnei
18:28:20 <msmith> ianh: I will contact him after the telecon to confirm his consent
18:28:38 <msmith> sandro: the one doc we're not republishing is primer.  do we want to say something about that?
18:29:01 <msmith> sandro: text that suggests we intend to update and publish it in the future.
18:29:04 <pfps> that sounds good to me
18:29:15 <IanH> q?
18:29:23 <msmith> sandro: Do I understand that correctly?
18:29:45 <msmith> sandro: maybe we put such text in the ref card status of document, since the docs are related
18:30:09 <msmith> topic: Issues
18:30:33 <IanH> q?
18:30:40 <msmith> subtopic: ISSUE-87
18:30:58 <schneid> schneid has joined #owl
18:30:59 <IanH> q?
18:31:11 <msmith> ianh: I understood from minutes this was handled last week
18:31:02 <uli> confirm
18:31:04 <bmotik> Yep
18:31:27 <msmith> omit: PROPOSED resolve ISSUE-87 as in terms at
18:31:48 <pfps> omit: wrong section
18:31:52 <sandro> omit: if you put the colon after "proposed" then it gets nicely formatted.
18:32:04 <msmith> omit: PROPOSED close ISSUE-87 by adding rational datatype but marking it as at risk, pending implementation experience
18:32:27 <Zakim> +??P1
18:32:33 <schneid> zakim, ??P1 is me
18:32:33 <Zakim> +schneid; got it
18:32:37 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:32:37 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:32:46 <msmith> PROPOSED: close ISSUE-87 by adding rational datatype but marking it as at risk, pending implementation experience
18:32:52 <ewallace> +1 (NIST)
18:32:57 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
18:32:59 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
18:33:00 <uli> +1 (Man)
18:33:00 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
18:33:04 <msmith> msmith: +1
18:33:05 <baojie> +1 (RPI)
18:33:07 <bmotik> +1 (Oxfrd)
18:33:08 <bcuencagrau> +1
18:33:10 <Rinke> +1 (UvA)
18:33:11 <sandro> +1 (W3C)
18:33:13 <bmotik> s/Oxfrd/Oxford
18:33:24 <msmith> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-87 by adding rational datatype but marking it as at risk, pending implementation experience
18:33:31 <Zhe> +1
18:33:57 <msmith> ianh: mschnei is present now, revert to publishing discussion
18:34:18 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:34:18 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:34:23 <msmith> ianh: we agreed to freeze docs by end of week, modulo minor errors being fixed.  can you live with that?
18:34:45 <msmith> schneid: I've just started some changes.  Sunday?
18:35:09 <msmith> ianh: we need to freeze fairly soon.  Can you accept Sunday?
18:35:34 <msmith> schneid: yes, since RDF semantics is just second draft
18:35:44 <msmith> schneid: I can branch the doc and make larger changes on branch
18:35:49 <IanH> q?
18:35:59 <msmith> ianh: reluctant to suggest a branch given problems with rqmts doc
18:36:10 <msmith> schneid: ok, I will focus on the smaller changes
18:36:24 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:36:24 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:36:51 <msmith> ianh: back to issues
18:36:56 <IanH> q?
18:37:09 <IanH> q?
18:37:18 <msmith> PROPOSED: remove xsd:ENTITY, xsd:ID, and xsd:IDREF datatypes as in
18:37:23 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
18:37:27 <sandro> +1 (W3C)
18:37:29 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
18:37:30 <msmith> msmith: +1 (C&P)
18:37:35 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
18:37:36 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
18:37:37 <uli> +1 (Man)
18:37:45 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
18:37:45 <ewallace> +1 (NIST)
18:37:55 <Rinke> +1 (Uva)
18:37:58 <msmith> RESOLVED: Remove xsd:ENTITY, xsd:ID, and xsd:IDREF datatypes as in
18:37:59 <baojie> +1 (RPI)
18:38:19 <msmith> ianh: last issue, proposal to simplify structure of annotations
18:38:41 <IanH> q?
18:38:46 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
18:38:46 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
18:38:50 <IanH> q?
18:39:05 <msmith> bmotik: several aspects to this change
18:39:30 <msmith> bmotik: first, introduce one class AnnotationValue to avoid AnnotationByIndividual AnnotationByLiteral ...
18:39:40 <msmith> bmotik: then unify the syntax
18:40:22 <IanH> q?
