Chatlog 2009-02-11

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: Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, IanH, bijan, bmotik (muted), Ivan, Evan_Wallace, Michael Schneider (muted), uli (muted), christine, msmith, Zhe, Achille, Bernardo, Sandro
17:58:53 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:58:53 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/02/11-owl-irc
17:59:05 <schneid> schneid has joined #owl
17:59:13 <IanH> IanH has changed the topic to:  http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.02.11/Agenda
17:59:25 <IanH> Zakim, this will be owlwg
17:59:25 <Zakim> ok, IanH; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 1 minute
17:59:35 <MarkusK_> MarkusK_ has joined #owl
17:59:40 <IanH> ScribeNick: bijan
17:59:49 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
17:59:50 <pfps> pfps has joined #owl
17:59:53 <bijan> I'm wondering if someone might take over for me scribing
17:59:56 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
18:00:02 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:00:06 <bijan> I've got a rather nasty headache which is making it hard to concentrate
18:00:29 <Zakim> +bmotik
18:00:30 <IanH> Do we have a volunteer to take over from Bijan?
18:00:38 <bijan> I'll do it if no one volunteers of course
18:01:04 <bmotik> bmotik has joined #owl
18:01:07 <Zakim> -bmotik
18:01:21 <Zakim> +IanH
18:01:23 <bmotik> Zakim, this will be owl
18:01:23 <Zakim> ok, bmotik, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM already started
18:01:29 <Zakim> +??P18
18:01:33 <Zakim> +bmotik
18:01:36 <bijan> zakim, ??p18 is me
18:01:36 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
18:01:37 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:01:38 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:01:40 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:01:40 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:01:41 <IanH> RRSAgent, make records public
18:01:54 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:01:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, IanH, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted)
18:01:57 <Zakim> On IRC I see bmotik, pfps, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, bcuencagrau, bijan, sandro, trackbot, ewallace
18:01:59 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
18:01:59 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
18:02:01 <Zakim> +Ivan
18:02:04 <Zakim> +bmotik.a
18:02:23 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl
18:02:26 <IanH> CAN SOMEONE TAKE OVER SCRIBING -- Bijan is unwell
18:02:29 <bijan> Topic: Admin
18:02:30 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
18:02:40 <Zakim> -bmotik.a
18:02:41 <uli> uli has joined #owl
18:02:47 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:02:50 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:02:51 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
18:03:00 <schneid> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
18:03:00 <Zakim> +schneid; got it
18:03:00 <Christine> Christine has joined #owl
18:03:04 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:03:04 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:03:06 <Zakim> +??P10
18:03:16 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:03:16 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:03:34 <Christine> zakim, ??P10 is christine
18:03:34 <Zakim> +christine; got it
18:03:42 <Zakim> +??P11
18:03:49 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:03:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, IanH, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), Ivan, Evan_Wallace, schneid (muted), christine, ??P11
18:03:51 <Zakim> On IRC I see Christine, uli, Zhe, bmotik, pfps, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, bcuencagrau, bijan, sandro, trackbot, ewallace
18:03:53 <uli> zakim, ??P11 is me
18:03:54 <Zakim> -christine
18:03:55 <Zakim> +uli; got it
18:04:01 <uli> zakim, mute me
18:04:04 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
18:04:13 <Zakim> +bmotik.a
18:04:39 <msmith> msmith has joined #owl
18:04:46 <Zakim> -bmotik.a
18:04:51 <Zakim> +??P10
18:04:55 <uli> i said i'd volunteer if need be
18:05:03 <Christine> zakim, ??P10 is christine
18:05:03 <Zakim> +christine; got it
18:05:09 <Zakim> +msmith
18:05:24 <uli> thanks, Ivan!
18:05:30 <ivan> scribenick: ivan
18:05:41 <pfps> and he's British so no worries about washing it off
18:05:45 <Zakim> + +1.603.897.aaaa
18:05:57 <Zhe> zakim,  +1.603.897.aaaa is me
18:05:57 <Zakim> +Zhe; got it
18:05:58 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:05:59 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, IanH, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), Ivan, Evan_Wallace, schneid (muted), uli (muted), christine, msmith, Zhe
18:06:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see msmith, Christine, uli, Zhe, bmotik, pfps, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, bijan, sandro, trackbot, ewallace
18:06:10 <ivan> Topic: roll call
18:06:14 <bijan> scribe: ivan
18:06:15 <ivan> ian: agenda amendement
18:06:20 <pfps> look fine by me
18:06:25 <ivan> ian: propose to accept previous minutes
18:06:28 <ivan> peter: fine
18:06:39 <ivan> ian: resolve to accept the minutes
18:06:44 <ivan> topic: action items
18:06:55 <ivan> ian: not spend time on the pending actions
18:07:02 <ivan> ian: those four should go on...
