Chatlog 2009-01-07

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: Evan_Wallace, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Alan_Ruttenberg, MarkusK_, mschneid (muted), IanH, bcuencagrau (muted), Rinke (muted), msmith, Zhe (muted), Ivan, Sandro, elisa, Christine, bmotik
00:00:00 <scribenick> REGRETS: Jie Bao, Achille Fokoue
17:53:40 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:53:40 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/01/07-owl-irc
17:54:08 <ewallace> Zakim, this will be owlwg
17:54:08 <Zakim> ok, ewallace; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
17:54:49 <ewallace> RRSAgent, make records public
17:56:37 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
17:56:44 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
17:57:27 <pfps> pfps has joined #owl
17:57:49 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
17:57:52 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
17:57:53 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
17:58:18 <pfps> zakim, who is here?
17:58:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see Evan_Wallace, Peter_Patel-Schneider
17:58:20 <Zakim> On IRC I see pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, schneid, Rinke, alanr, IanH, sandro, ewallace, trackbot
17:58:47 <bcuencagrau> bcuencagrau has joined #owl
17:59:10 <Rinke> Rinke has left #owl
17:59:12 <MarkusK_> MarkusK_ has joined #owl
17:59:14 <Zakim> +Alan_Ruttenberg
17:59:20 <Rinke> Rinke has joined #owl
17:59:51 <bcuencagrau> bcuencagrau has joined #owl
17:59:54 <Zakim> +??P13
18:04:20 <ewallace> scribenick: bcuencagrau
18:04:27 <Zakim> +Sandro
18:04:50 <alanr> zakim, who is here?
18:04:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see Evan_Wallace, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Alan_Ruttenberg, MarkusK_, schneid (muted), IanH, bcuencagrau (muted), Rinke (muted), msmith, Zhe (muted), Ivan, Sandro
18:04:53 <Zakim> On IRC I see Christine, ivan, Zhe, msmith, bcuencagrau, Rinke, MarkusK_, pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, schneid, alanr, IanH, sandro, ewallace, trackbot
18:05:05 <schneid> q+
18:05:10 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:05:12 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:05:12 <alanr> ack schneid
00:00:00 <bcuencagrau> Topic: Admin
18:05:17 <bcuencagrau> alanr: agenda amendments?
18:05:35 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:05:35 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:05:36 <bcuencagrau> schneid: I would like to say something about the status of RDF smeantics
18:05:49 <Zakim> +??P8
18:05:57 <msmith> the minutes looked ok to me.
18:05:57 <bcuencagrau> alanr: minuets accepted?
18:05:58 <pfps> The minutes look acceptable.
18:06:07 <schneid> minutes were helpful to find back... :)
18:06:09 <bcuencagrau> alanr: minutes accepted
18:06:20 <bcuencagrau> alanr: action items
18:06:21 <Christine> zakim, ??P8 is christine
18:06:21 <Zakim> +christine; got it
18:06:35 <bcuencagrau> alanr: F2F registration
18:07:16 <pfps> q+
18:07:28 <alanr> ack pfps
18:07:49 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, unmute me
18:07:49 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should no longer be muted
18:08:01 <bcuencagrau> Action 252
18:08:01 <trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax
18:08:10 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, unmute me
18:08:10 <Zakim> bcuencagrau was not muted, bcuencagrau
18:08:16 <bcuencagrau> alanr: action 252
18:08:35 <bcuencagrau> pfps: we should tell to people inmediately what the name could be
18:08:41 <IanH> q+
18:08:48 <alanr> ack ianh
18:09:13 <elisa> elisa has joined #owl
18:09:22 <pfps> the name for the date/time XML datatype has been determined
18:09:28 <bcuencagrau> ianH: if the docs are approved as it is, we could have a list of changes after last call
18:09:32 <alanr> ack alanr
18:09:51 <bcuencagrau> alanr: we could use the wiki only for editor comments
18:10:07 <bcuencagrau> alanr: so that they can be collected
18:10:16 <bcuencagrau> sandro: better not use the wiki commnets
18:10:33 <bcuencagrau> alanr: they are not very readable
18:11:21 <bcuencagrau> ianH: we should make it clear to editors that this is the process
18:11:36 <bcuencagrau> pfps: so edits have to indicate if they make any change to the docs
18:11:55 <schneid> RDF-Based Semantics has a list of changes which is updated regularly, and revised at the end <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF-Based_Semantics#Changelog>
18:12:16 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
18:12:16 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
18:12:24 <pfps> I'll change Syntax accordingly.