18:40:35 <alanr> wondering about alternatives to "URI"
18:40:35 <msmith> bmotik: second, currently you can have several annotation values per axiom.  this is complex.  I propose to require separate axioms for multiple annotations
18:40:51 <IanH> q?
18:40:56 <msmith> ianh: this wouldn't change the RDF?
18:40:59 <pfps> sounds good to me
18:41:10 <msmith> bmotik: correct, but it would make things more round-trippable
18:41:23 <uli> sounds fine to me too
18:41:35 <alanr> q+
18:41:41 <alanr> only on IRC
18:41:48 <msmith> ack alanr
18:41:49 <IanH> alan - go ahead
18:41:56 <pfps> q?
18:42:03 <alanr> Sent mail re: using "URI" in annotations
18:42:14 <bmotik> I saw this e-mail, but I didn't understand it.
18:42:14 <ewallace> See 
18:42:17 <alanr> and mentioned at f2f
18:42:40 <IanH> Looks like a positive change to me. I'm still uncomfortable with the
18:42:40 <IanH> URI as name for "entities which we may have different 'views' of".
18:42:41 <IanH> Perhaps there is some variant of URI (that uses the term "view" in it)
18:42:41 <IanH> that better expresses that it is something identified that we are
18:42:41 <alanr> We aren't annotating a URI, which is a syntactic element, we are annotating a resource, but without specifying a view
18:42:41 <IanH> talking about, rather than the identifier of that thing. i.e. in
18:42:41 <IanH> productions about properties, we use ObjectProperty := URI, not
18:42:43 <IanH> ObjectPropertyURI := URI
18:42:45 <IanH>  possibilities: AnyView, AllViews, SomeView, Entity, Resource...
18:42:50 <alanr> tks
18:42:54 <bmotik> q+
18:42:57 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
18:42:57 <Zakim> bmotik was not muted, bmotik
18:42:59 <alanr> Resource is most clear
18:43:03 <pfps> ... but they are ... (wait for it) ... URIs (or at least IRIs)
18:43:11 <alanr> so is a property, then
18:43:25 <msmith> bmotik: I didn't understand this question.
18:43:39 <pfps> oooh, good point
18:43:54 <alanr> We have several views currently
18:43:54 <msmith> sandro: I believe he's saying that we're not talking about the URI, we're talking about the thing denoted by the URI
18:44:00 <alanr> yes
18:44:11 <alanr> But we don't have a specific view
18:44:19 <alanr> "view" is the language used by Boris
18:44:31 <alanr> This annotation is to all the "views"
18:44:32 <msmith> sandro: I think alanr is saying that using URI in the syntax is likely to mislead and that alternative names for the productions could be helpful
18:44:38 <alanr> yes
18:44:48 <alanr> sorry - this is hard over text
18:44:52 <msmith> bmotik: entity is already used in the structural spec
18:45:04 <IanH> q?
18:45:10 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:45:11 <pfps> the non-terminals could be "Resource" instead of "URI", a la RDF
18:45:16 <alanr> +1
18:45:50 <pfps> no just for these things that are on the "URI"
18:45:56 <pfps> q+
18:45:58 <msmith> ianh: we're talking just about the proposal here.
18:46:05 <IanH> q?
18:46:07 <IanH> ack pfps
18:46:23 <msmith> pfps: the only change would be for non-terminals ... are there any ... no
18:46:35 <msmith> ianh: I don't see any non-terminals with URI in them
18:46:50 <IanH> Alan: we don't see any productions with URI in them anymore.
18:46:53 <msmith> pfps: URI annotation is gone, so changing URI annotation to Resource annotation isn't helpful
18:46:58 <IanH> So we can't understand your point.
18:47:17 <IanH> Alan?
18:47:17 <alanr> Will review and get back on email.
18:47:18 <alanr> tks
18:47:32 <IanH> But we need to resolve it now.
18:47:42 <uli> tks?
18:47:45 <alanr> thanks
18:47:48 <IanH> We have agreed to finalise documents by end of this week.
18:48:15 <alanr> looking now
18:48:24 <uli> q+
18:48:30 <IanH> q?
18:48:33 <msmith> ianh: given alan is basically in favor...