18:07:08 <ivan> ian: due and overdue action
18:07:13 <bijan> That was closed
18:07:14 <pfps> +q
18:07:16 <bijan> He has done it
18:07:18 <ivan> ... the one on alan, I believe that is gone
18:07:19 <pfps> q-
18:07:25 <IanH> q?
18:07:47 <ivan> action 264: another one on alan
18:07:47 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 264
18:07:57 <ivan> ... he sent a mail that he would get on that soon, 
18:07:59 <ewallace> 269 has been mute.  
18:08:00 <ivan> ... leave it open
18:08:05 <bijan> That was mooted
18:08:07 <IanH> q?
18:08:08 <ivan> action 269 is also on alan
18:08:09 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 269
18:08:13 <bijan> Yes
18:08:17 <Christine> yes it's moote
18:08:18 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:08:18 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
18:08:23 <bernardo> bernardo has joined #owl
18:08:33 <ewallace> s/mute/moot/ 
18:08:33 <ivan> ewallace: that was closed last time, alan did not close it
18:08:43 <ivan> ian: number 278
18:08:47 <ivan> ... in Jie
18:08:52 <Zakim> +bmotik.a
18:08:53 <Achille> Achille has joined #owl
18:08:54 <ivan> ... but he is not here
18:09:02 <bernardo> Zakim, mute me
18:09:02 <Zakim> sorry, bernardo, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
18:09:04 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:09:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, IanH, bijan, bmotik (muted), Ivan, Evan_Wallace, schneid (muted), uli (muted), christine, msmith, Zhe, bmotik.a
18:09:07 <Zakim> On IRC I see Achille, bernardo, msmith, Christine, uli, Zhe, bmotik, pfps, MarkusK_, schneid, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, bijan, sandro, trackbot, ewallace
18:09:16 <ivan> bijan: he sent a mail he set it as a pending review
18:09:31 <ivan> ian: next one 279 on bijan
18:09:33 <bernardo> for some reason Zakim is identifying me as bmotik.a no matter what I do
18:09:44 <Zakim> +[IBM]
18:09:48 <ivan> bijan: the unicode site was down, i will do it tomorrow
18:10:00 <ivan> Topic: f2f
18:10:08 <Achille> Zakim, ibm is me
18:10:08 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
18:10:08 <ivan> ian: there is an agenda available
18:10:11 <IanH> q?
18:10:12 <pfps> agenda looks fine (and packed)
18:10:13 <ivan> ... comments?
18:10:31 <ivan> topic: announcements on xsd 1.1. being on last call
18:10:37 <ivan> ian: they are looking for comments
18:10:44 <ivan> ... we probably should make some review on that
18:10:44 <pfps> q+
18:10:47 <IanH> q?
18:10:51 <ivan> ... even if we like it
18:10:53 <IanH> ack pfps
18:11:03 <Zakim> +Sandro
18:11:03 <ivan> pfps: i sent a message to the wg, i suggest they done the right thing
18:11:08 <IanH> q?
18:11:37 <ivan> ... there are not many changes, but the ones we wanted are correct
18:11:44 <ivan> ian: did you suggest a response?
18:11:48 <msmith> this is the new builtin type for us http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#dateTimeStamp
18:11:58 <bijan> It looks like ACTION-272 is pending review in spite of its tracker status
18:12:01 <ivan> ... let us look at the response off line and next week we can decide
18:12:12 <bijan>  See: <http://www.w3.org/mid/b0ed1d660902091219r5b80f5a6mbaede7cd7faf7e59@mail.gmail.com>
18:12:14 <ivan> (that I cannot scribe)
18:12:41 <ivan> pfps: the changes take care of our things, we can now point at the xml schema, and remove our own stuff
18:12:53 <sandro> q?