18:12:44 <alanr> action: pfps to implement change to syntax for datetime xml schema coordination
18:12:44 <trackbot> Created ACTION-261 - Implement change to syntax for datetime xml schema coordination [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2009-01-14].
18:12:45 <bcuencagrau> ianH: we should be a bit more prescriptive in the way docs are changed
18:13:01 <Zakim> + +1.650.960.aadd
18:13:03 <pfps> I agree
18:13:09 <bcuencagrau> ianH: at this point changes should not be made unless we discuss them first
18:13:34 <bcuencagrau> sandro: even for typos?
18:13:47 <bcuencagrau> ianH: no, only for more substantial changes
18:13:58 <alanr> q?
18:14:06 <Zakim> -Rinke
18:14:31 <bcuencagrau> sandro: we should be able to clearly identify the changes since last call
18:15:06 <sandro> identify and http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Response_Protocol
18:15:06 <bcuencagrau> alanr: action 255
18:15:13 <elisa> zakim, ??aadd is me
18:15:13 <Zakim> sorry, elisa, I do not recognize a party named '??aadd'
18:15:18 <sandro> action-255?
18:15:18 <trackbot> ACTION-255 -- Sandro Hawke to write wiki page on mailing-list behavior guidelines during last call -- due 2008-12-10 -- OPEN
18:15:18 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/actions/255
18:15:21 <sandro> action-255 closed
18:15:21 <trackbot> ACTION-255 Write wiki page on mailing-list behavior guidelines during last call closed
18:15:37 <bcuencagrau> alanr: action 260
18:15:39 <elisa> zakim, +1.650.960.aadd is me
18:15:39 <Zakim> +elisa; got it
18:16:08 <Zakim> +??P15
18:16:20 <bcuencagrau> sandro: I consider my action done
18:16:24 <Rinke> zakim, +??P15 is me
18:16:24 <Zakim> sorry, Rinke, I do not recognize a party named '+??P15'
18:16:46 <Rinke> zakim, ??P15 is me
18:16:46 <Zakim> +Rinke; got it
18:16:57 <bcuencagrau> end of action status
18:17:07 <Rinke> zakim, mute me
18:17:07 <Zakim> Rinke should now be muted
18:17:13 <bcuencagrau> Soliciting reviews of and/or comments on LC documents
18:17:15 <IanH> q+
18:17:25 <alanr> ack ianh
18:17:59 <bcuencagrau> ianH: if we haven't got comments, we should encourage people to make comments
18:18:06 <bcuencagrau> ianH: should we be worried?
18:18:32 <bcuencagrau> ianH: by next week, if little comes out, we should take some action
18:19:04 <schneid> q+
18:19:17 <bcuencagrau> sandro: sometimes comments we do not happen because people have not read the docs
18:19:27 <bcuencagrau> ianH: waht about comments within the WG?
18:19:54 <bcuencagrau> sandro: I don't know
18:20:27 <bcuencagrau> ianH: comments from industry members may be valuable
18:20:43 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:20:43 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:20:43 <alanr> ack schneid
18:20:45 <bcuencagrau> sandro: for that, we can wait until rec stage
18:21:31 <bcuencagrau> mschneid: there have been some comments but not using the official route
18:22:08 <IanH> q+
18:22:28 <bcuencagrau> mschneid: there were some discussions and something came out from them
18:22:44 <bcuencagrau> mschneid: but these people didn't comment officially
18:22:48 <alanr> ack ianh
18:22:52 <alanr> q?