18:48:43 <uli> q-
18:48:53 <msmith> sandro: we should make the decision, alan can decide to amend the decision
18:48:58 <msmith> PROPOSED: simplify structure of annotations as per
18:49:00 <sandro> s/decide/propose/
18:49:10 <sandro> +1
18:49:11 <alanr> e.g. AnnotationPropertyRange := 'PropertyRange' '(' axiomAnnotations AnnotationProperty URI ')'
18:49:17 <uli> +1
18:49:34 <MarkusK_> +1
18:49:36 <bmotik> +1
18:49:39 <bcuencagrau> +1
18:49:40 <schneid> 0
18:49:41 <pfps> +1
18:49:42 <Zhe> 0
18:49:42 <Achille> 0
18:49:42 <baojie> 0
18:49:47 <msmith> msmith: +1
18:49:51 <ewallace> +1
18:50:05 <msmith> RESOLVED: Simplify structure of annotations as per
18:50:22 <msmith> ianh: we will talk to alan offline. to better understand his point
18:50:31 <sandro> (Alan, if you're not happy with this resolution, we can consider some ammendment.)
18:50:49 <alanr> ok
18:50:57 <msmith> subtopic: Deprecation 
18:51:17 <IanH> q?
18:51:19 <msmith> ianh: after investigation, the deprecation problem seems to have gone away
18:51:32 <uli> i agree 
18:51:33 <msmith> ianh: does anyone have something to say?
18:51:41 <msmith> ianh: no, ok.  we move on.
18:51:42 <IanH> q?
18:51:50 <bmotik> q+
18:51:51 <alanr> yes, I am happy enough with current situation now.
18:51:53 <IanH> q?
18:51:54 <msmith> subtopic: rdf:XMLLiteral
18:51:58 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:52:11 <msmith> bmotik: it is not necessarily difficult conceptually
18:52:32 <alanr> there is a possible connection with POWDER which refers to XML Literal
18:52:37 <msmith> bmotik: it contains a design flaw - lexical space requires normalization
18:52:41 <sandro> yeah, wtf were the RDF Core folks thinking?  :-(
18:52:44 <msmith> q+
18:52:56 <alanr>
18:53:06 <msmith> bmotik: it would be more useful if canonical form were for value space
18:53:22 <msmith> q?
18:53:32 <IanH> ack msmith
18:54:23 <bmotik> q+
18:54:31 <IanH> q?
18:54:50 <baojie> q+
18:54:59 <pfps> q+
18:55:02 <schneid> q+
18:55:03 <IanH> q?
18:55:17 <msmith> msmith: I believe OWL 2 should support it.  It is useful and can be supported.  I think the canonicalization issue is for easy comparison
18:55:29 <msmith> ianh: what's the current state?  it was in OWL 1 but isn't in OWL 2?
18:56:08 <msmith> bmotik: OWL 1 was contradictory.  one spec (RDF?) said it is included.  another spec (semantics) said only string & integer
18:56:25 <msmith> bmotik: we should probably make an estimation if this would make people object.
18:56:32 <IanH> q?
18:56:38 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:56:44 <msmith> bmotik: if there's a non-zero probability of this, then what's one more datatype
18:57:02 <IanH> q?
18:57:09 <IanH> ack baojie
18:57:29 <baojie> * owl:DataRange (alternative  rdfs:Datatype)
18:57:29 <baojie> * owl:distinctMembers (alternative owl:members)
18:57:35 <msmith> baojie: I believe we have suggested replacing rdfs:Datatype with owl:DataRange
18:57:49 <msmith> baojie: this is a different issue
18:58:05 <msmith> ianh: no, we're now on rdf:XMLLiteral
18:58:08 <IanH> q?
18:58:17 <msmith> ianh: but I didn't understand the point on deprecation
18:58:30 <msmith> baojie: do we have a list of terms that will be deprecated?
18:58:34 <IanH> q?
18:58:41 <schneid> we only deprecate owl:DataRange at the moment
18:58:49 <IanH> q?
18:58:56 <msmith> ianh: it was suggested we do a backwards compatibility audit.  is that what you mean?
18:58:59 <msmith> baojie: yes.
18:59:36 <msmith> pfps: on OWL 1 built-in datatypes.  It means if you implement it, you should implement in accordance with the spec
18:59:45 <msmith> pfps: it doesn't require implementation
18:59:55 <bmotik> +q
18:59:58 <msmith> ianh: so, for conformance it wasn't obligatory to support it
19:00:04 <IanH> ack pfps
19:00:05 <msmith> pfps: yes.