18:12:57 <ivan> IanH: we have to make this comment after the f2f, we have time
18:13:09 <ewallace> Can we at least give a nod to Peter's proposed response
18:13:28 <ivan> action pfps: to send out a respoinse after the f2f
18:13:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-281 - Send out a respoinse after the f2f [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2009-02-18].
18:13:32 <sandro> q+ to ask about wording on disjointness of value spaces
18:13:41 <ivan> s/respoinse/response/
18:13:50 <IanH> q?
18:13:55 <IanH> ack sandro
18:13:55 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask about wording on disjointness of value spaces
18:14:09 <ivan> sandro: did peter look at the way on the disjointness of value spaces, whether it is muddy
18:14:15 <ewallace> 1.1
18:14:21 <ivan> pfps: there is no change vs the previous version
18:14:53 <ivan> pfps: they are quite clear that as far as datastructuring is concerned...
18:15:36 <ivan> sandro: do we have any useful feedback on our issues and the answer is no
18:15:47 <sandro> (the answer from Peter, that is.)
18:16:07 <IanH> q?
18:16:08 <pfps> in the current XML LC, "2.0"^^xsd:decimal and "2.0"^^xsd:float are distinct data structures, and thus not equal
18:16:10 <ivan> topic: test cases
18:16:27 <ivan> IanH: it is fairly important
18:16:34 <bijan> q+
18:16:44 <IanH> q?
18:16:45 <pfps> the XML schema document says that applications can choose to use other equalities, for example to make the about 2.0's equal
18:16:45 <msmith> q+
18:16:49 <ivan> ... there was a discussioni on email that many owl 1 cases are brokent because they lack the ontology header
18:16:52 <IanH> q?
18:16:54 <IanH> ack bijan
18:17:16 <ivan> bijan: the old thing was incorrect, those were labelled as dl and they were in fact not
18:17:30 <ivan> ... because they did not have the header
18:17:31 <IanH> ack msmith
18:17:34 <IanH> q?
18:17:44 <ivan> msmith: there are about 130 test cases like this
18:17:53 <ivan> ... i would modify these adding a header
18:18:10 <IanH> q?
18:18:11 <ivan> ... or just say these are not dl but it would be better to add the headers
18:18:26 <schneid> wasn't it allowed to have a bnode as the subject of the header? would simplify things
18:18:28 <ivan> bijan: maybe we should post an errata that the test cases were incorrect
18:18:29 <msmith> action msmith: to add an ontology header and a comment to each of the test cases from WebOnt that are prevented from being syntactically OWL 2 DL only be the absence of this header
18:18:29 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - msmith
18:18:32 <ivan> q+
18:18:38 <IanH> q?
18:18:41 <IanH> ack ivan
18:18:44 <pfps> in OWL 1, the translation to triples includes an rdf:type owl:Ontology triple
18:18:55 <msmith> action michaelsm: to add an ontology header and a comment to each of the test cases from WebOnt that are prevented from being syntactically OWL 2 DL only be the absence of this header
18:18:55 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - michaelsm
18:19:04 <pfps> +1 to Bijan
18:19:09 <IanH> q?
18:19:10 <MarkusK_> +1
18:19:11 <msmith> action mismith: to add an ontology header and a comment to each of the test cases from WebOnt that are prevented from being syntactically OWL 2 DL only be the absence of this header
18:19:11 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - mismith
18:19:21 <pfps> +1 to issue an Errata (formally)
18:19:28 <IanH> q?
18:20:00 <sandro> action: smith: testing
18:20:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-282 - Testing [on Michael Smith - due 2009-02-18].
18:20:08 <msmith> sure
18:20:18 <sandro> action-282 closed
18:20:18 <trackbot> ACTION-282 Testing closed
18:20:49 <ivan> topic: look at last call comments
18:21:03 <msmith> action smith: to add an ontology header and a comment to each of the test cases from WebOnt that are prevented from being syntactically OWL 2 DL only be the absence of this header and create content for errata on webont tests
18:21:03 <trackbot> Created ACTION-283 - Add an ontology header and a comment to each of the test cases from WebOnt that are prevented from being syntactically OWL 2 DL only be the absence of this header and create content for errata on webont tests [on Michael Smith - due 2009-02-18].
18:21:04 <ivan> IanH: i sent a mail on dealing this is a bit like we dealt with actions
18:21:31 <ivan> ... we would have responses ready to send, and there is an assumption that they are fine unless somebody complains
18:21:36 <IanH> q?