18:22:58 <bcuencagrau> mschneid: should we rise the comments on behalf of these people?
18:23:15 <bcuencagrau> ianH; we can ask these people
18:24:01 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:24:01 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:24:20 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:24:20 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:24:26 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:24:26 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:24:26 <bcuencagrau> alanr: we might emphasizr that comments are very important for us
18:24:52 <bcuencagrau> alanr: F2F5
18:25:10 <bcuencagrau> alanr:please confirm your attendance status
18:25:10 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F5_People
18:25:20 <schneid> q+
18:25:31 <IanH> q?
18:25:43 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:25:43 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:25:48 <alanr> ack schneid
18:25:54 <schneid> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0000.html
18:26:07 <bcuencagrau> mschneid: there are some new US entry regulations
18:26:30 <bcuencagrau> mschneid: please, be careful
18:26:31 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:26:31 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:26:41 <IanH> I filled it recently (voluntarily) and it was pretty light-weight (I got an "instant" OK response)
18:27:07 <alanr> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2008Dec/0000.html
18:27:16 <IanH> q+
18:27:20 <alanr> ack ianh
00:00:00 <bcuencagrau> Topic: Last Call Comments
18:27:28 <bcuencagrau> ianH: I have looked at alan's email
18:27:37 <pfps> q+
18:28:28 <bcuencagrau> ianH: they would like to have complex concepts in comments in order to support sanctioning 
18:28:53 <bcuencagrau> ianH: I wouldn't personally want to extend the spec in this direction
18:28:58 <pfps> q-
18:29:13 <bcuencagrau> ianH: but we could be able to support mechanisms for at least partially support their use case
18:29:38 <bcuencagrau> alanr: somebody should start drafting those mechanisms
18:30:39 <bcuencagrau> ianH: one way would be to use named concepts for defining the complex concepts they want to use
18:30:46 <bcuencagrau> ianH: some problems with that
18:31:06 <bcuencagrau> ianH: one could add the definition of the concept as a string
18:31:25 <bcuencagrau> alanr: do you want to start a page, Ian?
18:31:43 <bcuencagrau> ianH: we should use the response page for last call comments
18:32:02 <pfps> +1
18:32:44 <bcuencagrau> alanr: could there will be problems with the mapping to RDF?
18:32:50 <pfps> No problem. :-)
18:32:56 <bcuencagrau> ianH; let's Peter and Boris think about it
18:33:18 <bcuencagrau> pfps: there will be no problems
18:33:51 <bcuencagrau> alanr: no, I meant if we actually wanted to add axioms in the target of annotations
18:33:59 <bcuencagrau> pfps: that is a problem
18:34:21 <bcuencagrau> ianH: well, problably they just want an unnamed individual introducing a complex concept
18:34:38 <bcuencagrau> pfps: if it is a class expression, then there should not be a problem
18:34:49 <bcuencagrau> alanr: what about serializing the axiom as text?
18:35:17 <bcuencagrau> pfps: they would just be strings
18:36:25 <bcuencagrau> pfps: we could go and change all documents, but that would be a mess
18:36:39 <alanr> q?
18:36:54 <bcuencagrau> ianH: I have already created a page
18:37:10 <bcuencagrau> ianH: we can now start writing our responses
18:37:48 <alanr> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/att-0000/00-part
18:37:55 <bcuencagrau> alanr: Ceil's comments
18:38:09 <bcuencagrau> alanr: have you read it?
18:38:10 <schneid> this was not really a comment
18:38:30 <bcuencagrau> alanr: i agree with michael
18:38:52 <IanH> +1
18:38:59 <pfps> +1
18:39:12 <schneid> +1, just to let her know that somebody is watching her :)
18:39:37 <alanr> Action: alanr to send mail to cecil replying that we are waiting for the real comment
18:39:37 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - alanr
18:39:58 <pfps> +1
18:40:02 <pfps> q+
18:40:03 <sandro> ACTION: alan  to send mail to cecil replying that we are waiting for the real comment
18:40:03 <trackbot> Created ACTION-262 -  to send mail to cecil replying that we are waiting for the real comment [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2009-01-14].