19:00:13 <IanH> q?
19:00:15 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
19:00:15 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
19:00:22 <IanH> ack schneid
19:00:33 <schneid>
19:01:00 <msmith> schneid: re OWL 1 S&AS, I agree with pfps comments
19:01:31 <msmith> schneid: but its unclear if it is MUST or not.
19:01:46 <IanH> q?
19:01:58 <msmith> schneid: but I think it wasn't really in OWL 1, and isn't required in OWL 2
19:02:15 <IanH> q?
19:02:18 <msmith> ianh: I think it wasn't required in OWL 1, and isn't required in OWL 2
19:02:30 <msmith> bmotik: I think this depends on last call
19:02:31 <msmith> q+
19:02:35 <schneid> my email regarding rdf:XMLLiteral:
19:02:49 <IanH> q?
19:02:54 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:03:13 <msmith> bmotik: this is an easier datatype to implement. to msmith, why does lexical state assume document is normalized?
19:03:57 <schneid> one can even create RDFS-inconsistent documents with non-canonicalized literals :)
19:04:00 <msmith> ianh: I suggest tabling the discussion of sensibility of datatype
19:04:13 <schneid> zakim, mute me
19:04:13 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
19:04:15 <pfps> +1
19:04:23 <IanH> q?
19:05:15 <msmith> msmith: can we say if implemented, it should be implemented in accordance with...
19:05:24 <pfps> +1 to putting this in conformance
19:05:30 <msmith> ianh: it could be said in the conformance document.
19:05:32 <bmotik> q+
19:05:38 <msmith> msmith: +1
19:05:39 <IanH> q?
19:05:44 <IanH> ack msmith
19:05:48 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:06:07 <msmith> bmotik: why don't we add to Syntax
19:06:23 <IanH> q?
19:06:28 <msmith> ianh: that would make it mandatory, not optional
19:06:35 <msmith> bmotik: are there many that use it
19:06:47 <uli> i have seen a couple
19:06:50 <schneid> really? I have never seen it anywhere
19:06:54 <alanr> I think there are people who use it. IIRC I've seen it in BioPAX files
19:06:58 <alanr> am looking
19:07:11 <schneid> q+
19:07:17 <msmith> bmotik: I proposed adding 4.7 to syntax, adding rdf:XMLLiteral
19:07:36 <msmith> ianh: I'd like to make it at risk, because we have little implementation experience
19:07:41 <bmotik> +1 to at risk
19:07:42 <IanH> q?
19:07:44 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
19:07:44 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
19:07:49 <IanH> ack schneid
19:08:05 <schneid> zakim, mute me
19:08:05 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
19:08:09 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
19:08:09 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
19:09:00 <msmith> schneid: I don't like rdf:XMLLiteral because it is covered in the RDF semantics by several conditions.  we would need to avoid conflicting with other specifications
19:09:09 <IanH> q?
19:09:37 <christine> christine has joined #owl
19:09:47 <msmith> ianh: wasn't this exactly the same problem in OWL 1
19:09:57 <IanH> q?
19:10:24 <msmith> schneid: I believe it was only a suggestion in OWL 1, not mandatory
19:10:38 <bmotik> q+
19:10:45 <IanH> q?
19:10:46 <msmith> ianh: but a semantics was specified. if supported, it had a specific semantics.
19:10:48 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:10:50 <Zakim> +??P0
19:11:02 <schneid> zakim, mute me
19:11:02 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
19:11:24 <msmith> bmotik: rdf mt, section 3.1 suggests this is not a standard datatype.  I'm not sure I understand how this impacts things.
19:11:26 <schneid> +1 to boris
19:11:33 <christine> zakim, +??P0 is christine
19:11:33 <Zakim> sorry, christine, I do not recognize a party named '+??P0'
19:11:46 <IanH> q?
19:11:47 <msmith> bmotik: and it may change RDF interpretations
19:12:01 <uli> zakim, ??P0 is christine
19:12:01 <Zakim> +christine; got it
19:12:11 <pfps> q+
19:12:16 <IanH> q?