18:21:42 <Christine> +q
18:21:44 <ivan> IanH: is that o.k. with this?
18:21:48 <IanH> q?
18:21:52 <IanH> ack Christine
18:22:27 <ivan> Christine: i want to say i disagree with one sentence, we have higher priorities this time, so I will make proposals later on the features doucment
18:22:50 <ivan> IanH: yes, we should get the lc comments done first
18:23:09 <ivan> IanH: jh1 is accepted and can go
18:23:15 <bijan> Jump to resolved
18:23:50 <ivan> action bijan: send a response to jh1 comment
18:23:50 <trackbot> Created ACTION-284 - Send a response to jh1 comment [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-18].
18:24:13 <schneid> why doesn't the chair just write "RESOLVED: ..." for an LC comment put on the road?
18:24:20 <ivan> IanH: next bunch are those that require more discussion
18:24:40 <ivan> bijan: i think the unicode one is almost finished
18:24:52 <ivan> ... my understanding is that as soon as it is finished i can send it
18:25:11 <ivan> ian: anyone opposing to md1 to be sent?
18:25:17 <schneid> (ok, creating an ACTION is even better)
18:25:21 <IanH> q?
18:25:29 <ivan> action bijan: send out response to md1 comment
18:25:29 <trackbot> Created ACTION-285 - Send out response to md1 comment [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-18].
18:25:39 <IanH> q?
18:25:51 <ivan> IanH: vh4 
18:25:58 <IanH> FH4
18:26:24 <ivan> IanH: this is addressing with lot of discussion on how we deal with anonymous individuals
18:26:30 <ivan> ... he did not like the new way
18:26:32 <ivan> q+
18:26:38 <IanH> q?
18:26:41 <IanH> ack ivan
18:27:24 <bijan> ivan: Bijan's comment is great, but knowing Frank, it's difficult for me to believe that he'd make such a silly comment. So I agreed that I'd talk to Frank.
18:27:30 <bijan> q+
18:27:33 <IanH> q?
18:27:56 <IanH> ack bijan
18:28:08 <schneid> q+
18:28:17 <msmith> q+
18:28:30 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:28:30 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:28:33 <IanH> ack schneid
18:28:46 <ivan> schneid: what ivan wants to do can also be done by sending it out
18:29:10 <IanH> q?
18:29:14 <ivan> IanH: as he ivan will be there tomorrow why not trying to kill it as one iteration
18:29:14 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:29:14 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:29:15 <IanH> ack msmith
18:29:18 <IanH> q?
18:29:50 <ivan> msmith: even if it is clarified, there is probably value to consider the answer the way bijan wrote it because others may have misunderstood it the same way
18:29:55 <IanH> q?
18:30:00 <bijan> q+
18:30:02 <ivan> IanH: should we have a better explanation in the document
18:30:03 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:30:03 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
18:30:05 <IanH> ack bijan
18:30:24 <ivan> bijan: what level of granularity do we want to describe thigns
18:30:27 <Christine> +q
18:30:29 <schneid> schneid: as an alternative to first asking Frank, we can send the mail out and wait for Franks answer; this matches the official process
18:30:32 <ivan> ... maybe in the new features is the right place
18:30:42 <ivan> ... we have no other place to put it now
18:31:01 <ivan> ... general design decisions are not documented yet
18:31:02 <IanH> q?
18:31:10 <ivan> ... do we really want to document things on that level?
18:31:14 <ivan> q+
18:31:43 <ivan> Christine: bijan said what i would propose, there are general design decisions that are not documented 
18:31:58 <IanH> ack Christine
18:32:04 <ivan> ... before the first draft publications i discussed with some members 
18:32:15 <IanH> q?
18:32:17 <IanH> ack ivan
18:32:32 <Christine> +q
18:32:47 <bijan> But this isn't a difference between OWL 1 and OWL 2
18:32:54 <bijan> but in OWL 1's *spec* and OWL 2's spec!
18:33:05 <bijan> q+
18:33:07 <IanH> q?
18:33:53 <IanH> ack Christine
18:34:25 <ivan> Christine: we can do that in due time, we can list the general specific points, when we can know which one we want to document
18:34:31 <IanH> ack bijan
18:35:02 <ivan> bijan: we used to have an appendix on similar things but we removed it for some person's objection...