18:40:22 <msmith> q+
18:40:27 <alanr> ack pfps
18:40:45 <bcuencagrau> alanr: the next comment is from Mike Smith
18:40:59 <bcuencagrau> pfps: Mike has noticed an error in the reverse mapping
18:41:08 <bcuencagrau> pfps: we need to fix it
18:41:24 <bcuencagrau> pfps: i have written an email with the proposed resolution
18:41:52 <IanH> q?
18:41:57 <alanr> ack msmith
18:42:20 <bcuencagrau> msmith: boris suggested to make it a public comment
18:42:30 <pfps> q+
18:42:36 <bcuencagrau> msmith: I dind't mean this to me a LC comment, but just a WG issue
18:42:44 <alanr> ack pfps
18:42:56 <bcuencagrau> pfps: it is good to have it as LC comment
18:42:56 <alanr> +1
18:43:12 <bcuencagrau> pfps: it will be easier to track
18:43:17 <msmith> that's ok by me too.
18:43:25 <bcuencagrau> pfps: we could distinguish them between internal or external
18:43:51 <ivan> q+
18:43:57 <bcuencagrau> alanr: next comment
18:43:58 <alanr> ack ivan
18:44:22 <bcuencagrau> ivan: this looks like a potential formal objection
18:44:46 <bmotik> bmotik has joined #owl
18:45:11 <Zakim> +??P4
18:45:13 <bcuencagrau> ivan: there could be problems with RDF and SPARQL implementations
18:45:16 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P4 is me
18:45:16 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
18:45:29 <bcuencagrau> ivan: boris should look at it
18:45:30 <alanr> boris, we are discussing http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0001.html
18:45:33 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:45:33 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:45:38 <schneid> Andy's comments seems substantial to me, although I did not yet follow it further
18:46:06 <bcuencagrau> alanr: how do we handle this LC comment?
18:46:16 <bcuencagrau> ivan: we should agree on some sort of an answer
18:46:38 <bcuencagrau> alanr: we could use the rdf mailing list
18:46:49 <bcuencagrau> sandro: in order to look for an agreement
18:47:52 <bmotik> I'm sorry, I don't know yet where we are
18:48:12 <bcuencagrau> alanr: we could probably postpone this
18:48:26 <bcuencagrau> sandro: I am on that list
18:49:48 <bcuencagrau> alanr: the next one is a comment by Jim
18:50:05 <bcuencagrau> alanr: mike had a discussion with him
18:50:09 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:50:09 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:50:13 <schneid> q+
18:50:18 <alanr> ack schneid
18:50:29 <IanH> q+
18:50:33 <bcuencagrau> schneid: the discussion was on the semantics of keys
18:51:15 <bcuencagrau> schneid: a better explanation was requested in order to avoid confusion with the semantics of keys
18:51:22 <bcuencagrau> schneid: jim was confused
18:51:34 <bcuencagrau> schneid: some clarification is in order
18:52:01 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:52:02 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:52:04 <alanr> ack ianh
18:52:26 <bcuencagrau> ianH: jim was happy about the structure of the language
18:52:42 <ivan> q+
18:52:46 <bcuencagrau> ianH: we should send him an email to forward his email to the public record
18:52:55 <alanr> ack Christine
18:53:04 <bcuencagrau> ianH: there should be a LC comment of that form
18:53:31 <bcuencagrau> Christine: I can add a sentence to the requirements doc
18:53:40 <alanr> q?