19:12:17 <msmith> bmotik: maybe we shouldn't say anything
19:12:19 <IanH> ack pfps
19:12:29 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
19:12:29 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
19:12:42 <msmith> pfps: bad news.  at end of WebOnt, XMLLiteral was made mandatory
19:12:51 <msmith> pfps: see S&AS C5
19:13:15 <schneid> we're back at RDF Semantics :)
19:13:25 <msmith> msmith:
19:14:01 <msmith> sandro: maybe way to procede is to do it at risk and solicit more feedback
19:14:07 <uli> ...I will check what kind of "literal" I remember seeing 
19:14:56 <msmith> ianh: I'd like it to be at risk, with default being take it out
19:15:05 <msmith> sandro: I think we can do that
19:15:19 <schneid> peter, an RDF compatible datatype map has rdf:XMLLiteral in, anyway, with or without being explicit :)
19:16:03 <IanH> PROPOSED: XML-Literal datatype is added to OWL 2 datatype map but marked at risk of being removed if there turn out to be implementation or semantic problems.
19:16:09 <bmotik> +1
19:16:12 <bcuencagrau> +1
19:16:17 <pfps> +1
19:16:18 <uli> +1
19:16:20 <ewallace> +1
19:16:21 <Achille> +1
19:16:22 <msmith> msmith: +1
19:16:22 <MarkusK_> +1
19:16:24 <Zhe> +1
19:16:24 <sandro> +1
19:16:26 <baojie> +1
19:16:27 <schneid> -0.5
19:16:33 <alanr> BioPAX doesn't use XML Literal - it uses a string that is documented to be in XML format
19:16:40 <alanr> 0
19:17:06 <schneid> no, not an objection
19:17:11 <IanH> q?
19:17:38 <alanr> like most it was probably arbitrary
19:17:46 <IanH> RESOLVED: XML-Literal datatype is added to OWL 2 datatype map but marked at risk of being removed if there turn out to be implementation or semantic problems.
19:18:00 <sandro> yeah, alan, that's the patterns I see in most RDF.
19:18:13 <schneid> ok
19:18:13 <bmotik> ACTION: bmotik2 to Update the spec to include rdf:XMLLiteral and fix the annotations as proposed
19:18:13 <trackbot> Created ACTION-251 - Update the spec to include rdf:XMLLiteral and fix the annotations as proposed [on Boris Motik - due 2008-11-26].
19:18:37 <IanH> q?
19:18:55 <IanH> q?
19:19:00 <bmotik> q+
19:19:01 <msmith> subtopic: Alignment of Syntaxes
19:19:06 <IanH> q?
19:19:09 <pfps> q+
19:19:16 <bmotik> ZAkim, unmtue me
19:19:16 <Zakim> I don't understand 'unmtue me', bmotik
19:19:17 <msmith> ianh: it seems that few of the proposed changes had universal agreement
19:19:19 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:19:20 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
19:19:20 <Zakim> bmotik was not muted, bmotik
19:20:04 <IanH> ack pfps
19:20:15 <msmith> bmotik: reiterating... I think we are serving two communities with different expectations.  conforming one syntax to another is not nice.  I think we can unify ExistsSelf and leave it at that
19:20:24 <alanr> q+
19:20:25 <msmith> pfps: I agree with bmotik
19:20:33 <IanH> Alan?
19:20:40 <msmith> ianh: alan and ivan aren't present, this is tricky to discuss
19:20:42 <alanr> I think the sentiment was that it was too hard to agree
19:20:59 <uli> whose sentiment?
19:21:01 <alanr> However I don't agree with the idea that we serve 2 communities therefore things should be different
19:21:08 <schneid> q+
19:21:08 <IanH> OK, so Boris's proposal is only to change ExistsSelf
19:21:08 <alanr> Ivan, Myself - principal instigators
19:21:18 <alanr> Does't matter
19:21:19 <IanH> Would you be OK with this
19:21:29 <uli> Alan, I think it's rather we serve 2 communities therefore things may not be unifiable
19:21:38 <alanr> I will say -1 without objection
19:21:42 <alanr> (formal)
19:21:45 <pfps> many of the proposed changes change things from the OWL 1 abstract syntax, which seems to be rather less than optimal
19:21:50 <alanr> I think our job is to bring together communities
19:22:00 <IanH> (Let's not get into the philosophy of who we serve.)
19:22:02 <alanr> Names appeal to small segment
19:22:13 <alanr> And seem to Boris taste rather to any standard
19:22:16 <uli> sure - but we don't want to loose them through this bringing together business
19:22:39 <alanr> DL standard is logical notation
19:22:47 <alanr> Add a syntax for that if desired
19:22:56 <uli> ?