18:35:23 <ivan> IanH: we will have a section on the f2f on general documentation issues
18:35:40 <ivan> IanH: i made a list of last call comments that require policy discussions
18:36:05 <ivan> ... first of those is that we were not very consistent on how we use the terms owl, owl full, owl dl, etc
18:36:07 <IanH> q?
18:36:14 <bijan> I propose that we use OWL 2 for OWL DL.
18:36:18 <ivan> ... there was a proposal sent round based on a discussion ivan and I had
18:36:21 <IanH> q?
18:36:25 <ivan> ... anyone looked at that?
18:36:32 <pfps> +1
18:36:32 <bijan> q+
18:36:35 <ewallace> q+
18:36:36 <ivan> ... if nobody wants to discuss it...
18:36:42 <IanH> ack bijan
18:36:53 <ivan> bijan: insert all sorts of dl-s and full-s everywhere?
18:37:17 <ivan> IanH: not only, there is a section in the syntax document that list all the strings that are required on ontology structures
18:37:39 <ivan> ... we have to work on that part to make it clear to describe which strings you have to have owl dl
18:38:00 <ewallace> q-
18:38:01 <IanH> q?
18:38:04 <ivan> ... we have to take a close look when we were really considering dl
18:38:09 <ivan> q+
18:38:18 <IanH> ack ivan
18:38:30 <bmotik> q+
18:38:39 <IanH> q?
18:38:40 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
18:38:40 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
18:38:43 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:38:58 <ivan> bmotik: at a highl level it looks good, the devil is in the details
18:39:06 <ivan> ... doing it by email is rather difficult
18:39:17 <ivan> ... i would do some slides for the f2f
18:39:29 <IanH> q?
18:39:32 <ivan> ... i have a clear idea, but i would like to present to you in person
18:39:42 <ivan> IanH: ivan cannot travel for the f2f
18:39:55 <ivan> ... so we have to schedule it for the first half of the day
18:40:05 <ivan> ... so that ivan should be around at least remotely
18:41:55 <bmotik> q+
18:41:59 <IanH> q?
18:42:02 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:42:21 <ivan> bmotik: i thought a starter as a discussion and circulate the slides before the f2f
18:42:29 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:42:29 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:43:03 <IanH> q?
18:43:04 <bijan> No
18:43:09 <bijan> q+
18:43:18 <ivan> IanH: the second on of these is the comment from rm1
18:43:19 <schneid> would lead to a slight BW issue...
18:43:24 <IanH> q?
18:43:27 <IanH> ack bijan
18:43:33 <ivan> ... the default would be to say that this cannot be done
18:43:43 <ivan> bijan: it breaks backward compatibility!
18:43:45 <schneid> q+
18:43:49 <msmith> sounds great
18:43:50 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:43:50 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:43:50 <IanH> q?
18:43:50 <ivan> IanH: that is a good reason to me
18:43:57 <IanH> ack schneid
18:44:16 <ivan> schneid: it would also make it pretty useless, you cannot have keyword, you cannot tag anything
18:44:17 <bernardo> I think the backwards compatibility is more than enough
18:44:25 <IanH> q?
18:44:34 <ivan> bijan: you are right, but just to make it non-starter for procedural reason make it simple
18:44:36 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:44:36 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:44:38 <pfps> +1 to the end
18:44:41 <IanH> q?
18:45:13 <IanH> q?
18:45:15 <schneid> ok
18:45:44 <schneid> alright
18:45:48 <ivan> action bijan: respond to rm1 along these lines of procedural problems
18:45:49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-286 - Respond to rm1 along these lines of procedural problems [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-18].
18:46:04 <schneid> no, action on schneid
18:46:27 <ivan> close action 286
18:46:33 <sandro> action-286 closed
18:46:33 <trackbot> ACTION-286 Respond to rm1 along these lines of procedural problems closed
18:47:36 <ivan> IanH: next item was from bp1
18:47:39 <IanH> q?
18:47:55 <pfps> huh?
18:47:56 <ivan> bijan: people in different lists asked to have a name for an axiom
18:48:00 <sandro> action: michael  Respond to rm1 along these lines of procedural problems
18:48:00 <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - michael
18:48:00 <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. msmith9, mschneid, msintek)
18:48:11 <sandro> action: mschneid Respond to rm1 along these lines of procedural problems
18:48:11 <trackbot> Created ACTION-287 - Respond to rm1 along these lines of procedural problems [on Michael Schneider - due 2009-02-18].