18:53:45 <alanr> ack ivan
18:54:01 <schneid> indeed, Jim did so
18:54:44 <bcuencagrau> ivan: that is already done
18:55:18 <bcuencagrau> alanr: perhaps Boris could take a look at the examples on keys
18:55:22 <pfps> yes
18:55:30 <ivan> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Dec/0055.html "So I hereby raise this as a LC Document issue"
18:55:32 <bcuencagrau> alanr: Bijan should also be aware for the primer
18:55:40 <pfps> Bijan and I will do so.
18:55:50 <IanH> Someone -- probably Michael -- should send a summary email to the public comments list?
18:56:15 <alanr> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2009JanMar/0003.html
18:56:32 <pfps> q+
18:56:36 <bcuencagrau> alanr: the next comment is more like a question
18:56:38 <alanr> ack pfps
18:56:46 <schneid> what Jim said in <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Dec/0055.html>: "So I hereby raise this as a LC Document issue (I believe the right  
18:56:48 <schneid> terminology) -- i.e. the design is okay, but the documentation should  
18:56:49 <schneid> better reflect it"
18:57:17 <alanr> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2009JanMar/0003.html
18:57:19 <bcuencagrau> ianH: this is not a LC comment
18:57:19 <ivan> "[This is not a formal comment, just seeking understanding.]"  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2009JanMar/0003.html
18:58:02 <alanr> q?
18:59:22 <bcuencagrau> sandro: I am going to reply to him privately
18:59:37 <bcuencagrau> alanr: end of LC section
00:00:00 <bcuencagrau> Topic: Test Cases
19:00:08 <bcuencagrau> alanr: Proposal to approve tests
19:00:33 <bcuencagrau> alanr: we should probably approve the tests that all implementations pass
19:00:48 <msmith> q+
19:00:53 <alanr> ack msmith
19:01:12 <bcuencagrau> msmith: the first set of tests are all DL
19:01:33 <bcuencagrau> msmith: there are others that are Full and I haven't run any tool on them
19:02:17 <bcuencagrau> msmith: some tests are also datatype-related
19:02:25 <IanH> q+
19:02:32 <alanr> ack ianh
19:02:36 <bcuencagrau> msmith: reasoners treat datatypes differently
19:03:06 <bcuencagrau> ianH: if in the end some systems do not implement all the datatypes, we may want to keep the tests but explain why some fail
19:03:24 <msmith> q+
19:03:47 <alanr> ack msmith
19:04:46 <bcuencagrau> msmith: I am ok with accepting the tests that three or more reasoners pass
19:05:45 <bcuencagrau> alanr: should we have a formal vote on these tests?
19:05:55 <msmith> this is the direct version link http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Test_Queue&oldid=17103
19:06:08 <IanH> +1 to Alan's proposal
19:06:52 <alanr> PROPOSED: tests listed on http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Test_Queue&oldid=17103 that all three reasoners pass are approved
19:07:24 <bcuencagrau> msmith: what about the tests that we still haven't run?
19:07:33 <bcuencagrau> alanr: they go to a different page
19:07:38 <IanH> q+
19:07:42 <alanr> ack ianh
19:08:04 <bcuencagrau> ianH; for the OWL Full ones we should have a different process
19:08:36 <msmith> q+
19:08:52 <bcuencagrau> alanr: are we sure that all tests marked as OWL Full are indeed full?