19:23:02 <uli> for what?
19:23:04 <bmotik> q+
19:23:06 <alanr> But i (personally) see no reason to differ as we do now
19:23:07 <IanH> You mean you want *another* syntax?
19:23:22 <bmotik> -q
19:23:26 <alanr> I don't care. I'm objecting to the argument that the functional syntax is standard to some community
19:23:30 <alanr> q-
19:23:33 <IanH> ack alanr
19:23:35 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
19:23:35 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
19:23:39 <IanH> ack schneid
19:23:48 <bmotik> q+
19:23:58 <uli> q+
19:24:00 <msmith> schneid: if we change existself I favor changing the RDF side
19:24:29 <msmith> schneid: so that it is consistent with other Restrictions in rdf
19:24:35 <IanH> q?
19:24:45 <alanr> I think SOTD should solicit input and list the disagreement as one we couldn't agree on
19:25:04 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:25:08 <msmith> schneid: something like deprecation [ a owl:Restriction ; owl:onProperty :p ; owl:existSelf "true"^^xsd:boolean ]
19:25:14 <IanH> q?
19:25:23 <msmith> bmotik: I wanted to propose something like :hasSelf
19:25:29 <schneid> zakim, mute me
19:25:29 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
19:25:47 <IanH> q?
19:25:56 <IanH> q?
19:25:56 <uli> ack /me
19:25:59 <IanH> ack uli
19:26:53 <IanH> q?
19:27:02 <msmith> uli: disagree with Alan regarding the functional syntax.  It is a different syntax because it doesn't have the restrictions of RDF
19:27:08 <IanH> q?
19:27:21 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
19:27:21 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
19:27:39 <uli> zakim, mute me
19:27:39 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
19:27:54 <msmith> schneid: hasSelf, existSelf, doesn't matter much.  I have more concern about similarity to other restrictions
19:28:09 <IanH> q?
19:28:16 <schneid> zakim, mute me
19:28:16 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
19:28:16 <msmith> ianh: other opinions on RDF form of existself?
19:28:37 <bmotik> HasSelf is more symmetric
19:28:45 <bmotik> with the rest of the FS
19:28:53 <msmith> ianh: I have preference to keeping one of the ones we have rather than pick a new one
19:29:19 <uli> will this be the only choice?
19:29:30 <uli> zakim, unmute me
19:29:30 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted
19:29:31 <msmith> ianh: I understand proposal to be to change both FS and RDFSyntax to be HasSelf.  then change nothing else
19:29:58 <uli> zakim, mute me
19:29:58 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
19:30:00 <msmith> uli: in the sense that one could use either current RDF or FS for self restriction
19:30:25 <IanH> PROPOSED: Use HasSelf for self-restriction in both RDF and functions; don't change anything else.
19:30:32 <bmotik> +1
19:30:37 <schneid> +1
19:30:38 <pfps> +1
19:30:40 <bcuencagrau> +1
19:30:43 <ewallace> 0
19:30:44 <msmith> msmith: +1
19:30:46 <MarkusK_> +1
19:30:46 <Achille> 0
19:30:46 <alanr> -1 (but not formally objecting)
19:30:53 <baojie> 0
19:31:11 <uli> 0
19:31:16 <IanH> RESOLVED: Use HasSelf for self-restriction in both RDF and functions; don't change anything else.
19:31:17 <msmith> ianh: last chance to speak on this...
19:32:00 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
19:32:01 <Zakim> -baojie
19:32:02 <Zakim> -Achille
19:32:04 <msmith> ianh: End of Agenda.  We're out of time.  No additional business.  Thanks.  Next week we'll be frozen  and ready to roll out docs.
19:32:04 <Zakim> -bmotik
19:32:05 <Zakim> -MarkusK_
19:32:06 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
19:32:06 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
19:32:07 <Zakim> -Sandro
19:32:08 <Zakim> -Zhe
19:32:10 <Zakim> -msmith
19:32:13 <Zakim> -IanH
19:32:14 <Zakim> -christine
19:32:16 <Zakim> -schneid
19:32:20 <uli> bye
19:32:22 <uli> uli has left #owl
19:32:36 <Zakim> -uli
19:32:37 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
19:32:38 <Zakim> Attendees were msmith, IanH, Evan_Wallace, uli, Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau, Sandro, bmotik, Zhe, baojie, MarkusK_, Achille, schneid, christine