18:48:13 <pfps> this is not BP1
18:48:14 <ivan> ... they were asking for standard generation of names, but that is too hard
18:48:26 <ivan> ... but m'ter people just wanted to have a standard place to hook it in
18:48:51 <ivan> ... instead of using annotation, there would be some 'axiom name' in a standard way
18:48:52 <pfps> NO!
18:49:31 <bijan> BP3
18:49:36 <ivan> general screw up, this was the description of bp3...
18:49:44 <pfps> BP3 is not on the agenda
18:50:05 <pfps> q+
18:50:07 <ivan> IanH: it seems like an easy thing to do as another built in annotation property
18:50:07 <IanH> q?
18:50:12 <IanH> ack pfps
18:50:18 <msmith> q+ to ask about size of changes to syntax
18:50:20 <ewallace> can we have a pointer?
18:50:26 <IanH> q?
18:50:29 <ivan> pfps: i will hold my nose... but we are heading down on the road of good intentions...
18:50:39 <IanH> ack msmith
18:50:39 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to ask about size of changes to syntax
18:51:04 <msmith> +1 to this proposal
18:51:07 <pfps> no syntax change - only change to documents is to add owl:xxxx as an annotation property
18:51:13 <IanH> q?
18:51:15 <ivan> msmith: the syntax structure would not change at all, but just have one more annotation property defined for that purpose
18:51:25 <ivan> 0
18:52:36 <ivan> action bijan: propose a change on the documents 
18:52:36 <trackbot> Created ACTION-288 - Propose a change on the documents  [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-02-18].
18:52:52 <ivan> IanH: now we can go back to bp1
18:52:59 <ivan> bijan: this one is more complicated...
18:53:02 <IanH> q?
18:53:35 <ivan> ... it would be nice to have a standard way to mark particular axioms to be invisible to the reasoners
18:53:39 <IanH> q?
18:53:41 <schneid> q+
18:53:52 <ivan> ... old version of the axioms, alternative reasoning, etc
18:54:03 <msmith> We are discussing this LC Comment: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0100.html
18:54:16 <ivan> ... each syntax has a textual comment, but we cannot rely on tools really looking at them
18:54:31 <ivan> ... we cannot publish a document with the old versions of the axioms
18:54:47 <IanH> q?
18:54:55 <ivan> ... this is the need
18:55:03 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:55:03 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:55:05 <bmotik> q+
18:55:09 <pfps> q+
18:55:10 <ivan> ... ability to hide axioms from reasoners but not from the structural model
18:55:10 <IanH> ack schneid
18:55:44 <IanH> q?
18:55:47 <ivan> schneid: when you have an ontology understandable on the owl1 and you add these to it and you have to use owl 2 systems to understand
18:56:09 <ivan> bijan: to requirement is to hide axioms that survive the syntax conversions 
18:56:21 <ivan> IanH: but they would not work with owl 1, right
18:56:23 <IanH> q?
18:56:29 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
18:56:29 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
18:56:33 <ivan> schneid: there would be interoperability problems
18:56:33 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:56:33 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:56:37 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:56:48 <bijan> q+
18:56:59 <sandro> q+ to ask why not just put the "old stuff" in another document?
18:57:00 <ivan> bmotik: i worry that annotation become a catch-all for everything, like alan rector's requirements, now having this request
18:57:00 <pfps> q+
18:57:06 <ivan> ... i am scared for all this
18:57:16 <ivan> ... i understand that applications would want this
18:57:30 <ivan> ... but having that with annotations for this...
18:57:36 <IanH> q?
18:57:39 <ivan> ... that is leading us out of scope
18:57:40 <schneid> q+
18:57:42 <IanH> ack pfps
18:57:47 <ivan> pfps: that takes us to hell:-(
18:58:07 <IanH> q?
18:58:11 <IanH> ack bijan
18:58:25 <IanH> q?
18:58:31 <ivan> bijan: there was a stronger comment from m'ter for all of these and I tried to break it down into separate concerns
18:58:53 <ivan> bijan: i want reiterate is that it is not necessarily annotation
18:59:04 <IanH> q?