19:09:13 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, unmute me
19:09:13 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should no longer be muted
19:09:20 <MarkusK_> zamin, mute schneid
19:09:28 <sandro> Zakim, mute schneid 
19:09:28 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
19:09:30 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
19:09:30 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
19:09:47 <msmith> report format http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test_Result_Format#Results_Ontology
19:09:56 <bcuencagrau> msmith: OWL Full implementors are welcome to run the tests
19:10:37 <IanH> q+
19:10:38 <bcuencagrau> sandro: i wrote an OWL Full reasoner, but it is not currently working well
19:10:43 <schneid> I had a mail on the Full problem today
19:10:46 <alanr> ack ianh
19:11:06 <bcuencagrau> ianH: we should vote on approving these tests that have three OKs
19:11:29 <msmith> I agree with Ian, we should minimally approve the 3 success tests
19:11:29 <alanr> PROPOSED: tests listed on http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Test_Queue&oldid=17103 that all three reasoners pass are approved
19:11:31 <Zakim> -Rinke
19:11:49 <schneid> q+
19:11:52 <sandro> +1
19:11:53 <IanH> +1
19:11:54 <msmith> +1
19:11:55 <MarkusK_> +1
19:11:56 <bcuencagrau> +1
19:11:57 <alanr> +1
19:12:01 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
19:12:01 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
19:12:01 <pfps> +1
19:12:14 <Christine> +1
19:12:55 <Rinke> +1
19:13:03 <alanr> RESOLVED: tests listed on http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Test_Queue&oldid=17103 that all three reasoners pass are approved
19:13:27 <bcuencagrau> schneid: mschneid: some OWL Full tests can be slightly transformed and be made easy
19:13:31 <Zhe> +1 (sorry for the late vote)
19:13:47 <msmith> action msmith to update status on approved tests
19:13:47 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - msmith
19:14:15 <bcuencagrau> alanr: are you taking an action to review the Full tests?
19:14:18 <msmith> action masmith to update status on approved tests
19:14:18 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - masmith
19:14:29 <bcuencagrau> mschneid: i need 10 days to finish other work on OWl Full
19:14:38 <alanr> action: msmith to update status on approved tests
19:14:38 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - msmith
19:14:42 <ivan> s/OWl/OWL/
19:15:47 <alanr> q?
19:15:53 <alanr> ack schneid
19:17:06 <bcuencagrau> alanr: please, give details in an email, michael
00:00:00 <bcuencagrau> Topic: Plans for non-LC documents
19:17:31 <bcuencagrau> alanr: discussion about Manchester Syntax
19:17:47 <bcuencagrau> alanr: whether it should be rec track
19:17:53 <sandro> q+
19:17:58 <alanr> ack sandro
19:18:20 <schneid> The transformation needed for DL/Full entailment tests: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0007.html>. Start reading at "There is another important point".
19:18:26 <bcuencagrau> sandro: I think it should not be rec track. it would make it a Fist Class syntax
19:18:34 <bcuencagrau> sandro: this was not in the charter
19:19:26 <bcuencagrau> alanr: should we amke a decision without Uli and Bijan?
19:19:55 <IanH> q+
19:20:00 <alanr> ack ianh
19:20:00 <pfps> I haven't discussed this with them recently.
19:20:19 <bcuencagrau> ianh: I think they wouldn't lie on the road
19:20:27 <bcuencagrau> ianH: but we could put it off
19:21:07 <bcuencagrau> sandro: I will be off next week
19:21:36 <schneid> schneid: in owl 1 full it was true that all dl entailments were full entailments. In OWL 2, this is not perfectly true anymore. So using feeding one of the old dl/full entailment tests into a OWL 2 Full reasoner may fail. However, there is a general transformation on dl entailments to make them into OWL 2 Full entailments. See pointer above.
19:21:57 <alanr> straw poll: 1 = want manchester syntax as rec. 2 = want it as note 3= don't care
19:22:06 <baojie> baojie has joined #owl
19:22:06 <ivan> 2
19:22:10 <sandro> 2
19:22:13 <schneid> 2
19:22:15 <pfps> 1 (prefer)
19:22:15 <Christine> 2
19:22:20 <bmotik> 1 (prefer)
19:22:24 <MarkusK_> 3
19:22:25 <bcuencagrau> 3
19:22:26 <msmith> 1
19:22:29 <Zhe> 2
19:22:30 <Rinke> 3
19:22:54 <bmotik> q+
19:22:58 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
19:22:58 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
19:23:04 <alanr> ack bmotik
19:23:07 <bcuencagrau> sandro: those who want to have it as a rec, could you give a reason?