18:59:40 <ivan> ... alternatively in an xml syntax we use xml commenting with a special initial tag like ---AXIOM---, in the m'ter syntax we can use the same approach
18:59:52 <pfps> q+
18:59:55 <ivan> ... the parsing model should take these into the structural model
19:00:09 <ivan> ... this is one solution and answer the objections thus far...
19:00:29 <ivan> IanH: it would help to have a more specific proposal off line, it is difficult to understand the details
19:00:31 <IanH> q?
19:00:40 <ivan> bijan: if the wg is open to that, i am happy to
19:00:41 <IanH> ack sandro
19:00:41 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask why not just put the "old stuff" in another document?
19:00:44 <IanH> q?
19:00:59 <ivan> sandro: all the solutions i can think of do not work for me
19:01:09 <ivan> ... except using another another file
19:01:28 <IanH> q?
19:01:32 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
19:01:32 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
19:01:37 <IanH> ack schneid
19:02:16 <IanH> ack pfps
19:02:16 <schneid> zakim, mute me
19:02:17 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
19:02:19 <ivan> schneid: if this is outside the normal set of axioms than my argument is moot, but if it is mapped back into the rdf mapping then it is impossible to handle that with a full reasoner, they do more inferencing not less
19:02:33 <IanH> q?
19:02:49 <ivan> pfps: a translation to rdf should also be worked out with full reasoning working properly as well
19:03:19 <IanH> q?
19:03:20 <ivan> IanH: it might be useful to have a straw poll whether bijan should go and work out a full proposal
19:03:33 <Christine> +q
19:03:50 <Christine> +q
19:03:53 <IanH> q?
19:04:04 <Christine> +q
19:04:11 <IanH> q?
19:04:15 <IanH> ack Christine
19:04:15 <sandro> ack Christine 
19:05:01 <ivan> Christine: a general comment, this seems to be a very specific need, we should weight the benefit between this generic need and keep the spec less complex
19:05:14 <sandro> strawpoll: is it likely we'll change OWL2 in some way to provide a solution here, some way to keep axioms around but not accessible to the reasoner?
19:05:21 <ivan> ... bijan can surely propose a solution but the document would become too complex
19:05:31 <pfps> -1
19:05:32 <ewallace> +1 on Bijan providing a proposal
19:05:33 <sandro> -1
19:05:33 <ivan> -1
19:05:37 <bijan> +1
19:05:38 <schneid> -0.9
19:05:41 <MarkusK_> 0
19:05:43 <bernardo> 0
19:05:44 <uli> 0
19:05:44 <Achille> 0
19:05:47 <msmith> +1
19:05:51 <IanH> -1
19:05:53 <Christine> lost irc
19:06:02 <Zhe> 0
19:06:23 <sandro> Christine: 0 or -1
19:06:25 <ivan> 0 for Christine
19:06:51 <ivan> IanH: apathy or negative seems to carry...
19:07:06 <ivan> bijan: it seems that the wg will not accept it
19:07:27 <ivan> ... i propose to answer to that person that the group cannot properly do it...
19:07:37 <IanH> q?
19:08:49 <sandro> PROPOSED: Re comment BP-1 the WG does not expect to provide any change to OWL2 to support this use case.   We hope the commenter is able to find a suitable work-around.
19:08:58 <IanH> +1
19:09:00 <sandro> +1
19:09:01 <ivan> +1
19:09:07 <bernardo> +1
19:09:09 <Zhe> +1
19:09:09 <Achille> +1
19:09:09 <MarkusK_> +1
19:09:10 <ewallace> 0
19:09:11 <bijan> 0
19:09:12 <msmith> +!
19:09:13 <schneid> +1
19:09:15 <pfps> +1
19:09:18 <bmotik> +1
19:09:23 <bijan> -1
19:09:31 <uli> 0
19:10:14 <sandro> Bijan: I'm opposed, but I wont formally object
19:10:22 <sandro> RESOLVED: Re comment BP-1 the WG does not expect to provide any change to OWL2 to support this use case.   We hope the commenter is able to find a suitable work-around.
19:10:56 <ivan> IanH: one thing i wanted to settle: asking people to take on the job of answering some of the easy cases
19:11:02 <ivan> ... to get people work in parallel
19:11:16 <ivan> ... alan and i went through the list with the easy ones
19:12:42 <IanH> q?