19:23:16 <pfps> +1 to boris
19:23:17 <msmith> q+
19:23:19 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
19:23:19 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
19:23:20 <bcuencagrau> bmotik: we need a readable syntax for OWL
19:23:39 <alanr> q+
19:23:43 <alanr> ack msmith
19:23:45 <bcuencagrau> msmith: having it as a rec does not elevate it to the same status as RDF/XML
19:23:48 <alanr> ack alanr
19:24:01 <ivan> q+
19:24:14 <alanr> ack ivan
19:24:51 <pfps> q+
19:24:56 <alanr> q?
19:25:05 <bcuencagrau> ivan:the conformance doc should have guidelines on how the syntaxes relate
19:25:12 <bcuencagrau> ivan: we could need a new LC
19:25:14 <msmith> this bit about conformance isn't true for OWL XML syntax, is it?
19:25:31 <IanH> +1 to Peter's statement about conformance
19:25:46 <schneid> +1 to peter
19:25:50 <bcuencagrau> pfps: conformance doe the right thing: it doesn't name other syntaxes other than RDF/XML
19:25:51 <bmotik> +1 to peter and msmith
19:26:16 <msmith> q+
19:26:19 <ivan> q+
19:26:24 <alanr> q?
19:26:27 <pfps> q-
19:26:34 <alanr> ack msmith
19:27:11 <bcuencagrau> msmith: please clarify what `first class' means
19:27:47 <bcuencagrau> sandro: people in the WG have not participated in the design
19:27:59 <pfps> I resonate with Sandro's concerns.
19:28:06 <msmith> thank you, that is compelling
19:28:06 <bcuencagrau> sandro: the features have not been discussed 
19:28:17 <alanr> ack ivan
19:28:18 <pfps> In particular, I don't think that Manchester should slow down the WG.
19:28:22 <sandro> Sandro: If the WG really feels that Manchester is as mature as the XML syntax, and should be another "first class" document, and we've really thought about it, and really like it, ... then yeah, I'm okay with it being a REC.
19:28:47 <schneid> zakim, mute me
19:28:47 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
19:29:05 <bcuencagrau> ivan: if it becomes a rec, it will have to go over all stages, such as requirement to have multiple implementations
19:29:21 <bcuencagrau> ivan: we may be approving something that will slow us down
19:29:23 <pfps> I'm resonating even more with Sandro and Ivan.
19:30:05 <IanH> q+
19:30:18 <schneid> hm, people outside the WG may have strong opinions on the Manchester document, because the syntax is in reasonably wide use, I guess...
19:30:56 <bcuencagrau> ianH: in OWL 1 the func. syntax was rec track but it was ignored by implementations
19:31:07 <pfps> OWL 1 abstract syntax wasn't supposed to be used (according to some WG members).
19:31:09 <bcuencagrau> sandro: it had a special status
19:31:23 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, unmute me
19:31:23 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should no longer be muted
19:31:33 <Zakim> -bmotik
19:31:35 <Zakim> -msmith
19:31:36 <ivan> ivan has left #owl
19:31:36 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
19:31:38 <Zakim> -MarkusK_
19:31:38 <Zakim> -elisa
19:31:46 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
19:31:47 <Zakim> -Zhe
19:31:49 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
19:31:50 <Zakim> -IanH
19:31:50 <Zakim> -Sandro
19:31:51 <Zakim> -Alan_Ruttenberg
19:31:51 <Zakim> -christine
19:32:04 <Zakim> -schneid
19:34:02 <Zakim> -Ivan
19:34:03 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
19:34:04 <Zakim> Attendees were Evan_Wallace, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Alan_Ruttenberg, MarkusK_, schneid, bcuencagrau, IanH, Rinke, +1.202.408.aabb, msmith, Zhe, Ivan, Sandro, christine, elisa, bmotik
19:39:07 <msmith> msmith has left #owl
20:32:46 <IanH> IanH has joined #owl
20:35:16 <IanH_> IanH_ has joined #owl
21:51:35 <Zakim> Zakim has left #owl
22:38:02 <IanH> IanH has joined #owl