19:12:44 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
19:12:44 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
19:12:49 <IanH> ack schneid
19:12:59 <IanH> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0006.html
19:13:02 <bijan> zakim, mute me
19:13:02 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
19:13:38 <bmotik> q+
19:14:03 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
19:14:03 <Zakim> bmotik was not muted, bmotik
19:14:08 <IanH> q?
19:14:44 <christine> christine has joined #owl
19:14:46 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:15:28 <ivan> bmotik: we do not expect to resolve for next week, but maybe schneid and me could talk about ms2 at the f2f
19:15:41 <bijan> This is totally editorial and a message saying that is great
19:15:41 <ivan> (scribe gave up)
19:15:58 <schneid> zakim, mute me
19:15:58 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
19:16:52 <msmith> q+
19:17:00 <IanH> q?
19:17:04 <IanH> ack msmith
19:17:07 <pfps> the answer is known
19:18:10 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
19:18:10 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
19:18:22 <IanH> q?
19:18:22 <schneid> q+
19:18:30 <IanH> ack schneid
19:19:28 <IanH> q?
19:20:04 <IanH> q?
19:20:13 <IanH> q?
19:20:36 <schneid> zakim, mute me
19:20:36 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
19:20:52 <bmotik> q+
19:21:15 <schneid> schneid: currently, we use the term "lexical value", but OWL 1 and RDF uses the term "lexical form"
19:21:35 <schneid> schneid: in addition, boris pointed out that the XSD spec uses "lexical representation"
19:21:36 <pfps> yes
19:21:40 <IanH> q?
19:21:49 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:22:28 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
19:22:28 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
19:23:03 <schneid> zakim, mute me
19:23:03 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
19:23:47 <bijan> I lost track
19:23:52 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
19:23:52 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
19:23:59 <IanH> q?
19:24:04 <schneid> schneid: I am still prefering "lexical /form/", since our notion of datatypes is not restricted to XSD datatypes, so it is not mandatory that we take the terminology from XSD
19:24:04 <ivan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0040.html
19:24:56 <bmotik> q+
19:25:33 <ivan> q+
19:25:33 <pfps> yes
19:25:40 <IanH> q?
19:25:45 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:26:29 <IanH> q?
19:26:32 <IanH> ack ivan
19:27:59 <uli> sure
19:28:40 <pfps> yes
19:28:41 <Zakim> -schneid
19:29:26 <IanH> q?
19:29:38 <pfps> :-)
19:30:28 <pfps> yes
19:31:18 <uli> zakim, unmute me
19:31:18 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted
19:31:30 <IanH> q?
19:31:41 <uli> zakim, mute me
19:31:43 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
19:32:04 <IanH> q?
19:32:11 <IanH> q?
19:32:28 <IanH> q?
19:32:38 <bijan> I have a question about [62]
19:32:47 <bmotik> q+
19:32:50 <IanH> q?
19:32:54 <bijan> q+
19:32:55 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:32:57 <IanH> q?
19:33:04 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:33:48 <IanH> q?
19:33:51 <pfps> the Wiki keeps track of diffs - everyone should mark their changes correctly
19:33:53 <IanH> ack bijan
19:34:01 <ewallace> me too
19:34:14 <IanH> q?
19:34:52 <IanH> q?
19:35:09 <Zhe> bye
19:35:09 <Zakim> -bmotik.a
19:35:13 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
19:35:17 <Zakim> -bijan
19:35:20 <Zakim> -MarkusK_
19:35:21 <Zakim> -msmith
19:35:24 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
19:35:25 <Zakim> -Achille
19:35:28 <Zakim> -Zhe
19:35:30 <Zakim> -bmotik
19:35:31 <Zakim> -uli
19:35:33 <Zakim> -christine
19:35:37 <Zakim> -Sandro
19:38:03 <Zakim> -Ivan
19:38:04 <Zakim> -IanH
19:38:04 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
19:38:06 <ivan> ivan has left #owl
19:38:07 <Zakim> Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, MarkusK_, bmotik, IanH, bijan, Ivan, Evan_Wallace, schneid, christine, uli, msmith, Zhe, Achille, Sandro
20:12:43 <uli> uli has left #owl
20:23:02 <msmith> msmith has left #owl
21:52:31 <Zakim> Zakim has left #owl